What is a greater acheivement? - 16:XX 5K or sub-3 marathon?

My last 5k was 18:24, last marathon was 3:00:xx. A 16:xx 5k is way out of reach for a 3-hour marathon runner.

MeMeMeMe wrote:

I got into an argument with a co-worker today who was talking about his friend who ran the Chicago Marathon this past weekend and was able to BQ. We then began discussing running achievements and I mentioned that breaking 17 in a 5K is probably harder than a breaking 3 hours in marathon. He acted like I was crazy - "dude, it's only 3 miles - trying running 26!"

I mentioned that there are girls who run in the high 18's running sub-3 and he still didn't think my argument was valid.

What does LR think?

He is nuts. Pure talent can get you sub 17. Heck, I know many so so runners that can do it. However, to run 26 miles under 3 hours takes more than talent. It also takes dedication.

I think the marathon is lot harder. So much more can go wrong and you have very little margin for a mistake. There are a lot of high school runners who could easily break 17 but might not finish the marathon. It takes a lot more discipline and the race is brutal if you are pushing it and trying for a good time. Trying for a good time just killed a guy in Chicago. You can do permanent damage in a marathon. I have done both but I am much prouder of the sub 3 eight days after my 40th birthday. (2:57:58-Houston 2007)

Agreed... 16 requires actual training while running sub 3 just requires slogging thru a couple long runs Any healthy male under 55(ish) can run sub 3 while low 16s requires some talent

slowing but steady wrote:

I'm a 50 yo male and can still go sub 3 marathon. No way on the sub 17 5k. Havent seen that number in many years.

greater acheivement needs to be defined

5K and marathon training are both very different and you need to train specific for each event. I believe that a 16:xx runner demonstrates significant talent and assuming it's the runners full potential, it would likely place them in a 75-80% (or greater) age graded time. A barely sub-3 hour marathon would likely place a runner at a lower age graded result, probably 70% or even less. My 5K PR is 16:02 (run in even splits) and marathon PR is 2:56 (run in negative splits) and both run in my prime (30's). A conversion chart indicates my full potential in the marathon should be in the 2:30's. However, for my marathon training my peak mileage weeks were 40-45 miles. I believe I would have had to have peak weeks of 70-80 miles with my year-long base mileage in the 30-40 miles/week instead of my typical year-long base being 15-20 miles/week. This was very evident when I would take several weeks to recover from a marathon but just a few days to recover from a hard 5K

My personal experience is that running 16:xx is much harder.

I can see where a fast guy who got 16:xx off low mileage might think the marathon is harder, but really that same person just needs to bump up their mileage, do the right work, and could easily go crank out like a 2:4x marathon.

Now take a 2:5x marathoner who did it off mileage. Not as many of them can run 16:xx. They're already doing decent mileage. Getting the speed to bring them into the 16s does not come easily.

BradW wrote:

My last 5k was 18:24, last marathon was 3:00:xx. A 16:xx 5k is way out of reach for a 3-hour marathon runner.

This. I am a mid-30 year old female, who started running at 30, and have gone 2:56 in the marathon, but my best 5k time is 18:4x. I did run most of my 5ks while marathon training, however, have attempted to train specifically for 5ks a few times and despite basing workouts on current fitness and trying several different training avenues, faster track work has yet to help me improve my 5k and just burns me out.

So I think, as a previous posted noted, a lot of it also depends on where you are in your running life. An older runner, who started later in life, may be able to handle enough mileage to go sub-3 in the marathon, but not the intensity required to get under 17 in the 5k. I doubt I will ever even get under 18 in the 5k, but believe I can get under 2:55 in the marathon.

Since the question is which is the greater achievement, I would definitely say the 16:xx 5K. I have run many marathons in the 2:55 - 3:00 range but only have a 5K pr of about 17:3X.

The debate about which is harder can go either way depending on how you define that. Greater achievement though, has got to be the 5K.

To who said 16 flat is ~2:40 equivalent I agree with this. Beginning of last March I ran a 15:50 5k indoors- ran a 1:15mid half marathon a month later, then a 2:38 at Grandmas Marathon in June.

For the 5k we were doing workouts twice a week etc, I didn't even do workouts for the marathon. I put in a month worth of solid mileage, only 2 real long long runs, lowered one week, tapered the last, and went for it.

Good question, I think if you put an age qualifier on it you get even deeper into "what is harder."

As a master's runner a 16XX would be very impressive and I think it's somewhat implied that if a Master's runner ran the 16XX he could reasonably be expected to go sub3 with proper marathon training. I don't think the opposite is true.

MeMeMeMe wrote:

I guess the point I was trying to make to my co-worker that I failed to say to him at the time was "How many people who finished JUST UNDER sub-3 have ever touched 16:XX?

FWIW - the McMillan Calculator puts a 2:59 at a 18:22 5K equivalent.

I believe that reaching 16:XX is more talent/innate ability. While sub-3 is more effort and will come with more miles.

I agree with your point. Someone who has a marathon PR of 2:59 is most likely only running a 5K in around 18-19 minutes. As far as the effort put into them, i.e. the effort put into a 5K by someone who can run 16:xx versus the effort put into a marathon by someone who can run 2:59, I would give the difficulty win to the marathoner by virtue of mileage and time put into it. However, I definitely see the 5K runner as the better runner.

Def depends on the athlete's age and individual ability. The 5k times drop rather quickly when you get up in your 30's while the marathons get easier and faster. My 5k PR is a ways from 16 flat (16:35 @ age 35), but a sub 2:40 marathon is looking very do-able this fall. Where I lack in speed I make up in stamina...and of course 18 weeks of marathon-specific training doesn't hurt.

My goal is to break 3 hours in the marathon when I turn 50. The training required for this is not intimidating to me. However, if I set a goal to try and break 17 in the 5k, I would be very intimidated by the training required to do so.

My personal best times in my younger days are well below both those times, but as a rapidly approaching 50 year old, I belive it is much harder to get into sub 17 shape than sub 3 hour shape. Sub 3 is just not that hard, even for many 50 year olds.

Your friend is having a hard time separating performance quality and achievement.

Think of it as two extemes, obviously it is "harder" to run 100 miles than it is to run a 5k. If the 100 mile run was run at 8minute pace and the 5k was run at 4min pace... it is still more physically demanding to run 100 miles straight.

The longer the distance, the more physical demands on the body.

Now with that said, any halfway decent runner considers 3 hour marathon a joke. It takes very little talent, it just takes the diligence to log a few decent weeks running 6:50-7 miles (your easy run pace is the same as race pace for old washed up runners...just the race is longer).

But to run 5:20/25 pace for 3Miles and it by far the more impressive. You may have to actually do an interval workout lol. The reason why you don't have HSers running sub 3 hours is because they don't run the marathon. But no less than 1000 16-year olds would do it every year if that were a standard high school event.

what a retarted question. clearly a 3hour marathon is much tougher than a sub 17 5k. Use your head.

I don't think this question is at all "retarted". My 5k pr is 16:57 and my marathon pr is 3:01. Both were done in my late 20s off of 30-45 mpw. Marathon was my only attempt and I ran 2:50 pace till I blew up @ 20 miles. 5k pr was set in training on the track @ Oregon State University. Another interesting question is which is harder a 3 hr marathon or a 1:20 half marathon.

One more data point. At 43 I ran 16:58 and 2:45 1 week apart earlier this year.

Use your head wrote:

what a retarted question. clearly a 3hour marathon is much tougher than a sub 17 5k. Use your head.

I can actually speak from experience on this point. Most people (including me) begin running marathons once they are done racing on the track. The others are people that never ran competitively when they were younger and simply get into marathoning as something to do for fitness.

When I ran competitively, I ran under 14:10 for 5k. The last time I ran a 5k over 17:00 I was probably in the 10th grade, but the last time I ran a 5k was when I was 30.

Over the past few years I've jumped into a few marathons with varying degrees of disappointment. I only trained for one of them, and that was the only one in which I broke 3:00.

I remember regularly doing 20 mile long runs under 6:15 pace. I have no doubt that back then I could have somewhere in the area of 2:35 (maybe faster) with no additional training. I also suspect that most college athletes that can run under 17:00 for 5k would be able to run under 3:00 for a marathon without any additional training.

However, experience has also taught me that no matter how fast I was when I was young and fit, simply throwing on some shoes (without any preparation) and running a marathon under 3:00 is considerably more difficult than it used to seem. It is also extremely painful, and, as I reflect on my experiences, a terrible idea.

I know several runners in our group who have run 2:59.xx and would give their left nut (in one case left boob) to run a 16:xx 5k. It is considerably harder from a talent perspective. (And these two people will NEVER achieve the sub-17 goal...ever)

I have also noticed that as the runners in our group age, they get way more satisfaction training for marathons. They don't have to work NEARLY as hard at their training to run a decent marathon. Marathon training for the most part is easier, at that level, than sub-17 training is and most people are just lazy.