Hobie Call, Would-Be Sub-2:00 Marathoner | News


The obstacle racer/2:16 marathoner defends his claim that he can be the first to break 2:00 in the marathon.

Full Story on ...


Register or Login to post.

  • jonathan / 3 Years Ago
    This guy is completely serious, but was totally cracking me up.
  • professor / 3 Years Ago
    I think he's on to something. I've been wearing weighted gloves on my hands whenever I log onto kytrackxc, and find that I'm now able to post much more quickly as a result!
  • viren_fan / 3 Years Ago
    I can save this guy some time - I have tested his training method and actually did it in a way more thorough way. Between 5-15 years ago, I had anywhere from 25-40 pounds more than I was at my PR racing weight. Over the last couple of years I have shed quite a fair amount of it and while my times have improved a little over where I was at the higher weight, I am still quite a ways away from my PR's. And I did more than run 1 mile at a time packing 40 lbs., I carried it 24/7 - haha. The guy is entertaining though!
  • professor / 3 Years Ago
    Quite a surprise that someone who kinda looks like a carny would actually embellish his marathoning ability. I give him props for the PRs though, they're not evidence of sub-2:00, but they're still pretty stout.
  • jscott / 3 Years Ago
    I give him props for the PRs though, they're not evidence of sub-2:00, but they're still pretty stout.


    Your judging him on the runner he was, not the runner he could be with his new training philosophy. Ya, those PR's are pretty solid even on the downhill courses.

    I just found the whole interview strange. The reporter got caught up in ripping Hobie and his proposed training to shreds. Hobie seemed to be aware of what the reporter was trying to do and became frustrated that the focus was on his past and not his potential/future. I guess what made it strange for me was the mix of logical things that he would say like his age was working against him and if he can't get there in 2 years, etc.

    I think we all know someone who has been running for many years or who has run "fast" times and when they open their mouth and say something ridiculous about training, you think, "Did he or she really just say that?" This is like that x10.

    I don't believe his training would lead to the adaptations he expects, but it would be really cool to see him try. As a matter of fact, wouldn't it be cool to have a few dozen clones to try different training philosophies and measure the effectiveness of each method.
  • official / 3 Years Ago
    Wow! Better yet, let's have James and Jef Scott be the guinea pigs. Same genetics- all other factors the same. One variable-the true experiment!!!!
  • professor / 3 Years Ago
    I agree that the reporter came off as a bit patronizing in the interview. At times it was almost like he was having fun with the guy.

    My primary issue with him is this. It's one thing to question the conventional wisdom, and do something that deviates from what others do. This is what's given us training methodologies like interval training, emphasizing distance (a la Lydiard), etc. To my knowledge, none of these deviations necessarily violated basic, known physiological principles though. What this guy suggests is a violaion of the principle of specificity - at least as I understand it. This is a gross oversimplification, but this principle basically says that if you want to run a 60 second first 400 in the mile, for example, you need to practice running 400s in 60 seconds.

    What this guy is doing is running in a weight vest and doing lunges. I guess he assumes he can strengthen his legs to the point where they're capable of running fast, but the exercises don't seem very specific to running at the kind of pace he needs to run in order to break 2:00. It's almost (although not quite) like he assumes strength work is a substitute for running fast, and not a complement. Maybe I've totally misinterpreted this, but it seems too far outside of what I think is appropriate training to have much of an effect.