What is the minimum amount mileage someone can run in a week for you to consider them a serious runner?

I am actually curious, so what would be a race time result that you would consider the person to be serious about racing based on your experience?I am 39yo, full time job, roughly 30 mpw (sometimes less) but not sustained, due to work/life commitments. I don't do marathons. Only half and shorter distances. My training includes 2x hard workouts weekly, remaining easy/recovery. Based on your thoughts, increasing my mileage significantly would bring me benefits on race day? I accept it's probably low mileage, I would like to know from which point the increase in mileage will have less and less return on race day. So I am the guy making the pitch for 30 mpw :-)

i'd say 30mpw for someone with a real job indicates that person is committed to running being an important part of life... so that's my threshold for not dismissing someone who talks about it all the time.

i could manage 30-40 with young kids, full-time job, and part-time school and in the scheme of things would not consider myself a "serious runner." So for that category, something higher than that... maybe 50+.

And i'm assuming we're discussing people who target racing >5k distances.

There's a heck of a lot more to running than just mileage.

I think anyone that runs even somewhat regular could be called a serious runner. Dismissing someone just because they don't meet 'x' criteria is crazy. Rudisha probably runs 30 miles a week. Is he not a serious runner?

I think if you really want to divide people up it should be runner & athlete. A runner is anyone who runs a bit, enjoys it, maybe does a few races for a medal or to lose weight for motivation etc. An athlete trains with the purpose of improving their performance. Both equally viable and worthwhile endeavours and neither should belittle the other but, unfortunately, human nature kicks in and people feel the need to hate.

Duh. It's about performance not weekly mileage.

I know some ultra folks that are really terrible runners but they run a lot. I know some guys that might do 30M weeks and that are freakin awesome.

ToiletSnake wrote:

Duh. It's about performance not weekly mileage.

I know some ultra folks that are really terrible runners but they run a lot. I know some guys that might do 30M weeks and that are freakin awesome.

sure, but couldnt you be talented and not too serious? and those runners would certainly be better if they ran more...at least in most cases. but i agree that pr's are really what matters.

ToiletSnake wrote:

Duh. It's about performance not weekly mileage.

I know some ultra folks that are really terrible runners but they run a lot. I know some guys that might do 30M weeks and that are freakin awesome.

"Serious" is about attitude and has nothing to do with performance. You can have zero talent, or be really old, but still train hard and work towards whatever your personal goals happen to be. That's what makes you "serious." If you happen to be fast too, that's a great combination, but not a required attribute.

There is no good way to talk about your running in public, no matter your mileage. That is why we all here talking about it.

zephito wrote:

I would say anyone who runs workouts that are uncomfortable for the purpose of running faster in a race (or who race a lot for the purpose of getting faster), and who runs as hard as they can during the race to get as fast a time as possible is serious. I don't think mileage matters. 20 miles a week with intervals is more serious than jogging 40 miles a week.

EOT

Four sessions per week for 25mpw with harder hill strides after most runs done @ 6:00 low mile pace. Toss in a fartlek and/or some mile repeats in four sessions per week for a month will put me in 16:mid or better 5k shape. This is hardly "serious" training. I don't think this is too uncommon. Smash on the general self-touted "runners" with relative ease.

hill_runner I'm surprised you didn't mention hills! 30 mpw with 6000 ft of accumulated elevation is definitely harder than 40 mpw on flats.

I am a serious runner (over 70 mpw for the year on the average, solid PRs and solid recent race performances) and I used to really distinguish between "real runners" and those who ran just for some exercise a few days a week much more than I do now.

At this point, I really don't even consider workouts and race efforts to be that much of a distinguishing characteristic between those who are serious about running and those who are not.

Watching my wife go from someone who ran 2-3 miles a day, 2-3 days a week and then found other forms of exercise the other days of the week to someone who runs 35 mpw on 5 days a week of running with a workout and a long run each week is what made me change.

It sounds contradictory to say that, but part of the transition of her going from her old approach to running to her new approach included watching her change her mindset about running. Hearing her talk about how much more in-tune she feels with her body, hearing her talk about how she enjoys the solitude and beauty of watching the sunrise on her morning runs, hearing her talk about how getting her run in each morning makes her feel like her day has already been a productive one - those are things that people who are real runners or serious about running appreciate. I don't think the workouts, long runs and races are the key; I think the mindset is the key. She just also happens to like those other things as well.

So I end up on the side of "no real mileage requirement, but rather a compulsion to get out 3-4 days a week for 20-30 minutes per day on a consistent basis" side of things.

grenio wrote:

There is no good way to talk about your running in public, no matter your mileage. That is why we all here talking about it.

This is true - and there does seem to be a correlation between people I know who talk about it the most, or at least initiate the topic the most, being the people who train the least. At work the only people I hear bragging about their training or recent half marathon finishes are low volume trainers who finish their half marathons in over 2.5 hours.

On the other hand, I enjoy talking about running with people who run too. I think most running geeks like talking about running, which is probably why they are here. The problem is a lack of mutual understanding when talking about training with someone who runs three times a week telling me how tired they are from all their training they are doing and how hard it is for them to lower their PB.

I agree with their being no one measure, but, other than outliers, in general putting in miles takes dedication. This becomes more true once you start talking about training for a half or a marathon. Maybe you know people faking their way through 50 miles per week or more, but I think they'd be the exception. I'd be surprised if someone was training over 50 miles per week and running a 6 hour marathon (assuming they aren't very old).

30_mpw_ wrote:

I am actually curious, so what would be a race time result that you would consider the person to be serious about racing based on your experience?

I am 39yo, full time job, roughly 30 mpw (sometimes less) but not sustained, due to work/life commitments. I don't do marathons. Only half and shorter distances. My training includes 2x hard workouts weekly, remaining easy/recovery.

Based on your thoughts, increasing my mileage significantly would bring me benefits on race day? I accept it's probably low mileage, I would like to know from which point the increase in mileage will have less and less return on race day.

So I am the guy making the pitch for 30 mpw :-)

I was the 30mpw guy last year and ran a 1:35 half marathon as a PR. Bumped that to just over 40mpw in 2017 with a few weeks over 50 trying to build up to a potential marathon in a couple months and ran a 1:28, untapered, 2 minute negative split last week.

I have very quickly become a believer in higher mileage (over time).

From what I've heard for things less than marathon more miles is always better, but the returns start to diminish in the 60-70mpw range. At that point you still can improve, but the risk/reward ratio may change as you increase injury risk. That being said, everyone's different so ymmv.

grenio wrote:

There is no good way to talk about your running in public, no matter your mileage. That is why we all here talking about it.

^this

Dear Alan wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

I guess Roger Bannister was not a serious runner....

Alan

You're not writing a letter to someone when you post on a message board. No need to put your name at the bottom. Have you ever noticed in all the years you've been posting here that you're the only one who hasn't figured this out?

Leave Alan alone.

One thing that enters my mind when I hear people talking about their running is how long they have been running and how consistent they are. I know new runners can get serious fast so not having run for very long is not necessarily very telling. But, I hear people at work who will train for and run a marathon, kind of complaining about how much running they have to do, then they don't run again after that. Maybe they do another race at some point, it doesn't matter. I don't consider that serious. There is nothing wrong with it but I just know they aren't really as into running as I am so I won't geek out on running with them.

So, to me, a part of it is a longer term commitment to running than just for a race here and there. Some of us just get addicted early on and know they will be running as long as their body can handle it.

Frankly, 90% of your gains as a runner can be attained through a lower mileage program so long as the intensity is there. If someone ran 15 miles a week, but all of those miles were at tempo pace or higher, they would have my respect.

So I guess Robert Young is more serious than Donavan Brazier going by that logic.

what's the lowest wrote:

I am likely unfair and maybe wrong in my thinking about what mileage people normally run. Is 25 miles a week a lot of running for most people? What is the minimum mileage someone can run per week that you would consider that person to be a serious runner?

The answer to the question "are you a serious runner?" is "are you committed to your performance?" and time spent is a better marker than mileage.

You mileage approach is pretty crude, since it doesn't include everything about a runner's commitment. I know an older who runs an 10k+ a day no matter what and a long run on Sundays, maybe 50-60 mpw. He only races marathons although pretty casually, always over 3:00 and he is pretty nonchalant it all. Another masters runner I know probably never goes over 30mpw, yet he is at the track doing drills, weights, exercises etc 60-90 minutes every day. He is one of the best in the world for his event and age.

I would think that an hour a day every day, even almost every day, would qualify as a serious interest for a recreational pursuit. (And yes, this is a recreational pursuit for most of us. Not matter how "serious" we like to call ourselves, a guy training to run a 5k in under 20:00 or 19:00 or even 16:00 is a hobby.)

Someone running 25 miles is typically doing that in 5-6 runs. I'll use 5 for the easy numbers.

Let's say 5 days running per week, each with a 5-miler. (Again, just for simplicity.)

If those miles are run at 8:00/mile (probably that's a quick estimate, since 13:45 LetsRunners brag about their 9:00+ easy miles), you are looking at 40 minutes of moving time. Add into that the stretching and ancillary exercises most people are doing, and you are easily looking at an hour commitment 4 weekdays and 1 weekend day each week. (Not even getting into the time getting to tracks/trails/gyms, which many would be doing.)

I think that's fairly serious. What else do you do that much during the week, other than biological functions, parenting and paid work?

perf vs serious wrote:

ToiletSnake wrote:

Duh. It's about performance not weekly mileage.

I know some ultra folks that are really terrible runners but they run a lot. I know some guys that might do 30M weeks and that are freakin awesome.

"Serious" is about attitude and has nothing to do with performance. You can have zero talent, or be really old, but still train hard and work towards whatever your personal goals happen to be. That's what makes you "serious." If you happen to be fast too, that's a great combination, but not a required attribute.

Well if you call setting records, representing your country in WCs etc "not" serious but the dude logging 65 mpw but unable to run a 40 min 10k serious, well we see the sport verrrry differently.