Study note • PMID 41351755
Toward a record-eligible sub-2-hour marathon: an updated integrative framework of Physiological, technological, and cognitive determinants.
How to use this page
This note summarizes one study record. Check the participants, methods, results, and limitations before applying it to training.
- • Design signal: narrative review.
- • Population relevance: mixed/unclear athlete specificity.
- • Consistency: single-study evidence.
- • Practical recommendation depends on tolerance, context, and whether it protects training consistency.
ELI5
In plain language
Breaking the sub-2-hour marathon barrier under record-eligible conditions requires the coordinated contribution of physiological, biomechanical, psychological, environmental, nutritional, and technological factors. (narrative review; participants).
In this narrative review, the abstract suggests a positive relationship with Time-trial performance. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.
Takeaways
What the abstract suggests
- • Study question: Breaking the sub-2-hour marathon barrier under record-eligible conditions requires the coordinated contribution of physiological, biomechanical, psychological, environmental, nutritional, and technological factors.
- • In this narrative review, the abstract suggests a positive relationship with Time-trial performance.
- • Population: participants.
- • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 6 mg • 2 h • 21 km.
Protocol
Protocol (as reported)
- • Intervention/exposure: pacing.
- • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 6 mg • 2 h • 21 km.
- • Outcomes: Time-trial performance.
- • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.
Fit
Who it may help, and who should be cautious
Who it helps
- • Athletes similar to the study population (participants) working on pacing.
- • Athletes who can measure Time-trial performance with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.
Who should be cautious
- • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
- • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.
Methods
What the study actually did
- • Design: narrative review.
- • Population: participants.
- • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance.
- • Protocol cues mentioned: 6 mg • 2 h • 21 km.
- • Source: PubMed PMID 41351755 (2026) — European journal of applied physiology.
Results excerpt
What the abstract reports
“It synthesizes multidisciplinary evidence to propose a conceptual model illustrating how physiological, mechanical, cognitive, and technological domains interact to constrain or enhance endurance capacity.”
Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.
Limits
Limitations and bias
- • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
- • Reviews and consensus statements mix protocols and populations; recommendations may not match your exact constraints.
- • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
- • This is performance information, not medical advice.
Adaptive AI coach for iPhone
Meet your adaptive AI coach.
Tell your coach what you are training for. It builds the plan, follows the work you complete, and adapts upcoming training when recovery, your schedule, or real life changes.
Keep going
Performance Science Lab
Research summaries for endurance athletes, with study context, practical protocols, and clear limitations.
Pacing performance research
Pacing is applied physiology: the best plan fails if you spend your budget early.
Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol
Evidence-informed protocol: Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol. Practical steps, who it helps, and what to watch out for.