What is a greater acheivement? - 16:XX 5K or sub-3 marathon?

wifey wrote:

I don't get it. For the same person? No duh.

If a person can run 16:XX in a 5K a than 2:59 is a joke.

Sorry if someone else has already answered this.

When I was in high school, there's probably no way I would have finished a marathon. Not under 3 hours anyway. However, high 16s were the norm.

Meanwhile my dad ran 2:53, but I don't think he ever broke 17:10 for 5k.

Basically, it had to do with my training status - I had not put in enough miles or long runs to run a marathon. So, in that respect the sub-3 marathon would have (at that time in my life) been a much greater achievement.

"I never trust these tables as I think the 2:59 is much harder to achieve than 18.22"

Agreed. I am 38 and could easily run 18:22 but I will be hard pressed to go sub-3 at NYC Marathon in a few weeks.

Plug both times/distances into an age graded calculator.

At 42 years of age I ran a 16:32 5k, 34:10 10k and a 2:51 Marathon with very little previous race/training experience. I enjoy running long daily runs of 7-14 (@7-9 pace) miles with no real speed or track work.

I don't see any single time as a greater achievement than any other.

cant train like I want wrote:

At 46 I would be happier to break 17 than break 3 even though I ran in the 15s when I was younger and have never broken 3.

Yep. At 50 I would be (much)happier to break 18 than to hit the ~2:52 I'm shooting for this December.

For me it is not a function of laziness but injury potential. Running tempos and long runs is far less damaging than quarter repeats or other high intensity training needed to run a fast 5K. I want to run fast, but it's pretty risky.

I have a 16:45 5k PR (Rolling XC course, 20 years old) and I'm running my debut marathon (40 years old), albeit on a hilly course (www.mdimarathon.com) this weekend. Three kids and basically 20 years away from racing. Training has been 55 miles/week with speed/tempo/hills.

Curious as hell to see what happens. Goal is 3:05.

I'm at the cusp on both of these. I ran 3:03:xx in my first marathon this spring and I've consistently been in the 17:3x range (17:32 PR) for the last two years on the 5k (I've never specifically trained for 5ks). Beside the external factors that can seriously derail a marathon effort (race day weather, fueling/hydration, sickness, injury/burnout) I feel like it will be easier for me to go under 3 hours than it will be to go under 17 min at this point. Just not sure I have the wheels for it. Besides, I like strength/endurance based workouts way more than I like pounding 5k/mile pace type workouts. But we will see - going to tackle the 5k this weekend with a fresh/rested pair of legs underneath me. 16:59 would be a fantastic start to the fall racing season.

I 've run 17:10 at age 43 - and broke 3 hours 4 times - now I run 17:44 at age 49 - i would love to break 17 ( 5:28's) i think that is harder than breaking three hours

In part it is also a question of natural aptitude. I'm coming up for 55-years-old, and for 5k ran 17:33 last year, and a 17:45 on road fairly comfortably this year. I'm hoping I still might squeak back under 17:30. According to the tables I should still be able to run about 2:52.

However far as marathons go, I ran at about ages 37 and 38, and ran 2:53 for the first one, and 2:47 (only 30 sec differential for each half) for the second one. At that stage I could still run a 16:00 flat 5k. For the second one I was pretty well prepared, but that would have been about the best I could do.

So for my type of runner sub 17 would be relatively easy, but 3 hours tough, and I would have retained the ability to run sub 17 far longer than sub 3:00, but for the typical distance runner, I think you could train someone who lacked basic speed to break 3 hours more easily than sub 17, as the intensity will get them

I did 16:xx first, but ultimately went sub-3:00 by a bigger percentage of time. And I was always better at the 5K than the marathon.

However, as an achievement, my sub-3:00 marathon probably makes me prouder. But the sub-17:00 5K is meaningful also, because my PR was stuck at 17:01 for a long time!

I ran 2:55 in Boston. I cannot run under 17 in a 5k. Just use a time predictor like Mcmillan and you will see that they do not correlate. A sub 17min 5k is harder to accomplish than a sub 3 hour marathon.

16:34 5k guy here with a 2:58 marathon p.are (80 miles a week average). For me sub 17 5k is much easier than sub three.

I ran a 4:48 mile off of very little training, but die like crazy in the marathon, despite a decent training volume...

depends of course wrote:

A lot of HS kids run sub 17. Difficult, but I'd argue less of an achievement than someone who runs sub 3. Milesplit shows 6300+ HS boys have run sub 17 in cross already this year. You don't see many HS kids running sub 3. Usually a sub 3 effort is the culmination of a lot of running over a long period of time. For a full grown, age 25+ adult sub 17 is possibly the greater achievement however. It takes a lot of dedication to maintain/improve speed as one ages.

You don't see many HS kids running marathons if they have any kind of coach.......

sterling rathsack wrote:

16:34 5k guy here with a 2:58 marathon p.are (80 miles a week average). For me sub 17 5k is much easier than sub three.

I ran a 4:48 mile off of very little training, but die like crazy in the marathon, despite a decent training volume...

Seems like everyone is filling this thread with their unsubstantiated, uncontrolled, anecdotal "evidence." It doesn't mean a lick to the OP's original question.

The answer is simple:

In terms of "quality" of performance, sub 17 is better than sub 3:00 without question. 17:00 is 135% of the WR at 5k. Using that same % of the marathon WR and you get high 2:46. This would be in line with many, many calculators. So Sub 17 is better, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Shooting for 2:45 is comparable to running under 17 in terms of quality.

Now as far as which is "harder", this is of course a totally subjective question. Running longer is tougher on your legs the next days for most, but there are some that bounce back no problem from long runs. Look at all those guys who started running a marathon every weekend (often in respectable times) for attention/charity, and then even a guy or two who was running one EVERY DAY for extended periods of time. To those guys, running 26 miles is not a big deal. Hell, Ed Whitlock was running 20 miles a day for very extended periods of time in his 70's. He could probably have done 26 a day for a long time if he chose to. So some people can handle the pounding, some can't.

And for other people, they can't take any type of "fast" (sub 5:30 pace) running, and break down easy from that, and can't stand any lactic acid build-up, and would find an all out 5k more painful than a long run like a marathon.

So in terms of quality, of course sub 17 is better than sub 3:00 (there is no point in debating facts). And as far as "harder", it is totally subjective. If you are going to go down that road, I suppose that sub 3:00 is "harder" than running a sub 10.00 100m, because, I mean, the race is over in less than 10 seconds, and one recovers from a sprint in seconds, so...... Hey everyone who has broken 3:00 in the marathon, you are a better athletes, and have accomplished something more difficult than what Usain Bolt has ever done! Congratulations!

TonyB wrote:

I ran 16:XX in training today and i'm fairly sure I wouldn't be able to break 3 hours. If I ever do go sub 3 I would personally consider it a greater achievement.

Different strokes for different folks.

You are either a liar or delusional. If you really ran that in practice, then you could run low 16's with ease in a race. If you can do that, with a couple long runs thrown in to prepare your mind and body for going long, you'd run sub 3:00 in a breeze, laughing the whole way.

That's just not true. I started training again this past June. I could run probably run a 17:30 5k right now and I've done 16 mile long runs and struggle to maintain 7 minute pace comfortably. I know I couldn't hold 6:40 pace at this moment for 26.

Any runner fast enough to run 15 sec 100m has the speed to run a 17 min or 3 hour. So it really depends on your initial fitness level which is more difficult.

Take a new runner with an 20 minute 5k test run without any specific training. It could take this runner years to develop the aerobic speed to run sub 17. (It took me 2 years of steady improvement to run 17 the first time.) Once runner is strong enough to run sub 18 5k he is needs at most 6 months to a year to build the base endurance for the marathon.

I'm saying a 3 hour marathon is difficult if not impossible if you don't do significant specific training even for a 17 5ker. Also it's a prerequisite that you be able to run a 18 minute 5k before you can even attempt a sub 3 hour marathon.

Conversely if in every sub 3-hour marathoner there is already an 18 min 5ker why not put some energy into lower your 5k time one minute.

It's all about what you're training for and what your age is. I know a TON of HS/college aged kids that can run sub 17 for 5k easily, but it would be difficult for many of them to break 3 in a marathon simply because a marathon is a whole different ball game than a 5k.

On the other hand, I know older runners who have years of mileage in their legs who can keep a solid pace for miles upon miles, but breaking 17 for 5k would be a significant achievement to them because they simply don't have that type of speed in their legs anymore. In part, because long, slow mileage can zap the speed out of your legs.

From my perspective, as a decent D1 runner who ran sub 17 for 5k in 10th grade and who has yet to run a marathon, I would be much more pleased with a sub 3 marathon at this point.

I couldn't break 17 for 5K even during the same period that I ran a marathon of 2:44.