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

Sub 1hr 10 is much harder. In one summer I ran a well-executed 10 miler in 65 minutes and a poorly executed marathon in 3:02. On a better day I could have broken 3, but I was never going to break 60.

I haven’t read the thread so this may have been addressed.

It depends on who you are. In my top fitness, if someone said I had to run a 10 mile run under one hour every day for the next 6 weeks I would be confident I could do it, although I would make sure I didn’t go much under. If someone said I had to run a 2:59 marathon every day for the next 6 weeks, I would again be confident I could do it, but it would be much more challenging, in the sense that I would be running more mileage than ever, and I would be really drained and possibly overtraining. It would be much easier for me to do the 59 minute 10 miler daily.

Depends on the person, but I'd say that both of them should be able to do both feats assuming they're trained up to cover the marathon distance.

Interesting responses - I'm definitely in the camp of the 10 mile in sub 60 being the harder achievement for me. I've only done it once - split 10 miles in my half PR at barely under 60 minutes, and I've broken 3 several times in the marathon. When I ran that half PR, I ran some pretty comfortable 2:52-2:55 marathons (2:48 is my PR).

BUT - like others have mentioned I'm an older runner who leans heavily towards longer distances with less focus on speed. The thought of a fast 5k (particularly by LetsRun standards of what constitutes "fast") sounds torturous to me, but I'll run several marathons a year, body willing! For young bucks ripping off sub 17 minute 5ks but topping out at 10-12 mile long runs, they could probably shred a fast 10 miler without much of a problem; but a marathon might get ugly for them in the later miles.

Literally decades ago.

a sub 60 10 mile runner would have no problem running under 3 hours if they trained properly. A 3 hour marathon runner it would be pretty hard to run sub 60. I just did both in the last 3 months. I ran a 59 on a very hilly 10 mile course then 6 weeks later ran a 2:43 marathon.

For a teenage boy probably the marathon. For any masters athlete, especially female, I suspect a larger number are able to run sub-3 marathon than sub-60 10-mile. By the IAAF scoring tables the 60:00 10-mile is worth 504 points and the 3:00 marathon is worth 479 points.

You're right. I was looking at the 2022 scoring tables. It's wild how much the marathon has shifted in 3 years. In both sets of tables the 60:00 10-mile is worth 504 points. In the 2022 scoring table the 3:00:03 marathon is 479 points, but in the 2025 tables 3:00:00 has fallen all the way down to 407 points.

Under 30 years- 3:00 hr marathon is harder.

Economic insecurity makes training for a marathon difficult. Lots of fast runners 23 and under are focused on shorter distances.

Over 40- sub 60 is much, much harder. Older runner's often have enough time to train for a decent marathon. But the have lost, or always lacked the speed to run sub 6 mm for an hour.

I ran it in '01 and '04. I had little concept of pacing myself. I was 5:17 at 1 mile, 28:10 at 5 miles and finished in 57:58. From my training log that's what I wrote down.

I never did the Canada Day 15km though I've heard of it.

I ran my PB's when I was in my mid 20's (back in the 80's), including around 56:45 I think for 10 miles. I remember looking at the tables some years later and my PB's at every distance from the mile to the half marathon were remarkably close to what was predicted based on the tables. But not the marathon, which was notably slower than what would be expected (just under 2:50). But I think I weighed around 165 back then, a bit on the heavy side, and it seems to me that the longer the distance, the more that will affect you. John Walker, the former mile WR holder weighed around 170. You don't see any elite marathon runners that big.

Here is how I would put it, assuming barely sub 60min and barely sub 3 hour is someone peak ability :

- 99.9% of people who are able to run sub 60min for 10mile would be able to run a sub 3 Marathon with a correct preparation (not even a really good one).

- Probably less than 50% of someone running 2:55-3:00 would be able to run sub 60min with a correct preparation. I would say with excellent preparation maybe 70% would. A good 30% would probably never achieve it.

When I was young I ran a half in 1:16 but couldn't break 3. never ran above 13 miles though as I didn't like mileage.

I think that's another example of different types of runner.

I ran 15:22 for 5k, 32:20 for 10k, but I think never broke 75:00 for a half, and was nearly 10 minutes behind you in a marathon.

My 2:47:30 was nearly perfectly paced on a flat course. I maybe could have trained a little better, but I don't think I could have broken 2:40 if I'd have been full time and trained by Alberto Salazar.

I think that's another example of different types of runner.

I ran 15:22 for 5k, 32:20 for 10k, but I think never broke 75:00 for a half, and was nearly 10 minutes behind you in a marathon.

My 2:47:30 was nearly perfectly paced on a flat course. I maybe could have trained a little better, but I don't think I could have broken 2:40 if I'd have been full time and trained by Alberto Salazar.

In my prime both would have been easy any day of the week but the marathon would take more out of me. I've never actually raced a 10 miler (but used to do 5:30-6:00 pace up to 18 miles on a whim in training/not really training) and only raced two marathons, both 20+ years after my prime and without 'correct preparation' though still comfortably under 3 hours. I'm just more wired to do well better in shorter distances with my no-training-plan/just running approach. And not only did I never do marathon specific training (even if I at one time did 20 milers all the time not training for anything at all), I've always bonked/never learned to 'fuel' myself properly in longer races whether that's on a bike, running, or skiing. All that could be overcome, but that would be extra effort that wasn't needed to bang out an easy sub-60 10 miler.

When I was at peak fitness around 2018, I ran a 2:42 marathon PR at NYC marathon. During the NYC marathon training block, I also did several sub-60 track or treadmill 10 mile tempo runs with my fastest being 56:27 for 10 miles on a track. I have never done a 10 mile road race yet though. Just based on my hunch, I feel that a sub-60 10 miler is more challenging than a sub-3 marathon. I also do think long runs with a significant portions at MP are more painful and harder to recover from. Similarly, it was easier to recover from half marathons at sub-6 pace (1:15-1:17 range) as compared to any of the sub-3 marathons I ran (2:40-2:50's) back around 2018-2019.

why?

Anyone who has run 10 miles faster than 6 mins a mile, can run a marathon faster than three hours, once they have done just a few longer runs, 17 miles plus, in their training at easy pace. And even if they haven't run longer runs in practice, they still have a very good chance of breaking three hours. Sure there is an outlier, typically a runner with a lot of weight where this may not hold true.

Being able to run sub 3 hours for the marathon, does not similarly guarantee being able to run 10 miles faster than 6 minutes a mile. I know a lot of people who have run a sub 3 hour marathon who cannot run 10 miles faster than six minutes a mile.