Correlation between 5K ,10K, HM and Marathon times

average_runner

Thought this might be an interesting thread for some.

Some people would have a strong 5k time but their longer distance might struggle or vice versa.

How do you go about improving your longer distances ? What is the correlation between the 5k up to the marathon?

Peterx

I think you can bluff your way to a half marathon with insufficient training and the full marathon will rip your legs out.

Ceepo

Peterx wrote: »

I think you can bluff your way to a half marathon with insufficient training and the full marathon will rip your legs out.

Of course this is pace relative.

But you could bluff around a marathon and a 5k or 10k could RIP your legs off..

dublin runner

average_runner wrote: »

Thought this might be an interesting thread for some.

Some people would have a strong 5k time but their longer distance might struggle or vice versa.

How do you go about improving your longer distances ? What is the correlation between the 5k up to the marathon?

The correlation is essentially ZERO in my opinion. Granted, a 1.40 HM runner won't run a 3.05 marathon but outside those obvious caveats, my point stands. The best way to improve your marathon time is to a) train for a marathon b) run marathons c) learn from each experience d) realise it is just a distance; not particularly short, not particularly long e) running miles will only get you so far - focus on s&c

The most important thing with marathon running? Never EVER run at a pace used by a generic pace calculator. Training indicates marathon pace, races indicate form and can improve race day preparation and overall mental approach and development.

Nothing prepares you for a marathon like running one and training for one. Let yourself make mistakes (I call these good mistakes), don't let yourself be afraid of the distance - it is just a distance, like a 400m or 5km race.

*** Train - Race - Recover - Learn - Repeat ***

TFBubendorfer

Peterx wrote: »

I think you can bluff your way to a half marathon with insufficient training and the full marathon will rip your legs out.

All my running life my 5k to half marathon times have lined up very well but my marathon time was always up to 5 minutes slower, and that's despite the fact that I was always training first and foremost for the longer distances. I definitely was not undertrained for the marathon.

average_runner

What about between 5k -10k and onto half.

I mean if a runner runs 25 min for 5k, what would you expect them to do the 10k in ? 51 mins?

I always thought that 5k/10k training could go together but then sometimes I see a big difference between their 5k and 10k times.

This is not from a personal aspect but more of information aspect and hearing different views on it.

Itziger

How many people have really spent a decent amount of time training for these different distances? In my case, I have run a grand total of one serious 5k and hadn't done specific training for it. The other 3 distances being mentioned here, yes. I have trained and applied myself relatively seriously to them. This would suggest that the Half is probably my optimum distance but even then it's not that clear. Times below: (all of which I like to think I can improve)
5k - 17.50 
10k - 36.48
Half - 1.21.06
Full - 2.59.10

TFBubendorfer

Itziger wrote: »

5k - 17.50 
10k - 36.48
Half - 1.21.06
Full - 2.59.10

Your full PB is soft

average_runner

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Your full PB is soft

Here are mine:

5k 19:38
10k 42:07
1/2 1:39:30
Full 3:41 (long time ago)

But in reality over the last three years which is better to go on its:

5k 19:38
10k 42:13
1/2 1:41:20

Murph_D

Which of those distances have you trained for? The HM is obviously relatively slow. I have similar 5 and 10k times but a 1:34 half, 3:22 full. Most people seem to have relatively poor Marathon times compared to their 5k and below.

Cona

My times from 5k to half marathon usually are fairly close to what the McMillan calculator estimates...Have run two sub 1.29 halfs but I've always made a balls of the marathons I have run so can't say for sure what my Marathon PB would be...estimate 3:15

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

Which of those distances have you trained for? The HM is obviously relatively slow. I have similar 5 and 10k times but a 1:34 half, 3:22 full. Most people seem to have relatively poor Marathon times compared to their 5k and below.

Trained for the half this year. Followed hanson program. My 5k time and 10k time this year was about 40 secs slower than pbs.

Itziger

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Itziger wrote: »

5k - 17.50 
10k - 36.48
Half - 1.21.06
Full - 2.59.10

Your full PB is soft

You're right!!!! I do be scared of the long stuff.

Swashbuckler

dublin runner wrote:

The correlation is essentially ZERO in my opinion. Granted, a 1.40 HM runner won't run a 3.05 marathon but outside those obvious caveats, my point stands. The best way to improve your marathon time is to a) train for a marathon b) run marathons c) learn from each experience d) realise it is just a distance; not particularly short, not particularly long e) running miles will only get you so far - focus on s&c

I've made a habit of telling marathon runners on here they should include 5k/10k blocks in their training during the year. Do you think that's needed or can someone train all year round for marathons alone and maximize their potential at the marathon distance ? Possibly derailing the thread with that question.

Tigerandahalf

Itziger

It is interesting that you hit such a good 5k time off little specific training. Are you a fast guy over 50 - 100m?

I'd be slow over very short distances but I tend to have good endurance.

I'd say most lads good over the 5k have a light frame too. Weight can have a big say, every kg is worth about 5 or 6 secs a mile I think.

Peterx

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

All my running life my 5k to half marathon times have lined up very well but my marathon time was always up to 5 minutes slower, and that's despite the fact that I was always training first and foremost for the longer distances. I definitely was not undertrained for the marathon.

I think we are saying the same thing but using different words.
The full marathon is objectively harder than the shorter distances to get right.
It's just that little bit too far to run at a "fast" pace.
You get less goes at it.
The weather has to play ball on the day.
You can't get sick and yet you are on the edge of falling apart for all the hard weeks of training.

Knowing how fast to go can be the hard part. All that training, the marathon training cycle, you are as fit as the proverbial, of course you want to get a super pb, and then bang, leg ripping walls of lactic death as the average pace starts dropping and then falls off a cliff with 9km to go.
Slight hyperbole on my part:)

MY BAD

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Itziger

It is interesting that you hit such a good 5k time off little specific training. Are you a fast guy over 50 - 100m?

I'd be slow over very short distances but I tend to have good endurance.

I'd say most lads good over the 5k have a light frame too. Weight can have a big say, every kg is worth about 5 or 6 secs a mile I think.

I think the longer the race the lighter you are the better it is for racing. Look at elite level and compare middle distance runners to marathon runners.

Testosterscone

Peterx wrote: »

I think we are saying the same thing but using different words.
The full marathon is objectively harder than the shorter distances to get right.
It's just that little bit too far to run at a "fast" pace.
You get less goes at it.
The weather has to play ball on the day.
You can't get sick and yet you are on the edge of falling apart for all the hard weeks of training.

Knowing how fast to go can be the hard part. All that training, the marathon training cycle, you are as fit as the proverbial, of course you want to get a super pb, and then bang, leg ripping walls of lactic death as the average pace starts dropping and then falls off a cliff with 9km to go.
Slight hyperbole on my part:)

On the other side of that coin how many people have ever ran on the edge over the shorter distances. I think blow ups in shorter distances can be a little more subtle to the point where people don't always acknowledge them as much as the bonking you might see over the course of a marathon. You may get more opportunities to race shorter distances but at the same time there is a smaller margin for error.

I think main demographic of marathoners quickly learn an element of self preservation which is needed in the marathon that can be detremental at the shorter distances where pain tolerance (bit of a cliché) becomes more of a factor physically and mentally

I have ran 100s if not 1000s of races at this stage and yet I can count on my two hands the numbers of times I can honestly say I have gotten it right in the race and ran to my absolute limit.

In terms of correlation I would have to say the same as most there are very little with context of training, background etc

To give you an example one of the the lads I coach ran 78 min for the Half at the weekend in build up to the marathon. Despite the performance and similar mileage to some of the others I coach my expectation would be more conservative for him than some of the other guys who ran a little slower than him. Focus for all these athletes is the marathon and sessions have been designed that way but still there is a difference in how the runs are approached based on the individuals.

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

Trained for the half this year. Followed hanson program. My 5k time and 10k time this year was about 40 secs slower than pbs.

Did you base the Hanson paces on current 5-10k paces as suggested? Was training manageable at those paces or did you adjust? How did result compare with target?

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

Did you base the Hanson paces on current 5-10k paces as suggested? Was training manageable at those paces or did you adjust? How did result compare with target?

I went for 1:35 target at first but after kilcock 10 miler i readjust my target to 1:37 or so. Got to 15k in race and then wheels came off.

Result was 1:41 in the end.

Safiri

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

All my running life my 5k to half marathon times have lined up very well but my marathon time was always up to 5 minutes slower, and that's despite the fact that I was always training first and foremost for the longer distances. I definitely was not undertrained for the marathon.

What constitutes undertrained though?

The vast majority of people here will see huge improvements in their shorter distance times from marathon training because the nature of posters here are late to life runners who are underdeveloped aerobically. So even if they never concentrated on specific 5/10k training, their times in those events may never translate to a marathon equivalent. This in turn could be down to many reasons. A speed biased runner will never match up the longer the distance goes. Most will train harder for a marathon than they do for a 5k even if this shouldn't be the case. The marathon training will be by far the highest mileage they have hit at any point in training so many will actually improve more at 5k off marathon training than they would off 5k training. Sounds ridiculous but that how important aerobic training is for late to life runners.

And even at that, many are not running near enough mileage to convert those shorter distance times into good marathon endurance. 99% of runners in this forum and out on the roads are undertrained in the bigger picture outside of just one single block of training. Then you take into account the training structure of most runners and it is non-existent. Very few books or plans properly structure training and most people skip out on the important parts. Aerobic training in the form of base phases are nowhere to be seen and many who implement them do not understand fully what base training is. The most critical part of training.

Look at a log like Krusty's or Jebuz and all the elements of good marathon training are there. Structured phases with a lot of mileage.

How many here have actually dedicated 10-12 weeks to base training alone before starting specific training? And by base, I mean high volume/low intensity training. The answer is probably very few even though this structure is held as the magical elixir of training for the last 50 years?

* Not talking about you here TBF, just drawing a tangent from your post

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

I went for 1:35 target at first but after kilcock 10 miler i readjust my target to 1:37 or so. Got to 15k in race and then wheels came off.

Result was 1:41 in the end.

95 sounds about right based on your 10k. How did you find the sessions/tempos/LRs at the prescribed paces (as opposed to the 10m race)? Sounds like there’s something missing in terms of how training played out?

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

95 sounds about right based on your 10k. How did you find the sessions/tempos/LRs at the prescribed paces (as opposed to the 10m race)? Sounds like there’s something missing in terms of how training played out?

Intervals were grand and i hit them. Tempos i was working too hard to be honest after 5 miles. Lr's i wasnt as comfortable when hitting 13 miles, pace between 5:20 - 5:30 per k. Long runs were just not clicking.

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

Intervals were grand and i hit them. Tempos i was working too hard to be honest after 5 miles. Lr's i wasnt as comfortable when hitting 13 miles, pace between 5:20 - 5:30 per k. Long runs were just not clicking.

That’s revealing, and possibly comes back to what Safiri is talking about above. Possible lack of a good base phase before starting the HM phase. What had you been doing before, ie over the past few years? Average mileage etc? You are in a club - how has that affected day to day routine?

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

That’s revealing, and possibly comes back to what Safiri is talking about above. Possible lack of a good base phase before starting the HM phase. What had you been doing before, ie over the past few years? Average mileage etc? You are in a club - how has that affected day to day routine?

Past few years i focused on 5k to 10k. Got sub 20 5k for the first time in those few years a good few times. 5 mile races were between 33:00 to 33:10. 5 day week training with 10 mile long run with pace between 5:05 to 5:15. Took december off last year due to minor injury and times were off since. But on average i do 40 miles a week with usually 10 mile long run.

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

Past few years i focused on 5k to 10k. Got sub 20 5k for the first time in those few years a good few times. 5 mile races were between 33:00 to 33:10. 5 day week training with 10 mile long run with pace between 5:05 to 5:15. Took december off last year due to minor injury and times were off since. But on average i do 40 miles a week with usually 10 mile long run.

You’d imagine 40/week over a reasonably long period would be enough base to successfully tackle that HM programme alright. Must be another issue - I think I recall you posting a while
back about some training difficulties - did you ever get to the bottom of that (if it was you)?

The LR is a bit faster than I would normally be doing outside of specific training, I wonder does that have anything to do with it - the old, and often most obvious flaw - insufficient recovery? Not that the long run always has to be slow, but 5:10ish is a good steady pace for LR at this level.

dublin runner

Swashbuckler wrote: »

I've made a habit of telling marathon runners on here they should include 5k/10k blocks in their training during the year. Do you think that's needed or can someone train all year round for marathons alone and maximize their potential at the marathon distance ? Possibly derailing the thread with that question.

Swings and roundabouts! My opinion on that very matter has changed a lot times, flipping from the mantra of 'improve your shorter distances first.....' to 'it's a marathon, who cares about your 5km time'. I think I have finally served on the latter (well not quite!) I do think you need to train for 5km/10km, not just bash out constant marathon cycles BUT the big issue for most runners is the distance not the pace, right? I think it's fair to say that, based on extensive anecdotal evidence. Every athlete is completely different so YOUR approach should be individual to YOUR strengths and weaknesses, not some generic calculator.

I guess it really boils down to one thing: do what you enjoy doing. Do what makes you put on the runners, race and train. For me, much to detriment, I am chasing a certain marathon time(s) - nothing else really motivates me!

The great thing about the marathon is just when you think you have mastered it, it comes back to bite you and you crash and burn. That's part of the attraction. It's not accepting failure, it's embracing the learning curve. Swing and roundabouts!

Itziger

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Itziger

It is interesting that you hit such a good 5k time off little specific training. Are you a fast guy over 50 - 100m?

I'd be slow over very short distances but I tend to have good endurance.

I'd say most lads good over the 5k have a light frame too. Weight can have a big say, every kg is worth about 5 or 6 secs a mile I think.

Fast! Me? Nah, my 'top speed' would be about 3 min km I reckon. Absolute max and I've never done that. The 5k was a few weeks after a Half I had trained for so I was in decent shape. The Half time was 1.22.xx if I recall. As a lot of fellas who do marathon training affirm, you'll get good shorter distance times from the base. What I'm not sure about is how much I'd take off that with specific 5k training. I'd like to think 20 seconds, whatever that works out as %-wise.

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

You’d imagine 40/week over a reasonably long period would be enough base to successfully tackle that HM programme alright. Must be another issue - I think I recall you posting a while
back about some training difficulties - did you ever get to the bottom of that (if it was you)?

The LR is a bit faster than I would normally be doing outside of specific training, I wonder does that have anything to do with it - the old, and often most obvious flaw - insufficient recovery? Not that the long run always has to be slow, but 5:10ish is a good steady pace for LR at this level.

I got to the end of my other training issues. What would your pace lrs be?

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

I got to the end of my other training issues. What would your pace lrs be?

Well, outside of a specific training phase, it would vary a bit, with some LRs in the range you mention but also a lot of LRs in the 5:30-5:50/k range, some even easier than that.

TFBubendorfer

Testosterscone wrote: »

I have ran 100s if not 1000s of races at this stage and yet I can count on my two hands the numbers of times I can honestly say I have gotten it right in the race and ran to my absolute limit.

That's the nature of racing, isn't it?

I've run approximately 250 races to date and can name exactly 3 where I think I got the optimum out of myself, when I managed to pace it well and arrived at the finish line just about at the point of collapse. One was a 5k, one a marathon, one a 24 hours race, so basically covering the entire spectrum of distance running.

In shorter races I just don't seem to have the desire to push myself to the limit; in longer races the difference between just right and too fast is so fine it's very hard to get it right.