good article

Rockyman7

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

D3PO

id call it an opinion piece with a very narrow focus taking no consideration into account for the many reasons persons would chose to train for a marathon over say trying to do a fast mile.

theres certainly some merit and validity in the points raised but theres also more than a tinge of track running bias in it.

Murph_D

D3PO wrote: »

id call it an opinion piece with a very narrow focus taking no consideration into account for the many reasons persons would chose to train for a marathon over say trying to do a fast mile.

theres certainly some merit and validity in the points raised but theres also more than a tinge of track running bias in it.

Well yes, it is an opinion but it is also relatively easy to translate and compare relative performances at different distances using (admittedly imperfect) metrics such as VDOT and Age Grades (the latter also taking gender into account).

For instance, in my own case, my Marathon PB (45.9 VDOT / 68.8% AG) is poor compared to my mile (49.3 / 75.5%) and much worse than my 800m (52.0 / 77.4%). My ultra is even worse than marathon - 44.7 / 67.5% for my sole 50k to date (which admittedly wasn't all-out).

The underlying assumption of the article - that distance alone is a poor measure of effort - is surely sound. Your pace, relative to objective human performance standards for each distance, is ultimately what counts.

Chivito550

D3PO wrote: »

id call it an opinion piece with a very narrow focus taking no consideration into account for the many reasons persons would chose to train for a marathon over say trying to do a fast mile.

theres certainly some merit and validity in the points raised but theres also more than a tinge of track running bias in it.

How is there track bias? Of course a fast mile (or fast 100m for that matter) is light years ahead of running a slow marathon. The same way a fast marathon is a far greater accomplishment than a slow mile.

I read nothing in that piece against the idea of people running marathons, rather the very correct point being made that people often look for slaps on the back for 5-6 hour marathons, as if it is some superhuman feat. Hundreds of thousands of people run the marathon every year. Just getting through it is not that big a deal really.

I don't run track, and on the other hand I'm done with marathons and I don't really like long mountain and trail races, though I enjoy them for training and with company. I like the straight up and down 90 min mountain run, the classics like Carrauntoohil.

For some reason, always understood that 800m was the toughest distance. I know there's no real way of comparing, maybe it's just received wisdom or something I heard years ago.

adrian522

Love the way they describe the 800m as 2 mins of hell. More like 3 mins of hell for me !

walshb

I wouldn't be anti distance but for me anything longer than the mile and it starts losing value. Not saying it means nothing, but running and winning is and should be primarily about speed and endurance in that order...

"Wait till I tell you. I just ran 5 k in 20 minutes and a marathon in 3 hrs 30."

Good for you.. how fast can you run a mile?