A compromise between the massive anaerobic capacity required to survive the final laps of a track race, which Farah had in the sprint to Olympic gold medals, and the aerobic endurance required to maintain a steady, blistering pace across a marathon, is inevitable, he told Andrew Jones, an exercise physiologist at the University of Exeter in England who has studied Farah and Kipchoge’s performances.
Put simply, Alex Hutchinson, columnist for Outside Magazine and author of “Endure: Mind, Body and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance,” said Farah’s problem “isn’t that he’s not good at long range; it’s that he’s too good at shorter ranges.”
Compared to Farah, Kipchoge has a superior “critical speed,” or the maximum aerobic speed that can be sustained, Jones said, which would be a significant advantage over 26.2 miles. Kipchoge might also have more sustained running economy, the amount of oxygen required to run at a given pace, Jones said, which would reduce his fatigue later in a marathon.
Farah’s bouncing, hopping gait contrasts with the flowing, metronome style of classic marathons and “probably uses a little more energy,” said Amby Burfoot, winner of the 1968 Boston Marathon and longtime editor of Runner’s World magazine.
There is also less opportunity for runners to experiment with their strategy and tactics in the marathon compared to their ability to do so when running on the track. While runners might run the course once a week at the peak of their season, elite marathoners typically only run two marathons a year, and there are a limited number of top races, even in the fastest stages (though Kipchoge challenges that notion ). A lot can go wrong in two hours.
The experts interviewed wondered if Farah had problems refueling during a marathon, which is not necessary for shorter distances. Or if he had the patience for a 26.2-mile grind. Or if he could muster the same motivation after such a brilliant career on the race track.