Runner's World Defines a "Serious Runner"

That is what I said. There are runners out there that train very serious but can't break 25 and there are some that are talented enough that can run in the teens without training at all.

den bosch wrote:

Typical Letsrun delusions about the running world.

At least 90% of people will never run a sub-25 5K. Being in the 10% that does puts you in the "serious" end of the spectrum in terms of running.

Granted Letsrun folks are delusional about non elite running but how about this:

Serious running: 30 mpw for at least 40 weeks per year for at least two years. At least one day per week doing something other than the long slow run.

Male, age between 16 and 40.

I'd say that 80% of such runners would go below 23 5k. So, sub-23 5k counts as a serious runner.

I honestly don't know. Is this reasonably calibrated?

C'mon folks, stop taking this so "serious." It's all about marketing to the masses. You think golf digest gives a damn about whether its readers shoot ever par or the editors at Surfer care whether some 15 year old who lives in Nebraska can charge 20' pipeline? Hell no. They want to sell advertising space and need high circulation to do so. If anything, we should embrace this standard and wink and nod. The more visibility our vurtually defunct sport can get, the better. If that means grinning and bearing it when a 300lber shows up at the start line to take a run @ 30 minutes for 5K, so be it.

clock puncher wrote:

i thought 10000 hours was serious

No, 10000 hours is a TERRIBLE 5k time.

M I Delusional? wrote:

Serious running: 30 mpw for at least 40 weeks per year for at least two years. At least one day per week doing something other than the long slow run.

Male, age between 16 and 40.

I'd say that 80% of such runners would go below 23 5k. So, sub-23 5k counts as a serious runner.

I honestly don't know. Is this reasonably calibrated?

The mistake you're making is assuming that anyone can handle 30mpw. They can't. Most people (>50%) of males 16-40 would get injured from this. Coincidentally, >50% are also overweight...

That is how they sell the magazine subscription with ads for sneakers, cars, Newton, etc. to avg. Americans who try out running for a year or two. You don't tell the joggers they are joggers. They won't read your magazine.

"At least 90% of people will never run a sub-25 5K. Being in the 10% that does puts you in the "serious" end of the spectrum in terms of running."

No way. Any man under the age of 40 w/o a case of morbid obesity should easily go under 25 for 5k. That is only 8mpw. I would think 90% of the population can run sub 25. Women. Probably will have to add 3 minutes to it. I know its very generous but that is the reality at non-elite level.

It all depends on what you take "serious" to mean. Some of the least talented runners I've ever trained with still ran 16:00. These guys ran a 400 time trial in 66 or slower, so they seriously had no talent, but had just trained hard for 6-8 years. Are they serious runners, or are the guys who run 15 miles a week for a couple of months every once in a while before popping off a 23:00?

Everyone knows your not a serious runner until you break 15 for 5k, otherwise your just playing around.

What a joke... I'm a 400/800 runner who can do 17:30 for a 3 mile tempo and I ran 16:40 for the 5K off of one week of training... I guess that makes me a serious runner even though I half-ass everything?

I agree the poster before that suggest effort, consistent training and a sub 23:00 time are generally serious.

I take the Mike Birbiglia slant: some sports writers can't write and some comedians can't tell jokes. Just because you can run fast doesn't make you a runner.

Perhaps Running USA has some average times for 5k's and could provide some guidance. Hell we've all seen the flabby 3:30 marathoner and the slender 4:30 one. Why is anyone surprised what Runner's World wrote anyway, weren't they the ones that propped up John Bingham's slow ass anyway?

hks321 wrote:

"At least 90% of people will never run a sub-25 5K. Being in the 10% that does puts you in the "serious" end of the spectrum in terms of running."

No way. Any man under the age of 40 w/o a case of morbid obesity should easily go under 25 for 5k. That is only 8mpw. I would think 90% of the population can run sub 25. Women. Probably will have to add 3 minutes to it. I know its very generous but that is the reality at non-elite level.

You are extremely ignorant if you think that 90% of the population could run under 25min for 5k.

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!

my mother (late 50s) runs a 23:15 5k after training for about a half year. is she a "serious" runner, or just really talented?

For a guy or girl between 18-40 years old that could not at least finish middle of the pack in an average HS XC race then they are not a serious runner although they may train seriously.

Spend some time browsing the results at

http://www.parkrun.org.uk/

, which provides a nationwide series of free weekly 5k races (not on a track by accurately measured). You get all kinds of people participating. My local one is

http://www.parkrun.org.uk/cambridge/results/latestresults

Last weeks results - linked above - are typical. There will be 300-400 runners. It'll be won in 16:xx; 20 mins will get you top 30. 25 mins will be half way down the field.

[said with a pompous attitude] Would a "serious runner" even be reading RW? pppth, seems to me that the original poster out'd himself.

llyons37 wrote:

I agree the poster before that suggest effort, consistent training and a sub 23:00 time are generally serious.

I take the Mike Birbiglia slant: some sports writers can't write and some comedians can't tell jokes. Just because you can run fast doesn't make you a runner.

Spot on. If you ask yourself the question "I am committed to this?" and you can honestly answer yes, then you are a serious runner, regardless of what times this translates to. The reverse also applies. The highly talented who can run a fast time with no training is not serious.

If you look at race results 25min for 5k puts you in top 20%. And this IS

serious running. It's the 3min per km we are used from elite which is insane!