Sub 5 minute Mile or Sub 3 hour Marathon. Which is a better achievement?

I ran 5:00 and 2:54 (a little under by clock time) at 50 but this being the internet, always shown some guy who runs 4:32/2:29...or some Russian woman 48 to 52 doing the same.

So the take home message is that unless you age grade at 95% or better, forget it. Stay home, don't even try to run and race beyond your local level. Anonymous slams on message boards are fine though.

I ran a 4:51.xx in college and on a great day I could probably only run a 3:07 or 3:08 for the marathon. The sub 3 would be much more difficult.

Ditto. I'm a guy, now age 30, and have been running since 8th grade but was not fast enough to make the team in college (I would have had to shave about 90 seconds off my 5K over the summer to walk on...) Anyway, I ran my mile PR of 4:36 in the summer right after high school, at age 18. Back then, it seemed to me that most high school boys who treated running seriously could run a 5:00 mile after a couple years of training. That fall, I trained pretty well by the standards of an 18-year-old who is not on a team, and ran my first marathon in 3:06. I finally ran sub 3 on my fifth try, at age 21.Now, at age 30, still running regularly but not training for races or racing seasons anymore, I could run a sub 3 without any real trouble, but I'd thank my lucky stars if I could run a 5:15 mile right now. If I dedicated several months to prep for a serious effort at a mile, then maaaaybe I could pull it off (sub 5), but it would be a stretch. I know lots of runners in their forties and even a few in their 50s who can kick my @ss with ease in a marathon, and not many of them could come anywhere close to a 5 minute mile.

not a young whippersnapper wrote:

Many people have touched upon this already, but the question really comes down to age.

In the late teens a sub 5:00 mile can come easily for many who would not be interested in putting in the desired training to even complete a marathon. In the 20s, both the sub 5 and the sub 3 should be readily attainable for male runners willing to put in some work, regardless of their degree of talent.

Speaking for myself as one in his late 30s, the effort in training required to break 3 hours for a marathon is significantly less than the effort in training required to break 5 minutes for a mile.

Funny how things change.

This is all from 30 years ago.

I ran 2:51 best, and several in the mid-2:50s between ages 35 and 39. Once I got the hang of running marathons, I could pretty much pop a mid-2:50 any time I wanted to.

Best mile? 5:00.8 at an all-comers meet where I was trying to go sub-5. I was so disappointed I never tried again (which was stupid, because even to this day I think I could have gone about 4:55 on a second attempt).

For me, the 5 minute mile was harder -- because I couldn't do it. I do think that part of the problem was that I hadn't had a lot of experience training for the mile. I think I did the right things, but perhaps not at the right intensity or over a long enough time.

And my attempt on 5 was only 2 months after a 2:55 at Boston.

As for marathon training, I fully understood what worked for me, and how to get the best out of my body. I'm sure that's why after I broke 3 for the first time, the others followed easily enough.

It seems that in people's experiences, sometimes the sub 5 is easier, and sometimes the sub 3 is easier, with probably a majority saying the marathon was harder but not a vast majority.

This can't be. There must only be one right answer, and anyone who has a different experience is just wrong.

I'm probably repeating what others have said, but:

These events require very different skill sets. Runners who could [just] do one--that is, a 4:57 miler or a 2:58 marathoner--almost certainly could not do the other. Many who could "easily" do one, could probably also do the other (although perhaps not "easily"). And, yes, age will have something to do with it. For an 18-yr old to break 5 minutes isn't really that impressive, or for a decent 35-yr old to break 3 hours. But reversing those performances is definitely tougher. It's just easier to run short and fast when you're younger.

i did both in hs. i was def not a speed guy but barely ran in hs too. only avg 34 mile a wk sr yr (only ran over 13 miles 4 or 5 times in my life at the point). i went 2:59:16 feb of sr yr and at the time only had a pr of 5:53. so id say they were pretty equal.

*4:53

As others have pointed out, it depends. At 42 I've run 4:55 / 2:45 off the same training program. 3:00 would be a walk in the park.

well according to frank horwills 4 second rule (an all around well trained runner will slow down 4 seconds per lap when the distance is doubled) then a 5 minute mile PR gives about a 6:15 marathon pace which is substatntially sub 3 hours (2:44)... aka 5 min mile is better than 3hour marathon according to frankie wankie.

in my opinion 5 min requires more talent but a 3 hour requires more work. so which is best depends on what you value more.

I ran 4:52 at age 45 and 2:58:30 same year i would say over 40 years old sub 5 way harder than sub 3 - but for younger guy in HS way tougher to run sub 3 marathon because of the weekly mileage and overall volume - i know a bunch of HS soccer players in high school and XC runners on 20 miles a week that can break 5 - but not 3 hours.

Drow wrote:

I ran 4:52 at age 45 and 2:58:30 same year i would say over 40 years old sub 5 way harder than sub 3 - but for younger guy in HS way tougher to run sub 3 marathon because of the weekly mileage and overall volume - i know a bunch of HS soccer players in high school and XC runners on 20 miles a week that can break 5 - but not 3 hours.

I agree. I ran a 5:02 mile as a HS freshman in 1974 at age 14, after about 6 months of running. No way could I have done a marathon under 3:45 then. But now at age 50 I can still run 3:00 for a marathon, or close to it, and cannot run under 5:20 for a mile.

Sub 5 or Sub 3 wrote:

For an average fit and healthy male in their 20's with no great deal of talent which would be a more impressive achievement, to go Sub 5 for a mile on the track or to go sub 3 hours for a marathon?

Was WAY harder for me to break 3 hours than 5 minutes, so I'll go with the marathon.

Yeah the marathon would def be harder. I have broken 5 for a mile but I highly doubt I could even finish a marathon!

From my perspective: For the younger runner sub-3 marathon is much more impressive. For an older runner (say, 40+) a sub-5 mile is more impressive.

I'm 49 years old and have run 4 sub-3 marathons in the last two years but have only hit 5:26 in the mile (and I've raced about 5 or 6 track miles with competition to help me along). No speed. My last track race was a 4:55 1500 so I have hope that this winter I can get it to 5:10-5:15, and then maybe just maybe sub-5 this next summer. It would be a massive achievement for me but another sub-3 marathon would be nothing specatacular - as a matter of fact I am shooting for 2:50 at my next race. If I can hit that the sub-5 is looking much better.

So far wrote:

Ha! that was 1:18:00 in the half marathon not 800 !

[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.

I would gladly trade one of my sub 5 miles for one of your sub 3 marathon races ! That would make it easyier all the way around !

From my perspective: For the younger runner sub-3 marathon is much more impressive. For an older runner (say, 40+) a sub-5 mile is more impressive.

I'm 49 years old and have run 4 sub-3 marathons in the last two years but have only hit 5:26 in the mile (and I've raced about 5 or 6 track miles with competition to help me along). No speed. My last track race was a 4:55 1500 so I have hope that this winter I can get it to 5:10-5:15, and then maybe just maybe sub-5 this next summer. It would be a massive achievement for me but another sub-3 marathon would be nothing specatacular - as a matter of fact I am shooting for 2:50 at my next race. If I can hit that the sub-5 is looking much better.[/quote]