Thought it might be fun to ask the question: what do you guys consider to be the boundary between casual and serious runners? 40 easy miles a week? 30? I think 30 for me sounds like a fair one--if you run 5 miles a day 6 days a week easy, that's pretty casual. Other opinions?
I don't think it's mileage so much as it is purpose. If I run 40 mpw just to stay in shape - I'd say that's casual. But if I run 30-35 mpw and train for a good 5K or a 10K periodically - I'd say that falls more toward serious.
The general letsrun rule is that anyone slower than me is a hobby jogger and anyone faster than me is on PEDs, so by that logic, I'm the only serious runner who isn't a cheat.
I run less than 30mpw but I could bury you in any race 800-5k.
I don't consider myself casual. I am limited in mileage by a long history of injuries.
It has more to do with attitude than mileage. If you take running seriously, you're a serious runner. If you take running casually, you are a casual runner. Runners go through different stages, so it's hard to "draw the line." Someone may only be running 30 mpw easy, but it could be that they are coming back from injuries, etc.
5 miles a day for 6 days/week would not be casual for me and I am a casual runner and that's too many days of running in a week. But that's a personal question as it relates to every individual. If you're judging it from the outside if I spot a dude or gal passing me like I'm standing still then I deem that person a no life serious runner but they may only do 20 miles a week or 100 I find out later.
Unless you get paid for doing it, you are a casual runner.
It's a blurry line because I think that it depends a lot on talent. For example, I got started on running around the end of high school. I had been a competitive swimmer and done lots of other sports my whole life but didn't consider myself to be a runner. One day though, it struck me as a good idea to sign up for a local marathon, mostly for the challenge of finishing, not so much to compete. However, at the gun I found that I was running fairly effortlessly with the lead pack and went through 10k in 36 high and the half-way point in 1:19. Shortly thereafter, the leaders dropped me and my lack of fitness caught up to me as I eventually crawled across the line in 2:58. This was still good enough for top 10 at this event. I'm a competitive person and competed seriously in the race even though I hadn't trained seriously for it. Would that have made me more of a serious runner than the social runners who maybe train 50 miles per week but run the race easily with their jogging buddies?
This is perhaps an extreme example but what about high school athletes from low mileage programs who only run 25-30 miles per week but do loads of intervals. Surely they would count as serious runners more than somebody who does 40 miles a week all at very easy pace and runs races for social reasons and to do something for charity. I think that being a serious runner has more to do with your state of mind on race day than the amount of mileage you put in in your training.
So Rupp, Chelanga, German, Centro, Ulrey - and the list goes on for literally thousands of athletes - are not serious runners? I'm pretty sure McDougal would take offense to the claim that his 100+ mile weeks were just casual. There are levels to activities below professional.
You cross the line when you run to improve performances rather then just stay healthy.
Not that I agree w/ the premise, but if you think REALLY hard about it, all of those athletes are well-compensated ("paid") for their efforts.
BMC wrote:
So Rupp, Chelanga, German, Centro, Ulrey - and the list goes on for literally thousands of athletes - are not serious runners? I'm pretty sure McDougal would take offense to the claim that his 100+ mile weeks were just casual. There are levels to activities below professional.
A serious runner is anyone that competes and makes an effort to improve.
if your fast
I was a "serious" runner last year competing in a dozen roadraces despite the fact I only ran two days a week.
I only run to be competitive regardless of how many miles I am doing. I stairmaster or bike for casual fitness. Those are activities you don't have to worry about injuries all the time.
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
It has more to do with attitude than mileage. If you take running seriously, you're a serious runner. If you take running casually, you are a casual runner. Runners go through different stages, so it's hard to "draw the line." Someone may only be running 30 mpw easy, but it could be that they are coming back from injuries, etc.
Dean K takes his running pretty seriously, but I consider him a hobbyjogger.
Line Drawer wrote:
Thought it might be fun to ask the question: what do you guys consider to be the boundary between casual and serious runners? 40 easy miles a week? 30? I think 30 for me sounds like a fair one--if you run 5 miles a day 6 days a week easy, that's pretty casual. Other opinions?
Isn't it more about the times you run. I get good results of not a lot of training.
What sort of runner can run 2:44 thon?
I do it off under 40 miles a week
BMC wrote:
So Rupp, Chelanga, German, Centro, Ulrey - and the list goes on for literally thousands of athletes - are not serious runners? I'm pretty sure McDougal would take offense to the claim that his 100+ mile weeks were just casual. There are levels to activities below professional.
Those who you mentioned are getting scholarships. That is different to professional in some senses. But without getting into technicalities they certainly are getting a great deal of expenses (probably tuition, room, board, numerous costs of running, and usually some money for other expenses), so effectively they are professional. I think therefore anyone on a scholarship is a serious runner. Hell even a walk-on could be considered serious if they get shoes and travel to races, get massage etc.
It's different for everyone. For me, I would say it's attitude and sacrifice. I wasn't very fast (24:17 8k, avg. of 2:35 in the marathon). Never won any money. I trained as hard as I possibly could and raced as hard as I possibly could. Hit 127 miles in a week as my high and got up each day at 5:15 to put in my 3-7 before work, doing a second session after work. Many track workouts in the dark, many sub zero days, many days when I should have been spending more time with my family. I thik I was a pretty serious runner.
Ray wrote:
I wasn't very fast (24:17 8k, avg. of 2:35 in the marathon)
Come on dude, yes you were.
Line Drawer wrote:
Thought it might be fun to ask the question: what do you guys consider to be the boundary between casual and serious runners? 40 easy miles a week? 30? I think 30 for me sounds like a fair one--if you run 5 miles a day 6 days a week easy, that's pretty casual. Other opinions?
1) Attitude isn't the defining thing.
2) Mileage isn't the defining thing.
3) Intensity of the miles run isn't the defining thing.
4) What is the thing? Do you TRAIN and RACE and try to improve? That's pretty much it.