Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28255937›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2017

How Biomechanical Improvements in Running Economy Could Break the 2-hour Marathon Barrier.

Wouter Hoogkamer, Rodger Kram, Christopher J Arellano

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wouter HoogkamerDepartment of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 354 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309-0354, USA. wouter.hoogkamer@colorado.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0524-0196
Rodger KramDepartment of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 354 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309-0354, USA.
Christopher J ArellanoDepartment of Health and Human Performance, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A sub-2-hour marathon requires an average velocity (5.86 m/s) that is 2.5% faster than the current world record of 02:02:57 (5.72 m/s) and could be accomplished with a 2.7% reduction in the metabolic cost of running. Although supporting body weight comprises the majority of the metabolic cost of running, targeting the costs of forward propulsion and leg swing are the most promising strategies for reducing the metabolic cost of running and thus improving marathon running performance. Here, we calculate how much time could be saved by taking advantage of unconventional drafting strategies, a consistent tailwind, a downhill course, and specific running shoe design features while staying within the current International Association of Athletic Federations regulations for record purposes. Specifically, running in shoes that are 100 g lighter along with second-half scenarios of four runners alternately leading and drafting, or a tailwind of 6.0 m/s, combined with a 42-m elevation drop could result in a time well below the 2-hour marathon barrier.

Indexed as

Biomechanical PhenomenaBody WeightEnergy MetabolismHumansOxygen ConsumptionRunningShoesTime FactorsEthylene Vinyl AcetateMetabolic CostSupport Body WeightWorld Record

Identifiers

PMID28255937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.