Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
gasser
RE: Runner's World Defines a "Serious Runner" 4/29/2012 10:27AM - in reply to Old Lady 25+ minute 5k runner Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Recognition to Old Lady runner here. Don't know if I've ever read a comment on the LR Board from this demographic and I've been on these boards for 12 years now.

If you're getting out, running, enjoying life, then you're doing something right now matter how fast you're moving.



Old Lady 25+ minute 5k runner wrote:

60+ yrs old. Fastest ever was 22 (in my 40s), but not coming near that now, even with training. Once took for granted a sub-25. In that I train fairly regularly (long runs, track workouts, strength training, etc.), I'd say I'm a reasonably serious runner by comparison to someone who, say, runs a few miles a few times a week, but by LR standards, I'm not even a shadow of "serious."

But I'm not much for labels. If someone says I'm serious, or if they say I'm not, they're right--it's all relative. Bottom line: it's not that important to me how others, including LR or RW, view my training. What's important is that I make my own best effort in workouts and races, set goals that are enough of a challenge to be worth shooting for, yet realistic enough for me to have at least a chance of reaching. No magazine has to hold my hand and tell me how serious I am for reaching any particular goal.

To RW's credit, they do aim at readers for whom 30 or 25 minutes are more realistic than 20 or 15 minutes. And people have to start from where they are, not from where they wish they were. I would like to see them focus less on music listening gear, though, and I didn't get that piece on races with eating contests--like we really need to encourage more calorie consumption? But useful stuff on going gluten free, and sometimes interesting pieces on elite runners. Which all shows that yes, I do read RW which probably marks me as not serious. C'est la vie!
kudzurunner
RE: Runner's World Defines a "Serious Runner" 4/29/2012 11:59AM - in reply to Elite Hobby Jogger Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Elite Hobby Jogger wrote:

[quote]kudzurunner wrote:

25 minutes is not an acceptable threshold for seriousness for young men--or for older men, really.


25' would give me an age grade in excess of 60%. Why can't that be an acceptable threshold for me?[/quote]

You'd have to be younger than 13 or older than 52 in order for your 25 to put you in the >60% category. I'll assume you're 53 or older--in which case, yes, brother, you're doing fine with that time. I consider you a serious runner--and I'll be happy to see you at the starting line, since you're not the guy I'm worried about.

Actually, we've got a 50 y.o. woman here in town who runs at 85% of her age-grade and kicks my ass every single time. THERE is a serious runner.
Why?Why?
RE: Runner's World Defines a "Serious Runner" 4/29/2012 5:42PM - in reply to Idontevenknow Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I beat that my freshman year of high school. I never did make the olympic team, even though I must have been a very serious runner. It will take more years to overcome the heart break then the years of commitment it took me to break 25 minutes.
Nutella1
RE: Runner's World Defines a "Serious Runner" 4/29/2012 5:57PM - in reply to kudzurunner Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
60% AG may be a good cut off:

21:30 for open men
24:30 for open women
Old Lady 25+ minute 5k runner
RE: Runner's World Defines a "Serious Runner" 4/29/2012 6:25PM - in reply to gasser Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

gasser wrote:
Recognition to Old Lady runner here. Don't know if I've ever read a comment on the LR Board from this demographic and I've been on these boards for 12 years now.

If you're getting out, running, enjoying life, then you're doing something right now matter how fast you're moving.



Thanks! You'd be surprised at our numbers--maybe not posting on LR or maybe posting but not giving ages.

But there are definitely more women competing in the 60+ age range and doing really well (way better than my humble 68 or so percent in races). And as more baby boomers hit 60 and beyond and keep on competing, you'll see more serious competitors in that age range--for example, have a look at this link from Running Times:

http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=23472

Awe inspiring!

Me? 19% BMI, resting pulse in 30s, and indulging in LR as one of my guilty pleasures. ;) Borderline serious--or borderline something or other.

I would encourage other women my age to come here--entertaining threads, some useful advice and tips I've tried out. Overall, it's quite a trip, though you have to take some of it with a grain of salt. You can't come here with an ego that bruises easily. But I've reached the age where my ego is pretty black and blue anyway, so what's to worry if it accumulates more bruises?
kudzurunner
RE: Runner's World Defines a "Serious Runner" 4/29/2012 7:45PM - in reply to Old Lady 25+ minute 5k runner Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I know Rae Baymiller. When I lived in NYC, she was the partner of a running doc named Dan Hamner, who happened to play harmonica, which is what I play. Nice lady! I'm glad to see she's #1 in the 65-69 category. She definitely had the build of a super-elite runner. Very nice lady. A 1:33 half marathon for a 65+ woman is strong as heck.
nobody important
RE: Runner's World Defines a "Serious Runner" 4/29/2012 10:27PM - in reply to The MonBRO Doctrine Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

The MonBRO Doctrine wrote:

[quote]clock puncher wrote:

i thought 10000 hours was serious


No, 10000 hours is a TERRIBLE 5k time.[/quote]

this made me lol
Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |