What is a greater acheivement? - 16:XX 5K or sub-3 marathon?

I was 28 at the time.

Never broke 17:00 in 5k but 10 2:40s in my 40s and 50s with best of 2:41 at age 49. Underachiever at 5k I guess

Data Point wrote:

I was 28 at the time.

I simply don't understand. At 28 years old you could run 26.2 miles at 6:15 or so pace, but you couldn't put together 3 miles at 5:25 pace? That just doesn't add up.

NYCM coming soon wrote:

"I never trust these tables as I think the 2:59 is much harder to achieve than 18.22"

Agreed. I am 38 and could easily run 18:22 but I will be hard pressed to go sub-3 at NYC Marathon in a few weeks.

Disagree. My PR's over the past year are 18:24 and 3:00:xx. The tables (for me) appear to be right on.

Running is a waste of time, I never run but I ran a 18:11 5k in August and the only sport I do is bowling.

My bowling PR is 212 in case you were wondering.

I rolled a 278 back in the 80s... On around 420 pins per week.

Your friend is mistaken. Jack Daniels' VDOT tables tell us that a sub-17 5K is much more difficult to accomplish than a sub-3 marathon.

I think breaking 2:50 is a tad easier than breaking 17:00 in terms of comparitive performance.

Lexmark wrote:

Good question, I think if you put an age qualifier on it you get even deeper into "what is harder."

As a master's runner a 16XX would be very impressive and I think it's somewhat implied that if a Master's runner ran the 16XX he could reasonably be expected to go sub3 with proper marathon training. I don't think the opposite is true.

I'm 43 and would opine the 5k is harder. I ran 2:33 two years ago and my PR is 2:31 (six years ago), but I've NEVER broke into the 15s for 5k. The closest I've come is a 16:20.

I disagree that any reasonable fit male can go out and run a sub3 marathon. I know some incredibly fit men who need to run 100 mile weeks just to run 3. It's all relative.

They are two very different race, so there's really no correlation.

Ask a 60yr old to run sub 17 will be a huge feat, if not impossible.

Ask a 60yr old to run sub 2:50 will be very hard, but they exists.

Ask a 18yr old to run sub 17 and you'll find they are plenty

Ask a 18yr old to run sub 2:50 (good luck, you won't find too many)

To run a sub 2:50, you need proper pacing and mileage.

(go out in 1:18, and come back in 1:40). :-D

To run a sub 17, you just need some talent and lots of interval repeats, with minimal strategy.

The achievement varies in difficulty depending on the individual.

If a person can run 16:XX in a 5K a than 2:59 is a joke.

That is a textbook example of a hasty generalization.

I know someone who ran a 16:55 5K and three months later after specifically marathon-training, could only manage something like 3:09 for the marathon. Years later, this person has yet to run under 3 for the marathon (after numerous attempts). His mile PR also happens to be 4:10, if that matters.

That 4:10 miler is not developed aerobically AT ALL! A 4:10 mile equates to about a 14:21 5K on the track. What was he doing, running 20 miles a week?That his 5K is only 16:55 is pathetic considering his mile time. Even a 16:55 should give you a sub 3 relatively easily.

aucontraire wrote:

If a person can run 16:XX in a 5K a than 2:59 is a joke.

That is a textbook example of a hasty generalization.

I know someone who ran a 16:55 5K and three months later after specifically marathon-training, could only manage something like 3:09 for the marathon. Years later, this person has yet to run under 3 for the marathon (after numerous attempts). His mile PR also happens to be 4:10, if that matters.

Sub 16 5k requires talent AND dedication

Sub 3 marathon requires talent OR dedication

Greater achivement though for most average folks is the marathon, because they got there thru dedication. Getting to any time because of just talent doesn't feel as much achieved.

End of thread.

Maybe someone can offer some advice or comments to a new runner. I am 26 have been running about 15 months total. I went from couch to marathon last year and ran my second marathon this weekend at 3:53 on a peak mileage of about 55 running 6 days a week. I turkey trotted a hilly 5k at 20:24 yesterday.

While I was very happy with my time in the marathon I am grossly underperforming my theoretical potential, which McMillan's calculator says is 3:18. If I stick with 50-60 mile marathon peaks will I continue to approach that 3:18 mark or is significant continued improvement contingent upon increasing mileage?

Welcome to my club mate. Fatty to slow runner in 18 months, with for now PR of sub 40 10k and 3:40 second marathon. My weekly mileage is much lower than yours though (20-30mpw) with single week over 35.

I'm 29. If you live in the NYC area and look for a training partner hit me up.

And to your question: if you can maintain a base of 40-50 mpw year round I sure hope your 3:55 will drop towards sub 3:30 in the year to come. The 3:18 from McMillan assume a potential best assuming full aerobic development, which is not true for you now. That doesn't mean you can't beat it or even faster later on if you keep running.

Absolutely running 16 minutes for the 5K is harder. I ran in high school and college. It took me three years in high school to break 16 minutes (countless hours of practices, hill training, sprints, etc). I ran 2:52.28 in the marathon after lazily training for 3 and a half months in my second marathon ever.

depends of course wrote:

A lot of HS kids run sub 17. Difficult, but I'd argue less of an achievement than someone who runs sub 3. Milesplit shows 6300+ HS boys have run sub 17 in cross already this year. You don't see many HS kids running sub 3. Usually a sub 3 effort is the culmination of a lot of running over a long period of time. For a full grown, age 25+ adult sub 17 is possibly the greater achievement however. It takes a lot of dedication to maintain/improve speed as one ages.

But how many kids in high school are training for a marathon? Like none... I've run 15:40 for the 5K my junior year in HS but I couldn't break 3 hours in the marathon. That's 6:51 pace, and my half marathon PR is just under 1:30.

I ran a few marathons and a few 5k. Best shape for marathon was 3:01 on rather hilly course and with problems not related to marathon itself, in fact, I "died" after 1/3 of the distance and then switched to light tempo training pace without such a focus on the best time (maybe I was ready for 2:50). My best 5k was about 17:15. My training was more associated with the marathon than with 5k, but I never ran more than 75 miles a week. Without marathon training I ran as a pacemaker for 3:15 and it was very easy compared to any competition. I think that 16:Ñ…Ñ… is harder than 3:00 for the average person.

wifey wrote:

I don't get it. For the same person? No duh.

If a person can run 16:XX in a 5K a than 2:59 is a joke.

What do you mean by "harder" anyway? 16:XX is a better time than 2:59. no doubt, but running a hard marathon is much much harder than running a 5K. I think that is the same thing for training. 5K workouts are hard. they kill me while I'm doing them, but f you are properly training for a marathon there is this constant ache and fatigue. For days after a hard workout.

You are correct with one caveat; there are folks like me who, when young, enjoyed busting hard track repeats but had no aerobic background, having never been on a track or CC team. I could string together up to 5 miles in races at a 5:30 to 5:40 pace but my first attempt at a marathon, even in cold weather was 3:30. I only got better when I got off the track, put in months of miles and learned about long tempo runs.

Many faster, local 5K runners might be as much as a year away from sub 3.