Sub 5 minute Mile or Sub 3 hour Marathon. Which is a better achievement?

Teens: Sub 5:00 with no effort. No Marathons.

20's-30's: Sub 5:00 no effort even untrained; sub 3:00 when properly trained.

Age 39: 4:57 & 2:59. Last time I did both.

Age 40: NA & 3:03

Age 41: NA & 3:03

Age 42: NA & 3:08

Age 43: 5:22 & NA

Age 44: NA & NA

Age 45: Will try to go under 3:00 in November. If training goes well, I have a decent shot. I will probably not attempt a sub 5:00 at any point, but training will probably put me in 5:00-5:05 range.

In NY, there are a lot of >40 guys which can run sub 3:00 in the Marathon, but not too many under 5:00.

You have to work WAY harder to get to sub 3. That's why it took humanity so much longer to get there:

Sub 3 would have won multiple olympic golds and bostons back in the day. sub 5's have been churned out for much longer.

that mcmillian thing isn't accurate all the way up to marathon for "normal" people, and if it is, it assumes you're running serious high mileage... use it to compare your mile and two mile times, not your mid distance and marathon road race ones.

This exact same thread was going a few months ago.

Sub 3 is lot more impressive. It takes a lot more discipline patience and pain. You have to be fit but also run smart with no mistakes I broke 5 in a speed workout a few months before I broke 3 in the marathon. Breaking 5 was great but it the elation passed very quickly. Breaking 3 hours 8 days after my 40th birthday when you didn't know it is possible sticks with you forever. 2:57:58 Houston Marathon 2007

It's not even a close comparison. Sub-5 hands down.

I think sub 3 is way harder. Everybody runs sub 5 in high school. I ran low 4:30s and am nowhere near breaking 3, even though I've moderately trained for it.

Sub 5 is a better performance. I don't think it is even close.

This is like trying to compare which is a better achievement, a WR in weightlifting or a WR for holding your breath underwater. Apples and oranges my friends.

More things can go wrong in a marathon attempt (dehydration, blisters, etc), and you only get a couple tries a year, whereas you can race the mile multiple times in a season and eventually have everything come together.

I'm no longer in shape to do either, but if given the choice, I'd rather go sub-5.

Which is harder?

Who gives a shit!

Which is cooler? Sub-5 mile hands down.

a 3 hour marathon is a long slow run....a five minute mile is 4 75 second quarters. Not blistering bu a decent pace.

I do think the mile is the better achievement....its also much much harder than people on here give it credit.

Would be interesting to see how many of the countries top athletes from Tennis/basketball/football/soccer etc could go sub 5 right off the bat.

People on here would say they could do it easily but very few could...its a good achievement.

And I'd much rather still be able to dunk a basketball than either running achievement. But at 6'0" and in my late 40s, I can't even grab the rim any more.

There's no way I'll ever break 5:00 for the mile, but I think I have a legitimate shot of breaking 3:00 with proper training.

All you guys saying its easier to run sub 5 than sub 3 just cause more guys have done it aren't making sense. More guys have done it because middle school and high school track makes that possible. Not many of those people who run sub 5 in hs go on to adulthood and care enough to train hard for a marathon. That doesn't mean sub 5 is easier!

...sorry that is bull!

You gotta train specific for the distance in both ways and of course depending on your natural talent it's either easier to achieve the one or the other.

I run with guys that can barely break 5 but run marathons in low 2:40's.

On the other hand I can run a sub 4:40 mile (I'm in my 40's) but with all out marathon training could only get to a 2:53 marathon.

Let's define "achievement": a result gained by effort.

OK then, sub 3 hour marathon is by far the better achievement. A 5 minute mile requires much less effort - both in training and execution.

You're welcome.

stuck with match.com wrote:

I'm a 4:52 miler and a 3:00:20 marathoner

I would say sub 3 is more impressive

Sub-3 marathon will always be more impressive simply because of the sheer distance of the race. In a mile race, you really don't have much to worry about. You can either do it or you can't. However, running a marathon requires much more concentration, endurance, and there's a much higher risk that you will get injured or tighten up in the middle of a marathon and either slow down or have to drop out. Plus, it takes much more training to do that than it would to just run a 5 minute mile.

Mercier Calculator says 4:59=2:50:20 so I guess breaking 5 mins is considered better.

Sub 5 requires more talent, sub 3 requires more training.

mercier calc wrote:

Mercier Calculator says 4:59=2:50:20 so I guess breaking 5 mins is considered better.

those calculators DO NOT WORK for times as far apart as the mile and the marathon. use it for 5k/10k, not this...

people, like i said earlier, sub 3 could have won multiple olympic golds way back in the day. they were already easily cranking out sub-5 miles by then. it's not that it takes much more talent, but it clearly took a lot more work for anybody to get there.