Sub 5 minute Mile or Sub 3 hour Marathon. Which is a better achievement?

Pisco Sour

Came across an interesting discussion on letsrun here. The responses seem to be pretty 50/50.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3697914&page=0

So for the average person with no talent what is the greater achievement, going sub 5 for the mile, or sub 3 for the marathon?

Stark

My vote goes to sub 5.

Pisco Sour

Poll added

Krusty_Clown

Which is better, an apple or an orange?

token56

Like any comparison between a long distance event and middle/short distance event it's always difficult to compare.

I'll go with sub 3 hour being more difficult simply because I think it would be easier for me personally to run a sub 5 min mile than it would for me to run a sub 3 hour marathon. I also know alot more people who could run a sub 5 min mile than a sub hour marathon. I guess that's partly because it would be a much more common distance to have ran also.

I'd also think the amount of training required to completed a sub 3 hour marathon might be a bit more intensive than that which would be required to do a sub 5 min mile.

TheRoadRunner

From 6 months of inactivity I could (in theory) run a sub 5 minute mile off 6 weeks training. Would probably need 20 weeks to go sub 3 so me the sub 5 is easier. Others could run sub 3 off little training but may never go sub 5 for the mile. Different horses for different courses

christeb

Personally I could do a sub 5 mile with about 6 weeks of training from now, whereas I'd need at the very least 6 months of high mileage training to do a sub 3 marathon

kennyb3

Sub 3 would imho require alot more dedication from the average man on the street (lets not get into the definition of average or dedication please) - what i mean is as others above have said it would often require 6 months to a year minimum of running to achieve the sub 3hr mara.

Anyway what is the point in comparing the two? so you can say someone who has done one is better than someone else? comparing achievements is pretty sad imo

RayCun

Also, how old is your 'average person'.
At 38, I don't know if a sub-5 mile would even be possible for me, but it would certainly take much more work now than it would have 15/20 years ago.
Sub-3 marathon... it's not something I'm going to do in the next 12 months, but the deadline for doing one is a lot further out. If I stay injury free and do the training, maybe in 2/3 years time. Or maybe it's a goal I'll set in 10 years time. 10 years from now my chances of doing a sub-5 mile are even slimmer.

tunney

I believe sub 3 is the minimum a club runner should be doing.
Sub 5 would take a little more work and a lot more pain.

shels4ever

Very hard to compare the two and depends on the person. The pain for a fast mile is not the same as a fast marathon. Some people will run sub5 off a little training, It took me maybe 2-3 years to do that and I didnt think the sub5 mile was an achievement back then, was finishing 15-20 seconds down on people the same age. Now if i was to run one next year it would be a major achievement.

oldrunner

The world record for the marathon is 2hrs 3 minutes 59 seconds. If you run a marathon in 2hrs 59minutes 59 seconds, you would take 1.45 times as long as the world record.
The world record for the mile is 3minutes 43.13 seconds. If you run a mile in 4 minutes 59.9 seconds, you would take 1.344 times as long as the world record.
Statistically, breaking the 5 minute mark is 8% better than breaking 3 hours, relative to world record times.
In order to run 1.344 times faster than the marathon world record, you need to run 2 hours 46 minutes 38 seconds.
Breaking 3 hours is just a hang up in marathon runners' minds. It is clearly a lot easier than breaking 5 minutes for the mile.
Having said that, it's horses for courses. I can trot out sub 5 minute miles but will never run a marathon and would probably break down training to go sub 3 hours.

bart simpson

oldrunner wrote: »

The world record for the marathon is 2hrs 3 minutes 59 seconds. If you run a marathon in 2hrs 59minutes 59 seconds, you would take 1.45 times as long as the world record.
The world record for the mile is 3minutes 43.13 seconds. If you run a mile in 4 minutes 59.9 seconds, you would take 1.344 times as long as the world record.
Statistically, breaking the 5 minute mark is 8% better than breaking 3 hours, relative to world record times.
In order to run 1.344 times faster than the marathon world record, you need to run 2 hours 46 minutes 38 seconds.
Breaking 3 hours is just a hang up in marathon runners' minds. It is clearly a lot easier than breaking 5 minutes for the mile.
Having said that, it's horses for courses. I can trot out sub 5 minute miles but will never run a marathon and would probably break down training to go sub 3 hours.

if you were trying to do either, over the space of a year you could have a good few shots at breaking 5 minute mile, you will only get one or two shots at the sub 3 marathon in a year.
World records are attempted more frequently at shorter distances than they are at marathon distance

oldrunner

The world record for the mile (and the 1500m) hasn't been broken in over 10 years, the marathon record fell two years ago.

There is a myth that training for shorter races is easier or less work than training for marathons. Yes, it generally involves less mileage and, probably, less time. But the effort involved is completely different.

Making a horse racing comparison - the thoroughbred horses run the short races on the flat and get retired to stud, the others run the long distances over jumps and get retired to the knackers yard.:)

kennyb3

oldrunner wrote: »

The world record for the mile (and the 1500m) hasn't been broken in over 10 years, the marathon record fell two years ago.

There is a myth that training for shorter races is easier or less work than training for marathons. Yes, it generally involves less mileage and, probably, less time. But the effort involved is completely different.

Making a horse racing comparison - the thoroughbred horses run the short races on the flat and get retired to stud, the others run the long distances over jumps and get retired to the knackers yard.:)

Think you ve missed barts point there a bit, firstly we aint talking about world records we are talking about achieving sub 5 or sub 3, i think looking at world records for professional athlethes when talking about the average man is a little irrelevant.

Secondly he wasnt saying one is harder or easier, merely the average man will get plenty of attempts at sub 5 but only 1, maybe 2 a year at sub 3

christeb

tunney wrote: »

I believe sub 3 is the minimum a club runner should be doing.

I'll start writing my resignation letter

I tend to agree though, anyone who has been running with a clud for any length of time is at this level

oldrunner

I appreciate that you can get it badly wrong on the day in the marathon and won't get another chance for some time. But, on average, the average man won't get it wrong.
The fact that you get more chances to run mile races is irrelevant, you either can do it or not. If your best is 5:10, it doesn't matter how often you try, you still won't break 5.
Presumably, the spread of running ability follows a normal distribution pattern. As such, world record holders will be at one end of the bell curve (whether they are mile record holders of marathon record holders). Therefore. you would expect the 'average' runner to be in the middle of the curve. It is probable that relative performance standards across different distances are comparable (but, in the absence of a huge database of performances, unprovable). As such, a sub 5 mile is comparable to a 2:46 marathon relative to averages (and, therefore, a better achievement than breaking 3 hours).
The 3 hour time is just a 'neat' break point that is a major hang up for many marathon runners.

Krusty_Clown

oldrunner wrote: »

The 3 hour time is just a 'neat' break point that is a major hang up for many marathon runners.

As is the 5 minute mile. It's meaningless. Like sub-3 it's just a label.
If you want relevant information from this discussion, ask someone who has done both.

kennyb3

oldrunner wrote: »

I appreciate that you can get it badly wrong on the day in the marathon and won't get another chance for some time. But, on average, the average man won't get it wrong.
The fact that you get more chances to run mile races is irrelevant, you either can do it or not. If your best is 5:10, it doesn't matter how often you try, you still won't break 5.
Presumably, the spread of running ability follows a normal distribution pattern. As such, world record holders will be at one end of the bell curve (whether they are mile record holders of marathon record holders). Therefore. you would expect the 'average' runner to be in the middle of the curve. It is probable that relative performance standards across different distances are comparable (but, in the absence of a huge database of performances, unprovable). As such, a sub 5 mile is comparable to a 2:46 marathon relative to averages (and, therefore, a better achievement than breaking 3 hours).
The 3 hour time is just a 'neat' break point that is a major hang up for many marathon runners.

Yeah presumably! Maths and statistics are great, something i like, can be used in very manipulative ways to prove many points. So the fact that my 5k time is a lower % of the WR 5k time than my half marathon time means im a much better 5k runner. Great, i ll focus on 5k's so. Not trying to be smart but you have to take a step back from maths sometimes and be logical.

Ignore the maths for one second and ask yourself do you really believe a 2:46 marathon is equal to a 5min mile?

Take 100 people give them 2 years and you d soon get your answer. anyway i think this has been done to death before.

My point: dont use maths to manipulate everything

oldrunner

kennyb3 wrote: »

do you really believe a 2:46 marathon is equal to a 5min mile?

Yes, I do.
But, I am not saying that the same person can do both (just because you can run 5 minutes doesn't mean you can run 2:46 and vice versa). But, on average, they are equivalent performances.

kennyb3 wrote: »

My point: dont use maths to manipulate everything

Not sure how I am doing that - just applying simple ratios to relative performances.

I think this is a bit of a 'big ender' 'little ender' debate.

RayCun

kennyb3 wrote: »

Ignore the maths for one second and ask yourself do you really believe a 2:46 marathon is equal to a 5min mile?

I could believe that, that marathoners are more likely to be able to run under 3 hours than sprinters are to be able to run under 5 minutes. They're both essentially arbitrary distances and times after all, there's no reason why they should be exactly proportional in difficulty.

But it's just a silly question. What's a better achievement, climbing a mountain or free-diving? High-jumping or long-jumping? Beating Mario Galaxy 2 or beating Mass Effect 2?

At the very top level, the 'better achievement' is the one that gets you a medal, which is neither of those times. For everyone else, the better achievement is the one that you worked harder for, or took more pleasure in.

Gringo78

Reminds me of Racing Flats Big 8 Targets:

1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 1 hour
Half Marathon - 90 mins
Marathon - 3 hours

Everyone will look at that list and pick out the ones that they think are well easy to acheive, others beyond them. All nice round numbers though, no other scientific basis really.

A lot of people though rarely run a mile race. They might do one in 5:10/5:15 and think, yeah, I'd knock 15sec off no hassle with another shot at it but seconds off your mile time are like minutes of your marathon time.

As for whats an 'acheivement' - in my book if you had to work to get it, its an acheivement. If it came naturally, with no training then you don't have talent, you have wasted talent. So I'll look at some 4hr marathoners and say, what a guy, and I'll look at some sub 3 marathoners and say what a waster.

--amadeus--

Daniels VDOT Tables puts a 4:57 mile as equivalent to a 2:43:25 marathon and a 2:58:47 marathon as equivalent to a 5:27 mile.

As for which is a better achievement it depends on the runner, their training, age, background...

[edit]

Been thinking about this. The mile may be the harder absolute performance but I reckon the difficulty for the average runner is probably roughly equivalent. The training cycles for a mile could be cut back to 6 - 8 weeks with a race (or time trial) at the end of it. This means you could have 6 or 7 full training cycles per year to learn how to maximise your performance. A marathon training cycle is 18 weeks so you get 2 attempts a year, set yourself up wrong - emphasise the wrong training components - and you've wasted 6 months. Worse yet you may waste another six months fixing the wrong parts of the plan. So the journey to the start line is harder for the marathon but the journey from start line to finish line is harder in the mile.

aero2k

tunney wrote: »

I believe sub 3 is the minimum a club runner should be doing.
Sub 5 would take a little more work and a lot more pain.

What's your PB for each?

Pherekydes

oldrunner wrote: »

It is probable that relative performance standards across different distances are comparable (but, in the absence of a huge database of performances, unprovable).

The IAAF scoring tables are based on statistical analysis of thousands of performances and are an accurate way of comparing performances across events.

The 3 hour marathon is worth 529 pts, while the 5 minute mile is worth 464 pts.

Comparing individual performances to world records is a bit fraught, since world records are, by their very nature, extreme outliers in the statistical sense. You are comparing a 3 hour marathon to Gebrsilassie's 2:03:59 now, but in a few weeks' time someone might run a 2:02 marathon, and your score has been devalued for no good reason.

myflipflops

A 5 minute mile is the equivalent of about a 4.40 1500 which is achievable by plenty of 16/17 year old juvenile female athletes in any year. You would expect a good 14 year old male athlete to be running sub 5 too. A sub 3 marathon is a different prospect altogether.

Krusty_Clown

Gringo78 wrote: »

1 mile - 5 mins
3k - 10 mins
5k - 20 mins
5miles - 30 mins
10k - 40 mins
10miles - 1 hour
Half Marathon - 90 mins
Marathon - 3 hours

Everyone will look at that list and pick out the ones that they think are well easy to acheive, others beyond them. All nice round numbers though, no other scientific basis really.

Gringo - when did you get so wise?
It's funny, I look at that list every year, and every year my perceptions/interpretations are completely different. Right now I'm thinking the 1 Mile, 3k and the 10 mile are the toughest. All of the others are soft.

--amadeus--

In order of difficulty (IMO), easiest first:

5k - 20 mins
10k - 40 mins
Half Marathon - 90 mins
Marathon - 3 hours
5miles - 30 mins
1 mile - 5 mins
10miles - 1 hour

I've never raced 3k so no idea on it. First 3 are soft, marathon is hard but doable with a mix of luck / talent / dedication. After that progressively more talent is needed and a sub 60 10 mile is impressive running.

ManFromAtlantis

kennyb3 wrote: »

Yeah presumably! Maths and statistics are great, something i like, can be used in very manipulative ways to prove many points.

you're not an accountant by any chance ?

shels4ever

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Daniels VDOT Tables puts a 4:57 mile as equivalent to a 2:43:25 marathon and a 2:58:47 marathon as equivalent to a 5:27 mile.

As for which is a better achievement it depends on the runner, their training, age, background...

[edit]

Been thinking about this. The mile may be the harder absolute performance but I reckon the difficulty for the average runner is probably roughly equivalent. The training cycles for a mile could be cut back to 6 - 8 weeks with a race (or time trial) at the end of it. This means you could have 6 or 7 full training cycles per year to learn how to maximise your performance. A marathon training cycle is 18 weeks so you get 2 attempts a year, set yourself up wrong - emphasise the wrong training components - and you've wasted 6 months. Worse yet you may waste another six months fixing the wrong parts of the plan. So the journey to the start line is harder for the marathon but the journey from start line to finish line is harder in the mile.

Think your forgot about the winter base thats needed for the mile , this can be basically very similar to marathon training so there is no way you would have 6-7 cycles per year. There is a reason that there is only a track season once a year .

kennyb3

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

you're not an accountant by any chance ?

ha ha funny you should say that..