Which is harder sub 1 hour 10mile or sub 3 marathon?

I ran 53:Xx for 10 miles but a half was the farthest I ever raced. A half would really beat me up. I doubt I could have even finished a marathon

It really depends on the runners you're sampling as far as the responses on LRC goes which may be more biased towards serious runners.

But there are tables that show what percentage of people ran within a certain cutoff that uses data compiled from hundreds of races. But even that is skewed since some courses are more difficult than others. Skewed at the boundary times but more appropriate when it comes to extremes since elite runners are more likely to have consistency in performances regardless of the course difficulty.

In short, all answers to this question should be accompanied by the writer's age.

Good point.
I ran 2:59 this year as a 50 year old, I could run 15k in approximately one hour.

During a build up to running 2:38, I almost tested this debate. I ran a long run with 20k tempo at exactly 6min/mile pace, and another long run at exactly 6:52(3:00 MP), but stopped at 22 miles. 2 weeks between these, 7 and 5 weeks out from goal marathon.

For scientific purposes, the 20k tempo was in old Vaporflys, the other effort was in fresh Vomeros.

The 22mile long run felt much harder and took longer to recover from. I also ran 1:15 for a half and 16:10 for 5k during this build-up. 10m best is 55min.

36, male.

Something is wrong with your friend and how how they approach the marathon, running a 1:12 and being stuck at 2:56 if they actually tried is weird. Yes, longer distances introduce more variables but the great thing about the World Athletics tables is they are based on statistics and those tell us sub 60 is much harder than sub 3 for the entirety of the world population.

You ran a "tempo" going 6 minute/mile pace for 12.4 miles in prep and didn't think that was harder than running 6:52 pace for 22 miles? Run longer my friend.

You are describing a substantial gap.

I certainly could have run under 1 hour for 10 miles in HS (15:30 xc 5k) but don't think I could have run sub 3. I also didn't run more than 40 mpw lol which certainly contributes to it

Did both (58 10 mile/2:48 marathon) back in prehistoric times (early 80's). Add my vote to those saying a 60 minute 10 mile is harder - by far.

But it is a question of the definition of hard - sub 3's in the range I ran felt easy until 18-ish and then progressively tougher. A 10 mile sub-6 minute pace meant effort from the start

What are you talking about. What is AG? Seriously I have never heard of "grading" a runner based on their age! When did this start?

I ran 2:42 for the marathon and 59:57 for 10 miles (granted the 10 miler was at 4500 feet). Thought I was going to die at the end of the 10 miler. Sub 60 was way way harder than Sub 3.

This is an interesting post to me because for whatever reason I could never run a marathon that equaled a predicted time based on PR's of shorter distances. I'm 47 now and just simply enjoy running, but around age 35 I p.r.'d in the 10 mile at 1:01 and the half marathon at 1:24. Not mind-blowing times, but not bad for someone just running/training completely on their own (and I would never pretend that I was ever remarkable). Still couldn't crack 3:10 in the marathon...personal record of 3:11 in Chicago.

I always thought a 10-miler was pretty easy and just fun compared to a marathon. In fact it quickly became my favorite race-distance to run here in NE Ohio for years.

During base training as a 15:20 5k guy, sub 60 for 10 miles would feel like a very solid 8.5/10 effort aerobically, but I could recover from it by just taking a day easy and then do it again pretty frequently.

In the same shape I did a 20 mile long run for fun at 7:00 pace which was a conversational effort, however my legs were still too trashed to do any hard running after that for 3 days. I suspect my soreness would have been even worse if I had for some reason decided to continue going and finish the last 6.2 in practice (though to be fair, I didn't fuel at all beforehand.)

And I wasn't a low mileage runner, I was averaging 70-75 mpw with regular 16 mile long runs. Aerobically the 10 mile effort requires more fitness by a fair amount, but the marathon is definitely more taxing in a neuromuscular sense.

Running 26.2 miles is way harder than running 10 miles.

But running 6 minute miles is way harder than running 6:51 miles.

other way around for me. I ran sub 60 with no problem but know the marathon wasn't for me after my first attempt

Idk, I ran sub 1 hour 10 miles numerous times in my day but never broke 3 hours for the marathon.

I have no idea what the new course is like - I'm talking about the 90s and early 00s course.

Ok, it's not fast, flat and sea level, I'll give you that, but it's not difficult. Lots people I know ran very fast on that course. The hill at 7 miles was long but pretty gradual. You maybe gave up a minute or so for a 60 minute guy compared to the 10 miler they ran in Vancouver in Stanley Park.

The Canada Day 15 km; that was a difficult course.

I agree with this. I ran sub-60 for 20 miles a few times, but couldn’t break 3 in the marathon. maybe because I was young and didn’t train for the marathon, so I didn’t know how to run it. I knew I only needed to run 6:43 pace, but caught up in a group doing 6 flat, so died badly.

At any rate, the marathon was a whim. I enjoyed 5k - 1/2 much more.