Jakob and Hocker could roll out of bed tomorrow and run a 2:59 marathon despite focusing only on the 1500/5000, with the latter running probably close to 50mpw.
Those are the elite of the elite though, could any 15:00 college runner drop a sub-3 marathon in the middle of XC training? What about a 16:00 runner? Where is the cutoff?
Jakob and Hocker could roll out of bed tomorrow and run a 2:59 marathon despite focusing only on the 1500/5000, with the latter running probably close to 50mpw.
Those are the elite of the elite though, could any 15:00 college runner drop a sub-3 marathon in the middle of XC training? What about a 16:00 runner? Where is the cutoff?
Had a teammate who was a 51 400m / 1:54 800m guy, ran 15:40 5k at conference to get more volume for the day. He hopped into a hilly marathon for fun 1 month after season and he ran 2:59 without having gone longer than 8 miles or above 40 mpw since winter.
He took 2 weeks off after season and his training leading into the race was just jogging 6 miles at 8 min pace a few days per week.
For anyone sub 16 in the 5k, 6:52 /mi pace isn't even fast enough to register physically or mentally as "racing". It's basically just a long training run where you get tired from burning calories. Different story if you get greedy and go out in 6:20s then die at mile 18 though.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Jakob and Hocker could roll out of bed tomorrow and run a 2:59 marathon despite focusing only on the 1500/5000, with the latter running probably close to 50mpw.
Those are the elite of the elite though, could any 15:00 college runner drop a sub-3 marathon in the middle of XC training? What about a 16:00 runner? Where is the cutoff?
Well the obvious answer is no 5k guarantees you sub 3, but in general most guys I know who run ~16 min can decide to run a marathon and finish under 3 with no specific training. ~17 min guys seem to often end up closer to 3:10 even with one or two long runs to prep.
So if you want a really high probability, it’s probably somewhere under 16. Under 15 is closer to ‘guaranteed.’
Sorry I thought it was slowest 5k to get a sub 3 with training
maybe 16:05
I think you were more right with your 19:05.
Sub 3 hours is basically 7 minute pace.
Even a 19:00 runner who does 50 miles per week is probably doing 1 x 7-10 mile long run per week. That's enough to survive.
If your goal is just to finish under 3:00 and you don't try to go faster, run even splits, and drink/nourish properly, it's quite easily done.
You'll be in pain afterward, and legs will be sore for a week, but it can be done.
Plenty of hs runners used to run Nov and Dec marathons off hs xc training in the good ol days. Many broke 3:00.
Key is these high schoolers ran 6-7 days a week from August thru November with the team. That's a 12+ week 'base' of 50 m/wk, even if they are slow 19:05 guys.
Haha now I’m thinking the correct answer is right in the middle. A runner who worked really hard to get to a 17:30 5k would probably be able to grind out a sub 3 marathon without specific training. 16:05 would do it easily with that level of speed. 19:05 not much chance if that was there absolute best 5k.
Haha now I’m thinking the correct answer is right in the middle. A runner who worked really hard to get to a 17:30 5k would probably be able to grind out a sub 3 marathon without specific training. 16:05 would do it easily with that level of speed. 19:05 not much chance if that was there absolute best 5k.
I’ve run half a dozen 17:30 or faster and worked my ass off to get there (80-100 mile weeks) but I’m 0/12 in getting to 3 hr marathon. Half a dozen 3:10-3:20, but never faster.
So 17:30 does not remotely guarantee sub 3 hr, even with specific training.
Haha now I’m thinking the correct answer is right in the middle. A runner who worked really hard to get to a 17:30 5k would probably be able to grind out a sub 3 marathon without specific training. 16:05 would do it easily with that level of speed. 19:05 not much chance if that was there absolute best 5k.
I’ve run half a dozen 17:30 or faster and worked my ass off to get there (80-100 mile weeks) but I’m 0/12 in getting to 3 hr marathon. Half a dozen 3:10-3:20, but never faster.
So 17:30 does not remotely guarantee sub 3 hr, even with specific training.
Out of curiosity, what were your PRs for distances below 5k (if you had any)?
I’ve run half a dozen 17:30 or faster and worked my ass off to get there (80-100 mile weeks) but I’m 0/12 in getting to 3 hr marathon. Half a dozen 3:10-3:20, but never faster.
So 17:30 does not remotely guarantee sub 3 hr, even with specific training.
Out of curiosity, what were your PRs for distances below 5k (if you had any)?
2:05/4:50/17:10/60:00/81:00 for 800/mile/5k/10 mile/half… roughly
Sorry I thought it was slowest 5k to get a sub 3 with training
maybe 16:05
I think you were more right with your 19:05.
Sub 3 hours is basically 7 minute pace.
Even a 19:00 runner who does 50 miles per week is probably doing 1 x 7-10 mile long run per week. That's enough to survive.
If your goal is just to finish under 3:00 and you don't try to go faster, run even splits, and drink/nourish properly, it's quite easily done.
You'll be in pain afterward, and legs will be sore for a week, but it can be done.
Plenty of hs runners used to run Nov and Dec marathons off hs xc training in the good ol days. Many broke 3:00.
Key is these high schoolers ran 6-7 days a week from August thru November with the team. That's a 12+ week 'base' of 50 m/wk, even if they are slow 19:05 guys.
I disagree. Two points:
1. At 50 mpw a 10 mile run isn't really a long run because the average is about 8-9 per day
2. I find it hard to believe 19:00 runner can run a marathon at 5k pace + 50s. The minimum is probably an endurance based 18:00 / 1:24 runner to say they have a realistic shot
This post was edited 30 seconds after it was posted.
Even a 19:00 runner who does 50 miles per week is probably doing 1 x 7-10 mile long run per week. That's enough to survive.
If your goal is just to finish under 3:00 and you don't try to go faster, run even splits, and drink/nourish properly, it's quite easily done.
You'll be in pain afterward, and legs will be sore for a week, but it can be done.
Plenty of hs runners used to run Nov and Dec marathons off hs xc training in the good ol days. Many broke 3:00.
Key is these high schoolers ran 6-7 days a week from August thru November with the team. That's a 12+ week 'base' of 50 m/wk, even if they are slow 19:05 guys.
I disagree. Two points:
1. At 50 mpw a 10 mile run isn't really a long run because the average is about 8-9 per day
2. I find it hard to believe 19:00 runner can run a marathon at 5k pace + 50s. The minimum is probably an endurance based 18:00 / 1:24 runner to say they have a realistic shot
Largely agreed. A young male who truly can’t run faster than 19:00 for 5k would have basically no chance. A much older runner with little speed and half a century of endurance training who runs 19:00 could likely pull it off though. I know women in their late 40s who likely couldn’t break 19 but can and have broken 3. In fairness they do marathon specific training though.
I’ve run half a dozen 17:30 or faster and worked my ass off to get there (80-100 mile weeks) but I’m 0/12 in getting to 3 hr marathon. Half a dozen 3:10-3:20, but never faster.
So 17:30 does not remotely guarantee sub 3 hr, even with specific training.
This. Marathon and longer distances are greatly affected by each runner's ability to utilize carbs during the run. I asked Perplexity and got this.
The capacity to absorb glucose in the small intestine can vary widely among individuals, ranging roughly from about 30 grams per hour to as much as 120 grams per hour in some cases. This variability depends on factors such as genetics, habitual diet, training status, and whether the gut has been specifically trained to handle higher carbohydrate loads.
Basically, this means that between two runners who are identical in all other measures, the runner who can absorb more glucose AND fuels correctly to support that glucose uptake will be able to stay on pace longer in races that are longer than 90 minutes. Training to increase glucose uptake helps, but the runner who starts with a natural ability to handle closer to 120 gm/hr is going to be at an advantage over the runner whose natural ability is closer to 30g/hour.
I’ve run half a dozen 17:30 or faster and worked my ass off to get there (80-100 mile weeks) but I’m 0/12 in getting to 3 hr marathon. Half a dozen 3:10-3:20, but never faster.
So 17:30 does not remotely guarantee sub 3 hr, even with specific training.
This. Marathon and longer distances are greatly affected by each runner's ability to utilize carbs during the run. I asked Perplexity and got this.
The capacity to absorb glucose in the small intestine can vary widely among individuals, ranging roughly from about 30 grams per hour to as much as 120 grams per hour in some cases. This variability depends on factors such as genetics, habitual diet, training status, and whether the gut has been specifically trained to handle higher carbohydrate loads.
Basically, this means that between two runners who are identical in all other measures, the runner who can absorb more glucose AND fuels correctly to support that glucose uptake will be able to stay on pace longer in races that are longer than 90 minutes. Training to increase glucose uptake helps, but the runner who starts with a natural ability to handle closer to 120 gm/hr is going to be at an advantage over the runner whose natural ability is closer to 30g/hour.
This is interesting, I’m curious how to specifically train your body to increase glucose uptake.
I’ve actually found my biggest problem is salt/water loss due to sweating. Not sure how to prevent late mileage cramping. I’ve been on ~2:50 pace pretty comfortably for 18-20 miles and my calves just say nope and it becomes a 10-14 minute power walk/slow jog or deal with crippling cramps that start in my calves and work into quads/hamstrings/glutes.
I had two college teammates who both ran 33:20 for 10K and the same year only ran 3:04 and 3:10 for a marathon after the season. They should have been able to break 3 I guess but it didn't happen. They were both relatively fast twitchers who didn't run a lot of mileage.
1. At 50 mpw a 10 mile run isn't really a long run because the average is about 8-9 per day
50/7 = 7.14
50 - 10 = 40 miles
40 / 6 = 6.66 miles. At 50mpw, a 10 mile long run would put your long run 60% longer than your daily average the other six miles.
The old school "collapse point" theory would says that a runner can effectively race a distance three times longer than their daily average. At 50 mpw, 7.14 miles a day, that is an effective race distance of 21.42 mi. A 19:00 minute 5k runner, on a good day, might be able to grind out a sub 3 hour marathon.
But that would be the bare minimum, and not all 19:00 5K runners would be able to do it.
40 / 6 = 6.66 miles. At 50mpw, a 10 mile long run would put your long run 60% longer than your daily average the other six days.
The old school "collapse point" theory would says that a runner can effectively race a distance three times longer than their daily average. At 50 mpw, 7.14 miles a day, that is an effective race distance of 21.42 mi. A 19:00 minute 5k runner, on a good day, might be able to grind out a sub 3 hour marathon.
But that would be the bare minimum, and not all 19:00 5K runners would be able to do it.