I agree with those who are saying it depends on the runner and their body type. When I ran (50 yrs ago!) I did better at the 10K's and 10 milers and 1/2 Marathons than the full Marathon. I ran 56:25 for 10 Miles, but only 2:56 for the Marathon.
I love that this thread is still going after five pages and we all agree. This might be the first thread in Letsrun history where everyone has "shared their opinion" and all the opinions lined up with one of two compatible answers. Someone should notify the mods or Rojo about this historic moment.
Every post correctly points out: "A sub-60 requires more aerobic fitness & talent but a sub-3 requires more mileage & training. But honestly, It depends on the runner."
And then the following story:
"When I was in my early twenties, sub-60 wasn't that hard, but man, oh, man, running sub-3 would have been brutal if not impossible. I was in 16:30 shape, but my longest run back then was literally only 10 miles (58:30 on a hilly course). There is no way I could have broken 3:00. I doubt I could have even finished a marathon."
Or the older guy's reply of...
"I turned 51 last year and easily ran sub-3:00 (2:54 actually) but during my build up, running anything at sub-6 pace felt like a flat out sprint. I could run 6:50 pace all day, but as an old guy, running 5:5x is basically impossible."
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
At 47 I was able to hit 58 for 10M and then later that year ran a marathon in 247. If I was in 58 shape and ran 259 or slower I would NOT have been happy.
That being said, the marathon is a special animal, even when you are trained up and in great shape there is still a chance that you could blow up around 18+ and go from peeling off 620s, to The Zombie Walk.
I think the sub 60 10M is more impressive than a sub3.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
I haven't done an awful lot of 10-mile races but based on other race times (e.g. half marathon in 81:10), I think I could maybe do around 61 minutes. I've done just under 3 hours for a marathon but have never nailed one, and I want to go for around 2:50 later this year. I think I could do that without being able to break an hour for 10 miles.
To reiterate and rephrase something I said earlier in another comment that got buried, look back at old IAAF scoring tables suggests that a sub-60 10-mile has always been better than a sub-3 marathon, but years ago they were pretty close. Today it's no longer even close, because a sub-3 marathon ain't what it used to be. This is worthwhile perspective for me because I ran all of my PRs about a quarter century ago and it's easy to lose sight of how much things have changed even in just the last few years.
In the 2017 IAAF scoring tables, a 60:00 10-mile was worth 504 points. In the new 2025 scoring tables it's still worth the same 504 points.
The marathon is a different story...
As recently as 2022, a 2:59:58 marathon was worth 480 points. But in 2025 it's only worth 407 points...the same as a 3:07 was worth in 2022.
A 60:00 10-mile today is the same as it ever was. But a 3:00 marathon today is wildly much less impressive than it used to be.
That's quite a big shift in a really short time. What's up with that? Are supershoes that much more beneficial for the marathon (and perhaps haven't impacted the 10 mile all that much???). Something about relative changes in participation in the two events in recent years? Something else?
To reiterate and rephrase something I said earlier in another comment that got buried, look back at old IAAF scoring tables suggests that a sub-60 10-mile has always been better than a sub-3 marathon, but years ago they were pretty close. Today it's no longer even close, because a sub-3 marathon ain't what it used to be. This is worthwhile perspective for me because I ran all of my PRs about a quarter century ago and it's easy to lose sight of how much things have changed even in just the last few years.
In the 2017 IAAF scoring tables, a 60:00 10-mile was worth 504 points. In the new 2025 scoring tables it's still worth the same 504 points.
The marathon is a different story...
As recently as 2022, a 2:59:58 marathon was worth 480 points. But in 2025 it's only worth 407 points...the same as a 3:07 was worth in 2022.
A 60:00 10-mile today is the same as it ever was. But a 3:00 marathon today is wildly much less impressive than it used to be.
That's quite a big shift in a really short time. What's up with that? Are supershoes that much more beneficial for the marathon (and perhaps haven't impacted the 10 mile all that much???). Something about relative changes in participation in the two events in recent years? Something else?
Probably has something to do with the number of 10 mile races contested these days. In my area of the world, there were several 10 milers every year back in the 70s and 80s, there's one left now. Because people aren't racing this distance, there are fewer top performances that are moving the needle, thus, little change in the WA tables.
A 10 miler I used to organize, got taken over by a young women who changed the course and measured it and advertised it as a 16 km. She had no idea 16 km was not the same thing as 10 miles.
In Canada, most people under 60 have no concept of miles - we went metric in the mid 70s. However, for whatever reason, feet and inches and pounds are still commonly understood when referring to a person's size.
Probably has something to do with the number of 10 mile races contested these days. In my area of the world, there were several 10 milers every year back in the 70s and 80s, there's one left now. Because people aren't racing this distance, there are fewer top performances that are moving the needle, thus, little change in the WA tables.
A 10 miler I used to organize, got taken over by a young women who changed the course and measured it and advertised it as a 16 km. She had no idea 16 km was not the same thing as 10 miles.
In Canada, most people under 60 have no concept of miles - we went metric in the mid 70s. However, for whatever reason, feet and inches and pounds are still commonly understood when referring to a person's size.
I think the 10 mile was one of my favorite events for sure. However, there is no social media bragging associated with a 10 miler. But if you do a half-marathon, you can stand around the water cooler and post pictures on your socials for days!
Down in Portland they have a race (Shamrock Run) that offers the traditional 15km course (from the old Cascade Run-Off) but they also added a Half because so many people have them on their bucket lists...
Probably has something to do with the number of 10 mile races contested these days. In my area of the world, there were several 10 milers every year back in the 70s and 80s, there's one left now. Because people aren't racing this distance, there are fewer top performances that are moving the needle, thus, little change in the WA tables.
A 10 miler I used to organize, got taken over by a young women who changed the course and measured it and advertised it as a 16 km. She had no idea 16 km was not the same thing as 10 miles.
In Canada, most people under 60 have no concept of miles - we went metric in the mid 70s. However, for whatever reason, feet and inches and pounds are still commonly understood when referring to a person's size.
I think the 10 mile was one of my favorite events for sure. However, there is no social media bragging associated with a 10 miler. But if you do a half-marathon, you can stand around the water cooler and post pictures on your socials for days!
Down in Portland they have a race (Shamrock Run) that offers the traditional 15km course (from the old Cascade Run-Off) but they also added a Half because so many people have them on their bucket lists...
Looking at the scoring tables, the half has also improved, but nowhere near as much as the marathon.
Using the 504 points for a man running a 60:00 10-mile as a reference since it was exactly the same in 2017, 2022, and 2025 scoring tables, the equivalent HM was 1:19:57 in 2017 but slowed to 1:20:33 in 2022 and stayed at 1:20:33 in 2025.
And FWIW the marathons equivalent to the 60-flat 10 mile were 2:54:23 in 2017, 2:57:44 in 2022, and 2:51:32 in 2025.
I admittedly have not studied the history or derivation of the scoring tables in depth, but just from this exercise it seems like the marathon has been a lot more volatile than the 10-mile or the half in recent years.
Probably has something to do with the number of 10 mile races contested these days. In my area of the world, there were several 10 milers every year back in the 70s and 80s, there's one left now. Because people aren't racing this distance, there are fewer top performances that are moving the needle, thus, little change in the WA tables.
A 10 miler I used to organize, got taken over by a young women who changed the course and measured it and advertised it as a 16 km. She had no idea 16 km was not the same thing as 10 miles.
In Canada, most people under 60 have no concept of miles - we went metric in the mid 70s. However, for whatever reason, feet and inches and pounds are still commonly understood when referring to a person's size.
I think the 10 mile was one of my favorite events for sure. However, there is no social media bragging associated with a 10 miler. .
I think the 10 Miler is a GREAT event. It's long enough to challenging, but short enough where most people can take the time to reasonably train for it, and if you are more competitive and actually race it- you can do that and still do other races a few weeks later.
The marathon just sucks up all of your time, and post race you are down for a long time as well. Even on the actual race day, you can race 10, then still have the rest of your day, where a marathon... not so much.
To reiterate and rephrase something I said earlier in another comment that got buried, look back at old IAAF scoring tables suggests that a sub-60 10-mile has always been better than a sub-3 marathon, but years ago they were pretty close. Today it's no longer even close, because a sub-3 marathon ain't what it used to be. This is worthwhile perspective for me because I ran all of my PRs about a quarter century ago and it's easy to lose sight of how much things have changed even in just the last few years.
In the 2017 IAAF scoring tables, a 60:00 10-mile was worth 504 points. In the new 2025 scoring tables it's still worth the same 504 points.
The marathon is a different story...
As recently as 2022, a 2:59:58 marathon was worth 480 points. But in 2025 it's only worth 407 points...the same as a 3:07 was worth in 2022.
A 60:00 10-mile today is the same as it ever was. But a 3:00 marathon today is wildly much less impressive than it used to be.
That's quite a big shift in a really short time. What's up with that? Are supershoes that much more beneficial for the marathon (and perhaps haven't impacted the 10 mile all that much???). Something about relative changes in participation in the two events in recent years? Something else?
Probably has something to do with the number of 10 mile races contested these days. In my area of the world, there were several 10 milers every year back in the 70s and 80s, there's one left now.
I first ran a race in 1983, and I don't think I've ever even seen a 10-mile race to enter near to where I've lived (counting college, two places in CA plus AK). It would have been a good distance for me.
Supershoes are beneficial for both, but give more boost at slower paces (to a point). The stagnant points in the 10 mile is probably because there are so few high level 10-mile events to recalibrate the points.
My first ten-mile was 59:xx, off of 36:xx 10k fitness. It was the longest I had ever run at the time.
I did a 1:22 half marathon a month later, but probably couldn't have finished a marathon, let alone broken 3:00. I had literally never run longer than 90 minutes.
I think that almost any college XC runner could do a sub-60 ten-mile. While this predicts a marathon time much faster than 3:00, those predictions all assume adequate training for the marathon. As Ruxton says, a lot of these runners whose shorter times say they are "good for" 2:50 or much faster will DNF or bonk to 3+ hour marathons.
When a calculator says you 1:00:00 ten-mile is "equivalent" to a 2:47 marathon, that really means you likely have the speed, VO2 and lactate threshold for it, which can be demonstrated in a shorter race. These tools for an solid ten-mile are necessary but not sufficient for an equivalent solid marathon, which also requires muscular and metabolic adaptations well beyond what's needed to run hard for an hour.
Newer runners will often have the speed, VO2 and threshold but lack the longer-distance adaptations. Older runners will often have the opposite set of abilities.
As an older runner now, I can break 3:00 but may never tempo at 5:55/mile again.😭
Wow, this thread is still going.
That's a whole lot of posts (mine included) all just to say 'Some people have more speed than endurance, and some people have more endurance than speed.'
I think the 10 mile was one of my favorite events for sure. However, there is no social media bragging associated with a 10 miler. .
I think the 10 Miler is a GREAT event. It's long enough to challenging, but short enough where most people can take the time to reasonably train for it, and if you are more competitive and actually race it- you can do that and still do other races a few weeks later.
Yes, it is a great event!
It is a race where a solid runner can experience the physiological intensity and duration similar to an elite half marathon (as fast as the runner can average for say ~57-58 minutes), which is different than in a ~1:15 half marathon.
For the same reason, I wish that the rare 30k or 20-mile distances were more common. Even a solid 2:40-2:55 marathon performance has little to do with the intensity*duration of a ~2:00-2:05 elite marathon, in terms of physiological zones applied. (Elites are running quite a bit harder, for quite a bit shorter duration.)
I think the 10 Miler is a GREAT event. It's long enough to challenging, but short enough where most people can take the time to reasonably train for it, and if you are more competitive and actually race it- you can do that and still do other races a few weeks later.
Yes, it is a great event!
It is a race where a solid runner can experience the physiological intensity and duration similar to an elite half marathon (as fast as the runner can average for say ~57-58 minutes), which is different than in a ~1:15 half marathon.
For the same reason, I wish that the rare 30k or 20-mile distances were more common. Even a solid 2:40-2:55 marathon performance has little to do with the intensity*duration of a ~2:00-2:05 elite marathon, in terms of physiological zones applied. (Elites are running quite a bit harder, for quite a bit shorter duration.)
the 20 miler is much less intimidating, and much less ruining.
that should be a common distance for competition.
top guys can run say 6 races a year, with one or two marathons.,
rather than once in a blue moon.
i hate the guys that spend 6 months in prep, and half the time they line up without their A game, or are injured in training.
i'd make a big prize for distance runners with say points from say 6 races.
not this once in a blue moon stuff, and I am talking to Ritz, and Rupp, and everybody else.
compete and train, not train train train injured compete maybe.
The thing about the marathon was that even when I was in shape to run sub-3, I had to "get it right" and hope I didn't have any bad luck, leg cramps, or weird stomach issues. Bad weather, poor eating, too little sleeping, not enough hydrating, and/or wardrobe malfunctions (blister b/c of sock/shoe for example) could all RUIN a marathon at any pace.
The sub-60 ten mile tempo was something we did in training fairly often (as a group of post collegiates training for the 5km-10km road scene). I never had one of them "go sideways" even though they were always considered solid efforts. They were just "hard running" but not a special event that needed weeks of build-up.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.