Seems fast anyway, but when you think about it like this:
A 2:22 marathon is 8.4 back to back 5k's in 16:49 each OR
4.2 back to back 10k's in 33:39 each -
It seems even faster.
Seems fast anyway, but when you think about it like this:
A 2:22 marathon is 8.4 back to back 5k's in 16:49 each OR
4.2 back to back 10k's in 33:39 each -
It seems even faster.
That's quite a revelation. Did you just pass fourth grade math?
What If? wrote:
Seems fast anyway, but when you think about it like this:
A 2:22 marathon is 8.4 back to back 5k's in 16:49 each OR
4.2 back to back 10k's in 33:39 each -
It seems even faster.
I think it's a reasonable thing to point out.
Furthermore, it seems that many letsrunners NEED to have it pointed out, since so many can't break 17 themselves but still talk trash about how much a 2:18 "sucks"
Actually that is not very fast if your 5k and 10k PR's are significantly faster than that. Thanks for the revalation I think I'll now change my event to the marathon. (TIC)
WOW - the things we can do with math!
quote]why even post? wrote:
I think it's a reasonable thing to point out.
Furthermore, it seems that many letsrunners NEED to have it pointed out, since so many can't break 17 themselves but still talk trash about how much a 2:18 "sucks"[/quote]
Haha. Awesome and so true!
good post.dont mind people who try and belittle others bacause they have problems.
To take your thought one step futher, I believe that if you can run 15:00 for one 5k, you have the potential to (train up and) run 8.4 x 16:49 back-to-back 5k's.
Sredni Vashtar wrote:
To take your thought one step futher, I believe that if you can run 15:00 for one 5k, you have the potential to (train up and) run 8.4 x 16:49 back-to-back 5k's.
I wish that were true but I don't believe that. First off are you saying a 15:00 5k on the track? because a track and the roads are two different beasts. Second, 8.4 is a lot of 5ks back-to-back. I have run below 30:00 and have been running marathons for 3 years now and still have a long way to go to get to 2:22. I hope I get there but I guarantee it is a 2:22 is a lot harder than 15:00 even with the extra years of training.
I'm 10 sec. away from a 15:00 5K on the roads and 2min19sec away from a 2:22 marathon. I think for some people marathons are just easier than 5K's. It just depends on how much your body will allow you to train.
5k track PB - 15:03, marathon PB 2:21:37
Sredni Vashtar wrote:
To take your thought one step futher, I believe that if you can run 15:00 for one 5k, you have the potential to (train up and) run 8.4 x 16:49 back-to-back 5k's.
All depends on your Slow twitch fibers. Some of us can run closer to our 10k pace then others (for the full marathon). According to the "charts" a sub 30min 10k guy "should" be able to run a sub, 2:22....but it all depends on the individual's genes, past training, and mental toughness. A 4:10 miler, who hasn't run more then 80mpw, won't "convert" into a fast 10k time. A 15min 5k runner might have a lot of natural endurance, train up to 140mpw and run a 2:25....that 4:10 miler, (who say also has a 15 flat 5k PR) might run something like a 2:45. I know this is really obvious, and it doesn't need to be pointed out...however, this thread is all about those kinds of things.