Would you rather train a 5 minute mile or 3 hour marathon?

NotanUltraGuy wrote:

masters runner wrote:

Why is it so hard? Just run the miles, and sub-3:00 is guaranteed.

4:59 mile on the other hand. Tough...

2:59 marathon is a piece of cake in comparison. I know 60 year olds that do it fairly easily. Why so hard for a 30 year old?

Pure BS. I know guys that have run for years and never cracked 3. How many folks in your typical ultra race could crack 3, very very very few, yet they run tons of miles.

No they don't run tons of miles. They run a ton of miles in one go and hyperoptimize their gear/fuel to finish.

Silly. Do you know how many men in the 60-64 age group or older broke 3:00 in Chicago this year? 1. In 2014? 2. In 2013? 1.Do you know how many did it in New York this year? 2. In 2014? 0. In 2013? 0Do you know how many did it in Boston this year? 3. In 2015? 0. In 2014? 1.So in a total of 9 occurrences of three of the larger marathons in the world, all world majors, you have a total of 10 performances of under 3:00 by those over 60. Some of those performances were by the same people.

masters runner wrote:

Why is it so hard? Just run the miles, and sub-3:00 is guaranteed.

4:59 mile on the other hand. Tough...

2:59 marathon is a piece of cake in comparison. I know 60 year olds that do it fairly easily. Why so hard for a 30 year old?

Mile would probably be easier to accomplish in 1 year, even though sub 5:00 an overall better standard. But what's with the one shot at it limitation?

The guy making this bet or acting as benefactor doesn't want to show up to the track multiple times or to multiple marathons to witness the attempts. He's a busy man, you know.

You can have the guy run practice miles or marathons all you/he wants but you have to pick what constitutes the attempt beforehand

This is a pretty good question.

On one hand, 5:00 is a MUCH better performance than 3 hours. 5:00 requires above average talent. A sub 3 requires average talent and lots of dedication - and, given the conditions of the contest, luck. The runner must stay healthy for most of that year, he must be healthy for the race, the race weather has to be good, he has to have a good day.

Training for the sub 5 doesn't require so much mileage. If he's a little under the weather, or, the weather isn't so great the day of the race, he can still pull it off - an 85 degree day doesn't impact the mile much at all, it would destroy any chance that any but the most talented first timers would have of breaking 3.

So, the question is, which is less likely: The chance of the guy having the talent to break 5, or the chance that enough things will go right for the average talent guy to break 3?

I think I'd go with the mile (like most on here). If he's a former athlete, and he's stayed in shape, there's a good chance we'd be starting with a guy who could at least run a 75 quarter. It wouldn't be hard to convince him he could get there in a year (even if, in fact, he couldn't)

There's also the proviso that whichever I chose, the runner would be going it alone. No way in a year *I* could hit either of those times......

Here is another perspective: many, many high schoolers run sub-5 their first year of competing. I myself did it within six months, age 15. I have never met anyone who went from untrained to sub-3 in a year, although I'm sure there are a few outliers out there.

I ran 2:49 after three years, so I guess I could have pulled off sub-3 in two years, 1.5 tops. Even a fairly talented kid will struggle for a one year deadline. A thirty-year old will have it even tougher. You need a base, and kids can build it quicker.

I would take the 5 minute challenge. If not for the 1 year training limit, I might take the 3 hour. Personally, I have never broken 5 but have broken 3 hours several times. I also have not devoted near the time trying to break 5 minute mark that I devoted to breaking 3 hours.

marathon 'cause it's harder (for me). I was 5 min/mile in 3:15-3:20ish marathon shape.

I suspect that the proportion of the healthy 30-year-old American male population who could run a 3 hour marathon, given one year of appropriate training, is greater than the proportion of the same population who could run a 5-minute mile given one year of appropriate training. If you tell me the guy ran 4:30 or so in high school, that changes things, but given that the guy has done neither and is now age 30, I'd like the odds much much better with the marathon.

I never broke either as an old guy, although I came within minutes/seconds of both.

But I know lots of old guys who break 3, and precious few who break 5.

So I think the 3 is easier, given that, obviously, you can afford the years of training.

But also obviously you can take the shot at 5 much sooner off of no or low base.

I never broke either as an old guy, although I came within minutes/seconds of both.

But I know lots of old guys who break 3, and precious few who break 5.

So I think the 3 is easier, given that, obviously, you can afford the years of training.

But also obviously you can take the shot at 5 much sooner off of no or low base.

HaileUnlikely wrote:

I suspect that the proportion of the healthy 30-year-old American male population who could run a 3 hour marathon, given one year of appropriate training, is greater than the proportion of the same population who could run a 5-minute mile given one year of appropriate training. If you tell me the guy ran 4:30 or so in high school, that changes things, but given that the guy has done neither and is now age 30, I'd like the odds much much better with the marathon.

I agree with this completely.

Also, it totally depends on whether the guy is slow-twitch or fast-twitch.

I'm 31, in my 5th year of running. I'm within 10 minutes of 3-flat for the marathon, but my recent & lifetime PR for the mile is 5:5x. I say 5:5x 'cause it was a windy day, might have gone a few seconds faster under better conditions.

Obviously, I would have had zero chance of completing either in 1 year. However, I'm betting that I was never capable of sub-5 from birth, but will someday go sub-3. I'm unbelievably envious of the guys on this board with all their speed. My entire life, even running 5:30 has been practically incomprehensible.

"Guaranteed"? In one year? One shot? It took me years and multiple shots before I broke 3 hours. I nearly broke 5 minutes the first year I took up running.

I ran a 4:59 1600 (so I guess that's a 5:01 mile) while training for a marathon which I ran in 2:54:51.

I never just trained for a mile, but I had decent leg speed (27 sec 200 meters) for a 37 year old distance runner. Not great, but OK.

I would think that there are some people who could never break 5 min for a mile no matter how much time they had to train. I think that a higher percentage of people (who lack any leg speed) could train to break 3 hr.

So I would go for the marathon.

You could probably break 5, you've just never truly developed your speed.

Lurker - Thanks for the research on that. butseriouslyfolks' comment was a very uneducated one. Doing it at 50 is one thing, 60 is another. Ask any old guy. You get old fast somewhere in there!

I'd say that running under 5 is more doable in a year assuming he has a sports background like you said. If he played lacrosse, basketball, soccer, etc. in high school, he's got some fast twitch muscles hiding there. Breaking 3 is doable within a few years for most guys with some athletic talent and dedication I think.

FWIW - I have a friend who started running in January 2014 at 6'3" 240 lbs at age 28 with a football/basketball background. He's 195 lbs now and just ran a 4:43 downhill mile (probably ~4:56 flat equivalent) while doing only marathon training. He ran a 3:02 marathon last fall and likely will run a high 2:50's this spring.

FWIW I was a miler in high school. Not a particularly good one (PR 4:36), but the mile was my best event. I ran a 3:06 marathon on my first try, the fall after high school, with a couple of long runs but relatively low total volume and training still more geared toward mile-5k than marathon. But that was at age 18, fresh off of 4 years of high school track/xc and with the testosterone of a teenage boy. Being 30 isn't like being 18 (I'm now 35). I could comfortably run sub 3 tomorrow, but doubt I could do much better than 5:45 or so for a mile. (I do no race-specific training of any kind - I am basically the letstrun dictionary definition of a hobbyjogger.) I know I could lower it with a year of specific training, but I don't know if I could get it down below 5, even though I have done it before, probably at least a hundred times. If somebody never did the kind of training oriented toward racing middle distance in their youth, I don't like their odds of running a sub 5 if they start trying for the first time at age 30. A few people could do it, but the vast majority could not. The vast majority couldn't do the 3-hour marathon with only 1 year of training either, but I like their odds slightly better, given no prior running background and beginning training for the first time at age 30.

A 2:59 marathon is way easier than a 4:59 mile. Training for a marathon is relatively straightforward, middle distance is tricky. The only uncertainty is whether you have an explosive guy (like American football players), then it can be tricky within a year. With the average Joe, then I guess it's easier to go for sub-3.

From a sub-3 marathoner that could probably run a 5:40 mile right now and 5:20 maybe with six months training.

Exactly my experience.

I tried for a sub-5:00 mile, and it was brutal. The workouts are extremely tough. I could run 80s quarters all day, but stringing 74s quarters together with no break was impossible.

At 30 though and the original question about coaching someone that age? I'd pick the 5:00 minute mile. Starting from zero. The odds are slim for either.