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

ocnoc · 14-09-2011 10:40AM

RayCun wrote: »

Being a farm labourer might make you strong, but does it make you run fast?
And you should compare the diet of sub-4 runners today to the diet of those 18th century runners. The diet of a non-running couch potato is beside the point.

John Lenihan might say otherwise...
Ex World Champ, 5000m 13.55, 1000m 29:36, 10km (Road) 28:40, 10mile 47:19, Half Mar 63:15

RayCun · 14-09-2011 10:45AM

I'm not saying it's impossible to work on a farm and be a fast runner.

But you seem to be saying that of course those 18th century guys were fast, after all they didn't eat Big Macs and play x-box all day!

PDCAT · 14-09-2011 10:52AM

Think Brian Maher (KCH) - excellent runner might be a farmer. Seem's to work for him.

ocnoc · 14-09-2011 11:00AM

RayCun wrote: »

I'm not saying it's impossible to work on a farm and be a fast runner.

But you seem to be saying that of course those 18th century guys were fast, after all they didn't eat Big Macs and play x-box all day!

No. I wasn't implying that just because they ate Big Macs - more that there were less distractions.

thirtyfoot · 14-09-2011 11:03AM

Its rumoured Kevin Ankrom is going to setup training camps in farms around the country that will espouse a Victorian style mystical periodisation approach to training. The fact that two athletes mentioned here are farmers seems to validate this approach. Should set us up nicely for Rio '16 and beyond.

RayCun · 14-09-2011 11:08AM

ocnoc wrote: »

No. I wasn't implying that just because they ate Big Macs - more that there were less distractions.

Paavo Nurmi seems to have been a pretty focussed guy, and his fastest mile was 4.10.

ocnoc · 14-09-2011 11:11AM

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Its rumoured Kevin Ankrom is going to setup training camps in farms around the country that will espouse a Victorian style mystical periodisation approach to training. The fact that two athletes mentioned here are farmers seems to validate this approach. Should set us up nicely for Rio '16 and beyond.

If only it was that easy. We'd have to remove all forms of transport and have people walk everywhere... Actually, pulling up roads would create more manual labour jobs, increasing the numbers taking up running to and from work - due to no roads and have the extra added benefit of increased employment. Good for peoples health and the economy!

Perfect.

Loire · 14-09-2011 12:25PM

My father accomplished both and I've never heard him mention the the sub 5 mile much. The sub 3 marathon on the other hand....:rolleyes:

Pisco Sour · 14-09-2011 01:02PM

ocnoc wrote: »

No. I wasn't implying that just because they ate Big Macs - more that there were less distractions.

Less distractions? Surely smallpox and the hundreds of other incurable rampent diseases at the time were quite a distraction to one's hope of achieving athletic greatness.

I'd take everything in that article with a bucketfull of sodium chloride! The Brits hadn't figured out how to find Australia during this time in question, one of the largests masses of land on the globe. Do we really think they were running times that no man in the first 50 years of the 20th century could achieve? Sounds like an old wives tale to me.

Pisco Sour · 14-09-2011 01:43PM

Loire wrote: »

My father accomplished both and I've never heard him mention the the sub 5 mile much. The sub 3 marathon on the other hand....:rolleyes:

Maybe because your dad was naturally good over short distances so the mile came easier to him than the marathon. Maybe this isn't the case, but that would be my guess.

robinph · 14-09-2011 05:06PM

04072511 wrote: »

Less distractions? Surely smallpox and the hundreds of other incurable rampent diseases at the time were quite a distraction to one's hope of achieving athletic greatness.

I'd take everything in that article with a bucketfull of sodium chloride! The Brits hadn't figured out how to find Australia during this time in question, one of the largests masses of land on the globe. Do we really think they were running times that no man in the first 50 years of the 20th century could achieve? Sounds like an old wives tale to me.

But the first 50 years of the 20th century we were just trying to think of more elaborate ways of killing each other. It's only the last couple of decades that proper full time professional athletes have re-appeared. What they were talking about in that article was professional athletes, they ran for huge amounts of money and large amounts of money were bet upon the results by their rich sponsors who had more money than sense.

I find it easier to believe that the 4 minute mile was done back in the 17 or 1800's than to believe that Haile Gebrselassie is really only 38 or that Ibrahim Jeilan is only 22.

ecoli · 14-09-2011 05:21PM

Its amazing that in most of the arguments about improving times over the last 50 years improved track surfaces etc have always been listed as one of the major factor yet this does not apply when we go past 50 years? maybe cinder tracks were a huge step back from running on old "perfectly level" old roman roads.

Also the logic of more manual labour equals faster? Someone tell the worlds elites this they gave up their jobs to rest more when all along they should be out in the fields with an old plough. Someone tell Salazar he and Nike are single handedly ruining the sport. Forget Alter G treadmills Nike should be supplying their athletes with shovels instead

anymore · 14-09-2011 05:23PM

bart simpson wrote: »

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

Very good point.

anymore · 14-09-2011 05:26PM

ecoli wrote: »

Its amazing that in most of the arguments about improving times over the last 50 years improved track surfaces etc have always been listed as one of the major factor yet this does not apply when we go past 50 years? maybe cinder tracks were a huge step back from running on old "perfectly level" old roman roads.

Also the logic of more manual labour equals faster? Someone tell the worlds elites this they gave up their jobs to rest more when all along they should be out in the fields with an old plough. Someone tell Salazar he and Nike are single handedly ruining the sport. Forget Alter G treadmills Nike should be supplying their athletes with shovels instead

If I was still doing manual labour on building sites i doubt i would have completed one marathon much less than the six I have.

thirtyfoot · 14-09-2011 05:30PM

In fairness, farmwork would give you pretty savage all over body conditioning and much better than much floor based core work. Lots of pushing, pulling, lifting, throwing, etc. Maybe a part time farmer athlete would be ideal. The hours of being a farmer would not make being a serios athlete easy. Similar to being a builder, there are great stories of John Downes putting in savage shifts on the sites in London and training massively too.

anymore · 14-09-2011 05:39PM

RayCun wrote: »

I'm not saying it's impossible to work on a farm and be a fast runner.

But you seem to be saying that of course those 18th century guys were fast, after all they didn't eat Big Macs and play x-box all day!

The reality is that much of manual laboour will not be conducive to helping running but may help with events like lifting. It will also be more likely to result in poor back conditions etc.

thirtyfoot · 14-09-2011 06:38PM

anymore wrote: »

The reality is that much of manual laboour will not be conducive to helping running but may help with events like lifting. It will also be more likely to result in poor back conditions etc.

Manual labour type work would be great for running as it's all over body conditioning. Won't have back probs once done correctly. In farmwork for example you will probably work every plane in every direction every day as opposed to some poncy 'core' on a mat that is very isolated to the areas worked on.

anymore · 14-09-2011 11:26PM

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Manual labour type work would be great for running as it's all over body conditioning. Won't have back probs once done correctly. In farmwork for example you will probably work every plane in every direction every day as opposed to some poncy 'core' on a mat that is very isolated to the areas worked on.

Are you speaking from experience - cos I am !

thirtyfoot · 15-09-2011 06:26AM

anymore wrote: »

Are you speaking from experience - cos I am !

Farming or body conditioning for running?

anymore · 15-09-2011 10:10AM

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Farming or body conditioning for running?

I have a good range of experience in both. Though any farming work was in my younger days but certainly have more relevant and recent experience in both building and landscpaing typr work. I aslo have a faor amount experience in attending various specialists over the years for back related problems. As for doing lifting properly, if a bullock or two of them suddenly start to back up against you when you are trying to get then into a pen, you will find there is little time to ensure you trying to stop them crushing you the ' correct way' !:) If fact farminmg is the most dangerous occupation both for accidental death and serious injury and construction is the next most hazardous.

Al0502 · 15-09-2011 08:26PM

More people are caable of running a 5 minute mile than are capable of running a sub 3 hour marathon. In any marathon there are only 2% or 3% under 3 hours.
As someone who has run a few marathons sub 3 hours is up there as a practically impossible goal unless I can retire from work and family for 6 months

Pherekydes · 15-09-2011 08:34PM

Definitive answer:

A five-minute mile is worth 464 pts on the IAAF scoring tables, the 3-hour marathon 440.

The 3-hour marathon is easier.

Krusty_Clown · 15-09-2011 08:35PM

Al0502 wrote: »

As someone who has run a few marathons sub 3 hours is up there as a practically impossible goal unless I can retire from work and family for 6 months

That's just your limitation though. For others, sub-3 is a straightforward proposition, while sub-5 might evade them permanently.

Krusty_Clown · 15-09-2011 08:41PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

A five-minute mile is worth 464 pts on the IAAF scoring tables, the 3-hour marathon 440.

The 3-hour marathon is easier.

...and the 10km race walk in 1:00:35 is tougher than them all.

ecoli · 15-09-2011 08:49PM

Al0502 wrote: »

More people are caable of running a 5 minute mile than are capable of running a sub 3 hour marathon. In any marathon there are only 2% or 3% under 3 hours.
As someone who has run a few marathons sub 3 hours is up there as a practically impossible goal unless I can retire from work and family for 6 months

The reason for this is not one of the marathon training taking more "talent" it is just the fact that the Marathon is an aerobically based event with very little emphasis on VO2 max and speed endurance as a result the specific training require is more Anaerobic Threshold, Aerobic Threshold and endurance based. To train specifically for these aspects you engage in training which predominantly is a slower pace and as a result takes more training time.

Compare that to a miler who needs to blend speed as well as aerobic capacity. developing speed and speed economy and the anaerobic system takes a different kind of training where the emphasis is not on volume and as a result training time decrease

Example: Marathon Runners
Typical mileage 50-100 mpw
Sample session: 6 x 1 mile at MP with 3 miles warm up and cooldown
Hours a week training: 10+

Example: Miler
Typical mileage 20-50mpw
Sample session:3x(2 x 400m @1500m pace) with 1-2 miles w/u and c/d
Hours per week training5-8

While these are rough figures it highlights my point that training for a marathon does not always equate to more effort but it is certainly more time consuming (unless you are training properly for mile with all the supplimentary work

oldrunner · 16-09-2011 08:45AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

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.

I'm a bit confused - did the IAAF score for the 3 hour marathon drop by 89 points in a year (its now 440 according to your recent post)?

Pherekydes · 16-09-2011 08:56AM

oldrunner wrote: »

I'm a bit confused - did the IAAF score for the 3 hour marathon drop by 65 points in a year (its now 464 according to your recent post)?

They revise their points tables regularly, so yes is the answer to that. My original post was probably made with reference to an old set of tables I have here at home (I can't be arsed going to check).

The upshot is that more people are running marathons these days than mile races, and by extension, more people are running sub 3-hour marathons, and therefore they become statistically easier.

Thus, a three metre Pole Vault is easier than either of the above.

Edited to add: my tables are from 2002, so the points difference is not down to just one year.

robinph · 16-09-2011 08:58AM

oldrunner wrote: »

I'm a bit confused - did the IAAF score for the 3 hour marathon drop by 89 points in a year (its now 440 according to your recent post)?

Wouldn't be surprised if they had tweaked it, been a few more people get silly quick times in the downhill/ tailwinds of Boston in the last year which may have effected how they calculate things.

GoHardOrGoHome · 16-09-2011 09:25AM

robinph wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised if they had tweaked it, been a few more people get silly quick times in the downhill/ tailwinds of Boston in the last year which may have effected how they calculate things.

I don't think Boston counts for those scores because it's net downhill or point-to-point instead of a circuit.

robinph · 16-09-2011 10:03AM

GoHardOrGoHome wrote: »

I don't think Boston counts for those scores because it's net downhill or point-to-point instead of a circuit.

For some reason it counts as an Olympic qualification course though.

Why anyone in their right mind would try to get their time on that course is beyond me, just this year the conditions made it a daft fast course to skew the results.

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

Comments