what's harder- 4:59 mile or 2:59 marathon?

Not EVEN a close call! wrote:

3200guy wrote:

2:59 takes a lot more training, but I'm sure there are plenty of 2:59 'thoners that can't run 4:59.

Then again, aren't you the same "rocket scientist" that guaranteed Fernandez would break McChesney's American-born collegiate record in the 5,000m last year? LoL! Your credibility still hasn't recovered from that episode, my friend.

You're confusing me with someone else. I don't think I ever said that.

No one cares about your sad training and even sadder racing.

I say the Mile is harder. I once jogged a 2:55 marathon, but a 4:59 mile always required "effort".

I hate it when the "distance is everything" people say the longer distance is automatically "harder". I keep hearing that certain "adventure" trail races are "so incredibly hard", but the pics of people doing it don't support this view. IMHO.

muddy girl wrote:

Within a two year period, I did a 4:56 mile and a 2:52 marathon - I think it was "harder" to run the mile since I am not naturally speedy and it took some work to get there. For the marathon, I did the mileage and broke 3 easily the first time. I have endurance, not speed, so I think it depends what you are naturally better at.

Becca?

I've run both sub 5 and sub 3 over the age of 35, and they were both pretty damn hard in terms of training, the actual race, and the physical toll. But I'd give the nod to the marathon being more difficult.

Having done both, barely, I am more impressed by a sub 3 marathon than a sub 5 minute mile.

In high school, I ran a bunch of sub 5 miles based on your typical track training regimen. They were pretty hard, but I don't think I ever ran more than about 30 miles in a week. I would have struggled to run a decent time in a half marathon.

When I was 37, I (finally) broke 3 hours in the marathon, after several attempts. It took me years of training to get there. I doubt I could run anywhere near 5 minutes for a mile at that point. My guess is that my fastest mile at that point (having done little speed training) would have been about 5:15-5:25.

hounddogharrier wrote:

Harder, as in harder to accomplish? For someone 35 and over, I said breaking 5 in the mile is harder.

Yup; that would be me. I can go out right now and run a 2:59 marathon but I could not run a 4:59 mile if my pants were on fire. However, when I was 20 it was exactly the opposite.

Still, the marathon still takes more out of you at any pace.

You need to make the argument neutral. Try putting a peak age into the mix.

What is harder for a 27 year old male, 2:59 or 4:59

o.O wrote:

You need to make the argument neutral. Try putting a peak age into the mix.

What is harder for a 27 year old male, 2:59 or 4:59

Ok, that's interesting. It was much easier for me to run a sub-5 mile when I was 20 than to run a sub-3 in my 30s. Much easier. I wouldn't have thought that running a 5 min. mile would be so hard, but I've tried... and it is. But then again, maybe I haven't trained right.

For me it's by far the 4:59 mile. I am finding out just how difficult the mile is. I have run 4 marathons under 3 hours (PR 2:55) and have run the mile 5 times on the track (in races, not go-it-alone efforts) in the past year. Best I have done is 5:37. Pathetic, eh?

It is obvious from the answers here that we are all very different. The degree of effort needed to run those two times depends on ones musclar makeup, ones age, the training one is currently doing, the background the runner has and other variables. I never found the marathon that difficult if I had done the proper training for the pace I attempted. (unless it was extremely hot). I ran 2:40 and 2:36 marathons 8 weeks apart at age 38. I then began training again with Coach Joe Douglas and the Santa Monica Track Club. Less than 5 months later I ran a mile on the track in 4:53.4 (age 39). The third lap was pure hell. Ever since then, I have said that I would rather run a marathon than a mile all out. I then ran 2:55 marathons at ages 40 and 41.

Well seeing as a 4:59 isnt hard . . . the 2:59 is harder

Agree. Age is important in this debate. I ran my 2:55 at age 47, last year, and a big goal is to try and run 4:59 by age 50. Big push before this summer, will cut back mileage and add some speedwork after April. It's going to be 'interesting'.

running the mile under 5 minutes is FAR more difficult for me....I think it is easier to train for the marathon (goal of 3hrs) and meet that goal....much easier!....I have a friend who is 60 who has run under 5 minutes and I have tons more respect for him....I have tried many times and trained hard to run under 5 minutes but have not been able to do so..a lot of runners (masses) can train to run under 3 hrs but very few (older-masters runners) guys can ever run under 5 minutes...

I vote for the mile has being more difficult....but doing anything for 3 hours without stopping is hard.

ME:

pr 17:10 5K

Half marathon...1:21

marathon....2:52

best mile 5:05

age 49

I've run sub-4:59 pace for a marathon in my youth but in my mid-50's I was unable to run faster than 5:12 (at altitude, but that doesn't equate to 4:59 at sea level) while I just missed sub 3:00 (3:00:58) off of pretty good but not great training. My point is that for me age is a big factor in which is harder. I attempted to train for sub-5 mile a couple months after running that marathon and ended up injured. Speed work for me at my age is harder than 3:00+ runs.

There is also a good bit of individual differences in what we can do. I have a couple friends in their 50's who have run well under 5:00 for the mile, but haven't much interest in races longer than 10K. I'm not sure they could run sub-3:00 even if they wanted to which they don't. Speed work is what they like and thrive on.

I am a has been wrote:

Having done both, barely, I am more impressed by a sub 3 marathon than a sub 5 minute mile.

In high school, I ran a bunch of sub 5 miles based on your typical track training regimen. They were pretty hard, but I don't think I ever ran more than about 30 miles in a week. I would have struggled to run a decent time in a half marathon.

When I was 37, I (finally) broke 3 hours in the marathon, after several attempts. It took me years of training to get there. I doubt I could run anywhere near 5 minutes for a mile at that point. My guess is that my fastest mile at that point (having done little speed training) would have been about 5:15-5:25.

Therefore, sub a 4:59 Mile was "harder".

I dunno.....we have to define what "hard" means in this thread.

Go further......a 4:15 Mile vs a 2:30 Marathon. I think the 4:15 is "harder". Now, I did that for a Mile, but never came close to 2:30 in a Marathon. But just because I never did 2:30, doesn't mean 2:30 is "harder".

Well, I'm 47, I did sub5 last year, but I had no hope in hell of doing sub3, due to my training. Is THAT what people mean by "harder"? We make choices....I CHOOSE to train for the Mile, I do NOT choose to train for a Marathon.

frozen north wrote:

hounddogharrier wrote:

Harder, as in harder to accomplish? For someone 35 and over, I said breaking 5 in the mile is harder.

Yup; that would be me. I can go out right now and run a 2:59 marathon but I could not run a 4:59 mile if my pants were on fire. However, when I was 20 it was exactly the opposite.

Still, the marathon still takes more out of you at any pace.

3200guy wrote:

2:59 takes a lot more training, but I'm sure there are plenty of 2:59 'thoners that can't run 4:59.

Not EVEN a close call! wrote:

Then again, aren't you the same "rocket scientist" that guaranteed Fernandez would break McChesney's American-born collegiate record in the 5,000m last year? LoL! Your credibility still hasn't recovered from that episode, my friend.

3200guy wrote:

You're confusing me with someone else. I don't think I ever said that.

Neither of you are remembering quite right, but yes, you were one of the many 20-year-olds who were blinded by the Fernandez hype. You didn't guarantee it, so you weren't nearly as naive as some of your peers, but on the very first page you said "Fernandez will have a great chance to break McChesney's record this year." ...

hounddogharrier wrote:

Harder, as in harder to accomplish? For someone 35 and over, I said breaking 5 in the mile is harder.

Much harder. At 39, I just ran a 2:48 marathon and couldn't break 5:05 in the mile if my life depended on it. I would love to run just one more sub 5 mile in my life.

Harder, as in harder to accomplish? For someone 35 and over, I said breaking 5 in the mile is harder.[/quote]

Much harder. At 39, I just ran a 2:48 marathon and couldn't break 5:05 in the mile if my life depended on it. I would love to run just one more sub 5 mile in my life.[/quote]

Interesting--I change my view based on this. Assuming we are only looking at men (I apologize, ladies) age seems to be the key factor. My question is, at what age does speed generally decline dramatically?

At 30 I ran Boston in 2:48 and six weeks later I ran a mile in 4:35. The marathon was much more difficult--and that was my focus race. The mile was only the cherry on top.