Week 5 - The 2 hour marathon

The marathon is a crazy race to me. I love running. I enjoy being out in nature and testing myself. I run stupid events, and this year my shortest race was 85km, which is 2 marathons back to back. So most people presume I would love running a marathon and deep down I would like to test myself over this iconic distance. Then I remember that it is 42km on a flat road and I stop thinking about it. I cannot run on roads. My head falls off and I get bored, then start looking for a dirt track.

On the other hand I have such respect for marathon runners. Watching them give everything to run at such fast speeds for 42km is amazing. The fact that the world record time for a marathon is 2:02:57 (Mulkeen & Minshull, 2014) is mind blowing to me. Now a project has been started to try and break the 2 hour record within 5 years (Ross, 2014). Five years to drop the marathon by just about 3 minutes sounds very optimistic to me. The report I read said they are planning on using all the latest sport science and sport medicine to give athletes the best chance as possible to achieve and break the 2 hour mark (Ross, 2014).

I believe the 2 hour marathon will happen, yet not in the next 5 years. I believe that there are just too many variables and as of now sport science is just too young. Ten years and I hope our knowledge bank will be so much bigger and will give us a better chance an smashing all sorts of marks and records. 

 Of course people compare the 2 hour marathon to the 4 minute mile. This, I feel, is not a great comparison. First of all it took 9 years to move that record from 4:01.4 to Bannister's 3:59.4 (Ross, 2014). I believe the things that can go wrong multiply and the margin for error decreases in events as the distance increases. Just think of the factors involved: road surface, pacers, weather, wind and distance. So many factors have to come together for 26 x 1 mile (26miles = 42km approx.). 

 To achieve such an incredible time as under 2 hours in the next 5 years would take the perfect storm of athletes, training, timing and injury prevention. I would personally like to see it happen and watch it unfold. I also think the even if this does not succeed, the amount we can learn from the process will make the whole process well worth pursuing.  

Mulkeen, J. & Minshull, P. (2014). Kimetto Breaks Marathon World Record in Berlin with 2:02:57.  Retrieved from http://www.iaaf.org/news/report/marathon-world-record-dennis-kimetto-berlin

Ross. (2014). The 2-hour Marathon and the 4-min mile. Retrieved from http://sportsscientists.com/2014/12/2-hour-marathon-4-min-mile/

Week 4 - Sport Science!

I love science, and I think sport science is a young area of science that does not get enough love. The innovations that have occurred in the last 60 years are mind blowing! In 1954 Roger Bannister ran the mile in under 4 minutes, a feat that at that time that was thought to be impossible. Now many athletes can run under 4 minutes for a mile. What does this have to do with anything?

Load management for me. 

As a coach and an athlete, running presents a lot of issues that need to be solved. The more data an athlete has the more the coach can manage the load placed on the athlete. Managing this load is such an interesting area - for me anyway. It is about bringing many factors together and making the most out of an athlete’s training time and recovery to produce the best possible level of fitness.

I could write ten blog posts on load management and only have covered the basics. Anyway, if the athlete gets overloaded at the wrong time injury can occur, and injury is the nightmare for every athlete and coach. So many factors within running contribute to possibility of injury. Load management and technique are major factors to be considered.  Managing both these factors is done normally by planning and checking data before and after training. Currently getting real time feedback is difficult, and mostly the coach has to be present in order to watch the athlete.

To help with this issue, step in sport science. A Spanish company, Kelme, have created “a prototype running shoe with an integrated device that improves training management and prevents injuries” (Science Daily, 2014). This device is in the shoe and relays information, in real time, to the athlete’s phone. This means when athlete is working on technique the coach no longer has to be physically present. Instead the shoe can tell the athlete when he or she has gone wrong and the athlete can fix the problem straight away.

The integrated device can also, it is hoped, help prevent injury by checking load and indicating if the gait pattern changes and it is advisable to stop. It could be like having your coach on your shoulder checking you are doing everything correctly according to the coach's instructions. This is just an awesome notion. Naturally time will tell if this works well or not, and it may or may not play out the way the Kelme company hopes. But to think we are at the point where sport scientists can assist everyone in sport and not just the elite is fantastic. What could be better than becoming a better, stronger athlete with less risk of injury!

Well done sport science! You Rock!

Science Daily. (2014). Device developed for running shoes that prevents injuries. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141030114851.htm

Week 3 – Summarising the debate.

Reading for this blog post has been interesting and scary. I am investigating immunisation, and there is a large and varied body of research studies supporting the efficacy of immunisation. To balance my research on this debate, I looked for negative studies in anticipation of finding reasoned studies presenting the opposing view. Firstly, I scoured the Massey University library - nothing but discussion on parents' fears of immunisation.  Next, the search moved to Google Scholar. Again the search provided no scientific literature.  Because of the necessity of finding information on the 'against' side of the debate on immunisation, I have chosen two websites to show the two prevailing lines of debate from the anti-immunisation group.

First website: http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/

Here Mr Adachi is convinced that vaccines are bad for us. He states: “The dangers of vaccinations to your child's long term health prospects and longevity itself far outweigh any potential benefits touted by the pharmaceutical industry for vaccines” (Adachi, 2013). He then claims that vaccines are being pushed by companies only to make money and these companies use misinformation to say they are safe. He does provide an impressive reference list, marred somewhat in that all link to other articles either written by himself or appearing on his own website. He has failed to provide outside links to any research papers, let alone papers reflecting rigorous research.

I think Mr Adachi has taken this position because immunisation being used by “Big Pharma” fits into his world view. He appears to espouse the belief that the Illuminati are in control and this is the true power behind what we see going on.

Second Website: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/05/12/vaccination-dangers.aspx

This web page has been written by a medical doctor which, for most people, lends more weight to what is being read. This article goes though many listed conditions and their side effects the author believes are related to relevant vaccines (Blaylock, 2004). The title of this article, 'Vaccination dangers can kill you or ruin your life' is, in itself, emotive and over-stated.    

Even though the article is well written, the author draws a long bow in that many conclusions are claimed for which there is no evidence whatsoever provided. Much of the evidence is presented in a way that the average reader could comprehend about half of it, and for the rest just has to take the author's word that it is true.

I do think that the author believes what he is writing. I am sure at the time of writing, 2004, there was not as much information on immunisation safety as is now readily available. It would be helpful if the author had provided some form of references so these could be followed to assess his claims better. 

I think both these websites reflect sincerely held beliefs in what the authors write. However, sincerity does not always make them correct. I am under no illusion that pharmacy companies are above reproach. Even bearing this in mind the amount of data and sheer volume of studies showing the safety of immunisation and the positive effect it has on long term health and the health system seems to conclusive. Many authors I read used fear as the prime factor to convince people against immunisation. People should be presented evidence to make decisions and not be convinced against immunisation by emotive stirring up of fear. After all my searching and reading a voluminous stack of papers and websites I believe immunisation to be a safe and effective way on improving people’s health and stopping preventable illness.

References:

Adachi, B. (2013). Educate yourself. Retrieved from http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/

Blaylock, R. L. (2004). Vaccination dangers can kill you or ruin your life. Retrieved from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/05/12/vaccination-dangers.aspx