I would go with sub 5:00 due to the sheer volume of people who run that distance at some point in their career. When ran in College we generally had 30-35 people on our XC team. I don't having a single person the team who couldn't break 5. But quite a few of us never attempted a Marathon.
Sub-3 is harder. Sub 5 should be able to break 3 with no problem according to the conversion charts, but most either are too lazy to train, don't have the stamina, and/or are mentally weak.
I ran a bunch of sub 3's all the way into my 50s. At no time could I have run a sub-5 mile. But I was a 10K to Marathon guy who ran a Mile once in a while. I actually ran a bunch of them, on the track and road, and never ran better than 5:21. I did run a 4:55 1500 which equates to ~5:16. I feel sure I could have broken 5 if I'd ever tried/trained when I was in my teens to 30s.
Sub-3 is harder. Sub 5 should be able to break 3 with no problem according to the conversion charts, but most either are too lazy to train, don't have the stamina, and/or are mentally weak.
A sub 3 is harder only in the sense that you have to run more to achieve it. But it does take a lot of talent.
I agree for the most part with what people are saying about talent vs. training.
There's also another key difference: high school boys are training properly and consistently under the guidance of a coach, and it's during a time when they are optimized to improve at that distance really quickly. Thus, a lot of people break 5 every year. Combine that with the fact that it's more of a reflection of talent, and you get many people achieving something that is quite difficult.
Contrast that with the hundreds of thousands of people who are out-of-shape, past their developmental prime, and run a handful of long runs but rarely do a tempo workout and probably run 3-4 days a week. Of course fewer of them will achieve a goal that's easier.
Put it a different way, if everyone who had a shot of breaking 3 put in a 18-week block of mile training far fewer of them would achieve the sub-5 goal. There'd be some undertrained people who'd surprise you, but a lot of 2:50 guys would miss, and hardly anyone who was well trained and over 40 would have a shot, unless they were sub-2:45 people.
Like others basically said, a sub 5 mile shows better fitness than a 3 hour marathon but more kids run sub 5 in high school then maybe never get back into running. If they do it's to train half ass to knock the marathon off their bucket list in the 3:30-4:30 range.
I agree the sub 5 mile is more talent and the sub 3 is more training. I also think there is an age aspect to it. It’s easier for a young person to break a 5 min mile, and it’s easier for an older person to break a 3 hour marathon.
Now in my mid 40s, it’s pretty safe to say I will never break 5 minutes ( I ran several 5:1Xs during training runs a decade ago). I think I have at least one more sub 3 marathon left in me.
Indeed. When I was 17, sub-5 was easy, but sub-3 was impossible. At 23, both were easy. At 43, sub-3 was easy, but sub-5 was barely possible. At 60, sub-3 was almost possible, and sub-5 absolutely impossible.
This is a great question. Back in day, Runners World had an issue where they published every marathon time in the nation. I ran 2:49 and they said I was in the top 2%.
One dual meet, when I coached, this was about 10 years ago, we had 17 boys go under 5:00.
My guess is that more can break 5:00 but there are a LOT of marathoners out there.
I agree the sub 5 mile is more talent and the sub 3 is more training. I also think there is an age aspect to it. It’s easier for a young person to break a 5 min mile, and it’s easier for an older person to break a 3 hour marathon.
Now in my mid 40s, it’s pretty safe to say I will never break 5 minutes ( I ran several 5:1Xs during training runs a decade ago). I think I have at least one more sub 3 marathon left in me.
The age factor is huge. I'm 63 and was able to break 5:00 frome 13-49. After 50- no way.
I ran a marathon in 2:49 at 30 as a last minute- I think I'll jump in a marathon (back then you could register day of). I was doing about 50 mpw.
I just wasn't interested in putting in the mileage to run faster.
I've done both many times and sub 3 is definitely harder. It requires much more time, dedication, and effort. Many HS runners break 5 and never run again after that, much less a marathon.
I have no doubt that the number of people capable of running a sub 5 is less than the number of people capable of running sub 3. The question is what are the actual numbers. Taking my HS (from 40 years ago), we had 5 sub minute milers in my graduating class. Of those, only 1 went on to run a marathon under 3 (the others never tried AFAIK). How many other people from my class ran a marathon under 3. I doubt any, but lets say there is 1 or 2.
If I expand the same to the entire 3 years I was in HS, I'm guessing there was 12-15 runners who ran sub-5 for that entire 5 classes. I can add 3 that I know went on to run sub 3. There's probably 1 or 2 I don't know of. But still, the total number is smaller than the number who ran sub 5.
If I expand to my college years, then it's the same. And it's not as if the marathon was not a big deal in my HS years. It was.
I personally know very few sub 3 hour marathoners who did not at one point break 5 in the mile. I know lots of sub 5 guys who never ran a marathon (even though they were capable of sub 3).
A sub 3 marathon may take less talent than sub 5 mile, but it takes more training and more grit. So I'm going with there being more people who have run sub 5.
A few guys on my team were debating whether the number of people who've broken 5 in the mile was greater or smaller than the number of people who've gone under 3 in the marathon. The folks claiming that a sub 5 mile (or 4:58 1600) is more common argue that more people attempt the mile than the marathon, while those claiming that a sub 3 marathon is more common argue that a sub 3 'thon is easier. Percentage wise, a 3:00 'thon is further away from the WR than a 5:00 mile and scores fewer points on the IAAF tables. Also, a 2:59 marathon doesn't require as much speed or talent as a 4:59 mile.
Which side is right?
I started jogging on March 15th,1969. By Boston 1970, I ran 2:53. I did not break 5 for the mile until 1977. A bunch of 5:01’s and 2’s until I focused on my half mile time. When I got down to 2:19, I entered an indoor mile and ran 4:59. A few months later I went to Tufts indoor track and a runner from GBTC was doing repeat miles. I asked if I could draft him for a mile and it was no problem for a 4:54. So 2 times in my life. So the mile for me was much harder since by 1977 I was down to 2:37 for the marathon
When I think about all my teammates in HS/college, those I raced against, and all of the alumni that I follow… I probably know 200 sub 5 milers and like 15 sub 3 marathoners.
..most either are too lazy to train, don't have the stamina, and/or are mentally weak.
I wouldn’t have responded, but you had a pretty hot take.
I’m sure many could/would argue that marathon running is without value.
It can be argued that sub 5 shape is more important than being in sub 3 shape. Speed and endurance that transfer to other sports/scenarios/movements. Running for 3 straight hours isn’t needed in todays world.
Not to mention it’s significantly healthier for your body to run the mile/5k.
I’m 41 now. When I was a senior in HS I estimate my track team had 18 active sub 5 milers. I know of 5 that have run sub 3. Assume that nobody will do it who has not yet. Sub 5 is a lot more common by my estimation.