Which takes more training, a 5:30 mile or a 4 hour marathon?

Fast twitch wrote:

I was reading this article, which (correctly) says that a fast mile is more impressive than a slow marathon:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2230186/fast-mile-more-impressive-slow-marathon

The average marathon time for young men is around 4 hours, so I'm pretty sure anything worse than that is considered slow for that demographic. Granted, a 5:30 mile isn't blazing speed either, but it's a lot closer to the WR than the 4 hour marathon is.

So, which one takes more training and commitment? I'm not a miler, but when asked what my times are, I tell people that I run a five and a half minute mile since it's a distance that most people can relate to, as opposed to something like the 400, which is my main event. But a lot more people are impressed by the 4:57 marathon I did, which I ran on a whim after track season was over.

Most people are impressed by marathons because they have little reference point to the degree of difficulty to run a certain time below that distance. To them, any average person could run a mile with little or no training and they won't be too worse for the wear after. But it will take a decent amount of time and effort to complete a marathon. And of course, the runner will experience long and lengthy pain during and after. That's why they're impressed.

My 14 year old daughter ran 5:30 this year. My 16 year old son ran 4:25. Both were running about 25mpw. They woukd be lucky to complete a 10k. Of course a marathon takes more training. A 5:30 mile can be run in gym class by a semi talented kid. Regardless of talent, some training will be required to complete a marathon.

Amount of training time needed to achieve a goal has absolutely nothing to do with performance equivalency. For many people, more training may be necessary to train for a Marathon. Going on the necessary 15 plus mile runs for Marathon training is time consuming. Btw., 5:30 one mile is roughly equal to 3 hour Marathon.

The marathon, obviously. 5:30 takes actually zero training for a lot of people.

You have to at least put some effort together to run 26 miles at 9ish pace.

Ehh my 10 year old did a 12k trail race with me when he was 9 but hasn’t run under 7 minutes in the mile.

Running fast mile is much harder than jogging out a longer distance.

5:30 = 3hr. wrote:

Amount of training time needed to achieve a goal has absolutely nothing to do with performance equivalency. For many people, more training may be necessary to train for a Marathon. Going on the necessary 15 plus mile runs for Marathon training is time consuming. Btw., 5:30 one mile is roughly equal to 3 hour Marathon.

No, it's not. The "race conversions" that use that 0.06 rule are never going to be accurate when comparing races that far apart in distance unless you are literally the most slow twitch person ever.

I don't know or care enough about marathons to make an accurate conversion from 5:30 mile to a marathon, but I promise you most people who qualify for Boston can certainly run faster than 5:30.

your wife's BF wrote:

I don't know or care enough about marathons to make an accurate conversion from 5:30 mile to a marathon, but I promise you most people who qualify for Boston can certainly run faster than 5:30.

I should have said qualify for Boston in the younger age group woopsie

dumbo the runner wrote:

My 14 year old daughter ran 5:30 this year. My 16 year old son ran 4:25. Both were running about 25mpw. They woukd be lucky to complete a 10k. Of course a marathon takes more training. A 5:30 mile can be run in gym class by a semi talented kid. Regardless of talent, some training will be required to complete a marathon.

There is no way that a person who runs 25 MPW would "be lucky to complete a 10K". The freshmen in my HS XC team did 10K long runs every week, and they rarely exceeded 25 MPW.

Yes, a 5:30 mile can be run by a talented kid who barely trains, but the same thing could be said about the 4 hour marathon:

"I mean I had no intention of running a marathon within the next 3 months and had not been running much at all. I ran the 6 mile loop at Forest Park about 3 times within the past 2 months and thats it as far as running goes"

"I finish the race in style and about 15 minutes faster than I was hoping for at 3:46."

5:30 = 3hr. wrote:

Btw., 5:30 one mile is roughly equal to 3 hour Marathon.

Yeah, that makes some sense.

Ed Whitlock holds the M75+ age record for the marathon, which he ran in 3:04 at age 76. Ed also holds the M75+ record for the mile, but his time was "only" 5:41 (the 1500 record of 5:11.2 is held by a different person, which converts to a 5:36 mile).

On the women's side, a 60+ year old has run a 2:56 marathon, while the fastest mile by a woman that age is 5:39 (the 1500 record is 5:06.6, which still doesn't convert to a sub 5:30 mile).

5:30 mile is 10 times better.

4 hour marathon shows you can shuffle along and finish something.

It's still an accomplishment, good for them, but the 5:30 mile is more impressive to me.

'I ran a 5:30 mile' is pretty impressive no matter what your age

'I did a 4 hour marathon' tells me ok, you wanted to do a marathon because Oprah did one, you finished in an average time. You should be proud but not too proud! lol

Any guy that isn't overweight and runs 25 miles a week can run a 4 hour marathon. Women can even do it. 5:30 is far better

4 hr marathon takes more training.

5:30 mile takes MUCH more natural talent.

The slowest of 12 marathons I have run was 3:40.

I could barely get under 6 min for a mile.

Depending on the calculator used, a 5:30 mile is 3:05-3:19 for the marathon. A lot depends on lifetime miles: Most kids who run 5:30 can't finish a marathon without walking, most older runners with lots of miles can't get under 6:00 to save their lives. In may case I can train 80 miles/week at 4:00 M-pace despite being more of an 800-mile guy, but if I could get a 5:30 at age 63, I would be overjoyed.

I ran a 4-hour marathon in 1999 with 40K "training". Never had run a longer distance than 10 kilometers before and totally had time to go jogging 4 times before the race. I hadn't been doing any sports maybe for 10 years back then. So in my opinion a 4-hour marathon doesn't require training at all. You just need to handle the pain and know hot to pace the race. Most joggers achieve bad results because they just decide to run more slowly than what they could and some because they do not respect the distance and run too fast.

Most of you can't read. He did not ask which equivalency is better or which is more impressive. Read the question. "So, which one takes more training and commitment?" The answer is clear. Talent gets you a 5:30 while training gets you 4 hours. Anybody can train to run 4 hours but not everyone can run 5:30.

Yes, lucky to complete one. My daughter has never run further than 5 miles and my son has only gone 6 miles a few times. Of course he can do one, but not more than a few miles further but he can run 4:25. And my daughter really would have a hard tim because she reverts to a 10 minute mile at 30 minutes into a run but she has run 5:30 on almost no training.

No charts are necessary for the conversion. It's simply the percentage away from world record.

5:30 or 330 / 223.13 or 3:43.13 = 1.4789 (rounded)

Multiply 1.4789 x 2:01:39 or 7299 = 2:59: 54.92

5:30 one mile equals 2:59:54.92 Marathon

dumbo the runner wrote:

Most of you can't read. He did not ask which equivalency is better or which is more impressive. Read the question. "So, which one takes more training and commitment?" The answer is clear. Talent gets you a 5:30 while training gets you 4 hours. Anybody can train to run 4 hours but not everyone can run 5:30.

You’re someone already has the talent. But take two people who doesn’t have a ton of fitness and can run a 9 min mile and a 4:42 marathon (the equivalent fitness). If one person trains in a marathon and the other in a mile, who hits the goal (5:30 mile or 4 hour marathon) first? Clearly the marathoner.

Maybe you have a problem with Jack Daniels’ equivalent fitness measurements, so I’ll even change 9 min mile to 7:30. Still, the 4:42 runner will get to 4:00 in one really good cycle. A person who run 7:30 probably wouldn’t go sub-6 in the same time. And that’s after I spotted you a full 90s.

dumbo the runner wrote:

Yes, lucky to complete one. My daughter has never run further than 5 miles and my son has only gone 6 miles a few times. Of course he can do one, but not more than a few miles further but he can run 4:25. And my daughter really would have a hard tim because she reverts to a 10 minute mile at 30 minutes into a run but she has run 5:30 on almost no training.

The flaw in your logic is that you are using kids, who dominate the short distance. Let’s go to the opposite spectrum and pick a senior citizen. I’d be impressed with either, but would be blown away by a 65-year-old that could still run 5:30. The best time in that age group from the Fifth Ave Mile was 5:40 this year, and the next best was 6:08.