Runner's World Defines a "Serious Runner"

Junior varsity cross country in Rhode Island.

http://www.athletic.net/crosscountry/Results/Meet.aspx?Meet=38119

25 flat gets you:

106th place out of 247 for girls: 43%.

325th place out of 374 for boys: 87%

Rhode Island junior varsity cross country. Serious business.

runn wrote:

Yes. I'm in my mid-50's and I can break 21:00 on less than 30 mpw no problem. I came off an injury where I was jogging 15-20 mpw, two weeks of 30 mpw and I ran right around 21:00.

Now, running 50 mpw I can run 3 miles in the middle of an 8-10 miler under 21:00 no problem.

I don't consider myself a serious runner, I'm a father, husband, teacher, coach, runner.

The problem in all of this is attempting to associate a result (time) with a level of commitment (serious). Someone with a lot of talent could be something of a hobby jogger (occasionally go out for a run when they have nothing better to do) and still reel off a 16 min 5k while someone with very little talent could take their running very seriously (consistent 50 mpw, rarely miss a day, include some tempo runs and intervals, follow the latest running news...) and still struggle to break 25 min.

It simply makes no sense to equate a particular time with the notion that one is a serious runner.

wtf did i tell you?

Wow. I'm a serious runner!!!

Haha. I know RW caters more to the casual running crowd and slow-pokes, but TWENTY FIVE minutes is the benchmark for "serious" runners?! Really? That's like 8-min pace. Running 8 min pace for 3 miles makes you a serious runner?

I could see the 20min mark being the dividing line (although many of you would scoff at that too I'm sure). But I do think running under 20 would require quite a bit of training for the average person out there.

I'm a out-of-shape 33yr that hasn't run more than 2x a week (and no longer than 3-miles) in 4yrs, but I can break 25min for 5k. That's pathetic!

Are there really 25 minute 5kers that actually consider themselves "serious runners? I have several friends who occasionally will run a local 5k in the 25 to 30 minute range for some type of benefit, but they do not consider themselves runners, let a lone serious runners. One even friend referred to her race as a "shuffle."

My first 5k ever in the 6th grade was in 20:10 on 10 miles a week (if that). Don't think RW is accounting for talent.

Agreed. I'm 34, run probably 1x/month, and run much faster than that for the running that I do. I don't consider myself a runner, much less a serious runner.

Of course Runner's World is trying to introduce a new market into the sport, a new slew of readers who say "hey, running a 5k sounds like something I can do" and setting a time standard (25min) as a way to motivate them.

How about this: a "Serious Runner qualifies for the Boston marathon" Training for a marathon and running a decent time (BQ) usually shows some dedication and is worth qualifying as a serious runner. Point is, marathon training for a BQ or better would usually mean you could break 25-min for 5k and heck, 60min for 10k.

btw I'm a sub 14:30 guy and I look at Runner's World from time to time because I like to see whats going on inside the masses' heads.

I thought Murakami did as well as anyone is going to do in defining serious running when he said he considers himself to be doing serious running when he is running 6 miles a day, 6 days a week. I think that's pretty close to what I'd consider the line is for calling someone a runner. As in, "He never ran cross country or track in high school or college, but since then he's become a runner."

That said, this is more than many very good 800m runners I know, so perhaps it isn't so great. But training based seems to be the ticket.

I am a man of very average athletic ability. I never ran in my life. As a 40 yr old I started to run a little. I ran 15 miles-ish a week for 2 or 3 mos and ran 23:40, while walking twice, in a 5k. 25:00 categorically does not make you a runner.

You are a serious runner if you do one of the following:

- Bust the 25 minute (5k) barrier in traditional shoes.

- Bust the 50 minute (5k) barrier on an unofficial course around your neighborhood in your "barefoot shoes" and brag about how good you are.

- Run at least 5 miles a week and troll blogs and message boards flaming shoes with "massive heels" and argue that "barefoot shoes" eliminates pronation, restores knee cartilage, and cures impotence.

Yeah Butt wrote:

The problem in all of this is attempting to associate a result (time) with a level of commitment (serious). Someone with a lot of talent could be something of a hobby jogger (occasionally go out for a run when they have nothing better to do) and still reel off a 16 min 5k while someone with very little talent could take their running very seriously (consistent 50 mpw, rarely miss a day, include some tempo runs and intervals, follow the latest running news...) and still struggle to break 25 min.

It simply makes no sense to equate a particular time with the notion that one is a serious runner.

This is an excellent point. I know one older lady (50's) who has recently run a 4:55 marathon but wants to qualify for Boston; she trains in a very harsh climate that most of the guys on Let's Run couldn't handle, and also does a lot of strength training. She's super slow, but very serious about running and improving.

trolol I saw this I thought it might go lower than 20minutes for a 5k and give useful advice but not really. My fat brother can break 25 minutes in a 5k jogging

rw5ker wrote:

You are a serious runner if you do one of the following:

- Bust the 25 minute (5k) barrier in traditional shoes.

- Bust the 50 minute (5k) barrier on an unofficial course around your neighborhood in your "barefoot shoes" and brag about how good you are.

- Run at least 5 miles a week and troll blogs and message boards flaming shoes with "massive heels" and argue that "barefoot shoes" eliminates pronation, restores knee cartilage, and cures impotence.

Well played sir. I am glad someone else gets it.

According to a December 2011 article, the results from a Runners World Poll say the average reader...

is 42 years old

runs 3 days a week

runs between 15-19 MPW

started running to lose weight

is a 5k racer

pr100 wrote:

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.

These results highlight an obvious and much more reasonable way of thinking about what constitutes a "serious" runner: somebody who, regardless of age, is capable of notching a specific percentage of their age-grade. I think 60% of AG would be reasonable. (I'm unhappy when I make less than 70%; last week, age 54, I ran a 20:20 5K, which is about 75%.)

For the open category--a 25 y.o. guy--an AG of 60% is a 21:30 5K. A 25:00 5K is an AG of 51.6. It seems to me that a serious runner should aim to be a little bit better than exactly in the middle.

Note to RW: You're encouraging, validating, and cultivating mediocrity.

By the same token, for a 60 y.o. female, a 25 minute 5K is an AG of 76.1. That's terrific. That's where I'm running. A 25 minute 5K is more than serious; it's very good. It's local class; not quite regional class. (Then again, I won the 10-mile state championship in Alabama a couple of years ago in the over-50 category, so maybe 75% is regional level.)

Of course, there's no way to create a standardized, one-size-fits-all training plan for such a diverse array of anticipated 60%-or-better AG times. But if one is looking to start the conversation with a thoughtful, plausiable claim about what constitutes a serious runner, then that would be my suggestion: breach the 60% of age-grade threshold. Prove you're a notch above the mean, whatever age you happen to be.

I means to say "a notch above the median," not "a notch above the mean."

The current Running Times has a much better definition of a serious runner. See the editor's column.