Would you rather train a 5 minute mile or 3 hour marathon?

mile obviously

it relies far less on mental strength, and you can give him interesting workouts on the track.

Far more fun to coach

It's also easier to coach someone through that, a marathon requires tons of time.

Given the incentive, and one shot attempt, the 5 minute mile is the easy answer.

Yes it's "harder" than the 3hr marathon, but 1) time to train to the required proficiency and 2) uncertainty during attempt itself make the 5 minute mile a much better option.

One could even train up to being able to do 0.75 mi at 5 min pace before the true event, and recover quick to be in prime shape. The 3 hr marathon...you never know until past 20 miles in..

I know first hand. I'm your 30+ yo and could train much easier for the sub 5 min mile, but my long term goal is the sub 3, and that is a bitch (think injury risk, time to build a base from nothing etc.)

Why is it so hard? Just run the miles, and sub-3:00 is guaranteed.

4:59 mile on the other hand. Tough...

2:59 marathon is a piece of cake in comparison. I know 60 year olds that do it fairly easily. Why so hard for a 30 year old?

How many 60 year olds can "easily" run a 2:59. That's a pretty elite group of runners, my friend.

FWIW, I ran a 4:52 PB for the mile; and only a 3:01 for the marathon. So for me, the mile was easier.

masters runner wrote:

Why is it so hard? Just run the miles, and sub-3:00 is guaranteed.

4:59 mile on the other hand. Tough...

2:59 marathon is a piece of cake in comparison. I know 60 year olds that do it fairly easily. Why so hard for a 30 year old?

If this were true we wouldn't have so many failed BQ attempts. I've paced 3:05 group at two different marathons and come in alone both times. It takes more than just "running the miles".

easier is the 5 minute mile so id do that. but if i were the guy id feel more reward for running under 3 hours in the marathon

1 year (5 minute mile) 1% chance of success (zero chance of a sub 3)

2 years (toss up) 3% chance of success at either.

3 years (sub 3 hour) maybe a 10% chance at best.

5 years (sub 3 hour) 25% chance for $20,000.

Make it $1,000,000 for each of you, and the odds go to a little above 50% after 5 years.

my 2 cents...

MM3307 wrote:

masters runner wrote:

Why is it so hard? Just run the miles, and sub-3:00 is guaranteed.

4:59 mile on the other hand. Tough...

2:59 marathon is a piece of cake in comparison. I know 60 year olds that do it fairly easily. Why so hard for a 30 year old?

If this were true we wouldn't have so many failed BQ attempts. I've paced 3:05 group at two different marathons and come in alone both times. It takes more than just "running the miles".

No, the hobbyjoggers you were pacing didn't run enough miles

Most guys can do either one with enough years of training, but I do think the 5:00 mile is more likely to happen within a year

cramper wrote:

1 year (5 minute mile) 1% chance of success (zero chance of a sub 3)

2 years (toss up) 3% chance of success at either.

3 years (sub 3 hour) maybe a 10% chance at best.

5 years (sub 3 hour) 25% chance for $20,000.

Make it $1,000,000 for each of you, and the odds go to a little above 50% after 5 years.

my 2 cents...

I like the chance of success addition to the question. I think you are probably right about the chance after 1 year. After that, we're getting into the classic lets run screamfest about whether or not every guy is capable of a 5-minute mile.

I am slightly more trained than my hypothetical guy in the OP. I ran cross country and track in high school with no success (best time for an event was a 2:06 800, around 18-flat for 3 miles, generally was too far behind anyone to get my official 1600 time (and I didn't wear a watch back then)

Ran maybe 3-times a week, but played basketball pretty much every day in college and until I was about 25. Ran a mile race when I was 26 off of 12mph intervals on a treadmill once a week (worked up to 8 x 2 min on / off) and did it in 5:02. The next year I trained for a marathon I didn't end up running and ran 4:50 in the same mile race.

marathon, no question about it

If WAVA/age grade has any relevance, a 5:00 is 74.4% for a 30 year old, 3:00:00 is 69.4%.

If its a "one shot" exercise, I'd reckon there's much more possibility of executing a sub-3 badly (off perfect training) than there is executing a sub 5 mile (off perfect training) - much more to go wrong in 180 minutes than in 5 minutes.

5-minute mile, without a doubt.

If you can do run a 5-minute mile, sub-3 is a piece of cake.

............. wrote:

5-minute mile, without a doubt.

If you can do run a 5-minute mile, sub-3 is a piece of cake.

I don't think you understood the question. Or, you have problems with logic.

masters runner wrote:

2:59 marathon is a piece of cake in comparison. I know 60 year olds that do it fairly easily. Why so hard for a 30 year old?

I'm not sure why I'm dignifying this with a response, but whatever. A 2:59 marathon is not a piece of cake by any stretch of the imagination. Without a running background, I'd say there's less than a 1% chance of a 30 year old being able to run sub3 with only 1 year of training.

And with regard to the comment about 60 year-olds: at last year's NYCM, a race with something like 50,000 runners, only one 60+ year old ran under 3 hours.

feeder of the trolls wrote:

And with regard to the comment about 60 year-olds: at last year's NYCM, a race with something like 50,000 runners, only one 60+ year old ran under 3 hours.

The course was extremely crowded though.

Easily the mile for the following reasons:

requires way less volume

less chance of injury in mile training

less chance of things going wrong on race day

easier to gauge potential time from workouts

The only way I would say go for the marathon is if your athlete is a cart horse and has zero basic speed. Otherwise, a sub 5 min mile should be well within their grasp.

The marathon is a strange beast with a lot more factors that could throw a sub 3:00 of course i.e. athlete could be in 2:55 shape but gets pace wrong on first 10K or the weather is poor or gets a stomach upset. Or they just bonk out around 20 miles and the sub 3:00 becomes a 3:15.

There are far less variables with a mile race.

This is such a Letsrun question. These are "elite" times for the guys described. Neither is going to happen for the vast majority of the people that meet your age / activity / bmi criteria.

Most of these guys would have been extremely lucky to have run under 5-minutes for the mile when in high school or their early 20's. Now, it's 10 years later, they are less active, and they are being asked to either 1.) run faster than they were ever capable for the mile OR 2.) run farther than they think imaginable at a pace that is pretty close to their current mile personal best (6:50's).

In short, put as money on the line as you like. It ain't happenin' for the vast majority of these guys. You can't buy genetics.

Memphian wrote:

This is such a Letsrun question. These are "elite" times for the guys described. Neither is going to happen for the vast majority of the people that meet your age / activity / bmi criteria.

Most of these guys would have been extremely lucky to have run under 5-minutes for the mile when in high school or their early 20's. Now, it's 10 years later, they are less active, and they are being asked to either 1.) run faster than they were ever capable for the mile OR 2.) run farther than they think imaginable at a pace that is pretty close to their current mile personal best (6:50's).

In short, put as money on the line as you like. It ain't happenin' for the vast majority of these guys. You can't buy genetics.

So, which would you pick? Answer the question.