Most agree that middle schoolers and high schoolers would find the former easier as they have more raw speed and lower endurance. Older people lose that speed but can still grind out a sub-3 marathon with a lot of aerobic training. At what age does it become harder to train for a sub-3 1k over a sub-3 marathon?
Would be interested to hear the thoughts of older runners.
19
3
renowned guesser of pointless hypothetical questions
I actually think that for most people a sub 3 hours marathon is significantly easier than a sub 3 min 1 km. Unless you are a very speed oriented athlete that always train with low volume for 400s and 800s and simply couldn't finish a marathon because your body is not used to running very long.
I actually think that for most people a sub 3 hours marathon is significantly easier than a sub 3 min 1 km. Unless you are a very speed oriented athlete that always train with low volume for 400s and 800s and simply couldn't finish a marathon because your body is not used to running very long.
But "most people" who run a sub 3 hour marathon is actually pretty small group of runners. Most middle school and high school runners will never proceed with running in their adulthood. There is just a subset of people who will run in school and in adulthood and not many of them are able to crack the 3 hour barrier.
Depends on the type of runner. High school tends to have a lot of guys who think they are pure 800 guys and seem to think that low mileage is best for them. These guys would struggle a lot to run a sub 3 hour marathon. If you put the average-type sub 3min km high school runner in a 12 week marathon block I think it would be pretty easy to run sub 3 hours tbh. With the assumption that a sub 3 min km is equivalent to at least an 18:00 5k.
It's an interesting question. I would guess around 45.
I plugged the numbers into the age-grading calculator at runbundle.com , and a 3:00 1k was more difficult than a 3:00 marathon across the board, for both male and female. It was generally equivalent around 3:00 1k and 2:45 marathon, though I think that's a bit generous on the marathon side, and would require a very well-developed aerobic system.
It's an interesting question. I would guess around 45.
I plugged the numbers into the age-grading calculator at runbundle.com , and a 3:00 1k was more difficult than a 3:00 marathon across the board, for both male and female. It was generally equivalent around 3:00 1k and 2:45 marathon, though I think that's a bit generous on the marathon side, and would require a very well-developed aerobic system.
People don't seem to understand how run calculators work. There is a relationship between times from shorter races to longer ones, if you put in the work for the longer one. That works well one or two step up. Let's say from 10k to Marathon. Ideally a Half Marathon time is a better indicator for a Marathon time. Again, you still have to put in the Marathon training for that time in order to achieve it.
A 1k time will do nothing to predict a Marathon time.
This forum is filled with young kids who think they will run a very fast Marathon later in life and older runners who have actually done it. And that's a big difference my friends.
I can chug along at a steady clip all day. Unfortunately if I turn on the afterburners, the steady clip doesn't get a ton faster. It's normal, and expected.
For me, I could have run 3:00 for 1000m up to around 52-53 years old, I probably would have struggled to break 3:00 for a marathon about 10 years earlier.
I only ran 2:48 for a marathon when I was 38 with nearly perfect even splits and on a flat course (London). I'd say 10 years on (48 years old), I'd have been really struggling to run 3:00, whereas I could still run 4:42 for a mile (2:55 for 1000m) at that age.
I was always more speed oriented - best distance probably 3000m - and started falling off after 5k with a major decline after 10 miles. The only way I could get through a marathon was to run about a minute a mile slower than my 10k pace.
I actually think that for most people a sub 3 hours marathon is significantly easier than a sub 3 min 1 km. Unless you are a very speed oriented athlete that always train with low volume for 400s and 800s and simply couldn't finish a marathon because your body is not used to running very long.
But "most people" who run a sub 3 hour marathon is actually pretty small group of runners. Most middle school and high school runners will never proceed with running in their adulthood. There is just a subset of people who will run in school and in adulthood and not many of them are able to crack the 3 hour barrier.
Works the other way for people who get into running as adults. Many like that tend to be marathon focused. A guy I know who started running in his 30s has a 2:38 marathon, but only a 5:17 mile.
I'm over 50, and I can probably still run the 1k (or get within a second or two), but the marathon is probably out of reach due to durability. I can run a half at a pace that projects faster than a full marathon, but anything over 18 miles is trouble.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
I actually think that for most people a sub 3 hours marathon is significantly easier than a sub 3 min 1 km. Unless you are a very speed oriented athlete that always train with low volume for 400s and 800s and simply couldn't finish a marathon because your body is not used to running very long.
I have a hard time byying this. A sub 3min Km is 72/lap, a sub 3 hour MAR is 6:52 per mile. 26 miles is a long way.
I never ran a kilometer time trial but I'm reasonably sure that there was never a time in my life when I could have broken 3 min. However, there was a period of several years when I could fairly easily go sub-3 for the marathon under decent conditions.