What's easier, sub-3 for 1 km or sub-3 for the marathon?

I think it depends on what kind of runner you are.

I could probably have broken 3 min for a 1000m in my early 50s - ran under 5 min for a mile, which is about 2:56 for 1000m on McMillan.

I doubt that I could have got near 3 hours for a marathon. I only ran 2:48 in my 30s, when I could have jogged a 3 min 1000m (I did 4x1000m with the last one in 3:12 when I was 56). There is never a point where I would have felt good running 3 hours for a marathon.

So if you have more fast-twitch, and/or have kept doing speed-work the 1000m is easier.

More slow-twitch or just distance training, then the 3 hour marathon is more likely.

If you can run a sub 3km then you should easily be able to run a sub 3 marathon. End of story. Anyone who can't run sub 3 should not call themselves a runner, and should just go back to hobbyjogging.

For lack of compelling arguments to the contrary, I'm gonna go with the calculator. FWIW as a guy who has been running consistently from age 12 to late 30's without a whole lot of talent, I find this pretty reasonable. When I was 16 years old, 3:00 1000 was nothing and a marathon was unthinkable. Now, in my late 30's, 3:00 for a marathon is nothing (ok, no longer "nothing," but not a real big deal) but 3:00 for 1000m is a dream. I'm not sure what "easier" means, but I think more humans exist on Earth who could, with proper preparation, run a 2:59:59 marathon than there are that could run aa 0:02:59 1000m.

if i had wings wrote:

McMillan Calculator wrote:

2:59 1000m equals 2:50:57 marathon.

2:59:59 marathon equals 3:08:05 1000m.

SUb-3 marathon is easier.

This calculator assumes the runner did the training needed to complete the marathon. I think what makes this topic debatable is the number of non-distance runners who can break a 3 mins in a 1k, but will never adequately train for a marathon.

Lots of interesting responses, thanks. Hard to really answer this one definitively either way.

McMillan Calculator wrote:

2:59 1000m equals 2:50:57 marathon.

2:59:59 marathon equals 3:08:05 1000m.

SUb-3 marathon is easier.

Statistically, a 3' km is more impressive, as the conversion states. However, I think the question about which is "easier" is a bit different.

The statistics are including all people who compete at these events. The populations that do 1000m races and marathons aren't really homogenous - most people toeing the line in a 1000m race have done some training, and it is hard to be very, very bad at 1000m even if you aren't trained. Thus, conversions tend to skew more favourably for shorter events when you're looking at lower end performances with big jumps in the distances being compared. If we were looking at comparing a mile/1000m or 800m/1000m, conversions are likely bang on.

Plus in the marathon, there is much more upside for training, which tends to skew the comparison a bit further. Your aerobic capacity has a much higher ceiling, and the marathon is more aerobic. I am a female with decent speed, and could probably run a 2:50-2:55 1000m at most times off of 10k training. If I did some specific work, I'm not sure I'd make incredible improvements - maybe I'd run 2:48 or something, which isn't that sick. In a marathon in my current state, I'd guess I could run a touch under 3 if I really tried (it would be a big struggle though) off of 10k training. However if I did some specific prep for the marathon, I could probably hit IAAF standard (weak, but still better than 2:48 in real terms). So the marathon would be "easier" if I trained optimally for each event separately I suppose.

So, I think that while a 3min 1000m is more impressive, it's more attainable to most relatively competent runners. The 3 hour marathon is fast enough I think that you have to be competent enough at running that a 3min 1000m is doable without much trouble.

HaileUnlikely wrote:

I'm not sure what "easier" means, but I think more humans exist on Earth who could, with proper preparation, run a 2:59:59 marathon than there are that could run aa 0:02:59 1000m.

My gut feel is that that's right. If your definition is 'the number of people who could get the time with sufficient training', then I suspect a 3 hour marathon is a bit easier (although it still wouldn't be many). That doesn't take anything away from long distance runners - the amount of work needed is massive.

I've seen fit first time runners reel off sub 20 5ks, and I can easily believe that lots of them could go sub 3 if they worked hard for it.

As others have said though it depends on body type - I'm mainly a 100m runner and have managed to drag my sorry butt around a 1000m race in 3:15. I haven't raced many of them and my 800m PB is 2:17 (back when I used to train for it), so I think 02:59 is easily possible. 2:59:00 for the marathon however is just a dream - never ever going to happen.

It's not a question of easiest, more a question of which performance is more impressive.

I know a woman who can run a sub 3 hour marathon but could never run a sub 3 min 1 km.

So for her the marathon is easier.

Many could easily do both.

I think the 3 min km is more impressive but is easier for the average person. After a 3 hour marathon I would be feeling petty fatigued and take a couple of weeks to recover. So it must be harder (for me). I'd recover from the 1000m in minutes.

jcruz, I think you are on the right track! For everyone else, if we assume a person is in shape to run either time, the 1 km is way easier than the marathon. Think about it this way: is it harder to run moderately fast for 2 minutes and 59 seconds or slog along for 2 hours and 59 minutes?

Uh.....Nope. wrote:

Sara Palin wrote:

Two people obviously not in there 30s. If you can run 6x1k at 3:00 you are running 15 flat in a 5k. I can easily see a 15:00 5k runner in college struggling to break 16:00 in his mid 30s but still able to run under 2:40 in a marathon.

I'm actually 42, but whatever. Look, a 3 min 1k is NOT difficult. We're not talking about 3 min 1k PACE for a race, or even as repeats in a workout. We're talking about running it ONE TIME. I could run that right now, but couldn't come close to a 3 hour 'thon.

Could you actually run under 3 mins right now? As in have you actually done it recently? If not, then I bet you can't.

I ran 2:26 for 1000m when I was 22 off of about three months of 20 miles a week. At that time I probably could have broken 3hrs as well - but it would have been super painful.

I took a number of years off and now in my forties there is no way I could break 3minutes without about a year of strengthening, stretching, massage, physio and very careful training. And even then injuries would probably stop me.

However, I can pound easy miles no problem and break three hours.

So the question comes down to age and whether one is a mid d guy or an LD guy.

He said 6x1000m at sub 3 not 1 full rep of 1km at sub 3. He obviously can run sub 3 for 1 full rep of 1km. Dumb.

if you are under 35, 1k easier

If you are over 35, marathon easier

If you train for 800-1500, 1k easier

If you train for marathon, marathon easier

If you are a fast twich guy, 1k easier

If you are a slow twitch guy, marathon easier.

Overall I would say sub 3' 1k is easier because a lot of people can do it with little training.

Whereas even very talented guys need to train quite a lot to be able run sub 3 and not have to walk even if the pace felt easy during 20miles.

George213 wrote:

Depends. I know a guy who ran 2:58, but his 800m pb is in the 2:20s and he can't even break 5:10 for 1500m. He's in his 40s, though, don't know if this is a factor.

2.20~ & 5.10~ are decent times for a 40 year old, and stack up against a 2.58 marathon.

I'd say a 3 min 3K is easier. For one you can repeat the 3K a few times over a relatively short time frame to practice it, not something you can easily do with a marathon.

'1K' that should say obviously.

A 3 min 3K would be slightly harder!

Dingler wrote:

darkwave wrote:

My hunch is that this depends on age and gender. A young guy will likely find the sub-3 1000m much easier. An older runner, especially female, will find the sub-3 marathon to be more attainable.

This. In HS I could do 6x1k sub-3 as a workout but doubt I could have run sub-3 hr marathon if I'd tried (not enough total mileage; considered 12 miles a long run). Now in 30's and can't hit anywhere near those times for intervals but 2:30s for marathon.

Very similar for me. I remember doing sub 3 min 1k intervals as a teenager. I'm 42 now and last year I was doing 8x 1k reps in marathon training and it was tough to hold 3:20. I ran 2:29 for the marathon.

The answer is in the age-grade tables.

/thread

If you're under age 35, the 3 minute 1k is waaaaaay easier. After 35 they get closer in difficulty, but I bet you'd have to get to a pretty old age before the 3 hour marathon becomes easier.

Nope. Per Age Grade, the marathon is 'easier' for all ages.

http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup15.html

/thread

To add to my previous point, I can't really see much argument for the 'thon being easier overall. Two weeks ago I banged out 5 reps of 1000m averaging 3:00 on a field in windy conditions with a slight incline and went for a second run later that same day. If I ran a sub-3 marathon I'd need several days off before I could run again.