Which is harder sub 1 hour 10mile or sub 3 marathon?

Sub-1:00 10 mile is harder and it’s not particularly close.

Both of them claimed to be the better runner. Neither one of them has the humility to be the better runner- both get last place. Why engage in such frivolous discussions?

Look up a VDOT table

N=1

Back in my 30 and early 40s I did both (five under 3:00 marathons). The sub hour 10 mile was significantly more difficult.

However now I am near 70 age my last 10 miler Crim 2024 age graded to 57:45. And that was with minimal taper and probably had a little left in the tank - I was being cautious as I had not run the course before and did not want to die on the hills and still have a couple miles to go. I am pretty sure I could AG a sub 3:00 off my current training.

Sub 1 hour 10 mile (59:58) is equivalent to a 2:51:27 per the IAAF scoring tables so sub 1 hour 10 miler is significantly better than a sub-3 mararthon (assuming that means 2:59:XX).

https://worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=b3a75258-100e-4915-9eac-7c7760e775a0.pdf&urlslug=World%20Athletics%20Scoring%20Tables%20of%20Athleti

While a sub 60 min 10 mile is of course harder between the two, this isn't the best argument with respect to the marathon specifically. Given the length of the race which introduces all kinds of additional variables, a slightly slower marathon will always be "harder" than a shorter distance race compared to VDOT values.

I’m not really a marathon fan but I have run two of them and I would do a 10 miler in sub 1 hour as one of my last workouts during training. Sub 3 feels really easy if you can go sub 1 hour for 10 miles. If you can go sub 60 for 10 miles you will easily be able to go sub 3 and would only be pushed physically if you went for 2:50 or something faster.

I did neither, but there was a long period where I could easily have run sub 3. That's just under 7 minute pace. I had no trouble going out and cruising that fast until I got bored.

A couple times I got lost and maybe ran a marathon distance, who knows.

Sub 6 is an entirely different animal, especially if it approaches half marathon distance. There's no comparison.

yes!!

I broke 58 for 10 miles on a tough course. On the same course at age 16, I broke 61 min.

I don't understand the obsession with mediocre marathon times.

Sub-60 10-miler is easier. I first did that as a teen and often ran medium long runs where I would break 60 for 10 miles while in college.

I've never broken 3:00. 3:24, 3:16, 3:12, 3:08. It is a totally different type of challenge.

I've taken some time off, but I know that I could get under 60 for 10 miles given 6-8 months. But I will never break 3.

You're the anomaly then because sub 60 is significantly more challenging for the average runner than sub 3. They're almost as far apart as saying what's harder - a sub 40 10k or a sub 18 5k

The question is, of course, how you define "hard."

Your sheer physical fitness is "better" when you are in sub-60 shape. That is reflected in all the "charts" and "conversions."

But marathons, in and of themselves, are harder because there are a lot of outside factors and bio-mechanical factors that have to be added to the equations (besides just fitness).

You have weather, wind, blisters, chaffing, fueling, bathroom breaks, bonking, cramping, and other logistics. Those have ruined marathons for me when I was in sub-60 10 mile shape.

It also matters how old you are. I think for younger runners, the 10 miler is easier. Masters runners, I assume, would say the marathon.

When I was in college, we often ran sub-60 for a ten mile effort and trained through it like it was nothing. A 2:5x marathon would have left many of us exhausted, banged up, sore, or injured for weeks.

When I turned 40, I could easily run sub-3:00 for the marathon but never was able to go back sub-60 (I tried and ran a bunch of 1:01-mid times).

Another way to think of this is with a basketball comparison.

Is it harder to hit a 3 pointer or dunk?

If you can dunk in the first place, then it is easier and the higher % shot. If you can't you can't. It is a 0% shot.

Running 10miles, when you are in sub-60 shape means you could do that on one day's notice. You could do it a couple times a week. If you are in that shape, it isn't that hard. That's like a dunk.

Yet for a master's athlete, the sub-3 might be a lot easier simply because the other one is impossible.

It all depends on the runner too. I split a 1:00.16 ten mile during a half and only managed a 3:00.37 full a few weeks later.

You did not train optimally for your marathon.

All the people that are saying it’s harder to go sub 3 or could go sub 60 but not sub 3 did not race their marathon properly or as above posters said did not train properly for the distance. You do really have to respect the distance and just because you ran a time on the VDOT table that was equivalent to sub 3 doesn’t mean you could’ve gone sub 3 without the proper mileage. I ran 15:23 in a 5k once before running a marathon. If I went off of VDOT I should have been going for 2:27 or something like that but I didn’t run the mileage and knew that would be impossible since I was running the marathon as a bucket list type thing and not doing marathon specific work. I played it safe and ran 2:44, it wasn’t crazy hard but if I went for what I should’ve been capable of I would’ve blown up and run like 3:30. I know a guy who was going for sub 2:40 and thought he had it in the bag because he ran a 16:20 5k, but he wasn’t running enough and he blew up and ran like 3:20. You can only go off of VDOT if you’ve actually run the proper mileage.

I did each, exactly once. Ran 59:0x for 10 miles, and 2:54 later in the year for a marathon. So seems like I more comfortably crushed sub-3. But more people probably could break an hour for 10 miles, as it doesn't require quite as much training.

After racing a 10 mile hard course 18 times the best I ever had was 62:03. But in the marathon I was able to break 3:00 like 17 times. Yes it's a humble brag from a old broke down RUNNER.