A Bit of Science

When comparing 10k performance with that of a marathon, perhaps it's the case that so many factors come into play that an accurate comparison can't be made, unless the comparison is carried out in something of a clinical manner.

A prson's performance in two separate events might be affected by such things as terrain, weather ( headwind, tailwind, rain, sun, hot, cold etc), hindrance by slower runners, personal condition and perhaps other things as well.

A fairly accurate comparison could perhaps be made if a specific 10k course, starting and finishing in the same place, were to be chosen, and a 10k run timed. Then, on a different day, carefully chosen to emulate the conditions for the 10k run, the course would be run in four laps and a bit, (the bit being 2195 metres or approx. 1.36 miles) the distance covered being that of a marathon. In using this method it would have to be assumed, of course, that the runner was in the same personal condition for both runs.

The initial data obtained would form the basis for assessing other runs, factoring in the various conditions that might apply, and making an appropriate allowance.

Does all of this make sense or is it a bundle of rubbish as they say and would it be worth it anyway?

So far as "hitting the wall" is concerned, as I have said before, once a reasonable level of fitness has been achieved, the human boby behaves a bit like a car. Put fuel in and it goes. Don't put fuel in and it stops. In my early days of marathon running I would invariably "hit the wall" at about 20 miles, not knowing the reason why. When I was training for my "Joss" Norman Matthews put me right in regard to the importance of eating and drinking regularly during a long run. It really does work!