The distinction is unimportant. And it would only be important to someone with the mental level of a 17 year-old.
Seeing that the IQ of the average Letsrunner doesn't pass the 8th grade level, and the majority users of the site have the collective emotional intelligence of a mentally disturbed 11 year old, I'd say 17 is pretty high level for this place.
For me, the term "hobby jogger" is not about making people feel bad; it's about respecting the sport. I used to spend months running 100+ miles a week. It was a lifestyle and I was on a mission. Now, I rarely crack 25 mpw and only run for fun/fitness.
I was once a runner. Now, I am a hobby jogger or, if you'd prefer, a person who runs. There are levels to this sh*t.
That is a good answer.
1) Person who runs (all inclusive).
2) Runner (someone who puts in great effort with the intent to reach their genetic potential at a given footrace).
The key identifier of being a runner is not a specific time, but the willingness to put forth the time and effort with the intent to reach their genetic potential.
Some social media blowhard who is just in it for the views and putting in half-assed efforts does not meet the criteria of a "runner". This person is merely a "person who runs".
This has been discussed in other threads. A common understanding is that a "runner" has an age percentage rating (or age graded score) of at least 60% correlated to a result in a particular distance race. A "slow runner" scores between 50%--59%. Below 50% is jogging, even if one's effort is 100%--though many on this site would classify a sub-60% score as straight hobby-jogging.
According to the USATF: 100 percent = world record 90 percent = world class 80 percent = national class 70 percent = regional class 60 percent = local class
^ A runner has to be at 70% or better. I am a good bit higher than that, but still call myself a hobby jogger. I play football and soccer with my sons from time to time, but I don’t tell people I’m a football player or soccer player.
I simply call those who run for fun "recreational runners" to distinguish them from "competitive runners", those who are willing to put in the effort to endure painful training day in and day out in order to better ourselves and see where our limits lie. Nothing wrong with being a recreational runner, though I will admit that it does irk me when people claim things along the lines of "a 4 hour marathoner is more impressive than a 2 hour marathoner because they're suffering for twice as long". These people are failing to differentiate between what constitutes 'impressive', and mistaking it for what is 'respectable'. People are impressed by the elites and the highest champions, but they respect those who stick it out despite not having the talent.