sub 5 is muchh more impressive than sub 3. Pretty mcuh every mathematical calculation will tell you that too.
sub 5 is muchh more impressive than sub 3. Pretty mcuh every mathematical calculation will tell you that too.
daniels' vdot has a sub 3 as equal to like 5:30. And yes high school kids can go sub 5 with no training but those kids are very talented. Much less people running marathons have this kind of talent. Even wheating could only manage 5 flat with no training. You have to be able to go about 65 for 400 to break 5, lots of people could simply never do that.
For a 40 year old they are both fairly impressive. For a 50 year old they are both VERY impressive. For a younger runner, the 3:00 marathon is more impressive because of the training and effort involved. One of the posters said high school sophs are running sub-5:00 miles all day long and he is right. I started running as a high school soph in Jan of 1973 and ran a 5:31 with zero specific running training - just a bunch of basketball, football, baseball and general exercise. By April 15th of 1973 I ran a 4:47 mile. Yes, that may be the equivalent on some table to a 2:40 something marathon, but the training involved for the marathon would be a bit longer than 15 weeks at age 15! Now at age 52 for me either of those is a goal which requires skill, training, dedication and passion.
I say the sub-3 hour Marathon is better.
Easy answer:
For the OP and every guy up to the age of maybe 35, the 3-hour marathon is a better achievement
For a girl, sub-5 is the better achievement.
I ran 4:39 in HS, havent cracked 3, 3:01:52. 3 definitely harder. natural talent can get you under 5, only hard work (for most of us) gets you under 3.
seriously... 1 @#$@ing mile... cavemen probably ran sub-5 miles every day chasing down some dead antelope before the vultures ate it... the first guy who ran a marathon %#$%@ing died and he probably didn't even break 3...
I have like 500 achievments in World of Warcraft, impressive huh?
Not even close. Breaking 3:00 in the marathon is much much much much much harder. In college I was a sprinter, and off sprinter training I hopped in the team's Mile time trial and ran 4:49 without kicking. I would have to train for years to break 3:00 in the marathon.
michael t. smith wrote:
So, it depends on who you are, and where your talents lie.There are many people, no doubt, for whom the sub- 3 is no big deal, and the sub-5 beyond their abilities.
And there are no doubt others who could cruise the sub-5, but could never absorb enough training to go under three.
There is the answer.
I have run MANY sub 5 minute miles (even at age 45)
but at seven attempts, have never run under 3 hours in the marathon. I have always had good leg speed, but get hammered when I run over 2 hours.
A buddy of mine (age 47) runs consistantly under 3 hours for the marathon, but there is no way he can run under 5 for the mile.
BTW - we do EXACTLY the same training.
yeah exactly my point...
if you are a young male, and do some sort of track training for 400m+, you should be able to easily break 5
Same here I could easily break 5 even at 43, but in 7 attempts the closest I got was 3:05 ! My training partner ran 2:48 on the same training - he also could break 5.Now at 49 I know that I could still break 5 but stand in awe at the idea I could break 3:00. I even was 1:18:00 at the half but only managed a psaltry 3:24 !
milerrr wrote:
michael t. smith wrote:So, it depends on who you are, and where your talents lie.There are many people, no doubt, for whom the sub- 3 is no big deal, and the sub-5 beyond their abilities.
And there are no doubt others who could cruise the sub-5, but could never absorb enough training to go under three.
There is the answer.
I have run MANY sub 5 minute miles (even at age 45)
but at seven attempts, have never run under 3 hours in the marathon. I have always had good leg speed, but get hammered when I run over 2 hours.
A buddy of mine (age 47) runs consistantly under 3 hours for the marathon, but there is no way he can run under 5 for the mile.
BTW - we do EXACTLY the same training.
I guess it all depends on the person and how they handle training. I am 53 and went 2:54 last year but couldn't buy a sub five. I am fine with the long runs but speed work just tears me up, so I get pretty strong but can't develop any real speed. Very sad, but there it is.
As a high schooler, I could run sub 5 without any training beyond the every day stuff kids (used to) do, but would have had to train a bit to get under three, so I suppose I'd say that a sub 5 is easier for a young person.
i was a college decathlete (6700) ran a p.r. of 4:49 in the 1500 I know its not a 5 minute mile but close, on the other hand I cant even Imagine finishing a marathon yet alone run it under 3
It depends on what type of runner you are, but I still believe that a sub 5 minute is MUCH more impressive! Those of you that ran sub 5:00 "without any training" other than playing soccer, football, basketball etc,-- all the SPRINTING is actually very good training for a fast mile. You have to train fast to run a fast mile. I'm a 47 year old female, 5k runner. I run in the 19s. Even though I think i'm a little more of a speed based distance runner than a fatigue based distance runner, I believe a sub three would be more attainable than a sub 5. Even though speed is more of a strength for me.
ken bob wrote:
sub 5 is muchh more impressive than sub 3. Pretty mcuh every mathematical calculation will tell you that too.
It depends on what type of runner you are, but I still believe that a sub 5 minute is MUCH more impressive! Those of you that ran sub 5:00 "without any training" other than playing soccer, football, basketball etc,-- all the SPRINTING is actually very good training for a fast mile. You have to train fast to run a fast mile. I'm a 47 year old female, 5k runner. I run in the 19s. Even though I think i'm a little more of a speed based distance runner than a fatigue based distance runner, I believe a sub three would be more attainable than a sub 5. Even though speed is more of a strength for me.
ken bob wrote:
sub 5 is muchh more impressive than sub 3. Pretty mcuh every mathematical calculation will tell you that too.
ken bob wrote:
sub 5 is muchh more impressive than sub 3. Pretty mcuh every mathematical calculation will tell you that too.
Sub5 is something you may get when you're young, when you're still in your competitive running years, which for most competitive (or semi-competitve) runners ended permanently at age 17-18 in high school.
But Sub 3 is very doable for most if you keep training after high school and college, but the only reason it's more difficult is because most people, sub 5 or not, quit running more than 20mpw after high school, and you can't expect to run sub 3 hours for a marathon if you're no longer a regular runner. But most sub5 runners have ability to run sub3 for marathon, but for those for whom the sub5 was accomplished a decade ago in high school and the person has barely run a step since, that's another story
Personally I think most people (including myself) have more respect for a sub3 marathoner, since usually if one is/was a sub5 miler it turned out to be back in their teenage days and their training has been non-existent since then. If you're still able to run sub5 when you're in mid-20s post-collegiate (and you didn't allow yourself to become a frat boy) chances are with mileage and patience you COULd go 2:48ish for the marathon but the issue is most people try to race a marathon on shit mileage so this, while possible, is unlikely.
yeah, no big deal for either. Like it's so easy man. Anybody can do that! We had one 8th grader who could run a sub 5. As for going under 3 hours - probably 75% of marathoners already do that. Most of them don't register for Boston though, I mean why bother. What's the big deal?
Either one is a good accomplishment for someone who is not 'talented' as a runner. But IMHO, the sub 3 is more impressive.
At 49, I ran my first marathon in barely under 3 hours. At that time, I could only run around 5:08 for the mile, and I was a mile to 5000m runner in college.
I did the marathon on sort of a whim, thinking it would be fairly easy after finally getting up to 80 miles one week for the first time in 25 years.
If you are not prepared for the marathon, it will be the toughest race you have ever run. Let me put it this way - near the end of the race, dealing with all kinds of issues such as cramps, muscle pain and inefficiency, hypertrophy, labored breathing, lack of energy, and joint pain, I truely thought this would be the end of my running career. No lie. My last race. The end. I was close to my goal time, but my body would never be the same after what is was going through. And that was at mile 24.
After 40, sub 5:00 seems more difficult to obtain, but nothing will ever compare to the long sustained push required to run your best marathon, and the sense of achievement when you have gotten yourself to do it.
[quote]I AM Fleetfoot wrote:
I even was 1:18:00 at the half but only managed a psaltry 3:24 !
With all due respect, I think you skipped a few long runs if you split 1:18 / 2:06 in the Marathon.