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

I realise that perhaps things are different for 17 year-old runners than 30 year olds, but I started running in August 2012 at age 16 after being pretty lazy for the previous years, only playing rugby, random games of football and very occasional cross-country runs the two years previous.

In July 2013 (so eleven months later) I ran 4:24 for 1500m, and in August I ran 5:06 for the mile front running the whole way and feeling easy. I wouldn't consider myself to be a spectacular talent (with harder training the following year I dropped my 1500 PB to 4:08 with a 60-second last lap) so I wouldn't say that 5 minutes for the mile is beyond the reach of most healthy, semi-athletic 30 year olds in a year of consistent training.

I have no idea about the marathon, as I have never run one, and it seems like an event where everything can and will go wrong!

I am the person described by the OP (Not the exact person he is referring to, just the exact description)

I can tell you, after now 2 years training pretty damn optimally for 5K to Half Marathons, neither would have been possible for me after just one year. However, a sub-3 marathon was so completely out of reach it's silly to even think about. I'm of the opinion that, barring really solid talent, a sub-3 marathon requires much more aerobic development than 1 year would allow, even discounting the possibility of injury. If you have the natural speed to go under 5 for the mile, that would seem the more reasonable bet.

Going from no mileage to any mileage at 30 is definitely not easy, much less the mileage required to get to sub-3. The thought of completing a marathon at anywhere near what running calculators predicted I could based on my 5K time (which was sub 3) was just plain outside of my mental capacity to comprehend. So not only is the aerobic capacity not there, the ability to even visualize the possibility is not. Now, I may or may not have had the talent to go sub-5 at that point, but either way, the task would not have seemed so herculean to me both in the ability to train for it and to picture myself doing it.

So, I'll take the 5-minute mile bet over the 3-hour marathon bet all day is what I'm saying.

If the time limit were 2 years instead of the one, I might lean more towards the 3-hour marathon though.

This be said here somewhere:

This is such a Letsrun question.

Yes, with such Letsrun answers. Where everyone who can't run sub-5 or sub-3 at the drop of a hat is a hobby jogger, and the only reason they can't do either of those things is because they're lazy and won't get off the couch.

There is zero debate which is more attainable: The sub-5 or the sub-3. The answer is the sub-5. Anyone answering sub-3 is crazy, and outright ignores variables. Everyone is not you, okay?

Mile for sure.

I'm 32 and a below average runner. I can run a 5:55 mile with only running 2-3 days a week with a little training. I couldn't run a

It may be a better wager for the *coach* to say 5-minute mile, but it would be a bad wager for the athlete, I think.

Maybe I'm a "hobby jogger" but I'm 39 and while I can run a 3:03 marathon I've never cracked 5:50 in a mile. I run 60-70 miles a week during training.

Sub-3 won't cut nearly as close to the athlete's absolute potential as the 5:00 mile will, and if the athlete happens to not be biologically gifted for speed you'll never get there. With enough miles and some speed work you can get a sub-3 even if they're lacking the gift of speed.

I've been running track and xc for two years now, I'm a very skinny person so I get injured fairly often. I sat out most of track almost 3 years ago now because of an injury and only ran in soccer practice before that. I ran a 6:30 mile at the start of my 11th grade track season (previous track season) and improved to 5:27. I got injured but still ran a 19:08 midway through xc season. I haven't ran the mile yet this season but after running the two mile at 11:08 I know I could probably run close to 5:05. I'm not an extremely natural athlete but I'm not completely awful at running either. I ran a 1:36.24 in a half last track off no real endurance training or anticipation of pacing. I anticipate running a 1:25 or faster this June as long as I don't get injured. A 1:25 or faster is pretty close to 3:00 for the marathon. To rap this part up, it took me two years with certain set-backs that caused me to stop training. Had I not stopped training, I probably would be running sub-5 tomorrow. I would imagine that most people would not be able to run the mile at that time in high school with a year of training. However, last year, 23,445 people ran a sub-5 in high school track but of course this person is beyond their peak VO2 years and so they would have to deal with that. I think that for me, running a 3:00 would almost be the same as running a 5:00. But I think you'd have to train this person for 6 months to see which way you would want to go. I don't think you could decide which one is correct without having trained that person.

If the choice were training a 14 to 16 year old, I would say five minute mile. A high school track & field team will have often nine or more males capable of a sub-5 mile. A three hour Marathon is equal to about a 5:26 one mile for men. A thirty year old, three hour Marathon for sure.

sub3.. lots of people do that, all kinds of ages and body types. A sub5 mile at age 30... not so much.

I'd coach someone trying for the marathon. A factor that no one has mentioned is that someone that age is unlikely to be able to make themselves hurt. Intensity like in a mile would be very foreign to them. It can be developed for sure in some adults, but I think it would be more of an obstacle than getting in the miles. I follow some marathoners' training elsewhere, and there are runners who started running as adults running in the 2:40s who have never run under 5:20.

I'd say sub 3. Lots of people don't have the speed to EVER break sub 5. If they did, sub 3 would still be a string possibility. If they didn't have the natural speed to run a 5 minute mile, they might have a shot at sub 3

The key thing to optimize the chance of success story sub 3 in a year would be to get as much aerobic training in without getting injured. Chance of injury would be high. You could have them be building milage while doing as much cross training as possible. After 6 months, it'd look like this: only like 30 actual miles, but the aerobic stress of like 60. Obviously 60 miles would be better, but the chance of injury would be way too high

Am 30min elliptical + pm 4 miles easy

Am 30mim swimming + pm 400 repeats

Am 30mim elliptical + pm 4 miles easy

Am 30min swimming + pm 4 miles easy

Am 30mim elliptical + pm 400 repeats

Am 30mim swimming + pm 4 miles easy

2 hour elliptical session or 10 miles easy