if you put running before the daily nuisances of life, everyday, then you are a serious runner. 20 miles --->120 miles
if you put running before the daily nuisances of life, everyday, then you are a serious runner. 20 miles --->120 miles
what's the lowest wrote:
I recognise that I can be a bit of a running snob, although I generally do not express my opinions out loud. One of the things I have found that I am secretly snobby about is the amount of mileage people run. I often hear people at work etc. talk about how hard they are training for a marathon (or half marathon, 10k etc.) and so I ask about their schedule and it's clear they are running very low mileage. I think for me, more so then their actual times, a person's mileage is what I use as an indicator to tell if they are actually serious about running and their training.
At lunch today a co-worker, who I thought was a decent runner because he talks about it all the time, was bragging about running 25 miles per week training for an upcoming half marathon. In that moment I instantly and unintentionally altered my impression of him and thought, given his low mileage, he should really talk less about his running in front of people.
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?
Who would win in a fight a gorilla or a lion? What a stupid question.
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 :-)
KudzuRunner wrote:I agree with the 35 mpw figure, although I can imagine somebody making a pitch for 30 mpw.
I take "serious" in this case as somebody who realizes that there's a significant, if not determinative connection, between mileage and performance, and that you need to raise your mileage to a certain level in order to maximize race performance. A serious runner is somebody who is training seriously, rather than casually, in an uninformed way, for race performances.
In my own training and racing, from age 45 through 58, I shoot for about 45 mpw. Only when I get to 40 mpw and sustain it for a couple of months do I begin to come into anything like racing shape. The lowest mileage that I can race off of and feel as though I'm even beginning to do justice to what little talent I've got is 35 mpw. That's absolutely marginal, but it's borderline workable. 30 mpw is treading water, holding position, but it's not--in my experience--"serious" mileage, and any runner who thinks that it is just isn't very serious, at least where racing is concerned.
Of course I'm generalizing wildly off my own experience, and I can imagine the laughs of those who think that anything under 50 mpw is pitiful. Certainly I would feel like that as a younger competitor on a college track XC team. And certainly that's true for marathoners of all ages and abilities. You can run a marathon off 45 mpw, but you're hardly taking the event seriously.
OK, fair question. The answer depends on many things. It depends, at bare minimum, on your natural talent level, the number of years you've been training, and the distance you're racing.
For the sake of argument, let's take the 5K race I ran this morning. I've just checked my mileage for 2017 so far. I've averaged 36.1 miles a week for 13 weeks. Since I've been building up, I'm closer to 40 mpw for the past 5-6 weeks. I've had some good hill workouts, a handful of 2-mile tempos with times that I just don't want to share here, and a good 3-mile tempo/fartlek (1/4 mile hard, 1/4 mile float, with the last half mile pretty hard)
This morning I ran 21:47, which is 7:02 pace. At age 58 (I turn 59 in two days), that gets me an age-grading of 72.36 (the 2010 tables). Anything over 70 is considered "regional class" (i.e., NOT national class, but decent). My best races, in peak shape and at a good racing weight, always hover right around 75%. I'm about three pounds over racing weight, and I'm in decent shape but not peak shape. So all the data comes together in a portrait of--for me--a very good race, all things considered, but not as fast as I should be able to run if I lose that weight, come closer to 45 mpw, and put in some more races & race-specfic workouts.
The same age grading for a 39 year old (your age) would require you to run 18:43. So assuming you had the same talent as me (impossible to measure), had trained the same amount--not just in the past three months, but over a sustained period of time, so that your aerobic system was reasonably well developed--AND, importantly, ran at a similar effort level (I averaged almost exactly 95% of my maximum heart rate in the course of the race), you'd need to run three minutes faster than me to equal my performance, in age-graded terms.
I'm betting that you're not running sub-19 right now. For most guys your age, just breaking 20 in a local race is considered a decent time.
The gist of all this is that there are too many variables for me to give you a good answer. A large part of the answer depends NOT on what you're doing these days, but on whether you have a past with significantly or even somewhat higher mileage than you've been doing. If you do, then you may be able to coast along on 30 mpw and do OK, especially if we're just talking about 5Ks. But there's no question that another 10 miles a week--which means boosting your total mileage by 25%--will make a noticeable difference.
But perhaps I should state the obvious: the fact that you're participating in this forum, training steadily within the time available to you, racing regularly, and asking questions about training variables says--to me, at least--that you're a serious runner.
The race I ran this morning, and came in #2 overall (with that 21:47!), losing to a 54 y.o. who beat me by about 10 seconds, had very few if any other participants whom I would consider serious runners. It was 173 recreational runners, joggers, and whatever they're calling that final circle of hell in the back these days. A beautifully organized race, with an accurate course and great pizza afterward. But gee whiz. I led for a mile and a half. At seven-minute pace! Where have all the serious road racers gone?
Unless you are a sponsored pro, or a college runner on scholarship, you are a hobby jogger. You might take your jogging seriously, but you are still a serious hobby jogger.
Rayo. wrote:
Who would win in a fight a gorilla or a lion? What a stupid question.
Was this meant to be an oxymoron? I would freaking love to see a fight between a lion and a gorilla. I think the lion would win, but it would be so amazing if the gorilla ended up winning. If there was some way to set that up I would watch that for sure. Great question.
KudzuRunner wrote:
The race I ran this morning, and came in #2 overall (with that 21:47!), losing to a 54 y.o. who beat me by about 10 seconds, had very few if any other participants whom I would consider serious runners. It was 173 recreational runners, joggers, and whatever they're calling that final circle of hell in the back these days.
This is a popular meme of this board. "Anyone slower than me is not interested in time or place..." Even a 50-something guy is not immune to this syndrome. At least you did not accuse the winner of being a drug cheat.
Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:
KudzuRunner wrote:The race I ran this morning, and came in #2 overall (with that 21:47!), losing to a 54 y.o. who beat me by about 10 seconds, had very few if any other participants whom I would consider serious runners. It was 173 recreational runners, joggers, and whatever they're calling that final circle of hell in the back these days.
This is a popular meme of this board. "Anyone slower than me is not interested in time or place..." Even a 50-something guy is not immune to this syndrome. At least you did not accuse the winner of being a drug cheat.
I think he is saying that some people would take that 2nd overall finish at some joggathong and act like they won the Olympics.
People that have been around realize the level of competition in most local road races and have no delusions of grandeur.
NotanUltraGuy wrote:
Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:This is a popular meme of this board. "Anyone slower than me is not interested in time or place..." Even a 50-something guy is not immune to this syndrome. At least you did not accuse the winner of being a drug cheat.
I think he is saying that some people would take that 2nd overall finish at some joggathong and act like they won the Olympics.
People that have been around realize the level of competition in most local road races and have no delusions of grandeur.
Yeah. there is no delusion when you think you are the slowest "serious runner" in every race. "How can anyone be that slow if they cared about time and place at all? They have to be only interested in socializing with other people and eating pizza. That's only possible explanation that they are so damn slow."
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures