Which is harder, sub-80 half marathon or sub-36 10K?

In essence, you're asking whether a 36min 10k or a 76min 20k (= two x 38min 10k) is harder. I think that for most people it would be the latter.

Easy just run a sub 36 when you go sub 80...

If you can do one you can do the other.

I broke 36:00 for 10K by a good margin, but never broke 1:20 for a half 'thon. Probably could have if I did a half when at my best, but didn't do it. So the sub-80 half is harder in my view.

Sub-36 10K is just slightly harder than sub-1:20 HM, but theoretically they're very close. I've gone sub-1:20 but haven't had a 10K as a goal race in a while. Still, I feel like the training required for me to go sub-36 right now is more approachable than another sub-1:20 buildup.

bored and cold wrote:

I need something to do over the winter and I'm trying to pick between trying for a sub-80 half or a sub-36 10K. I know there's probably considerable overlap between being able to do these, but which one should I focus on?

I could do a sub-36 10k...but never all that close to sub-80 half. Possibly didn't do enough volume to excel at the half, but still....

The World Athletics scoring tables consider those two performances to represent very similar levels of achievement:

36:00 for road 10km = 517 points = 1:19:30 HM

36:00.55 for track 10,000m = 513 points = 1:19:37 HM

1:20:01 for HM = 502 points = 36:15 road 10km = 36:11.21 for track 10,000m

Of course, training needs to be tailored to the target distance.

As for which performance is “harder” for an individual? Logically that will depend somewhat on the individual’s natural strengths and weaknesses.

Master in Asia wrote:

Of course, training needs to be tailored to the target distance.

10k and HM are similar enough that you can target both at the same time