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

Sub 3 for 1KM is a lot easier and doesn't require near the training that a sub 3 marathon would require.

I've run a sub 3 1K in a solo time trial, but would struggle to run a sub 4 marathon. Sub 3? Forget it.

difficult vs accessible wrote:

Uh.....Nope. wrote:

What? A 3 min 1k is like 4:48 mile pace, right? You would come through the 800 in 2:24. You all are telling me that you think it is more difficult to run THAT than a 3 hour 'thon? I think you all are nuts. The 3min 1k can be done by middle schoolers.

The term "easy" is a bit odd in this context. It seems to me that a 3min 1k is "easier" if you're genetically blessed, but far less broadly accessible than a 3h marathon. Which is to say that I think people with natural talent can easily run a 3min 1k, but a hell of a lot more people with less talent, and who could never hold sub-5:00 pace for more than a few hundred meters, could potentially train hard and run a 3h marathon.

+1

With a little god given foot speed the 1k for sure. But without it the thon.

I ran a 2h52 marathon several times but never broke 3 minutes for 1k..

Just can't hold the speed but i wish i could. If anyone has some good training for a sub 3 min 1k please tell me.

I am a 26 yo male btw.

For me its the marathon. Most people have better speed than endurance so I would say 1km for most young people

FinnJ wrote:

For me its the marathon. Most people have better speed than endurance so I would say 1km for most young people

25yo guy, 21 BMI, 50-70 mpw avg for the last 5-6 years.

1k PR - 2:55

Marathon PR - 2:42

When i ran a PR of 2:57 in the thon, i did a 1000m time-trial in the build-up, i only got a 3:06, although on pretty tired legs. So..for me 1k under 3 is way harder to achieve than a sub 3 thon.

Every healthy person who can run under 3mins for 1k can train to easily run under 3 hours if they choose to.

There are many people who can break 3 hours that will never break 3 mins

Very fast twitch wrote:

I've run a sub 3 1K in a solo time trial, but would struggle to run a sub 4 marathon. Sub 3? Forget it.

You would struggle to run faster than 9:04 for 4 hours but you can run under 5 for a mile? I find that hard to believe

WarKills wrote:

Very fast twitch wrote:

I've run a sub 3 1K in a solo time trial, but would struggle to run a sub 4 marathon. Sub 3? Forget it.

You would struggle to run faster than 9:04 for 4 hours but you can run under 5 for a mile? I find that hard to believe

I never said I could run under 5 in the mile. My best 1600 is 5:04 (though to be fair, I rarely race that distance and had pretty bad pacing that day).

I still doubt I'd be able to run faster than 9:04 for 4 hours. My longest run is an hour and a half, and those last 10-15 minutes were pretty brutal.

Side note: I'm the poster "Very fast twitch" and tried to post under that name, but the site didn't let me since I posted under that name from a different device last time.

i posted in this topic before (2:40 1k, mid 1:30s HM on 70MPW)

i think you will find a lot of people in my niche of "400m guy who runs cross country" that can give you a respectable 5k, but cannot maintain 7:00 min/mi for any longer than an hour.

i believe my 11.9 100m is "worth more" than any race above a mile for me.

Age 48 and just ran a 3:00 1K solo time trial. Ain't no way I could run sun 3 hour marathon.

Have you tried running 70-80+ mpw w./ good long runs & GMP work in the 6:30s/6:40s?

Sub-3 1k speed is worth 2:50s marathon potential. I get why younger runners who aren't aerobically developed might think it's harder than sub-3 but I bet there are plenty of mid-2:50s types who can't run sub-3. They're honestly pretty close to aligning but the reality is that if you have a sub-3min 1k, your marathon potential is better than 3-flat.

I actually ran sub 2:40 for the marathon back in the day, but it's hard to maintain mileage and avoid injury at my age.