Half and full marathon distances are often put in a different category to 5/10km. But is the full marathon really something much different? Is the half really more like at the longer end of middle distance?
Half and full marathon distances are often put in a different category to 5/10km. But is the full marathon really something much different? Is the half really more like at the longer end of middle distance?
To me, subjectively the half-marathon is much more like a 10K than a marathon. In other words, a half-marathon is pretty much like a 10K only longer, but the same thing can't be said for the marathon and half-marathon. In either a 10K or a half-marathon I am definitely racing the whole way; in a full marathon the racing doesn't start until somewhere past the halfway point.
a half marathon is usually about 32-50 minutes longer than a 10k.
A marathon is anywhere from 65+ minutes, often times 90+ minutes, longer than a half.
The reason people associate the two is because for the majority of people, half and full marathons are just running as slowly as you can for as long as possible.
I raced a very good half on 35 mpw. The time matched up with my other times from mile to 10k. My marathon I was on pace for 18 miles and ended about 6 minutes slower than predicted.
On the other hand, if you are doing a lot of miles and not as much speed, your marathon time could be better than your half time.
in my experience it is more closely linked to a 20K than either of your suggestions. I'm surprised you took the time to write this thread and didn't even think of that.
The marathon is a different category because it is the only event that can use up all of your stored energy.
Rebex why do you have to be such a prat?
wwhut wrote:
The marathon is a different category because it is the only event that can use up all of your stored energy.
Unless your half takes you longer than 90 minutes to complete, which is true for probably 90% of half marathoners.
Carlos15000 wrote:
Half and full marathon distances are often put in a different category to 5/10km. But is the full marathon really something much different? Is the half really more like at the longer end of middle distance?
How can you account for the fact that runners tend to move up as they get older? Geb couldn't have touched 26:22 when he ran 2:03:58. The best you could hope for Kenny B going forward is that he would be within 30s of his 10k PR. On the other hand, when Carlos Lopes set the marathon WR in 85, he was one year removed from his 10k PR.
It's hard to generally relate these distances unless you have marks in all three within a reasonable period. That's hard to do given the additional recovery time required for marathon running.
my experience is that fitness for the half is much more determined by 10K fitness than by marathon fitness. as a previous poster said, you can run a fast half without putting in big mileage...but it's almost impossible to run a good marathon on low mileage.
my marathon performances are always significantly better than my half performances while I'm doing marathon training. I'm positive that my half performances would be significantly better on 5k-10k training.
I agree. I ran well for a half marathon and 10k, then my one and only marathon I have done wasn't near as good as my 10k or half. They were all ran around the same time frame.
rebex wrote:
in my experience it is more closely linked to a 20K than either of your suggestions. I'm surprised you took the time to write this thread and didn't even think of that.
Bro, there's a reason the OP didn't include 20k, cause the OP wasn't asking about 20k