Within a two year period, I did a 4:56 mile and a 2:52 marathon - I think it was "harder" to run the mile since I am not naturally speedy and it took some work to get there. For the marathon, I did the mileage and broke 3 easily the first time. I have endurance, not speed, so I think it depends what you are naturally better at.
2:59-no discussion
As someone who never trained for the mile but who ran 2:27 for the marathon, I say that the sub 5 mile is harder. My last sub 5 mile was probably around age 40 but my last sub 3:00 marathon was in my mid 50s.
Not EVEN a close call! wrote:
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!
Subjective? Everyone giving their two cents here is subjective. The Mercier calculator, alone, is based on 4 years of real data. I could walk/jog a 2:59 marathon ( because it's objectively easier anyways), but the 4:59 would require perfect everything and lots of speed training. Anyone who begs to differ didn't put in enough miles for the marathon.
The 4:59 mile. If you really find the marathon harder, I'd say you didn't really train seriously for the marathon. In the same year (a very long time ago) when I was 23 I ran a 2:47 marathon and a 10:21 2 mile. I would say that, though, I didn't run the mile that year, I would have found it pretty tough to break 5 minutes, based on that 2 mile. The 3 hour marathon would have been pretty easy, though. Of course, I ran lots of 90+ mile weeks leading up to the marathon.
Marathon for a man
Mile for a Woman
Link wrote:
I ran a 10:21 2-mile. I would say that, though, I didn't run the mile that year, I would have found it pretty tough to break 5 minutes, based on that 2-mile.
Really? When I was a teenager I ran a 4:59 mile within two weeks of running a 10:34 2-mile. I think that you're underestimating yourself.
2:59 takes a lot more training, but I'm sure there are plenty of 2:59 'thoners that can't run 4:59.
2:38 marathoner never broke 5 wrote:
Anyone who begs to differ didn't put in enough miles for the marathon.
Once again, the correct answer is the marathon! Anyone who begs to differ simply didn't put in enough speed work for the mile.
3200guy wrote:
2:59 takes a lot more training, but I'm sure there are plenty of 2:59 'thoners that can't run 4:59.
Then again, aren't you the same "rocket scientist" that guaranteed Fernandez would break McChesney's American-born collegiate record in the 5,000m last year? LoL! Your credibility still hasn't recovered from that episode, my friend.
Let's just put it this way: I know a lot more people that could run three 4:59 miles back-to-back-to-back than three 2:59 marathons. I used to do sets of 4-5 mile repeats well under 4:59 pace, but even 20 miles at 3:15 pace left me knackered.
Not even a question.
A marathon, at almost any pace, takes a lot out of the body--consider recover time required.
For a "decent" runner, starting from 0 miles a week training to run a sub 5 mile might take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months at the most. To run a sub 3 hour marathon from 0 miles a week requires a few months of training minimum. Granted, for those out there who already train, one may be easier than the other, but for the average runner, the marathon is much more difficult.
Just my opinion--I've done both with a minimum of work, and the marathon hurt a lot more.
I am 52 and can run slow all day, but can't think about running fast without getting injured.
The 4:59 would be tougher than running a tad under 7:00 per mile for the marathon.
I think they're about the same. Obviously the marathon will hurt for a longer period of time and take FAR more recovery, but in terms of which is the "tougher" to achieve, I think they're pretty equal (Marathon pb = 3:01; MILE pb 4:54)
2:38 marathoner never broke 5 wrote:
Anyone who begs to differ didn't put in enough miles for the marathon.
Again, I think it depends on how we define "harder." You are defining "harder" as less likely for you to accomplish in a given attempt. If we're just talking about which is physically more exhausting, no way the mile is harder.
I'd look at it this way. If my coach offered me the choice between running running a 26.2 mile long run and throwing down a single sub-5 mile for tomorrow's workout, I would take the single sub-5 without hesitation. The 26.2 miles would just be a more grueling workout than a single mile.
The Rocket. wrote:
Marathon for a man
Mile for a Woman
definitely.
No, the 4:59 mile would be far more painful than the unequivocal 2:59 (which would not be all out for someone trained appropriately). Harder = more painful.
A 4:59 mile is 34% slower than the 3:43 mile world record.
A 2:59:59 marathon is 45% slower than the 2:03:59 marathon world record.
A 4:59 mile is worth a 2:46 marathon
A 2:59 marathon is worth a 5:24 mile.
So the mile is a greater achievement, but some people might be claiming the marathon is harder due to it requiring more training, being physically more demanding/more time consuming/more painful and taking longer to recover from. But in reality it is the mile that is a better time-but to those not in the know, the marathon time sounds better-plus there is the "finishing factor" that makes any marathon time sound better than they really are to non-runners.
2:38 marathoner never broke 5 wrote:
No, the 4:59 mile would be far more painful than the unequivocal 2:59 (which would not be all out for someone trained appropriately). Harder = more painful.
Maybe for you. Not for me. For anyone who can run significantly under 5, running 4:59 is not going to be painful at all. Running for 3 hours will take more effort. Maybe not the case for you, but not everyone is you.
hounddogharrier wrote:
Harder, as in harder to accomplish? For someone 35 and over, I said breaking 5 in the mile is harder.
Well, I'm going to find out. It just so happens that I'm about to turn 36, and I want to accomplish both (along with sub 17 5k).
I've always thought I had a better chance at the sub 3 marathon to be honest. I base that off of a half I did last year at 1:26 with a peak week of 36 miles and average of around 28.
To be honest, I've haven't raced a 5k or shorter race yet, so I really don't know where I'm at now. Goofing around during some runs this past fall I did a 5:35 mile in the first part of a longer run (and I was huffing at the end), so I would say that's pretty close to my limit now.
Since mid December I've managed to get my mileage up to an average of 42 per week with a peak of 52, and if this damn snow ever goes away I'll start trying to do some actual workouts.