........I'm pretty damn impressed with someone who can run a 17 minute 5K.... 

I don't know, I checked the results of a local cross-country race and 98 pimply high school boys ran 17:00 or under  in one race on a grass course.

But back the the show, it's been several years since I saw it, but I don't recall that we were supposed to be impressed.  It was just interesting.

I ran my marathons because I wanted to, not to impress anyone.  The last one, nobody outside my immediate family even knew about it.  And by the way, being totally destroyed and unable to walk the next couple days was among the coolest things about it.  I thought the "pain cave" (during and after) was a good thing.

 

Yes they can be difficult to compare. But the examples you picked are not. Maybe something like 20 min 5k vs. 3:30 marathon would be a tough call. Yes a 5:00 marathon is still an accomplishment that the majority of people cannot do. But you could get there off a couch granted with a lot of work, more quickly than you could get to a 17 min 5k. 

That's true.

I don't get the 17 5k vs. the 5 hour argument. I'm not aware of 5k PRS of all my friends but I would venture a guess, that there are a bunch more sub 5 marathons, than 17 5ks among us.

I did see the show when it first came on. I loved how it explained running Boston, and why that is possible. I had already run the distance by then so didn't need to be inspired by it. 1 of the runners was Steve DeOssie, an NFL player (Giants, Cowboys, Pats) who settled here.

Well said!!!

Anyway, this debate gets old. We can approach it different ways and the answer changes all the time. I'll just say that whether you run a 17:00 5k or a 5:00 marathon, if you're happy and proud of it, I'm happy and proud of you.

I use the comparison because people think a marathon is some incredible challenge.  It's not.  Anything you can accomplish with six months of effort is not much of a challenge.  It takes four years to earn a college degree.  That's a challenge.  It takes a very long time to raise a child.  That's a challenge.  A marathon is not that big of a deal.

I use the 17:00 5K because a person who can run a 5K that quickly could easily jog a marathon in under 3:30 let alone 5 hours.  A 17:00 5K is a 5:28 pace held for 3.1 miles.  A 3:30 marathon is an 8:00 pace held for 26.2 miles.  Still, that's a 2:30 difference.  Go jog at a pace that's 2:30 slower than your 5K race pace.  It's basically your recovery jog pace.  I have an 18:33 PR in the 5K and that's a 5:58 pace.  My marathon PR is 3:08 which is a 7:10 pace.  So, there is a 1:12 difference between my marathon race pace and my 5K race pace.  To run 2:30 slower than my 5K race pace, I'd be slogging along at an 8:28 pace and that's my pace the day after a brutal workout.  Put me at the start line of a marathon on fresh legs and I'd be sorely pressed to run that slowly.

Ergo, if someone can run a 17:00 5K, they'd finish a marathon in way, way, way under 5 hours.  They'd be hard pressed to jog it in 3:30.

Both my 5k PR (22:47) and my marathon PR (4:30) are embarrassingly slow, but the 5k was run without any specific training, I just ran a few times a week.  The marathon was an 8 month process that involved planning out long runs in advance, disciplining my diet, basically wiping out a lot of Saturdays, and a whole lot of mental energy.

Ya, those 98 boys who ran under 17 minutes in the local cross-country 5k could easily jog a marathon in 3:30.  But that doesn't mean my 5 hour marathon isn't a big deal to me.  I'm not looking to impress anyone.  And those boys are to be commended for their accomplishments, but they are just showing up for practices and following the summer schedule they were given.  A 5 hour marathon is a much much bigger deal to me than a 17 minute 5k is to them.

There's a great scene in the movie "Hoop Dreams".  One of the boys is playing basketball in front of thousands of screaming fans while his mom is getting a nursing certificate in front of a few classmates.  The boy's talent is much rarer and more celebrated, while the mom's accomplishment is something pretty easy and commonplace for most people. But we know how hard it was for the mom to do that with everything else she has going on in her life.  Is it impressive for someone to earn the certificate she got?  Not really.  Was it a big deal to her and was it interesting to watch it? Very much so.

Just remember who you're debating with.  When I posted that a health teacher from my area ran a 2:28 at Boston in his 3rd marathon at age 25, LTH said it was pedestrian.  LTH is not easily impressed.  Nothing wrong with that.  We just see things differently.

I just keep wondering why he needs to be impressed.  The show that we're talking about seemed to want to entertain us, not impress us.  In my 5 hour marathons, it never occurred to me that someone should be impressed by it.

Very well-put Julie!

To me, the video itself shows the benefits of waiting a couple years.  So many of the first-timers were out so quickly due to injury.  Waiting two years gets your bones, muscles, tendons, etc. more ready for the stress of marathon training.  Not that a show would ever do this, but if they put those same people on a 120-week plan (2 years +16 weeks specific marathon training) you would have seen much, much different results-- and not just different finish times, but fewer people dealing with injury, and fewer people having a really hard time in the last half of the race.

I ran my first marathon in 5 hours, about 5 years after I started running.  Not fast, but no injuries throughout my training cycle and I finished with a smile on my face.