Fast Mile or Slow Marathon at 40

Neither. At 40 I was 4:40 for the mile, 1:18 for 13.1 (smart enough to stop the marathons in my 20s)

coahc wrote:

New article discusses what coaches and those who have run fast have known for years. Question is would you be happier with a 4:59 mile or a 3:15 marathon at the age of 40. The real question who would be the healthier athlete.

Why is the age relevant. Any real athlete should prefer a fast mile to a slow marathon. Unless of course you're trying to impress Barbara from accounting by the water cooler by regaling her with your tale of "completing" a marathon.

observer_of_things wrote:

coahc wrote:

New article discusses what coaches and those who have run fast have known for years. Question is would you be happier with a 4:59 mile or a 3:15 marathon at the age of 40. The real question who would be the healthier athlete.

Why is the age relevant. Any real athlete should prefer a fast mile to a slow marathon. Unless of course you're trying to impress Barbara from accounting by the water cooler by regaling her with your tale of "completing" a marathon.

+1

I think the OP is referring to this article where Ricky Gates, who is finishing up a 4000 mile run across America, says a fast mile is just as hard as an ultra marathon.

"There’s a great fascination with ultras being harder than other races,” Gates said, “but the mile is every bit as difficult as 100 miles if you apply yourself to it.”

https://www.outsideonline.com/2230186/fast-mile-more-impressive-slow-marathon

Yes and recently there was another article about how running a marathon isn't necessarily the best thing for runners. As a professional coach I often have to convince my older athletes that running fast can be just as hard. I have some great mothers that have run fast 5 and 10's and I actually don't encourage them to do marathons.....unless they really want to.

Running fast as you get older hurts a lot more than going out and slogging away!

I totally agree that running a short distance is more challenging than a long distance. I stopped doing 5ks because the struggle to run quickly was intense. I think I suffer less while running a decent time in a marathon since the pain is more spread out during the race (and in training)...maybe more pain on the whole for a fast marathon, but while running 26.2 I don't get that "I'm gonna die!" feeling like I get when trying to run a 5k really quickly.

Fell in love with the mile in high school. There are rough moments in a properly executed mile race.

The first is on the starting line. There are serious questions. 1. Do I have the guts to run my guts out today? 2. If I do, am I prepared for the pain I'll feel at the half?

Like many kids, I ran as hard as I could pretty much every time. I'd get to the 880 and didn't know if I could finish.

As a high school and college miler, I'd say those events are more difficult than the half marathons I run now. Don't get me wrong, the half marathon is a challenge. But the mile race is, as Bill Bowerman once said, war.

coahc wrote:

Yes and recently there was another article about how running a marathon isn't necessarily the best thing for runners. As a professional coach I often have to convince my older athletes that running fast can be just as hard. I have some great mothers that have run fast 5 and 10's and I actually don't encourage them to do marathons.....unless they really want to.

Pics?

While this is common knowledge on letsrun, I think it's information worth repeating

Marathons shouldn't be the be all, and completion shouldn't be the goal either

coahc wrote:

New article discusses what coaches and those who have run fast have known for years. Question is would you be happier with a 4:59 mile or a 3:15 marathon at the age of 40. The real question who would be the healthier athlete.

A 4:59 mile is much more impressive than a 3:15 marathon. I ran a sub-3 without breaking 5.

As someone who started with 5K distance - and moved to the marathon - and then ultra marathons, I'm getting excited about moving back down and focusing on shorter distances again. As someone who came from soccer and basketball, it feels more athletic.

While I think the seasoned vets and pros do 100mpw or more with properly fast easy runs and quality - I think most people (ultra types, especially) really end up slogging through a lot of volume. Mechanically, physiologically, etc aren't properly tuned to do it well - especially on trails, etc. Maybe it's me, but I tend to respond better to intervals, and higher end tempo stuff.

Neither would be the healthiest. In fact they may both have chronic injury. At 40 you should be faster and be able to run longer than at any time in your life. Same at 50. If you want to be the healthiest you can be by running the current best research indicates 15 miles per week max is all it takes.

coahc wrote:

New article discusses what coaches and those who have run fast have known for years. Question is would you be happier with a 4:59 mile or a 3:15 marathon at the age of 40. The real question who would be the healthier athlete.

15 miles a week? Not only is that preposterous it doesn't sound like any fun. I guess the "current best research" qualifier gives you an out when you read a random article from a social media intern that says 115 is the new 15.

Likesd wrote:

Neither would be the healthiest. In fact they may both have chronic injury. At 40 you should be faster and be able to run longer than at any time in your life. Same at 50. If you want to be the healthiest you can be by running the current best research indicates 15 miles per week max is all it takes.

coahc wrote:

New article discusses what coaches and those who have run fast have known for years. Question is would you be happier with a 4:59 mile or a 3:15 marathon at the age of 40. The real question who would be the healthier athlete.

U Moran wrote:

Neither. At 40 I was 4:40 for the mile, 1:18 for 13.1 (smart enough to stop the marathons in my 20s)

Your failure to apprehend the point of the question, coupled with your non sequitur recital of personal statistics, suggests that you were (and are) on the autism spectrum, too.

And those times stink.

startling idiocy wrote:

U Moran wrote:

Neither. At 40 I was 4:40 for the mile, 1:18 for 13.1 (smart enough to stop the marathons in my 20s)

Your failure to apprehend the point of the question, coupled with your non sequitur recital of personal statistics, suggests that you were (and are) on the autism spectrum, too.

And those times stink.

This is why I love this forum! The unnecessary aggression and posturing towards complete strangers and put down of clearly good times.

As for the original question I'd rather run a 3:15 marathon than one fast mile. Now if you said fast 5K or 10K I would take that over a 3:15 marathon. Running just one mile doesn't seem to equate to overall fitness in my book.

And no I'm not autistic either but I am possibly slow also...

Struck a nerve with the hobbyjogger crowd. Enjoy your finisher medal at the local pie run/turkey trot, it's all about the participation anyway.

startling idiocy wrote:

U Moran wrote:

Neither. At 40 I was 4:40 for the mile, 1:18 for 13.1 (smart enough to stop the marathons in my 20s)

Your failure to apprehend the point of the question, coupled with your non sequitur recital of personal statistics, suggests that you were (and are) on the autism spectrum, too.

And those times stink.

U Moran wrote:

Struck a nerve with the hobbyjogger crowd. Enjoy your finisher medal at the local pie run/turkey trot, it's all about the participation anyway.

startling idiocy wrote:

Your failure to apprehend the point of the question, coupled with your non sequitur recital of personal statistics, suggests that you were (and are) on the autism spectrum, too.

And those times stink.

Unless you have a full ride to a D1 school to run, are a sponsored athlete or can run Olympic Qualifying times, you too are a hobbyjogger. Are you one of the above? Doubtful. It just makes you a slightly faster hobbyjogger and a total @sshole.

I am a sponsored athlete, but not in running. I suppose the fact that I am a mile into my cooldown by the time you finish grates and you are triggered by my comments. I extend my empathy to you on that. At least we both would agree that 4:59 is not a "fast mile".

Not Fast But Furious wrote:

U Moran wrote:

Struck a nerve with the hobbyjogger crowd. Enjoy your finisher medal at the local pie run/turkey trot, it's all about the participation anyway.

Unless you have a full ride to a D1 school to run, are a sponsored athlete or can run Olympic Qualifying times, you too are a hobbyjogger. Are you one of the above? Doubtful. It just makes you a slightly faster hobbyjogger and a total @sshole.

Sponsored athlete?! Yeah right. You also have a hot girlfriend in Canada that no one has ever seen.

U Moran wrote:

I am a sponsored athlete, but not in running. I suppose the fact that I am a mile into my cooldown by the time you finish grates and you are triggered by my comments. I extend my empathy to you on that. At least we both would agree that 4:59 is not a "fast mile".

Not Fast But Furious wrote:

Unless you have a full ride to a D1 school to run, are a sponsored athlete or can run Olympic Qualifying times, you too are a hobbyjogger. Are you one of the above? Doubtful. It just makes you a slightly faster hobbyjogger and a total @sshole.