holpin wrote:
Nope. Per Age Grade, the marathon is 'easier' for all ages.
http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup15.html/thread
I've always viewed those tables with extreme scepticism to be honest. I could've probably run a sub-3 when I was 16. Absolutely zero chance I could've even run 1:30 for the half, never mind a sub-3 full. I think the long distances always get underestimated in those tables.
I meant to say, I could've run a sub-3 1k.
"Easier" from a running point of view usually means from the perspective of one's VDOT. Anyone that can run sub3:00 for a 1 k should be able to run a sub-3 marathon IF they put in a proper volume of slow miles training. But the inverse cannot be said, because the 'speed' required to run sub3:00 for a 1k is not inherent in sub-3 marathoners.
/thread
holpin wrote:
"Easier" from a running point of view usually means from the perspective of one's VDOT. Anyone that can run sub3:00 for a 1 k should be able to run a sub-3 marathon IF they put in a proper volume of slow miles training. But the inverse cannot be said, because the 'speed' required to run sub3:00 for a 1k is not inherent in sub-3 marathoners.
/thread
Correction: "But the inverse cannot be said, because the 'speed' required to run sub3:00 for a 1k is not necessarily inherent in sub-3 marathoners."
In terms of performance equivalency the sub 3min 1k is superior.
A 2:59.97 1000m gives you 387 points on the IAAF scoring tables wich equates to a 3:04:58 marathon.
But in terms of what is easier or harder, I think the sub 3 marathon would require a far greater amount of training to be done. I think that even those who at first don't have the speed to break 3 (unless they're super slow) wouldn't need as much training in order to do it than for the sub 3 marathon.
High School / College --> 1k is easier
Post College ---> Marathon is easier
Age and training are big factors. In High School and College runners do a lot of interval work and runners could do this easily (i.e. roll out of bed hungover). Where a marathon would be doable for the same runner but harder in that it is a 3 hour effort and will still hurt 2nd half no matter the pace/effort.
I am in my 30's and I recently ran a 2:30 marathon. I often run 1k cruise intervals and getting down to even 3:05 is really hard.
Brazilian Guy wrote:
In terms of performance equivalency the sub 3min 1k is superior.
A 2:59.97 1000m gives you 387 points on the IAAF scoring tables wich equates to a 3:04:58 marathon.
But in terms of what is easier or harder, I think the sub 3 marathon would require a far greater amount of training to be done. I think that even those who at first don't have the speed to break 3 (unless they're super slow) wouldn't need as much training in order to do it than for the sub 3 marathon.
This is correct. The entire question is rather invalid, and requires rephrasing. Which of the two would require the least amount of training, and also considering age groups?
If the limit is 10 mpw, then the 1k is going to be easier, period, for all age groups.
As you scale the milage, then there will be a point where it switches to be easier for older people, while younger people might find both to be rather achievable. This is if you keep the milage consistent for a year.
If you scale by age, then there is a point where the sub 3 1k is probably not possible no matter what, while the sub 3 marathon is still a possibility (regardless of training).
It's an interesting challenge, and I wonder if I could do it within the next year (which would put me a newly turned 47 years of age).
2:30 marathoner wrote:
I am in my 30's and I recently ran a 2:30 marathon. I often run 1k cruise intervals and getting down to even 3:05 is really hard.
But what do you think you could run for a single 1k all out, while tapered and with a good warm-up? (Just like a race)
Agreed. For people that have the talent to run a sub 3 1K or a sub 3 marathon, it would takes less effort and less training to run a sub 3 1K, but there is more people that, if they train properly, could run a sub-3 marathon than people that could run a sub 3 1K.
I’m 35 and can run 2:40s in a marathon and can squeeze under 3:00 for 1K (I live at altitude and may be faster a bit lower). I had to train much longer to run the marathon. It is harder on your body. I say marathon.
It is not even close. I ran 2:35 for a 1000 in 9th grade (9:20 two miler). Having speed, I couldn't even contemplate a marathon. Plus, i often used to race into shape, something not possible with a marathon.
This all comes down to phrasing/semantics. "Easier" makes me think the answer is the 1,000. For me and a lot of people we didn't have to do a ton of training to run sub 3 in the 1,000. I was well under 3 in the 1000 sophomore year of indoor track on very limited training. Conversely, for almost anyone (including myself) you'd have to put in a lot of work to run sub 3 in the marathon. That being said, there are more people on the earth capable of running sub-3 for the marathon (through hard work) than the 1000. Speed is just rarer. I'd stick with the answer being the 1,000 though.
Depends of genetics.
But as many said it before sub-3hour marathon is more attainable because 3min 1000m require "speed" which is hard to train for people who are not genetically predisposed.
For many people 3min 1k speed is almost their 100 dash speed. Training to hold your 100m speed 10x in a row is very hard.
Training to run a sub 3 hour marathon is also very hard, but it's just a matter of time and effort.
1k is much easier wrote:
holpin wrote:
Nope. Per Age Grade, the marathon is 'easier' for all ages.
http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup15.html/thread
I've always viewed those tables with extreme scepticism to be honest. I could've probably run a sub-3 when I was 16. Absolutely zero chance I could've even run 1:30 for the half, never mind a sub-3 full. I think the long distances always get underestimated in those tables.
Sub-3 hour Marathon is 179.99 minutes / 2:01:39 or 121.65 minutes = 1.479572544 or 47.9572544% slower than Marathon world record. 1.479572544 x 2:11.96 1000m or 131.96 = 195.2443929 or 3:15.24 1000m. A 2:59 Marathon equals a 3:15.xx 1000m.
For many years of my life, I was capable of a sub-3 1000m. There were less than a dozen years of my life I was capable of sub-3 Marathon, capable on paper. Running a sub-3 Marathon is more of a willingness to punish oneself. According to the math work I demonstrated, sub-3 1000m is clearly more difficult for most people.
EnduranceSpeed wrote:
Depends of genetics.
But as many said it before sub-3hour marathon is more attainable because 3min 1000m require "speed" which is hard to train for people who are not genetically predisposed.
For many people 3min 1k speed is almost their 100 dash speed. Training to hold your 100m speed 10x in a row is very hard.
Training to run a sub 3 hour marathon is also very hard, but it's just a matter of time and effort.
Do you REALLY believe that 18 sec 100 is most people's 100m dash speed? Really?
Look folks. A 3 min 1 k is only 4:48 mile pace. 100% of men who can run sub 3 hour marathon can do that with very little effort. It may take a few weeks of training with some 200 repeats, but it is much much easier than completing a 3 hour marathon. It's not even close folks. And I am 45 years old. I could run do a sub 3 min k within a few weeks, possibly right now. And I only run 20 mpw.
a 3:00 1k is more difficult than most think. It is 2:24 800m pace. That is good speed for most of the old people on here.
Even for kids, I find that 3:00 is the starting point for boys who may be decent distance runners, during winter track. For girls, it is a very high achievement. Some years, no girls reach it, other years 2 or 3 girls reach that time. That is in a league that covers a population of 1,000,000 people.
I would say that runners who break 3:00 are typically 18:30 5k runners, give or take 15 seconds.
Too dependent on the person. Personally, I have ran 2:40 in the 1K and could not go under 1:30 in the HM (let alone 3 in the marathon). And I've run plenty of 70 mile weeks.
In college, ran right about 2:30 for 1k. A couple of years out and in closer to 2:4x 1k shape i hopped into a marathon on a whim off of just daily 10 mile runs with occasional fartlek and did 2:45 casually. With better training got down to 2:30:0x marathon.
In my mid40s now, repeat 1ks of 3:15 suggest I might be able to still accomplish sub3 for 1k - or destroy a hamstring in the attempt, but that window is closing in months to a couple of years.
On the other hand, volume repeat miles and 2 miles at 5:30 pace along with tempo runs in the 5:35 pace range suggest I still have many more years of being capable of breaking 3 hours whenever I am inclined.
I agree with the posters saying when you are young, easy to break the 1k. Once you get into your 20s and beyond, the marathon of 3hrs is easily the lesser challenge that you can meet for longer.
high school xc coach wrote:
a 3:00 1k is more difficult than most think. It is 2:24 800m pace. That is good speed for most of the old people on here.
Even for kids, I find that 3:00 is the starting point for boys who may be decent distance runners, during winter track. For girls, it is a very high achievement. Some years, no girls reach it, other years 2 or 3 girls reach that time. That is in a league that covers a population of 1,000,000 people.
I would say that runners who break 3:00 are typically 18:30 5k runners, give or take 15 seconds.
Lol. Your team must suck if you consider 3:00 800 is a sign of a decent runner. Wow.
ive run sub 3 min for a 1k before and ave never run a marathon but definitely wasn't in sub 3 hour shape at the time given i was running 30 MPW and no run longer than 50 min
right now though I could hit a 3 hour marathon but am less confident on breaking 3 in a 1k