In the past week, a wave of scepticism has followed the record-breaking, history-defining performance at the London Marathon, where not only the winner, Sabastian Sawe, but the entire podium surpassed the previous world record set by the late Kelvin Kiptum.
Critics have rushed to explain away the feat, pointing to two main factors: advanced footwear technology and modern carbohydrate fuelling strategies. Yet, while both elements undeniably contribute to performance, reducing such an achievement solely to them oversimplifies the evolution of sport.
The first argument—centred on footwear—is hardly new. It has persisted since the dawn of the “super-shoe” era, widely associated with the release of the Nike Vaporfly 4 percent in 2017.
This shoe introduced a revolutionary combination of a carbon-fibre plate, lightweight construction, and highly responsive foam designed to improve running economy by 3–4 percent.
Its impact was immediate and profound. When Eliud Kipchoge set a world record at the 2018 Berlin Marathon, and Abraham Kiptum followed with a half-marathon record shortly after, the debate around technological assistance in sport intensified.
Fast forward nearly a decade, and innovation has not slowed. Adidas’ latest entry, the Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3, represents a dramatic leap forward. With a midsole height of 39mm and significantly enhanced energy-returning materials, it reduces energy loss even further than its predecessors. More strikingly, it weighs just 97 grammes—almost half the weight of the original Vaporfly.
Scientific studies consistently show that adding 100 grammes to a running shoe can increase energy expenditure by about 1 per cent, translating to roughly 70 seconds over a marathon. By that logic, reducing weight offers a substantial competitive edge. Still, while the engineering is remarkable, it is not magic; it enhances the runner’s ability but does not replace it.
The second line of criticism focuses on fuelling—specifically, high carbohydrate intake during races. For decades, sports science has recognised glycogen depletion as a primary cause of fatigue in endurance events. When glycogen stores are exhausted, blood glucose drops, leading to the infamous “wall.”
Modern fuelling strategies aim to delay or prevent this by maintaining glucose availability through carbohydrate consumption. Even modest intake has been shown to extend endurance by up to 20 percent.
In this latest performance, the winner reportedly consumed an average of 115 grammes of carbohydrates per hour—approaching the upper physiological limit suggested by research.
This level of precision fuelling is a product of years of scientific advancement and personalised nutrition planning. But again, it is an aid, not a substitute. The ability to absorb and utilise such high carbohydrate levels during intense exertion is itself a trained physiological adaptation, not a given.
The underlying claim from sceptics is that these advancements somehow invalidate the performance—that without them, the sub-two-hour barrier would remain unbroken. This is likely true. However, it also rests on a flawed premise: that there was once a “pure” era of sport untouched by technological or scientific influence. History suggests otherwise. From improved track surfaces to altitude training, from better coaching methods to advancements in sports medicine, every generation has benefited from the tools of its time.
What technology does is not diminish greatness but redefine its context. It raises the baseline, making yesterday’s extraordinary performances today’s standard. Each era competes within its own framework, shaped by the knowledge and resources available. Records are not just reflections of individual brilliance but of collective progress.
Ultimately, the athlete at the centre of this achievement remains the decisive factor. Technology may provide the platform, but it cannot replicate the years of relentless training, often exceeding 200 kilometres per week, much of it at high altitude. It cannot manufacture mental resilience, pain tolerance, or tactical intelligence. These qualities are earned, not engineered.
The suggestion that such a performance is merely a product of shoes and science underestimates the complexity of elite sport. Yes, innovation plays a role, as it always has. But the defining element remains human excellence. No pair of shoes, regardless of how advanced, can run a marathon on its own.
The writer is a sports PhD researcher at Loughborough University, investigating performance optimisation in footwear.
