Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Who's Fitter?
tricky whippet
✭✭✭
Who's fitter?
Someone who runs a marathon in 3 hours or someone who runs one in 4 hours?
This is something that has bugged me for years........
Surely someone who runs for 4 hours has to be fitter than someone who runs for 3 hours? You have to assume the same effort level for both (which can be the case) and then is it not a simple equation that if you are going to take in 4 hours you need a lot more fitness??
I am assumed "fit" by peers because I can run a marathon in just under 3 hours, but I for one, know that I could not run for another hour, therefore concede that my peers who run a marathon closer to 4 hours are "fitter"?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
The dog wins everytime!!
Peter - Whilst this is the common view - I know the 4 hour runners run at the same effort level, train as hard etc etc, it seems only natural ability is the difference - thus still leaving me a little confused as to why I am fitter?
I think your getting confused. The person who runs a marathon in 3hours uses the same amount of energy as the person who runs in 4hours.
The fitter you are the faster you can run for the same heart rate. So if I can run 9 min miles at 90% of my maximum heart rate I am not as fit as someone who can run 7 min miles at 90% of their maximum heart rate.
Of course if the same person runs two marathons, one at 9 min miles and the other at 7 min miles I would expect them to be less tired at the end of the 4hour one. When I run a 13mile LSR I can train again on the Monday, if I run a half marathon I can just about get out of bed.
Mr. Whippet is confusing the amount of energy used with fitness.
Power = force x velocity.
If the two runners are the same mass then the force is the same. The runner with the higher velocity uses more power. The work done is force x distance so they both do the same amount of work.
That's just Newtonian physics looking at the system of the moving body though and doesn't take into account any chemical work that is going on in the muscles and heat that is being expended.
Tim - no doubt about it - I'm confused!!
So:
Person 1 - Does a training schedule, runs at 90% of maximum HR, and runs for 3 hours and completes a marathon.
Person 2 (different person) - does SAME training, runs also at 90% of max HR, but it takes him 4 hours to run a marathon.
Person 2 has to run a whole extra hour to go the same distance - even though they are pushing themselves just as much as person 1...........
Sorry, I know it's late, but this has been annoying me for years!
Or am I using 'fitter' in the wrong sense?
Your fitness level is a measure of your capacity to do work.
They have both done the SAME amount of work. They've both only travelled 26.2 miles regardless of the speed. Neither has gone any further than the other.
However person 1 has done it more efficiently. His capacity for work is greater. He has a bigger engine. He has used the same amount of fuel and done it quicker. He is better and fitter.
Person 2 is less efficient.
If person 1 ran at the same speed as person 2 ie for 4 hours his heart rate would be much lower and at the end of the run he would be able to do more. Person 2 would have to have a cup of tea and lots of cake.
The real question is could someone who runs a 3hr 26.2 mile marathon run a 34.5 mile ultra in 4 hours?
There's two elements to the fitness here. Generally the faster runner is considered fitter but could the 4 hour runner be considered to have more stamina.
Yep - now we're talking!!
Maybe the word I'm going for should be stamina not fitness!!
I couldn't, and never have run for 4 hours when many of my peers have!
Tim - thanks for your comments - great food for thought
I don't believe you tricky whippet - I'm sure if you're fit enough to run a 3 hour marathon you could easily run for 4 hours if you ran a bit slower than marathon pace.
Anyway, I sort of understand your point, and natural ability obviously does play a part, but to take it to its extreme, is Haile Gebrselassie fitter than a six-hour marathoner? Of course he is.
Yes, the three and four-hour marathoners might both be running at 90% of max HR for the duration of the marathon, but the reason the four-hour runner's heart rate is that high at a slower speed is surely mainly because he's not as fit as the three-hour guy, isn't it?
You shouldn't overlook what else is going on inside the body chemically. Those heartbeats are shifting a hell of a lot more oxygen and waste products in person1 than in person2.
Taken to extremes the usual argument is who is fitter; Haile Gebrselassie or Usain Bolt?
You have to start by defining what fitness is in the first place.
Just Googled this:
Physical fitness refers to the capacity of an athlete to meet the varied physical demands of their sport without reducing the athlete to a fatigued state. The components of physical fitness are: [Reference: Physical Education and the study of sport, B. Davies et al.]
Don't think it helps, though.
If you can run 26.2miles in 3hours obviously you can also run 26.2miles in 4 hours. so 3hr runner is fitter
if you altered your training you could easily run for 4 hours and cover more distance
i dont believe anyone is achieving the maximum of their ability (at optimum age) running a 4hour marathon
A 4 hour marathon runner would have to do a lot more training and get much fitter in order to run in 3 hours.
Therefore the 3 hr runner is quicker.
However if you think differently, presumably you would claim that this guy is fitter than Geoffrey Mutai:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8391214/Sumo-wrestler-aims-to-break-marathon-weight-record.html
As I said at the beginning I'm assuming two identical runners.
If one runner is 60kg he may use approx 2760 calories. In three hours he's done 920 cals/hour.
If the other is 90kg he may use approx 4150 calories. In four hours he's done 1039 cals/hour.
Just something else to consider.
who cares?
the objective of running races is to get from a-b as fast as possible. On the results it doesnt mention your height, weight, how much you can bench press or put an asterix next you your name if you have rubbish technique
(well not in the races ive entered anyway
optimum age...................now thats an interesting point...............how on earth could you measure an optimum age..........surely different for everyone and different for different distances .
what did you actually mean by optimum age........
According to this article Seren Optimum marathon age is somewhere between 20 - 35. I'm 36
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-413--13034-4-1X2X3X4X5-5,00.html
Look at it a different way: a runner completes a 2010 marathon in 3hr 55. They spend the next year training their backsides off, enter the same marathon in 2011. They cross the finish line in 2hr 55. Have they lost fitness?
(I would like to know what training plan they used)
Re: calories burned - the heavier an object (be that HGV, runner, wheelbarrow full of potatoes) the more energy it takes to move that object across a given distance (be that diesel, calories burned or strength pushing said wheelbarrow) Therefore the heavier runner is only burning more because he is heavier. OH and I occasionally run together and he burns more than me even though he covers the same distance in the same time (and his heart rate is likely to be lower than mine as he can run faster than me with less effort)
Re: optimum age - surely depends on when you actually started? Someone who starts running age 40 will be lucky to run a faster marathon / 10K / whatever at age 45 than someone who started at 15 running the same distance when they reach 45?
The fact that your OH can carry more weight and run with a lower HR than you shows he is much fitter than you. If you tried to carry weights to increase your weight to be the same as his your HR would not be lower it would be much higher.
In boxing, judo and horse racing the weights are carefully matched. At the top end of racing I suspect that the runners are all of a similar build and weight. You don't see many Sumo wrestlers winning marathons and you don't see many marathon runners winning Sumo competitions. So maybe this thread's first reply was correct. A marathon runner is not as fit as a sumo wrestler is to fight in the Sumo ring.
The optimum age is for the same person. So someone who started at 15 would arguably be on the decline when he gets to 45.