Which is better - 1:19 or 2:50

2:50 is a great goal for a marathon. It's a very impressive time - even more impressive than the already fast time of 3:07 or 3:00.

Even though performance calculators say otherwise, for me 2:50 is a good amount harder goal than 1:19.

one simply because you can give yourself a lot of shots at 1:19. If the weather is bad you can jump in another one and you won’t get too trashed running one if you miss your goal.

I also prefer half marathon training more. and like the feeling more after a hard half than full.

I would shoot for 1:18:35 half before trying to run 2:50.

1:18:50 / 2:51:17 for me. 2:50 should be within your grasp

Did you ever break 5 minute for a mile? no wonder you are impressed with mediocre times.

It takes very hard work to run 3:07.

It takes harder work to run better times.

Have you ever worked hard in your life?

For a non competitive, low talent runner, this is true.

Others have better performances because they are better runners.

Lol, do you have a brain?

I don't recall seeing your name a top any big results, so perhaps you're just slow too? Try "working harder" if that's all it is. If you don't have the #1 medal around your neck, then you're just a loser like the rest of us.

I have won races and my times are significantly better than a 3 hour marathon.

Says the toolbag that probably can’t crack 10 minutes for a mile.

can't wait for this thread on an actual running topic to get deleted because people can't behave themselves.

anyway, i'd say they require about the same level of ability, but it's way harder to actually run a 2:50 because you have to put in some solid mileage and make it to the start line healthy with decent weather. assuming this is somewhere near your genetic limit, of course.

i have a 1:18:10 to my name (my shorter distance PRs are better) but have never been willing and/or able to do a proper marathon block and thus my PR there is 2:58.

Coached by me on 45-55 mpw a 1:20 half transform to a 2:45-2:50 marathon without problem. Guaranteed! 🇸🇪🧙‍♂️🇸🇪🖐💯

250

2:47 and 1:20 here but the 1:20 was run after an injury.

I think 1:20 is harder personally

Yes, sub-2:50 is a good goal with a 1:19. 1:19 is the stronger mark. Just because a lot of people run 1:19 & don't crack 2:50 doesn't mean it's the weaker mark. It just means it can be harder to train for the equivalent marathon time. With good endurance, 2:45-2:46 is possible with a 1:19.

how fast have you run a mile and marathon Will?

I never ran a marathon. I broke 58 for 10 miles on a hilly course.

I ran near 26 minutes for 8km. I ran the equivalent of a 4:40 mile.

None of these are remarkable times, but they take more work than a 3 hour marathon.

That's why I laugh when some say a 3 hour marathon takes hard work.

It's simply a lower quality performance than any of my times and suggests they are quite ignorant when it comes to understanding running times.