Sub-2 marathon: the writing was on the wall

That was the only occasion on which I disagreed with Ross Tucker. (If you read my blog, you know he is a leading South African sports physiologist for whom I have the greatest respect). In a post on The Science of Sport (with Jonathan Dugas), titled “The sub-2 hour marathon? Don’t hold your breath, just yet”, he offered a cautious outlook. Admittedly, the article dates back to 2013, but toward its end Tucker made some predictions. (For context, it was published just after W. Kipsang had lowered the world record by 15 seconds to 2:03:23). I repeat Tucker’s conclusion verbatim:

Bottom line is that talking about a sub-2 hour performance after seeing a 2:03:38 improve to a 2:03:23 is just not feasible.  The next barrier is 2:03, and I'm sure will go within five years.  Then we can begin to work towards 2:02, which will take another ten years, perhaps.

It's a great period for marathon running - every season, fall and spring, we get to anticipate a record at least twice.  2013 has delivered a successful attempt, but it shouldn't lull us into expectation that more of the same is just around the corner.

If I interpret Tucker’s timeline correctly, a sub-2 marathon might have been expected around 2040–45. On this occasion, however, his prediction proved overly conservative.

Running in London, last year’s top “out-of-stadium” athlete, S. Sawe, broke the barrier with a time that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago. His 1:59:30 not only improved K. Kiptum’s official record of 2:00:35 but also surpassed E. Kipchoge’s unofficial 1:59:41 exhibition performance. The first half was covered in 1:00:29; then, propelled by two blistering 5 km splits of 13:54 and 13:42 between 30 and 40 km, he completed the second half in 59:01.

He was not alone. Y. Kejelcha also broke the 2-hour barrier with 1:59:41, on his marathon debut (!). J. Kiplimo, meanwhile, dipped under the previous world record with 2:00:28. (I had expected the record to come from Kiplimo, and in a sense he delivered—only two runners finished ahead of him).

Sawe’s run was not the only record. In the women’s race (women-only), T. Assefa improved her own world record of 2:15:50, set in London the previous year, to 2:15:41. (She still holds a faster personal best of 2:11:53 from a mixed race). H. Obiri and J. Jepkosgei finished second and third in 2:15:53 and 2:15:55—both just seconds outside the previous world record.

I was not planning to publish anything before later this week but when I saw the results from London I could not resist the temptation.

Walk for your life (where I do not write about race-walking)

From time to time, I publish an article that is not directly related to Athletics but still concerns physical activity. This time, I was intrigued by a striking title: “How we walk might reveal our risk of death”. The piece was written in a popular-journalism style, yet it referenced a scientific publication from a research team at the University of Leicester, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. I decided to dig deeper and tracked down the original paper.

This led me into the field of risk prediction, an area of research that is clearly flourishing. Insurance companies rely on precise risk assessment for their business survival, and life insurance is crucial for both insurer and insured. Many risk scores already exist, usually combining nonmodifiable factors (such as age, sex, or chronic disease history) with modifiable ones like blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking habits, and obesity. In recent years, researchers have shown growing interest in using simple physical behaviours as indicators of mortality risk. For example, resting heart rate has proved a convenient proxy for both physical fitness and a lower risk of death.

The University of Leicester team sought to determine whether measures of physical behaviour, such as leisure-time activity and sleep duration, and indicators of physical function and fitness, including resting heart rate and walking pace, could enhance or even replace traditional risk factors in predicting mortality. They analysed data from half a million individuals, divided into four groups: healthy women, unhealthy women, healthy men, and unhealthy men.

I will not go into all the details of their study. (If you are truly interested, I suggest you look it up and read it here: https://www.mcpiqojournal.org/article/S2542-4548(26)00017-2/fulltext). I will not go into all the details of their study but will focus instead on two graphics that I found particularly striking. 

The first concerns resting heart rate: the horizontal axis represents the heart rate in beats per minute, and the vertical axis the associated risk factor. It is remarkable that, at least for men, the correlation is almost perfect—notice the very small error bars. 

A resting heart rate below 50 corresponds to roughly a 25% reduction in risk, and this holds even for individuals with at least one existing chronic illness. (It is unclear why, for women, a low resting heart rate does not lead to a similar reduction; the authors do not comment on this point.)

The second graphic deals with walking pace—the paper’s main focus. Unfortunately, because walking speed was self‑reported, only three data points are available: brisk, steady, and slow pace.

Still, the effect is clearly visible. A brisk walking pace is associated with a notably reduced risk, whereas a slow pace corresponds to an increased one.

What is particularly noteworthy is that considering physical behaviour and fitness led to equally consistent conclusions for individuals with existing health conditions. Traditional risk scores, which rely mainly on non-modifiable factors or markers managed through medication, offer little incentive for behavioural change. The Leicester team’s study showed that adding measures of physical behaviour and fitness can significantly improve risk prediction—and among all predictors, walking pace proved the strongest, especially for those with a prevalent health condition.

These findings align with earlier work by the same researchers, who demonstrated that while increasing total exercise lowers the risk of heart attack, reaching the same total through higher intensity brings substantial additional benefit. To make this even more explicit: adding just ten minutes of brisk walking to the daily routine of inactive men and women aged 60 and above was linked to an increase of roughly one year in life expectancy.

So don’t hesitate—get out there and walk. Briskly!

PS I apologise for the somewhat prolonged silence but as you can gather from the photo below I was otherwise occupied recently.

Add to this the fact that the championship was taking place in Egypt, which is a great place for tourism, and you can understand why writing had to take a brief back seat.

Cheating on World Athletics’ Front Page

Some days ago, World Athletics published an article about the 2026 World Athletics Race Walking Team Championships. It was accompanied by a photo of race walkers in action, and, unmistakably, one of them was running.

The photo was taken at the 2024 championships held in Antalya, in the 20 km race. The athlete caught running was none other than the fourth-place finisher, Yuta Koga from Japan. That was no accident. In fact, Koga received two red cards during the race for “loss of contact.” He was not alone: half of the participants had at least one red card, most of them, like Koga, for loss of contact, and some for “bent knee.”

It may be best at this point to recall the definition of race walking. According to the World Athletics rules in force:

Race Walking is a progression of steps so taken that the walker makes contact with the ground so that no visible (to the human eye) loss of contact occurs. The advancing leg must be straightened (i.e. not bent at the knee) from the moment of first contact with the ground until the vertical upright position.

A race walker who infringes these rules may receive a red card, and after three red cards from different judges, the athlete is disqualified. In fact, the situation is more complex. There is also the yellow paddle, which serves as a caution to warn a walker that they are at risk of breaking the rules, for example, potential loss of contact or bent knee, but it does not count as an official infringement. The yellow paddle is shown to the athlete, while red cards are sent privately to the chief judge. An athlete may accumulate up to three red cards, but upon the fourth, they are disqualified. (The judge signals the disqualification by showing a red paddle.)

All is well and good, were it not for the words in parentheses in the definition of race walking. The loss of contact must be visible to the human eye. Unfortunately, the human eye is not a precise instrument; while photo and video captures reveal infringements, judges often miss them. No harm, no foul, you might say. Perhaps. But the fact remains that race walking has become a discipline in which athletes learn to cheat just enough not to get caught. World Athletics once considered using special sensors in the athletes’ shoes, but following a revolt by race walkers, shelved the project.

And now, they seem to encourage cheating, by featuring a photo of a “race runner” on their own web page.

PS After I had finished writing this article (but hadn't yet published it) World Athletics posted another article on the upcoming Race Walking Team Championships. This time they accompanied it with a photo of the women's 20 km race from two years ago. 

Giorgi was later disqualified with four red cards for loss of contact but Yin finished 12th without a single red card. Well, had I been a judge, I would have given her one.

PS2 And another photo from World Athletics.

They are publishing new ones every day. Fortunately, the competition starts in a few days.