go
go
2:59 marathon by a lot. More pain.
The marathon, easily.
Not for Bolt.
what would be equivalent of 4:59 mile then?
I've run a 4:52 mile and a 3:00:21 marathon. That marathon hurt a lot more too. So by far the 2:59 marathon is tougher
You have no justification to comment on this thread. You have never broken 3:00 for a 'thon.
PS I have a 5k sticker on my bumper.
Define "harder." Are you asking which is physically more demanding, or which time an individual is more likely to be able to achieve?
By either definition, I would say that the marathon is harder. If you're asking which is physically more difficult to do, running a marathon in any amount of time is harder than running a 4:59 mile.
it really depends how old you are and how long you have been running. an old fart can do a 2:59, but wont get close to a 4:59. And likewise a young gun can run a 4:59 and cant complete a marathon. So it really depends who you are referring to.
Well, in the last year I've run a 4:57 mile on a whim when somebody "challenged" me at a workout, and I haven't come within 5 minutes of 3:00:00, so in my n=1 experiment, definitely the marathon.
Harder, as in harder to accomplish? For someone 35 and over, I said breaking 5 in the mile is harder.
hounddogharrier wrote:
Harder, as in harder to accomplish? For someone 35 and over, I said breaking 5 in the mile is harder.
agreed, by that age u accumulated so much aerobic base so you naturally gravitate towards longer stuff and likewise its much easier to complete a marathon in sub 3 hours.
By the same logic; if you are younger, you have a more speed. so the 4:59 mile is a lot easier.
I think it depends on what you mean by "harder". Do you mean which feels harder/trashes you more? I'd say most people would pick the marathon.
Or do you mean which barrier is harder for people to accomplish?
As for how easy/hard it is to accomplish, it all depends on a person's innate speed. When I was younger I could run sub 5 in my first week of training. There's some people who could train forever and not break 5 minutes because they simply haven't got the speed.
But they may still be able to run that marathon time.
According to the McMillan calculator you only need to have the speed to run a 5:18 mile to be able to run a 2:59 marathon.
Conversely, there are some sprinter types who can last long enough in a mile to run sub 5 but could probably never run a sub 3 marathon no matter how much they trained.
well I guess as I was typing out my response above other people said the same thing....that's what having young kids around does. I got distracted....
Definitely the 4:59 mile, which equals 2:46:31 (Mercier) or 2:51:31 (IAAF).
The marathon is much harder for me. I can go out and run under 5 minutes easily without any training. I've only run one marathon but it was just over 3 hours. It was the most painful experience of my life.
no contest wrote:
The marathon is much harder for me. I can go out and run under 5 minutes easily without any training. I've only run one marathon but it was just over 3 hours. It was the most painful experience of my life.
Exactly,
I have taken 6 months off, stepped on the track and ran a sub 5 mile. There is no way I could do that for a marathon.
2:38 marathoner never broke 5 wrote:
Definitely the 4:59 mile, which equals 2:46:31 (Mercier)
Those conversions are a bunch of subjective guessing, at best. Any person who genuinely thinks that a 4:59 mile "equals" a 2:46 marathon needs to stop drinking and typing simultaneously!
Depends on physiology. I broke 5 in HS without a ton of training, but had to get much more serious to break 3:00 in the 'thon.
Neither.
Did both before I turned 20, did them again at 25, and will have no problem doing it again in 2 years when I turn thirty.
Obviously it took more of a commitment to break 3:00, 3 months training and it hurt bad doing so, but I've also run 4:54 during a base period when I hadn't even touched anything resembling speed and that hurt as well. The pain went away from the mile sooner than from the Marathon.