how much did that hurt? or would you say that you're just much more suited to the marathon? i just can't fathom holding 25 seconds slower than one's 5k pace for a marathon
I'm just much more suited to the marathon. I never had much speed, but could hold close to my maximum speed for a very long time. At my best, I struggled mightily to do a quarter in 82-83 sec (5:30 mile pace), but could hold 6:15 pace for a marathon. And running absolutely as fast as I could for 5K was way more painful than running what felt like a fast but comfortable pace for a marathon.
It would be interesting where our cross-over point came. You have about a minute on me in a marathon, but I ran :52.3 for a 400m relay leg. I was 15:22 for 5k, 32:22 for 10k; and somewhere just under 75:00 for a half-marathon (a distance over which I always struggled).
I did two marathons, both London, 2:53 first time (cruising and passing people at 21 miles, then just ran out of energy) and 2:47.30 second time (1:23.30 first half, 1:24.0 second half). I did run a 20 mile race at 2:45.00 pace getting ready for the second.
For me, the only way I could last the distance was to feel like I was jogging for a big portion (which I guess I was, since it was 70 seconds per mile outside my 10k pace), otherwise I'd just bonk. I think just way too much fast twitch - basically a slow sprinter with a decent aerobic system! I guess you must have been near 100% slow twitch!
I’m ran sub 3 last year- just under 3 (39F if that matters). My best 5k was 19:54 6 months before I ran that. I hardly run 5ks, and I’m really not great at that distance… so I’m sure there’s lots of room for improvement. But yeah… my 5k time has little correlation to my marathon time.
I’m ran sub 3 last year- just under 3 (39F if that matters). My best 5k was 19:54 6 months before I ran that. I hardly run 5ks, and I’m really not great at that distance… so I’m sure there’s lots of room for improvement. But yeah… my 5k time has little correlation to my marathon time.
That the difference between your 5K and Marathon pace is less than that of a pro’s indicates you’re capable of a much faster 5K.
I was able to run sub 3s through my 50s but have not done so since (6 tries, 3:00-3:12). Got close a few years ago with a 3:00 and 3:01, that year my best 5K was low 18. 18:15 or 20?
I think just way too much fast twitch - basically a slow sprinter with a decent aerobic system! I guess you must have been near 100% slow twitch!
Yup. As a little kid I loved running but I was SOOO slow! In the 50 yard dash in PE class I always came in almost last, ahead of just a couple of really fat kids (and back in the 1960s, few kids were fat). It was a great revelation when, in 7th grade, they added a 600 yard run to the physical fitness tests. I suddenly went from almost last to second, behind the only girl who had both decent sprinting speed and good endurance. When the 600 yard run changed to the 12 minute run in 9th grade, I became unbeatable. This was all without any training for any of us (girls didn't do athletics when I was a kid), just native ability.
I know a woman who ran it without breaking 19 (in fact 19:30) ever. Her 10k was also north of 40. And I never saw her go faster than 1:30 in the quarters.
That's amazing, just one gear, let er rip for 26.2
It really all depends.
Know a woman who runs a 5k in the mid-19s, half around 1:21, but her full PR is 3:05.
Then another woman I know runs in the mid-18s, half around 1:24, but her full PR is 3:10.
The wide variances of pace/running is also probably tied to them being fast/slow-twitch types, etc. but I may be wrong.
On a semi-related note, some of these runners remind me of older cars with really tall rear ends (numerically low), like 2.24:1 or 2.94:1. A bit slower off the line but mega-top speed...
i.e., the late '70s Corvette, with a 2.73 rear axle ratio, would run 0-60 in 8.5 seconds but hit a 130-140 mph top end. The same Vette with shorter ratio (3.55) would hit 0-60 in 7.5 but the top end consequently was down to 120-125.
For a more extreme comparison, sprinters are like drag cars with short rear ends (numerically high), 4.11:1 or 4.56:1 and big slicks in the back.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
I have a bent spine and exceptionally bad form at certain speeds.
I think my form is worst- 1 mile to 5k.
Best from 10k- half marathon.
Then bad again beyond 20 miles.
This was almost exactly me when I broke 3 for the first time. I ran a summer 5k in 18:40 then an early fall marathon in sub-3:05. Ended up running 1:20-high & low-2:50s later in the fall. Went 17-mid in the spring. Had to have been in better 5k shape at the time but I think most people will need sub-19 to have a shot at sub-3. There will be some outliers who have good strength & have more lifetime mileage under their belts. Those people likely have similar 5k/10k paces.
I’m a 2:59 marathoner and I ran a 19:07 5k PR this past spring while half marathon training. (Went on to hit a PR at 1:25 but it was the nyc half so I could perhaps run a bit faster). The 5k was a redline effort. I’d estimate on my best day with proper training I could maybe go 18:45, but not much faster than that. Marathon is by far my best performance area.
Another data point: I ran 18:25 in a time trial last October and ran 3:02 yesterday for my first marathon.
The goal was sub3 but I knew that it was very ambitious: the fitness was probably there but the endurance not. I was doing ~55k per week and the 3 "longest" runs were 32k, 25k and 24k...
I’ve run in the 15:40s several times, but feel like sub 3 would be really hard. Reading this thread I guess maybe it wouldn’t be as challenging as I think
You could run under 3 pretty easily. When I was 18 I could run right around 15:00 for 5k and ran a marathon on a dare with only about 25-30 miles/week. I ran about 2:50 and was miserable for the last 8 miles but I did it.