Is a Sub 3 Marathon easier that a Sub 4 Marathon

pistol_75

Something I have been thinking about recently is the amount of time someone spends on their feet when training especially their LSR's. Most newbies would be spending 3+ hours on their feet for their LSR where I have seen from some of the quicker guys they have been able to get in a 22 mile LSR during a 2 hour lunch break.

So all things being equal if someone has the training done and aerobic ability to run sub 3 and someone has the respective training and ability to run at the required pace for a sub 4 which is harder or takes more effort.

I guess the people best placed to answer this are people who have done both and maybe progressed over the years. Do you find it easier to maintain marathon pace for a shorter time than you would have had to achieve something like sub 4?

I know there is a huge difference in relation to the type of training and sessions required for both but this is just in relation to the actual race.

Your thoughts please?

myflipflops

To give my take on the direct question: If 2 people are equally prepared for a sub 3 and a sub 4 then surely the effort to get around in those times is the same.


Why stop the comparison at sub 3 and sub 4 though?

Who had an 'easier' time of it in Chicago last week, Kebede who won the race in 2.04 or the guy who went out to run 4.10 but had a disaster and limped home in 5.02?

TFBubendorfer

I have run a sub-3 marathon and a 7-hours 50 miler, and I can categorically say that the sub-3 marathon was tougher.

Conclusion: no, time on feet does not automatically equate to "tougher".


(I have also run both sub-3 and above-4 marathons and again, the sub-3 was way tougher. It's not even close)

pistol_75

myflipflops wrote: »

To give my take on the direct question: If 2 people are equally prepared for a sub 3 and a sub 4 then surely the effort to get around in those times is the same.

Without knowing for myself thats what I would have thought or maybe harder to keep the same effort level for an hour longer

myflipflops wrote: »

Why stop the comparison at sub 3 and sub 4 though?

Who had an 'easier' time of it in Chicago last week, Kebede who won the race in 2.04 or the guy who went out to run 4.10 but had a disaster and limped home in 5.02?

I guess they were 2 common times I picked and the question related to someone running at the required pace consistently to achieve the goal so they didn't blow up.

pistol_75

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I have run a sub-3 marathon and a 7-hours 50 miler, and I can categorically say that the sub-3 marathon was tougher.

Conclusion: no, time on feet does not automatically equate to "tougher".


(I have also run both sub-3 and above-4 marathons and again, the sub-3 was way tougher. It's not even close)

The 50 miler is a great comparison and I rpesume you did this after you had achieved Sub 3 so it was probably more of a mental battle than a physical battle to you?

RayCun

pistol_75 wrote: »

Without knowing for myself thats what I would have thought or maybe harder to keep the same effort level for an hour longer

But it's not the same effort level. I haven't run a sub 3 and sub 4, but where my times have improved I've been working harder during the race.

pistol_75

RayCun wrote: »

But it's not the same effort level. I haven't run a sub 3 and sub 4, but where my times have improved I've been working harder during the race.

I guess the only way to measure the effort would be by % HR at the time the person ran the race. So if someone ran a 4hr marathon at 85% HR and next year ran even 3:15 or 3:30 at the same % HR (due to increased fitness etc) would they find it easier or harder perceived effort.

Although not having done it at marathon distance I agree with Ray that you feel you are working harder as your times improve but you are also better prepared to handle the extra effort.

TFBubendorfer

pistol_75 wrote: »

The 50 miler is a great comparison and I rpesume you did this after you had achieved Sub 3 so it was probably more of a mental battle than a physical battle to you?

I've actually run a 50 miler both before and after the sub-3 marathon, and the sub-3 was tougher than either of those. Honestly.

The sub-3 marathon was the second-toughest race I've ever done, even though I have done dozens of races that had taken longer.

n-dawg

A 3 hr marathon is way way harder... I've run 3 sub 3 marathons and been unable to walk for days after, had stomach problems, got sick from a weakened immune system etc etc... However, recently I've done a 50 mile run (like TFBubendorfer) at about 4 hr marathon pace and after the first half I felt completely fine, to be honest I would have said I recovered faster from the 50 miles in 7hr45 then I did the marathon in 3.

As I was told before my first ever marathon, its the pace that kills you not the distance...

rom

Recovery time is the true reflection of effort exerted during a race. When someone runs 114 sub 3 marathon's in a year then you have a debate. http://www.runplaces.com/running-articles/new-world-record-for-the-most-marathons-run-in-a-year/

menoscemo

pistol_75 wrote: »

I guess the only way to measure the effort would be by % HR at the time the person ran the race. So if someone ran a 4hr marathon at 85% HR and next year ran even 3:15 or 3:30 at the same % HR (due to increased fitness etc) would they find it easier or harder perceived effort.

I have run a faster time with a Higher %HR and it felt easier than the slower time with a lower %HR so that is no indictaor.

I'd say the sub 3 is harder because anyone going for a sub 3 having previously attained a sub 4 will know that you have to train harder and put in more miles for the Sub3. Also as Ray says alot of what 'getting faster' is all about is simply learning to suffer more/better.

Krusty_Clown

I have run a 2:46 and a 3:25, and the 3:25 was far more difficult. It all depends on how much effort you have to put into the task and how fit you are for the purpose.

claralara

pistol_75 wrote: »

Your thoughts please?

I hope someday to have thoughts...;)

pistol_75

claralara wrote: »

I hope someday to have thoughts...;)

You will I'm sure. What are your thoughts on your 4:xx marathon vs Berlin?

woodchopper

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I've actually run a 50 miler both before and after the sub-3 marathon, and the sub-3 was tougher than either of those. Honestly.

The sub-3 marathon was the second-toughest race I've ever done, even though I have done dozens of races that had taken longer.

Dont let Enduro hear you say that! The longer it is the tougher it gets he reckons.

theboyblunder

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I have run a 2:46 and a 3:25, and the 3:25 was far more difficult. It all depends on how much effort you have to put into the task and how fit you are for the purpose.

+1 my hardest marathon (not including a DNF) was my first in 3:30. This was because I had no idea how to pace and I trained three times a week. How much it hurts depends on how fast you run compared to the fitness level you have.

In general though I would think that faster marathons are harder, not because running faster is harder (as KC says, it depends how fit you are) but because as you get better you tend to leave yourself less of a cushion on the day pace-wise.

Im not saying that 4 hr marathoners dont push themselves (far from it, as the song goes - everybody hurts) - im saying that id bet that the faster the recreational runner, the more likely (over a sample of 1000s of runners) he/she is to be running on the edge (because the faster the runner, the more likely it is that he/she has OCD ). The only feeling worse than a DNF is leaving time on the course.....

Now that I think of it; why do we do this again?

MrCreosote

As a rule of thumb:

sub-3 marathon > climbing Everest >sub-4 marathon

Depends a little on the individual- some might find Everest harder, but in general the above is true.

ultrapercy

MrCreosote wrote: »

As a rule of thumb:

sub-3 marathon > climbing Everest >sub-4 marathon

Depends a little on the individual- some might find Everest harder, but in general the above is true.

Is that the greater than or less than sign ? I never got the hang of that in school.

metamagical

Honestly, this is a very artificial comparison: even if the perceived effort during the sub 3 and the sub 4 are the same, the sub 3 is harder - not because the race itself takes more out of you, but because the level of effort expended in getting to that level is so much greater. As you get fitter and faster you will find the earlier stages of any race easier, but you will suffer as you never believed possible in the later parts.

I remember marshalling at the 16-mile mark in Dublin a few years ago: the elites looked completely fresh when they came through in around 90 minutes, but by the time 3 hours had passed, the runners passing looked dead on their feet. Despite this, I don't believe any of them were pushing themselves - or had pushed themselves in training - to the same extent as the elites. They were just less able to sustain the lesser effort they were making.

It's great that the marathon is a mass participation event, but to make the point even more clearly, someone who does it in 5 hours and someone who does it in 2.5 aren't even doing the same race, merely the same course.

mithril

MrCreosote wrote: »

As a rule of thumb:

sub-3 marathon > climbing Everest >sub-4 marathon

Depends a little on the individual- some might find Everest harder, but in general the above is true.

On a scale of effort for me:

Dingle 50 Mile: 5
3 Hour Marathon:6
Kilimanjaro Summit Climb:10

However, the difficulty in climbing Kili related to mountain sickness as a consequence of lack of acclimatisation rather than inherent difficulty in itself.
If I had camped for 12 days at 4000 metres the summit, as some Canadian pensioners I met there had done, then it would have been 2 or 3.

I have watched a few documentaries on Everest and I don't think it requires a high level of physical fitness or even much skill since its roped nearly the whole way.
Its very expensive though, and very dangerous, particularly on the descent.

Abhainn

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I have run a 2:46 and a 3:25, and the 3:25 was far more difficult. It all depends on how much effort you have to put into the task and how fit you are for the purpose.

My first sub 3 was 2:47. It felt much easier than my first marathon - 3:14. It's all relative.
(My 3:25 recently felt the most toughest though!)

ray lanigan

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I have run a sub-3 marathon and a 7-hours 50 miler, and I can categorically say that the sub-3 marathon was tougher.

Conclusion: no, time on feet does not automatically equate to "tougher".


(I have also run both sub-3 and above-4 marathons and again, the sub-3 was way tougher. It's not even close)

+1:)

mrak

Though the feeling can be relative (based on how well prepared you are), a sub-3 is harder than a sub-4. The reason is that the human body, like all engines has an efficiency factor that is relative to how hard you push it.

If you drive from dublin to galway at 30mph you will use a lot less fuel and do a lot less damage to your car than if you do it at 150mph - even though you have been on the road 5 times as long. I'm guessing that the same is true of the human body.

That said - I personally get a bit messed up when I'm running for over a certain period of time - but this doesn't seem to affect other folks I know and I think it's just me .