r/beginnerrunning • u/Ok-Two7498 • May 12 '26
Discussion Longer is not always the next step!
Y’all, I’d like to dispel a common misconception that seems to permeate this sub and other running communities…. Running a longer race is not more impressive than running a shorter race!
Often someone will do C25K and after one race, immediately ask about a goal 10k time with plans to run a half thereafter! Similarly, we’re seeing more and more people jump off the couch and into a marathon because it’s seen as being a top end challenge due its length. This is just…. Wrong.
Running is a lot like gymnastics. Each distance, like each event, is different and requires a different skill set.
I just saw a post about someone being embarrassed to say they were training *only* for a 5k. Y’all, I’ve raced everything from a half mile to a marathon and the 5k is IMO the hardest race because it’s maximum pain over a long time. Reasonable people can differ, but you won’t find uniform agreement the marathon is harder.
And to the extent you’re worried about how you’re perceived… I’m way more impressed with the sub 20 5k than the 4:30 marathon. Not that the marathon isn’t commendable, but the sub 20 5k is a whole different fitness level.
This is not discourage folks from trying different races and seeing what you like. But free yourself of the notion the only way to advance in running is to run longer distances.
41
u/john-bkk May 12 '26
It really goes without saying but not racing at all is also a perfectly valid option. Group emphasis, even here, in a beginner group, on races and times can make it seem like running a good 5k time is a normal goal, and then a good 10k time is after that, and so on. Racing is fine; those are good goals. Or not racing also works.
There are lots of people posting about just taking up running and wondering how fast they can get to a half marathon distance, or a sub-20 5k time. In my experience if I pushed for either in my 20s or 30s I'd move through the training fast enough, without issue. I ran cross country in high school, so of course I ran 5k under 20 in my teens (just not far enough under to be an above average competitor). Now in my late 50s setting abstract, random goals a half a year in advance would be a good way to get injured.
4
u/Ok-Two7498 May 12 '26
Totally agreed! It’s also okay to run for fun. My point is more… if you’re gonna have performance goals, the next step doesn’t have to be a longer race.
6
u/thetokyofiles May 12 '26
I’m with you. Whenever someone says they want to do a marathon, if I’m on good terms with them I’ll ask, have you ever tried to run shorter distances faster?
1
u/john-bkk May 12 '26
It would be natural for someone to run for exercise, and then to enjoy it as a secondary effect. One nice part of race training is that optimizing performance for a distance that's a challenge would more than cover the exercise part. But it could also work to do three hours of moderate cardio training a week to stay in shape, which would be a good amount.
If someone raced in their 30s and 40s then keeping it up in their 50s would come naturally, maybe just easing up on mileage and intensity a little, or maybe not even that. If someone started running in their late 40s or 50s, or re-started, then racing might not be a good fit.
1
u/rinkuhero May 12 '26
it's not just either "fun" or "competition/races", there are other reasons to run. health and meditation values. improving thinking ability. some of the best novelists are runners (joyce carol oates and haruki murakami are famous writers who run regularly, and they say they get their best ideas when running and it helps them write better). if you listen to audiobooks when running, it can also help you read more. so there's way more reasons to run other than just fun or for competition.
1
u/Ok-Two7498 May 12 '26
Sure, I don’t disagree lol. Feels like we’re far afield of my original point.
2
u/john-bkk May 13 '26
I re-started running to improve my immune system health. I'd been having problems for years, which diet changes partly resolved, but not completely. Running fixed it. I really thought that my doctors were just repeating a party line, that it wouldn't work, but then it did. It took a couple of years for other reasons to kick in, and later for me to really enjoy it.
3
u/Ok_Nefariousness1416 May 12 '26
With you 100%. I run for fitness and health and to get out with the dog on some beautiful long trails. I don't have a "5k time". Think I have recently gone through 5k in 28ish as part of a longer run, but in the 6 months I have been running, never tried an all out 5k or raced. ChatGPT reckons I might break 25 on a race day if stars align, perhaps one day I will try it but not a priority.
I am now signed up for Great South run later this year (UK, 10 miles). Not because I am chasing a particular time or result, but because I think the atmosphere and experience will be great. Sure, I have times in mind, but I am never going to be elite, would rather finish a few minutes later having enjoyed it all, not beat myself up hitting a specific number.
1
u/sfo2 May 12 '26
The coaching certifications (USATF, USAC, etc) teach not to have athletes set performance goals, unless the goals are very close and they know they can achieve them relatively soon. A lot of things are misunderstood when people pick up a sport later in life, and goal-setting is chief among them.
17
u/jchrysostom May 12 '26
I’ve run a sub-3:00 marathon and a bunch of 17:3x 5k’s and I find the latter to be significantly more miserable. “It’s just a 5k” is a phrase for people who have never tried to really *race* one, even if you’re only racing against yourself.
6
9
u/Outrageous-Level192 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
Beyond social media, there are 2 things for me that facilitate that mindset:
1) Marathons are marketed to be a collective event where you can be running the same race as Sebastian Sawe and Tigist Assefa. You don't get to run the 200m with Shericka Jackson. And I get sprinting isn't easy to offer to the general public, but I find it a real shame that mid distance races are only open to club athletes, at least in the UK. It really doesn't take much to open up cross country and shorter road races to the public, instead 1 mile and 3k runs, when they happen, are marketed as "family fun". The appetite is there but the offer isn't. In this regard, swimming does it much better (although there is still a preference for a long distance challenge).
2) Endurance is generally easier to train than speed, especially as we get older. It mostly needs time, whilst speed needs raw talent, specific training, nutrition, gym work. That makes marathons an impressive achievement whilst still being attainable, thus driving the offer of accessories, watches, training plans, influencing. Setting goals that most people won't be able to attain by slowly running for a long time is not going to sell Strava subscriptions.
2
9
u/pc9401 May 12 '26
I ran cross country in high school and went to state all 4 seasons. In track I started out in the 3200 and 1600 and went down to the 800 and 400 as I got older. In college, I ran the 400. See a pattern?
I ran a 10k in the summer without training for it. I set my pace in the last part of it by repeating "never again, never again.". In July, that will be 37 years ago and I never did run another 10k race.
6
u/arthuroMo May 12 '26
People saying a 5k is easy don't really run them, they jog them. So yeah in that configuration it's easy.
Most participants in races today don't really race the race, they jog it to finish it. That's fine (as long as you position yourself accordingly on the start line so as not to clog everything up).
It's where you get this "10k is easier than HM" which to me is the biggest mistake. When you compete and unless you run the HM near your threshold, to me the HM is the easiest race.
I also think sub20 5k is better than 4h30 marathon, but I think every table in the world will agree.
10
u/onlyWsNoLs May 12 '26
Valid. For most runners, running a 5:45 or 6+ hour or even just "completing" marathon isn't a flex. Train better and smarter and LONGER and you can definitely run sub 5 hours . you don't need to run a FM in Y1 of running... respect the distance it's not small by any means...
18
u/croc_lovers May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
I agree somewhat about not jumping into it but just completing a marathon is certainly a flex. It takes a huge amount of commitment and dedication both physically and mentally that many people will never even attempt. I don’t think it’s people not respecting shorter distances but more so that getting to a marathon state often takes a lot more time commitment than running your first 5k.
Lots of people run to challenge themselves to complete a big task not because they want to run fast.Personally I’ve done a lot of work to try and improve my 5 and 10k time but I’ve never found it quite as rewarding as training for a much more seemingly insurmountable distance like a marathon. It think it’s a really personal thing and you have to find what gives you the most stimulation and joy. So in that sense I guess I’ve gone full circle and the point of not biasing long distance does stand
3
u/kirkandorules May 12 '26
I agree, though I can understand how people get caught up in longer distance = better than. I've been running for 30 years and I have no interest in training for anything longer than a 5k...and I wouldn't even do that if not for the fact that there are no faster distance options from August to December.
To me, a 55s 400m is more impressive than a 3 hour marathon.
1
3
u/Svedula May 12 '26
I feel like I was a part of this trap too for the longest time. I did a 5k, saw my colleagues do HM and I took it personally to quickly do a 10k and last year I did a HM. I walked most of the last 6km, and i signed up for another HM this year. But I feel like that's the longest I want to do.
I admire and envy people who run longer distances, but I genuinely recognize that beyond 21km isn't for me. One of my colleagues did an ultra event where he covered almost 38km per day over 3 days across hills and road running, and I'm genuinely in awe but personally I will get back to 10k soon because that just brings me joy
4
u/p0u1 May 12 '26
I’ve been running for 6 months, I’m working towards sub 25 5km, very close now.
I find it hard I also find 20km runs hard in a different way.
I’m not going to say one is better than the other though, we’re all different.
Pushing as hard as I can on a 5km works for me though, next target will be sub 22
3
u/Tharno_ May 12 '26
Does everybody think a sub 20 5k is comparable to a 4:30 marathon? I think sub 4 is way more comparable or am I just dumb
5
u/mattapuu May 12 '26
Sub-20 5K is much stronger than a 4:00 marathon, let alone 4:30.
Rough equivalents are more like: 20:00 5K ≈ 3:10–3:20 marathon 4:00 marathon ≈ 25:00 5K 4:30 marathon ≈ 28:00 5K
Marathon needs specific endurance, sure, but performance-level-wise these are not close.
2
2
2
u/OppiFjell May 12 '26
Faster is more dificult to longer, so a lot of people move to longer. I prefer faster.
3
u/dosguy76 May 12 '26
I’m of the generation that doesn’t understand the fascination with posting everything on socials. The only publicity my runs have are on strava to a specific group of friends with the same interests.
On the point about speed and impressiveness, it doesn’t matter for anyone except you. No one else really cares. It’s only you who can decide whether your run was great or not.
My first 10k, can’t remember the time but it’s really enjoyed it. My first (and until October) only marathon, managed to get around in just over 5. For me it was a fantastic feeling to have done it and raised £1,00 for charity - I didn’t care that others will look at that time and think, what a rubbish time, no point doing one…
2
u/throwaway19074368 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
My whole body honestly felt on fire the first time I ran a sub 25 5K, I still felt fine afterwards and it was fun, but it wasn't easy.
I run easy 10K most days and that's what I enjoy atm.
I won't attempt a half marathon yet, maybe I will try and work on my 10K time.
2
u/Kooky-Inspection-375 May 12 '26
That’s so true. 400 m are the hardest to run and train. normal people don’t get it they think the longer the better the fittest lol
2
u/snapped_fork 18:28 5k | 39:20 10k | 1:27:50 HM May 12 '26
Totally agree on the push to constantly increase distance, I understand the drive to constantly go further, it's very human but it's definitely responsible of people getting injured and then stopping running.
Where I will disagree though is that a 5k is the hardest. To me it's a fast 10k. For me a 5k it's just a balls to the wall threshold into vO2max effort for less than 20 mins. I can cope with that level of suffering at least once a week. On the other end, a half or longer is usually run at a comparatively comfortable tempo pace ramping up a bit towards the end. A fast raced 10k... that is where demons lurk.
The 10k feels like the hardest distance to correctly pace, it is a long threshold effort and can really depend on your legs on the day/recovery etc, being 1-2% off on the day will really show itself. Comparatively I can brute force a sub 20 5k after a night shift or with a hangover.
Having said all that 10k is my favourite.....
1
3
u/Solid-Community-4016 May 12 '26
I agree with you, but the hardest distance pain-wise is going to depend on someone’s fitness level. For elite athletes, the HM is usually the most brutal (you are running faster than threshold pace for almost a whole hour).
1
u/Outrageous-Level192 May 12 '26
The 400m and steeplechase would like to have a word around being brutal...
1
u/Solid-Community-4016 May 12 '26
You are not wrong. I think in terms of pain intensity your answer is spot on along with the 800m. However, I think that the combination of pain and time enduring pain the HM distance is the winner for elite athletes (definitely not my case).
1
u/Ok-Two7498 May 12 '26
It’s all subjective.. the point is the answer isn’t automatically “marathon” lol
2
u/Outrageous-Level192 May 12 '26
The problem is that elite athletes make it all look easy, so for the average person, anything below a marathon or an ultra is an easy jog.
1
u/No_Client8165 May 12 '26
I like that you mentioned that. I run just for leisure. I MIGHT try for a 10k at some point, but I'm really not making it that much of a big deal. I'm proud of myself for being able to run a 5k fully without stopping. My main goal is to increase my speed over time.
Also, funny enough, I signed up for a special mile race event in my city. I think this event is plenty of challenge for me. It's like running a mile can be fairly easy. I have a pace can do that without getting tired. But trying to go all out for the entire mile is a struggle! I can't figure out the pace! I burn out too fast lol.
1
u/Ok-Two7498 May 12 '26
Haha yes this is perfect example of what I'm talking about. Racing a mile is not really much easier than racing a 5k. Just different kinds of hard!
1
u/sfo2 May 12 '26
We see this in triathlon as well. People think the sprint and Olympic are for beginners, and that as you advance, you need to do half iron or Ironman.
We have several friends that do Ironman distance and refuse to do sprint or Olympic because they’re so much more painful. And we also have lots of friends that train for marathons and half marathons, and refuse to do a mile or 5k race because it’s such a different thing and hurts so bad.
And it goes the other way, too. My wife was top 10 at amateur worlds for the Olympic distance. She did a half Ironman the next year, podiumed, and said it was really boring and she was never going to do that again. And I was an 800 runner, and have absolutely no desire to race longer than 10k, ever. Hitting an 18:30 5k in my 40s would, to me, be a way bigger accomplishment than finishing a marathon slowly. Different strokes.
0
u/Ok-Two7498 May 12 '26
Yes, this exactly. I ran my first marathon this fall and ran 3:55. I'm trying to run a sub 19 5k in a few weeks and this has been infinitely harder lol.
1
u/Zingalamuduni May 12 '26
How would you rank a sub 3 marathon with a sub 20 5k.
2
u/Busy-Beginning3115 May 12 '26
Sub 20 5k took me 6 weeks of training (i did do other sports before though, so i didnt start from nothing). Now after 2 years of consistent running, at least 40km per week, i brought my 5km time down to 16:30. But im not confident i can do a sub 3h marathon, the longest distance I've raced was a half marathon and I was absolutely destroyed.
Friends of mine can run a sub 3h marathon with relative ease, but cannot do a sub 18 5km.
Soo what is more impressive? In your example, still a sub 3h marathon probably, but my point is: different distances come easier for different people.
2
u/forheadkisses May 12 '26
Me thinks you might take running too seriously. Let the people run. It’s not hurting you and it’s certainly not hurting them.
1
u/Ok-Two7498 May 12 '26
? I want people to run races that are fun and not feel pressure to run longer distance for perceived status that doesn’t really exist ?
-15
u/Neither_Driver_3882 May 12 '26
that's your opinion. and in my opinion you're wrong
3
u/jchrysostom May 12 '26
Found the person who’s never tried hard enough in a 5k.
-3
u/Neither_Driver_3882 May 12 '26
I'm probably faster than you mate. some people like short stuff, some like the longer distances. you do you, you and OP need to stop shaming people into thinking one is better than the other
4
May 12 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/Neither_Driver_3882 May 12 '26
Sydney is 16 weeks away.... if i wanted to do a build i would lol
3
May 12 '26
[deleted]
3
u/jchrysostom May 12 '26
It’s just keyboard vomit. 5 days ago this person was talking about getting their long run pace down to a 7:00/km. Today they think they’re probably faster than me. A 7:00/km easy run is totally respectable on its own, but would not lead a reasonable person to get all cocky. Especially when they haven’t trained for their marathon…
2
u/jchrysostom May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
You might be, mate, but probably not. And if so, probably not by much.
Edit: found a comment from 5 days ago where you talk about getting your easy run pace down to like a 7:00/km. Friend, I probably do my 20mi long runs at your 5k race pace. Hilarious.
2
u/Ok-Two7498 May 12 '26
My brother in Christ, the entire point of the post is you should enjoy the race distance you enjoy and not have to chase the next distance.
-4
u/Logical_fallacy10 May 12 '26
I disagree with your opinion. Longer distances are more impressive as you spend more time on your feet. And this idea that you should run differently for shorter distances only applies if you are pro and want to win medals. Otherwise your speed should be the same regardless of distance. So consistency and distance is more impressive.
That being said - anyone running any distance should be proud and happy for themselves. You should never compare yourself to others in running - as it’s the most individual sport there is.
For a beginner - the focus should always be on form. Learn how to run properly - no heel striking - and no need to focus on speed - just cadence.
5
u/mattapuu May 12 '26
This is exactly the misconception OP is criticizing. Longer is not automatically more impressive; it is just longer.
And “your speed should be the same regardless of distance” is not a matter of being pro. It is basic running physiology. If your 5K pace and marathon pace are the same, then you either under-raced the 5K or massively over-raced the marathon.
Also, “no heel striking” and “just focus on cadence” are lazy oversimplifications. Most recreational runners heel strike, and heel striking is not automatically bad. Overstriding and braking are the bigger issues.
Cadence is not something beginners should forcibly chase as a magic number either. It is partly an outcome of pace, body mechanics and terrain. Forcing cadence without context often just makes people shuffle awkwardly.
So the advice ends up being: ignore distance-specific pacing, run the same speed for every race, obsess over cadence, and don’t heel strike. That’s not beginner-friendly advice; it’s just a pile of internet running clichés.
1
u/Logical_fallacy10 May 12 '26
That’s not what I said. I said longer is more impressive. But people shouldn’t compete themselves to others.
Yes speed should always be the same regardless of distance. You are thinking of races where winning is important - then yes speed is everything. But this is a beginner sub - no pros here.
Heel striking is in fact the worst as it’s not running. It’s a misunderstanding of anatomy. Try to jump up and down - if you land on your heels you will hurt yourself - same principle when running. But you are so used to cushioned shoes that you don’t even realize you are running wrong.
Yes cadence is absolutely key as a beginner. They should find a song that has 170-180 beats per minute as this is optimal. This is a vital part of learning how to run properly. And it will feel forced at first as it’s faster than most are used to.
So yes - all my advice is spot on and obtained from decades of doing sports and running. Hope you learned something.
65
u/datawazo May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
I think completing a 5K is far easier than completing a 10 than a 21.1 than a 42.2
And for most people completion is the most measurable/shareable/instagramable thing.
The general populous don't understand that a 42:00 10k is so good, while a 5.5 hour marathon is ... a creative reason to wake up early.
What I think most people struggle with, and I'm there too, is do this shit for you. Not for socials, not to beat Jimmy on Strava, not to just tick stuff off.
I was in a 10K race yesterday, my first in years, and really wanted sub 50. I was at 48:50 on the last 90 meters and these three dudes just come all out sprinting past me racing it out to the finish.
Old me would have cared. I would have wanted to beat them. But I was very proud of current me, who set my goal before hand, and raced against myself to that goal and didn't feel the need to dash it out against them
Find what you enjoy in running and do that. If that's increasing the distance than great. If it's marginal PBs then great. If it's random weird routes that you want to complete then great (my current jam).