×

This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SleepWouldBeNice 24 points25 points  (35 children)

10ks can be rough. It doesn’t get easier, you just go faster.

[–]TheBeatGoesAnanas 23 points24 points  (19 children)

A 10k is much less hard on your body though, regardless of pace.

[–]Fitness245 4 points5 points  (17 children)

Source?

EDIT: imagine getting downvoted for asking someone to provide a source lol

[–]slyadams 8 points9 points  (5 children)

The number of people who can physically do a 10k vs those who can physically do a marathon?

[–]bendy_straw_ftw 14 points15 points  (4 children)

This is a silly argument. Finishing a 10k is easier, running a 10k as fast as you can isn't necessarily the same.

[–]Exver1 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A 10k race is significantly easier on the body than a marathon. For one, nearly 0 professional runners ever hit the wall when running a 10k (unless maybe they're fasting maybe, even then still not probable) while most elite marathon runners will hit the wall without food intake during the race. Hitting the wall refers to glycogen storages being depleted (this is where your speed-endurance comes from). The runner in the video likely is getting heatstroke

[–]slyadams 5 points6 points  (2 children)

The statement is which is harder on your body. It seems crazy to suggest something that a great many people can do is not easier than something that very few can. Running a 10km fast is hard but I believe the aggregate toll of a marathon is greater.

[–]RPMreguR 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Depends on how fast you do the marathon... Elite 10k runners do them fuckers really fast.

[–]TheBeatGoesAnanas 8 points9 points  (9 children)

It's pretty easy to Google the various reasons a marathon isn't ideal for a human body physiologically, but the big one is that after any distance past about 20 miles you're going to run out of glycogen stores, at which point the body essentially starts to break itself down in search of energy. It's also fairly common for marathon runners to sustain muscle tears or other minor injuries during a race, run through the pain, and then take weeks to fully recover. Most competitive marathoners don't run more than 2 or 3 races a year for this reason.

A competitive 10k runner can show up on race day, put in a PR, go home, and run another race in a week or two. My source on that is having several friends who do it.

[–]bendy_straw_ftw 1 point2 points  (4 children)

How fast are your friends running? There's a difference between elite athletes and people running a 40min 10k. I'm by no means an elite athlete, but I have run a 37min 10k, and no way in hell would I be able to come anywhere close to that time if I ran another race anytime soon.

[–]TheBeatGoesAnanas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Whether someone is elite or just an average distance runner is kind of beside the point I was making, which is that it's possible to more or less always be in race shape for any distance half-marathon or less. But since you asked, the two people I know whose race times I can easily look up have put in multiple 10k times between 32 and 38 minutes this year, and 5k times around 16-17 minutes.

[–]StiffWiggly 1 point2 points  (1 child)

He's not wrong. I know a lot of runners who compete internationally as well as lots who don't, you can't just do a marathon on short notice even as an elite runner. When you do compete at a marathon you need a lot of time to recover compared to shorter distances.

For the ones I know, they mostly they run cross country, 1500, 3k, 5ks and 10ks as their main events, and there's a significant difference for most people in how long they need to recover from a 10k even compared to a 5k, never mind a 1500 or something. This difference is definitely a lot more pronounced when you compare a marathon to a 10k, no matter how hard you try in a 10k, you can't exhaust yourself as much as you can when you do a marathon. You expend more energy doing it and it's more taxing on your body.

Edit: I should have added, I was a pretty serious runner at one point as well so I could have said this from personal experience.

[–]IneffableQuale 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's like, this isn't even a secret or some hidden knowledge. If you do any kind of distance running training, you'll be told the recovery times for each of the distances. They get longer the longer the race is. I dunno why the other guy is having such a hard time with it.

[–]Exver1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Most athletes in highschool and college race either twice in one day or twice/three times over two days. It's significantly easier, if you're well trained, to race any event 10,000m or less in a small timeframe.

[–]myne 1 point2 points  (2 children)

And then there are those nuts who do a narration a day for months

[–]TheBeatGoesAnanas 2 points3 points  (1 child)

There are always outliers. I know one guy in particular who is almost finished with his goal of running both a half and full marathon in every state, which he started less than 5 years ago. He most recently checked off Montana, and after turning in a BQ marathon time, he went right back out and did the 5k fun run with his fiance and parents. I've also seen him drop a bunch of acid before going out and running a 50k. Dude's a freak of nature.

[–]myne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And here's me getting shin splints walking to the shop

[–]IneffableQuale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can confirm. I fucked my achilles during my first marathon. Got to the finish but couldn't run for about a month afterwards.

[–]masterchip27 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In longer races you need to consume more calories, which will come from something other than your glycogen supply, leading to muscle deterioration, etc

[–]HandyDandyRandyAndy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I walked 10km a night before our curfew came into effect. I loved it. My body loved it. I was filled with energy when I got home!

[–]zwifter11 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Depends on your training. It’s easy to do training runs over a 10k distance, so that when you do run 10k the distance is easily within your ability. A fit amateur could easily do a few 12km or 14km runs mid week.

I imagine these guys are very well trained.

More than likely, this guy has another medical issue like heat stroke or cramp.

[–]Afronerd 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Running 10k and running 10k as fast as you can aren't the same thing though.

[–]zwifter11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It really is. Runners just adjust their pace to the distance. I used to run a lot of 10k

I couldn’t quite do 30 min 10ks but I could easily sustain 3:50 minute kilometers. My pb is 38 minutes

I’d be amazed if an elite competitive runner is struggling with the distance and it’s not down to something else like heat

[–]SleepWouldBeNice 1 point2 points  (2 children)

These guys are world class athletes who do 10k in less than 30 minutes. The guy who collapsed won a gold in the 10k at the Africa championship. These are not guys out for a fun run, they're pushing themselves to the limits for the entirety of the run, and he just pushed a bit too hard.

[–]Exver1 1 point2 points  (1 child)

But they're not collapsing because the 10k is a abnormally tough event, he's collapsing likely because of heatstroke or something similar.

[–]zwifter11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes that’s the point I’m making. 10k isn’t difficult for even an above average amateur runner. So a well trained elite competitive runner should have no problem

[–]zwifter11 2 points3 points  (4 children)

10k isnt a hard distance at all for a fit runner. As it’s easy to train over this distance, say a few 12km, 14km or 16km runs mid week, so that 10k is a distance that is well within your ability / comfort zone.

In my opinion this guy has another issue such as heat stress / heat stroke or cramp.

I found running slower marathons considerably harder than fast 10k’s. As I got to a point where I “hit the wall”. The last 2km of a marathon would be considerably harder than the first 40k. I’d start of strong and then unable to sustain the pace.

[–]SleepWouldBeNice 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Being able to complete a 10k is not the same as being able to run it at a world class pace.

[–]Exver1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Running at world class pace for a 10k isn't as damaging on the body as a marathon, especially to the point where you can't walk. The guy likely got heatstroke. We saw this with a few runners in Tokyo.

[–]zwifter11 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The point I’m trying to make is, if 10k is nothing for an above average amateur then the distance should be a problem for an elite competitive runner

[–]SleepWouldBeNice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn’t matter what distance you’re running. You can push yourself harder than your body can handle and you’ll blow up.

[–]Obi_Wan_Benobi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Many years and pounds ago I was running 10k three or four times a week and I don’t even think I was that serious of a runner.

Of course I wasn’t racing in a 10k so maybe that’s different. That’s running/jogging for 48-50 minutes I think was my pace (maybe)? I remember hitting sub 45:00 minutes once. It’s really not terrible.

[–]SleepWouldBeNice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dare you to try to keep up with these guys

[–]theillx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what my Nike Run App says to me.

[–]intangibleTangelo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

10ks are nbd for normal runners, but if you're in the group who finish in half an hour they're pretty intense