pretty much all sub 3-hour people can break 5... the only exceptions are older people without much speed, but i'd still be surprised if they couldn't do 5:10 (or if they could break 5 without even realizing it). the converse is not nearly as true.
pretty much all sub 3-hour people can break 5... the only exceptions are older people without much speed, but i'd still be surprised if they couldn't do 5:10 (or if they could break 5 without even realizing it). the converse is not nearly as true.
Willy K wrote:
pretty much all sub 3-hour people can break 5... the only exceptions are older people without much speed, but i'd still be surprised if they couldn't do 5:10 (or if they could break 5 without even realizing it). the converse is not nearly as true.
Wouldnt agree with this. There are plenty of sub 3 hour marathonners who simply dont have the speed in their legs to go sub 5.
When I was a young high school coach, I used to have a 1-mile time trial (in training shoes) for my athletes on the first day of xc practice. Without fail, one or two kids who didn't run a step all summer would shoe up and run sub-5:00 in the mile just because they were talented. It didn't take me long to do away with the mile time trial in favor of a longer one because it wasn't a good reflection of fitness. If someone had enough talent, they could BS there way through it. None of them could have BS'd a sub 3-hour marathon.
A lot of fit high school soccer players can break 5:00 in the mile just off training for soccer. The vast majority could not run a sub 3-hour marathon.
There is merit to the opinion that someone who does not have the talent to break 5:00 can train to run a sub 3 hour marathon. This is absolutely true, so for them a sub-5 might seem more difficult.
But if you are talking purely about taking 100 people off the street who have never run and asking them to attempt both, I think you are far more likely to find someone who can break 5:00 for the mile than who could run a sub 3 hour marathon.
Just my opinion.
Willy K wrote:
pretty much all sub 3-hour people can break 5... the only exceptions are older people without much speed, but i'd still be surprised if they couldn't do 5:10 (or if they could break 5 without even realizing it). the converse is not nearly as true.
Count me as one sub-3'er that can barely break 5:15, even with training. Right now, I can go outside and run a sub 3 marathon, but would not be able to run a 5:00 mile. But I've had years of running base. Still, it is no joke, especially for women and men over 40, running a sub-3 takes a lot of training.
I can't believe all these people picking the sub-3 just because it takes a bit more training.
I was not a very talented runner, but I broke 5 by a good bit in high school (I was one of those guys Frank Shorter talked about.) When I started running again in my mid-30s I choose to focus on longer distances--10 miler to marathon--because I don't mind putting in the training and running decent mileage but I can't imagine going out and hammering intervals on the track like I did once upon a time. On the rare occasion I run intervals at all it is something like 5x1000 at 5k pace, not that intense. 10x400 w/ 1 minute rest, no thank you, that is hard training.
Male in their 20's? The sub 3.
Once you hit your 30's, the sub 5 is better.
Using a factor is skewed towards shorter distances. The true level of competitiveness is more of an exponential equation. Despite that, while the two times 3:00:00 and 5:00 are similar in their competitive effectiveness, 5:00 probably a little stronger. However, a 3:00:00 marathon does require a bigger devotion of time and energy. In my experience the longer the distance is the harder the race is - even if you're naturally inclined towards long distance - because if nothing else on race day it takes a lot more mental strength to cover the distance.
Sub 5 or Sub 3 wrote:
For an average fit and healthy male in their 20's with no great deal of talent which would be a more impressive achievement, to go Sub 5 for a mile on the track or to go sub 3 hours for a marathon?
Excellent question.
I think which is easier is based in part on individual talents. I had a high school classmate who couldn't break 5:00 in the mile who broke 3:00 in the marathon rather easily as a high school senior.
I had other classmates in the 4:20s for the mile who likely had the talent for a sub 2:40 marathon, who would never dream of doing marathon training, considering it too hard.
I'd vote as more impressive for the marathon in the high 2:50s over the mile in the high 4:50s, as fewer healthy males in their 20s, talented or otherwise, have achieved that milestone.
Separating out the specific limitation of what's "a more impresssive achievement," if you took two large groups of nontalented 20 somethings and over two years had half train as milers and half as marathoners, more of the marathoners would break 3:00 than milers under 5:00. High schools sort very well the relatively few students for whom sub 5:00 miles are easily achievable. Then give them some fairly elementary after school seasonal training and break that barrier. Schools don't bother sorting for who can run a sub 3 hour marathon, with intensive year round training, which is a much larger group.
Marathon training, although arduous to most non marathoners, is very transformative. Most people attempting marathons today undertrain significantly, so sub 3 will impress even them. Still, train properly, and sub 3 is a breeze for most every 20 something male, many of whom would have great difficulty in also going sub 5, even training as a miler. Mile training is not as transformative, as the speed component is harder to attain with training than endurance is.
At 41 I ran a 2:57 marathon, at 42 I ran a 4:55 mile. I trained hard for both, but the last 1/4 mile of the mile was the most physically/mentally demanding of all.
I know people who broke 5 in the mile with absolutely 0 training, I don't know anyone who has broken 3 in the marathon with no prior training.
Ohia wrote:
going sub 5 is shit that HS sophs do all day long.
..../thread.....
When younger I ran sub 2:30 but never broke 4:50 (but I must admit I neither trained for the mile nor ran many of them). I continued to go sub 3:00 until my mid 50's but I don't think that I ran a sub 5:00 after turning 40. I think that when younger the answer depends upon personal inclination toward speed vs. distance training. Once you pass the mid 30's the speed disappears making the sub 5:00 a more difficult accomplishment.
Recognition's post make tons of sense. First off, let's point out that of the two, the mile is the more talent-intensive event.
I was a late bloomer as a kid, but even as an adult as serious about competitive running as they get, I never broke 60 for a quarter, ran 2:17 for 800m. While I suppose you can say that the ability to absorb training loads is itself a type of talent, my competitive success came from marathon traning, with lots of tempo thrown in. My marathon buildups would normally total 650 miles in ten weeks, with some 80-plus mile weeks. I occasionally saw the high side of 100, and one spring break ran 120.
During the summers I raced 10ks etc., but always pointed for two or three all-comers miles, for which I would include some miler-type speedwork, 400s, 200s, even, because the sub-5 was a grail of sorts for me. I was running 5:03s race after race when I was dependably running 2:53s for the marathon. I finally broke 5 by mere tenths, and that fall ran 2:46.
It is true that talented kids, (Mick Jagger, even, at 30,) could break 5 minutes rather handily on relatively little training, and would be at the same time years away from being able to handle the training load that allows many runners of lesser raw talent talent to break three.
Which is more impressive? Personally, the sub-5 stretched my limits more, definitely. A person of my abilities, given the inclination and the time, can find a 3-hour marathon readily accessible, but the sub-5 nip and tuck regardless.
Yet the sub-3 hour marathon says more about the runner and less about his raw talent, or his genetic inheritance.
I doubt anyone will argue that Lance Armstrong is anything other than impressive as an athletic specimen, and an endurance athlete at that. Still I think that a sub 5 mile would have been much easier on and for him than the sub-3 hour sqeaker he ran as his marathon debut with one record-holder after another running with him every step of the way. He described his marathon debut as the most he'd ever suffered physically,or words to that effect. I'll bet he could have broken 5 in the mile with a hangover.
So, it depends on who you are, and where your talents lie.There are many people, no doubt, for whom the sub- 3 is no big deal, and the sub-5 beyond their abilities.
And there are no doubt others who could cruise the sub-5, but could never absorb enough training to go under three.
Even an exceptional talent will not run a sub-3 on no training or inadequate training.
The mile is talent-intensive, the marathon training- intensive.
BTW, point taken about applicability of equivalency charts over widely different distances. That said, Purdy and Garner have a 4:59.3 "worth" a 2:52:15. I was running in both neighborhoods at about the same time.
To see about 80 more posts on this exact same subject:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3426032&page=0
For what it's worth, I read once that the Philadelphia 76er's have all their players run a timed mile at the start of preseason and that Allen Iverson would routinely break 5:00.
Sub 5 is only impressive if its your 5th mile repeat. Sub 3 is way way way more impressive.
Sub 5 can only be impressive for a male over the age of 40 or under the age of 14. 90 % of high school JV races have kids who run sub 5.
Even if you are in really good shape a 3 hour 26.2 mile run is still a tough run. Can't be said about a 5 min mile.
I don't know which one is better but it's much cooler to run fast. I have more admiration for the sub 5 miler.
Many people have touched upon this already, but the question really comes down to age.
In the late teens a sub 5:00 mile can come easily for many who would not be interested in putting in the desired training to even complete a marathon. In the 20s, both the sub 5 and the sub 3 should be readily attainable for male runners willing to put in some work, regardless of their degree of talent.
Speaking for myself as one in his late 30s, the effort in training required to break 3 hours for a marathon is significantly less than the effort in training required to break 5 minutes for a mile.
Funny how things change.
I agree. I've run 4:54 and i dont think i could break 3
yea wrote:
I agree. I've run 4:54 and i dont think i could break 3
And run 70 mpw