One thing to keep in mind with these pace calculators is that not everyone is the same type of runner and you cant just extrapolate across the board. Some are milers that can stretch to a 5k well but fall off hard on a 10k etc.

I think the majority of people can't just extrapolate a 10k time to a marathon, you need to be the right type of runner doing the right type of training for it to even apply. I havent done a marathon, but my projected time based on 5k/10k PRs would be much more impressive to me than my 5k.

Agreed, as a cyclist I like to estimate things down into output w/kg for context. I think a 2:30 is the around the equivalent of 4.6-4.9 w/kg for 2.5 hrs, which is leaps and bounds (25%+?) above the average genetic potential. Sub 9 bike and run probably breaks down into the 3.2-3.6 w/kg range which is pretty stout but could be achieved by a large chunk of the male endurance population with intensive training. A lot has to go right details wise to make the sub 9 happen but you have to chose your parents a lot more selectively to sniff around the 2:30 mark.

Inexact calculus I know but I don't think Im too far off.

---

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

Wow I must be really missing something. Most community 10ks are won at about 36-38 min. When I was 16 I could do a 35-36 min 10 k on a flat course on fairly casual training. I can envision being able to do a 33-34 min 10K at that age but never a 230 marathon. A 230 marathon could give you the win in some races with hundreds maybe a thousand participants. Its fast. Many people who can do a relative fast 10k would probably breakdown if they did the volume to do a fast marathon. The other thing people are not talking about is nutrition. I cannot do a fast long course triathlon mainly because my stomach won't tolerate the calories and nutrition.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

If Dan said that, he's very wrong.

---

Matt

Found the quote, looks like I was off by a bit, he said 20% could run 33mins or faster not 60%.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Your_10k_PR_258.html


I remember running a fast 10K course in 32xx and coming in around 50th place, I would wager a majority of those people could run 2:30 with the right training but I remember none of of the members of our club had any interest in running a marathon. I think I was one of the slowest members of run club in late 80's out of around 25 memebrs

Yes, but to hit your 2:30 marathon potential off a 32:00 10k, you'd need to be running 70-100 mpw. If you were hitting a 32:00 10k off of--say, 50 mpw--once you upped to 70-100 mpw you'd likely decrease your 10k time by 1-2 minutes.

In other words, a 32:00 10k and 2:30 marathon are only equivalent if you're running enough miles to have true marathon endurance. And once you've done the years of work to get to that level, backing off of running to swim and bike enough to make a sub-9:00 would be a relative cakewalk.

That's a piece of cake by comparison. I ran 57" on no training wearing trainers about a year ago. My best IM and marathon times are nowhere close to 9hrs and 2:30.

I actually don't totally doubt that stat that Dan posted. It may be in the physiological capability of 60% of men provided they get to the right body composition and do the training. When I was at RMC, 100% of all cadets had to pass the 1.5 mile run test in 10:15...do the math and that makes every cadet as a MINIMUM a 6:33 miler acrrording to MacMillan....we're talking everyone including heavy body builders, fat football linemen etc etc. It basically makes everyone minimally capable of a 47 minute 10k. Out of that 100%, could I take 60% train them on 100K per week and get them down to 4% body fat over 4-5 years and get them in the 33 min range? I don't think that is unreasonable.

Back to the question at hand, would I rather do a 2:30 marathon or a 9 hour IM. Well, if I could do a 2:30 marathon it is 100% certain my IM times would be below 9 hours because it means I got a magic boost in Vdot and FTP and swim threshold. With that bigger engine, 9 hours would be no problem especially on a flat course like Florida or Barcelona.

Hard to bring this up without #BDB but I definitely agree. I used to post some pretty fast times running in HS but it takes a toll on your body and it is the main reason I started cycling years ago.

If i had to choose between the two options, I'd choose the sub 9 ironman if for no reason other than I think my body would hate me at least slightly less. Plus, I think KQ would be more of an experience than Boston.

Why do people in this thread seem to assume that running 2:30 (assuming you are in condition/ability) is more painful than running as hard as you can in your current condition but completing the marathon in 3:00 or 3:15. I think that assumption fails to take into consideration the underlying assumption of the entire thread.

I have never assumed a faster athlete is necessarily capable of putting themselves in a greater state of pain than myself; I just know they can do what they do at a faster pace than I can do.

Because this is Slowtwitch.

Having been close for both, it's really hard to decide which is "harder" - they both are. It's an apples and oranges kind of thing.

One thing that many triathletes seem to forget is that ounce you start to get to the higher end of the performance range in and sport or 3 sports in triathlon, is things start to get VERY specific in terms of the demands placed on the body. This is starting to get into that last 2 - 5%.

Breaking a 9 hour Ironman down into roughly balanced splits on an average Ironman course give or take 5 min +/- on each leg you are looking at 1:00/5:00/3:00 splits for swim/bike/run. On three occasions I was pretty to reasonably close to this. Looked at individually, each split is not that fast really as a stand-alone. But in the context of the full day of racing at an Ironman - that's where it all adds up.

I also had a couple of runs at the 2:30 marathon, but made the mistake of thinking, Ironman training would be helpful - it's not really. I had fitness to run-all-day at 7:00 min/mile for those almost three hour flat marathon runs in the IM's, but it's a whole other level to be able to keep up sub 6:00 min/mile for the 26 miles. THAT requires - very specific training to do that. Not so much a lot more running - but spending more time, running at 5:30 - 6:00 min/mile. Early on in my triathlon career, when I still had some more high performance running in my legs, I ran a 30Km race in 1:44 - which converts into a 2:30 flat marathon. So I knew it was doable - but ounce I got heavy into the triathlon training, the opportunity had passed.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Just because you qualify for Boston, doesn't mean you have to go

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Just because you qualify for Boston, doesn't mean you have to go


It can be the same with Kona. It's a number of years back now, but I qualified for Kona 6 times and went and raced twice! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog