Which takes more training, a 5:30 mile or a 4 hour marathon?

Whereas ten percent of men 65-69 at the NYC Marathon broke 4:00 this year.

Point is, using a 14-year-old is not a good representative of what is more impressive. But taking an equally untalented 30, 40, 50-year old, making a jump to sub-4 marathon or 5:30 mile, the former is much easier.

Shut up!

There's no f*$** way that your 16 yo son could run a mile in 4:25, and can't run a 10k. No way in a million year, and ESPECIALLY if they were running about 25 mpw.

I was 15yo, probably ran about 10mpw, and could barely break 6 min mile when I ran my first 10k, and it wasn't that hard (I ran it easy).

A person who is training hard and can only run 4 hours would never run 5:30.

The mile by a mile.

The 4:00 marathon takes more training.

Not a great question or comparison.

I think that everyone would agree that, while neither of these two feats is really that fast, running a 5:30 mile is a better performance than running a 4:00 marathon.

A. If someone just ran a marathon to the best of their ability and their time was 4:00, they probably can't run a 5:30 mile, but that's not a definite fact. They could just be way undertrained to run the distance of a marathon.

B. Some people can run a 5:30 mile with no training (obviously they are fit as a result of being active, but not necessarily any need to train for running specifically). Those people may not be able to run a 4:00 marathon.

The 5:30 mile could be done with zero training. The 4:00 marathon is far less likely to be done with zero training.

Also, the 4:00 marathon takes longer than 5 minutes and 30 seconds...

But even then, again it depends of the person.

I think there are more people that with 6 months (specific) training could run a 4 hour marathon than people with 6 months training could run a 5:30 mile.

The mile requires more training and it’s not close. Basically anyone can train to run. 4 hours. There are people who probably can’t get to 5:30 regardless of how much training they do, but they can probably get close to 4 hours. That alone inherently makes the mile require more training.

Like others have said, most people could get to 4 hours without significant training, but a lot of those same people could not sniff 5:30.

Another vote for the mile needing more training.

The older I get (I'm 33) the more the marathon becomes easier.

I can take two years off of running (and I have) and walk out the door and walk/run a 4:00 marathon.

However it will take me 1-2 months from no running whatsoever to get down to 5:30.

I've got a relatively higher lifetime mile count than the average Joe, so that's a factor to consider.

I have no idea.

When I was a dumb stupid 15 year old I ran a Marathon in 4:00:28 off of really poor training. I've run A LOT faster since then!

The following year in track I was under 5 minutes pretty easily. I definitely was better trained, but I have no idea what would have happened if I entered a Marathon that point. I probably would have died to another 4 hour again. I was dumb but not willing to jump into that fire again.

The training is different.

Now as a 50 year old I know with some training I can get under 3 hours pretty easily. 4 would be a no issue. I think 5:30 would be fairly easy for a mile but would require a little more effort than the 4 hour Marathon.

So, I'm going with the 5:30 mile for someone old. For a young kid 4 hours would be harder. In the middle, who knows?

Mr. Wonderful wrote:

5:30 takes actually zero training for a lot of people.

What planet do you live on?

5:30 can be done off of zero training, but not by "a lot" of people. The 85th percentile for 17 year old boys (the fastest age group) is 6:06, and that was in the 80s when far fewer kids were obese.

A 5:30 is quite a bit better than a 6:06. Assuming that a third of the sub 6:06 guys could crack 5:30 and assuming that none of them lied or were mistaken about their times (being fairly generous here), that leaves just 5% of young males being able to run that time.

Out of that 5%, almost all of them would be in track, soccer, XC, or other cardiovascular-intensive sport. Definitely not "zero training". Maybe 1 in 1000 could truly run a sub 5:30 mile off of a completely sedentary lifestyle.

Millions of people in the world could run 5:30 with no training. Almost nobody could finish a marathon on no training.

another perspective wrote:

So, I'm going with the 5:30 mile for someone old. For a young kid 4 hours would be harder. In the middle, who knows?

I agree with this. When I was 14 I ran a 5:30 mile with literally no training. But I couldn’t have finished a marathon without walking most of it.

Now, after running a few months after nearly 20 years of not running, it’s clear to me that 4:00 hours will not be difficult for me after following a hobby jogger (which I am now) training plan but 5:30 seems nearly impossible to reach and will take much, much more training and commitment to reach.

So, the marathon seems more impressive for a kid and the mile for an older person.

In IAAF points tables, a 5:30 mile scores 253 points.

A marathon of 3:19:20 scores 253 points.

Relevant or not, it's one measure of equivalence.

I think a 4 hour marathon takes more training than a 5:30 mile. I was a track runner in high school with a 5:02 1600 PR and I decided to run a marathon after 4 years of XC/track and ran a 3:51 at the San Francisco Marathon(1:42/2:09 half splits). I did not train adequately for that marathon and crashed in the 2nd half. I have been doing more serious marathon training recently (80 mpw avg) and have my marathon down to 2:42 while my mile time is around low 4:50's now. The marathon requires more training even if a 4:00 marathon is a less impressive performance.

I know quite a few people who've done Half Dome and even Whitney on a whim with no preparation whatsoever. Jogging your way to a 4 hour marathon is only a bit harder than Half Dome and considerably easier than doing Whitney in a day, so there are definitely a good number of people who could "run" a marathon without training.

I don't know anyone who did a 5:30 mile off of a sedentary lifestyle. Even our HS record holder couldn't do that, and he ran a 4:22 1600. Heck, I know a sub 4 1500 guy who struggled to run a 5:40 mile after not having run a step in 2 years.

A 5:30 mile may be more "impressive" but the marathon training is going to take more time and commitment. A semi-talented middle schooler can run a 5:30 mile off little training. The miles, time, and stress on the body that goes into running ANY marathon is going to take more commitment, though.

I agree with the posters saying it depends on talent and age. For reference see my PR's in my early 20's when I started out as a relatively untalented male...

Age 23: 4:18, 6:06

Age 25: 3:43, 5:23

I completed 4 marathons, including one at 2:54 and one at 2:59 before I had ever run a 5:30 mile. Ran 5:25 in a mile time trial 2 months after my 4th marathon. I would argue the 5:30 mile is much more impressive than a 4-hr marathon.

I think it takes more talent to run a fast mile than many people think. Doing a decent marathon is more of a matter of putting in the time --often tedious and running it sufficiently smart that you don't blow up the last 10 K. People are surprised when I tell them that it is more impressive and takes more talent to run 5:00 in the mile (worth around 2:49 marathon based on McMillan calculator) than a 3 hour marathon. Mile talent also seems to degrade faster after you reach a certain age.