Rank from most to least impressive.
Rank from most to least impressive.
According to VDOT:
2:30 marathon= 15:38 5k and a 71:37 half marathon
70 min half marathon= 2:26:32 marathon and a 15:16 5k
15 min 5k=2:23:48 marathon and a 1:08:39 half marathon
In conclusion, the 15 min 5k is the most impressive. Also, give Jamin 5k pr he should move up to the marathon and try to qualify for the olympic trials.
Vdot is heavily waited towards marathon and half. Not saying sub 15 isn't good, but definitely not worth 2:23:00. that being said with focused training I think the order would go like this.
1. 70 half
2. 15 5k
3. 2:30
Is VDOT Daniels? If so, I've found his table to greatly overestimate the performances achievable at longer distances based on shorter distance times. For me, the Purdy tables have proven much more accurate. I'll concede it certainly varies from person to person though.
To answer the OP, based on my own running career:
sub 15 > sub 2:30 > sub 1:10
My PRs are ~14:45, ~2:29, and ~1:08. I ran the 1:08 a couple weeks following a 15:20s road 5K. I ran the 2:29 roughly a month after a 15:05ish track 5K. Unfortunately, no long distance races to compare to around the time of my track 5K PR, but I did run a ~51 min 10 miler on the roads a couple months later summer. Therefore I estimate I would have been good for 1:06/1:07 while in 14:45 5K shape.
VDOT tends to overestimate a person's ability for the longer distances. I just ran a 15:36 5K recently and there's no way in hell I could run a 2:30 marathon or a 71:3x half. I have a half coming up and I'm just hoping to break 73.
la la lo lo wrote:
VDOT tends to overestimate a person's ability for the longer distances. I just ran a 15:36 5K recently and there's no way in hell I could run a 2:30 marathon or a 71:3x half. I have a half coming up and I'm just hoping to break 73.
Is the problem with the VDOT, or is the problem that a vast majority of runners are better prepared for shorter races than longer races?
Doesn't VDOT assume ideal training for the distance?
I'd say it's more a case of amateur athletes being able to handle 'ideal' training for shorter distances better than they can for longer distances. In terms of volume, time dedicated to training etc.
Definitely sub 15 5k, sub 2:30, sub 1:10. A guy on my team has a 16:45 5k and ran a 2:28 marathon.
Every runner is going to be a little bit different, so the difficulty of each might vary per person. My PRs are 14:53 for 5k, 1:06:55 for the half, and I’ve never run a marathon. However, I’d like to think that I was capable of 14:40-45 on the day that I ran my half PR. Not sure what I would’ve been capable of in the marathon that day - maybe 2:23 or so.
For me personally, I’d probably rank the sub 70 half and sub 2:30 marathon on the same level, with the sub 15 5k being more difficult than both.
bofa wrote:
Definitely sub 15 5k, sub 2:30, sub 1:10. A guy on my team has a 16:45 5k and ran a 2:28 marathon.
wut
To echo others here, sub 15 is the hardest with the other two being fairly comparable in my opinion. But your training and genetics are a huge part of it. I’ll likely never come anywhere close to sub 15 but ran 2:30:01 the other day with stupid pacing. Someone that ran 14:5x off of 1:50 800m ability might have the opposite experience. I’d still say if you can go under 15 then the other two are attainable if you put in the work.
I’m a bit curious about those saying 2:30 is harder than 1:10, though. I’d be surprised if I could get within 30 seconds of a 70 min half right now, but then again I’m probably just more geared towards longer distances.
dude what wrote:
bofa wrote:
Definitely sub 15 5k, sub 2:30, sub 1:10. A guy on my team has a 16:45 5k and ran a 2:28 marathon.
wut
Yeah that 5k PR is “fake” in the sense that there’s zero chance that guy ran 16:45 at an honest effort while being in the same stratosphere as 2:28.
la la lo lo wrote:
VDOT tends to overestimate a person's ability for the longer distances. I just ran a 15:36 5K recently and there's no way in hell I could run a 2:30 marathon or a 71:3x half. I have a half coming up and I'm just hoping to break 73.
VDOT is wrong the longer you go.
2:00
4:28
9:54
15:50
32:54
1:16.47
Just looking at those times, I think the sub-70 half is the least impressive. Not sure about the sub-15 5k vs the sub-2:30 half.
Age-graded for a 28 y/o male:
14:59 5K: 84.2%
2:29:59 marathon: 81.98%
1:19:59 half marathon: 73%
For a 28 y/o female:
14:59 5K: 96.22%
2:29:59 marathon: 90.29%
1:19:59 half marathon: 81.52%
Unsurprisingly, the sub-15 5k starts to look better and better as you get older.
Oops, I used sub-80 half instead of sub-70. Dumbass. Disregard the last post.
salted jock wrote:
Age-graded for a 28 y/o male:
14:59 5K: 84.2%
2:29:59 marathon: 81.98%
1:09:59 half marathon: 83.42%
For a 28 y/o female:
14:59 5K: 96.22%
2:29:59 marathon: 90.29%
1:09:59 half marathon: 93.17%
Fixed. So, the sub-2:30 marathon would arguably be the least impressive for a 28 y/o athlete.
I ran 14.58, 66.54 and 2.30.15 in the space of 3 years in my late 20s/ early 30s. Clearly the half M is superior, but that was the distance I was best at (49.53 10 miles too). As has been said, very dependent on the individual's strengths. 5k was too short/fast for me and the Marathon just too long. I even ran 1:48 for 20 miles but couldn't translate it into a decent Marathon time.
bofa wrote:
Definitely sub 15 5k, sub 2:30, sub 1:10. A guy on my team has a 16:45 5k and ran a 2:28 marathon.
No way is that the best he could do for 5km
Ridiculous.
sub 15 requires the most ability; 230 takes the most work.
If I put my 1500 pb (3:55) into VDOT, it says I can run a 2:20:10 marathon...
I would absolutely not be able to run 3:19s for 26.2.