Which is better? a 2 minute 800m or a 34 minute 10km?

2:00 is better than 34:00

i have 2 02 80 for 800m and 33:49 at 10km (hard course) would you still think that the 800m is better? I'm probably jumping from 800m/1500m to 1,5/3/5km type of races next season

I know a handful of athletes who have 2:00+ 800m times and (no typo) 31:xx 10km times.

theflatenedpancake wrote:

i have 2 02 80 for 800m and 33:49 at 10km (hard course) would you still think that the 800m is better? I'm probably jumping from 800m/1500m to 1,5/3/5km type of races next season

It depends. If you have been training more for the 800m, then you are probably more suited for the 10k and vice versa. 2:02.80 is probably a more impressive time that 33:49, but not by as much as some letsrunners would lead you to believe. I would say that the two times are very comparable.

I'm assuming those are guys who are aerobic monsters since i would expect a 31 flat to be equivalent of say 1:53/4?

162430 wrote:

theflatenedpancake wrote:

i have 2 02 80 for 800m and 33:49 at 10km (hard course) would you still think that the 800m is better? I'm probably jumping from 800m/1500m to 1,5/3/5km type of races next season

It depends. If you have been training more for the 800m, then you are probably more suited for the 10k and vice versa. 2:02.80 is probably a more impressive time that 33:49, but not by as much as some letsrunners would lead you to believe. I would say that the two times are very comparable.

It doesn't depend, sub 2 or 2 flat is a lot better than 34 10km.

2:02 is worth sub 33 as well

Mo Ron wrote:

I know a handful of athletes who have 2:00+ 800m times and (no typo) 31:xx 10km times.

B.S. You may know 1-2 guys like this, but even that seems ridiculous. If it is true, then you hang around with a lot of marathoners who have never done any type of training for races 1500 on down.

theflatenedpancake wrote:

I'm assuming those are guys who are aerobic monsters since i would expect a 31 flat to be equivalent of say 1:53/4?

Good call.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

It doesn't depend, sub 2 or 2 flat is a lot better than 34 10km.

2:02 is worth sub 33 as well

What would you say 2:03 is worth? Certainly, you are not claiming that 2:02.80 is the same as sub 2, 2 flat, or 2:02. It is not. Anyways, I agree that 2:02.80 is better than 33:49. It is probably pretty close to 32:HI. However, the OP said that the race was on a tough course. That could've cost him 20-30 seconds. Also, if he is training for the 800m and ran 33:49, I would say that he is more suited for the longer stuff. No?

Mo Ron wrote:

theflatenedpancake wrote:

I'm assuming those are guys who are aerobic monsters since i would expect a 31 flat to be equivalent of say 1:53/4?

Good call.

Well, I take back my B.S. call. As long as you admit that they are "aerobic monsters".

the thing is that the 800m time was done in may 2013 and i felt i could maybe do 2 flat assuming perfect conditions.

The 10km was like in december 2013 with endurance work only.

I'm stronger in long distances but still i understand how speedwork translates to longer distances (hence why me and my coach have been working to increase my speed last 3 years) I'm aiming for sub 9 at 3km, 15:30 at 5km and maybe 32:30 at 10k

theflatenedpancake wrote:

the thing is that the 800m time was done in may 2013 and i felt i could maybe do 2 flat assuming perfect conditions.

The 10km was like in december 2013 with endurance work only.

I'm stronger in long distances but still i understand how speedwork translates to longer distances (hence why me and my coach have been working to increase my speed last 3 years) I'm aiming for sub 9 at 3km, 15:30 at 5km and maybe 32:30 at 10k

In that case, you may be better at 800m. That still doesn't mean that you cannot pursue your goals at the longer distances. Road races are (in my opinion) more fun than open track meets anyways. Good luck!

162430 wrote:

Well, I take back my B.S. call. As long as you admit that they are "aerobic monsters".

Thank you.

Two of them are now Ultra/Trail "stars".

They really are aerobic monsters.

Very interesting question. My pb is 2.03 and 10k 36.00.

My 3k is 9.40 so I am thinking that I really lack aerobic talent or I am training really wrong.

Our dutch record holder has 1.43 and his 10k were always in the 31.00 range.

I think you really cannot compare 800 and 10k times.

this is very weird to me. I ran 1:53.9 in high school but only 40:00 for 10k. Then again, I ran 25 miles per week

pindakaas wrote:

I think you really cannot compare 800 and 10k times.

/thread

my PRs are 1:59 and 31:18, ran in March and the following November, respectively (so in consecutive seasons). totally different training though, 800/1500-specific training for the 800 and HM-specific training for the 10K. i don't think this is anything special...i could go to one of the more competitive 10Ks in my area and get my butt whooped by 15+ guys, most of which have likely ran 2:00 or WAAAAAY better back in their track days, or could easily break 2:00 if they took 1-2 months to do some specific training. IMO if you run 2:00 in HS and are still running competitively 10 years later & have not ran 31 flat for 10K (5:00 miles), you either A) aren't developing your aerobic system worth a damn, or B) are just a really poor 400/800 runner with absolutely no natural endurance. ps - i don't know Mo Ron;)

162430 wrote:

Mo Ron wrote:

I know a handful of athletes who have 2:00+ 800m times and (no typo) 31:xx 10km times.

B.S. You may know 1-2 guys like this, but even that seems ridiculous. If it is true, then you hang around with a lot of marathoners who have never done any type of training for races 1500 on down.

1:50 to 2:00 just requires talent.

34:00 10km requires hard work and years of aerobic development.

smallballingthatspopwarner wrote:

ps - i don't know Mo Ron;)

haha :D