How fast do you have to be for your weekly mileage to be "worth it"?

no, it is a fact wrote:

It is a fact that at a certain point running becomes a waste I don't think this chat is the best way to measure it, but at some point it would be more beneficial to use the extra time for something else. However just because the chart says you should do 40 (what it says I should be doing) does not mean I have to stop doing 60. This is because I know I would use the extra time for something much less productive than running rather than do something less wasteful.

Something else I would like to add is the chart varies a lot probably from person to person even so it is up for you to edit the OP's chart based on you and your values. He is asking us to critique his chart and one critique I have is that it should (maybe?) include how long you have been running as well.

Would more years of running decrease suggested mileage, or increase it, in your opinion?

Imo it would increase suggested mileage because the longer you have been running the more it takes to improve and the more mileage you can handle.

no, it is a fact wrote:

Imo it would increase suggested mileage because the longer you have been running the more it takes to improve and the more mileage you can handle.

I was actually thinking the opposite. The longer you've run, the better you know what your max potential might be, and the less the incremental mileage may have on increasing your fitness. You're probalby also less likely to set PRs and you've already experienced a lot of firsts in running, which adds to the value of running. You might be less likely to meet knew people through extra mileage, less likely to lose weight, less likely to be a greater example, less likely to spend a significant more dollars with extra mileage etc. etc. Basically I'd think someone with less experience with running may get more value from it when considering the health benefits, setting PRs, meeting new people, doing new races, running new routes, and spending money on junk someone that knows better might not buy. I'm thinking just on average. Obviously some individuals differ from the mean.

This is just dumb.

If X brings you joy, you aren't wasting your time doing X activity.

If X does not bring you joy, you are wasting your time doing X activity.

If you are only running for times, I would seriously question whether or not you understand the joy of running and are therefore wasting your time.

As a 47 year old female, I know this chart doesn't apply to me, but I simply don't understand why anyone would spend any time running if it doesn't bring them joy (with the single exception being very few individuals who can make a real living at running (i.e., running is their day job). There are lots of other ways to remain active that don't involve running.

Anyway, I run 50-60 mpw because it brings me joy. I will never win a race. I like that I can place in my age range, but that really isn't what gets me out the door every morning. If I ever get to the point where running is no fun, I will find something else to keep me active.

I understand that you may base all your activities around what makes you happy, with no consideration to others. I think on average, people are not entirely selfish and value their time not only based on self satisfaction, but also on how their activities impact others in the world. As I said earlier, the 5k time is not all that matters, but it very measurable and does correlate very well to factors that weigh in how much value you and the world is getting from the time you spend running.

First of all, thank you for an answer. I'll just do some responding and maybe be done here.

Because we know there must be at some point running becomes too much. 700 miles/week is too much on average, 1 mile/week is too little on average. Where is the line crossed on average? It is absolutely identifiable on average, and some people may differ.

Obviously at some point it becomes possible to do too much of anything. Running 700 miles a week is probably physically impossible for most people no matter how much they wanted to do it. Running 2,000 miles a week would take more time than there is in a week. Running 100 miles a week, or 200 miles a week, on the other hand, is definitely possible for at least some of us. If running that kind of distance continually leaves you sick or hurt then sure, if you really like your wife and she leaves you because of the amount you run, it's probably too much. But that's not the case for everyone If a thing is possible, who gets to say how much of it is too much?

This actually is in line with what I was asking when I wanted you to take me through your thought process for creating your chart. It wasn't really about the mechanics of creating the chart. It was why you seem to think you're in a position to decide how much running is too much for people other than yourself. If you're asking for opinions about how much running is too much for you, I'd be all on board. But claiming to know how much is too much for me seems pretty presumptive.

And while I appreciate the answer, I guess it really doesn't tell me what I'm trying to understand and that's why people like you have such a hard time understanding that there are some of us who genuinely like to do a good bit of running each day and are smart enough to work out how to do it without wrecking ourselves and our lives. Late in Shorter's career he said something to the effect that he just really enjoyed the training and that racing was almost a justification for doing as much of it as he wanted.

There was a guy called Marv Rothenstein who "jogged" upwards of 5,000 miles a year in the 60s but never raced. He wrote a book about it. There was a guy called Jack Barry who lived around Philadelphia and was one of the better road racers in the US in the early to mid 60s. He probably trained around 80-100 miles a week and with a good bit of interval work. When he stopped being one of the better road racers in the US he lost interest in racing but trained pretty much the same as when he raced. Mark Covert pretty much stopped racing after 1977 but never missed a day of running from 1968 to 2013 and was cranking out 400-500 miles a month until early in this century. While doing it he had a job with lots of business travel, raised a family, and coached at a junior college then eventually getting a faculty job where he coached. All of these guys ran as much as they did because they wanted to. None of them hurt anyone. Are you going to measure each of them against your chart and decide that they were running too much and if so why do you think it's okay for you to do it?

Based on the feedback so far, I have updated the chart to be the following. Assumed 25-40 yo hobby joggers who love running:

10 miles - 36:00

20 miles - 27:00

30 miles - 21:40

40 miles - 18:40

50 miles - 17:30

60 miles - 16:25

70 miles - 15:35

80 miles - 15:10

90 miles - 14:40

100 miles - 14:15

These have been updated mostly to account for the perceived value of qualifying for the marathon trials.

I'm trying to determine for the average person, how much running is too much running. I started with a baseline of what I believe, admit its not perfect, and asking for feedback to make adjustments

I understand that some people can run 200 miles a week and it isn't too much for them. Maybe they'd have very little in value to add without running. I'm just trying to find the AVERAGE line, not saying what applies to all people, but what applies to most people. In most cases I believe people who are running too much do not know they are running too much. I can't really judge on an individual basis, I can only help them question whether or not its too much and set baselines for what on average is not too much. I've never said that someone running 200 miles a week is wrecking their lives, I'm just saying that they would most likely be accomplishing more for the world (themselves, those around them, and society) if they were running an incremental less per week.

This is a great example of someone who created a lot of value from his running, and by spending the time not running in doing something valuable he even further enhanced it. However, what if he only ran 3,000 miles a year, wrote a book about that, and then ALSO wrote a book about something else? (assuming he was a great writer). That MAY have even been a BETTER use of his time. I understand it's almost impossible to run for the perfect amount of time to maximize your value, but all we can do is do our best and attempt to optimize our time, and I believe the chart best sets baseline targets for people who love running. I appreciate your feedback, but honestly these outlier examples do little to move the average of thousands of hobby joggers. 5,000 miles/year may be perfect for Marv, but I don't know how you can apply his experience and situation to the average hobby jogger.

I've pointed out several times that not everyone falls perfectly among the chart, but by making the chart for the average person, we can point out that they "most likely" were running to a point that it was a waste of time. It's not a gaurantee its a waste of time for an individual, it just means of 10 people that are in those situations, a greater number of them than fewer would be running too much. There will always be outliers, but using outliers as an example to apply to thousands or millions of people does not make sense to me.

formerbosox9yo wrote:

I understand that you may base all your activities around what makes you happy, with no consideration to others. I think on average, people are not entirely selfish and value their time not only based on self satisfaction, but also on how their activities impact others in the world. As I said earlier, the 5k time is not all that matters, but it very measurable and does correlate very well to factors that weigh in how much value you and the world is getting from the time you spend running.

But my state of well being has a direct effect on those I encounter on a daily basis. I am much more pleasant to deal with (easy-going and generally more relaxed) when I am able to run regularly). Where I don't run, I'm grumpy, sleep more, and have low energy. It would therefore be selfish of me not to run at least 50 mpw. It also keeps me off of anti-depressant medications.

What is selfish is to run any mpw just to have an impressive/arbitrary 5k time if you don't enjoy running or aren't able to support yourself/your family on the income generated from running.

Don't you get it, the chart doesn't say you shouldn't run, it just says the recommended amount of running. For most people on letsrun I believe by following the chart they could still be running every day if they wanted to and still hit the prescribed mileage.

Either way, I'll update to the following:

Assumed 25-40 yo hobby joggers who love running:

10 miles - 36:00

20 miles - 27:00

30 miles - 21:40

40 miles - 18:40

50 miles - 17:30

60 miles - 16:25

70 miles - 15:35

80 miles - 15:05

90 miles - 14:40

100 miles - 14:15

How do you factor in other forms of working out into this? Or as a hobby jogger should I only be running?

I spend about seven hours per week working out, and even during my "heavy" running cycle I will max out at about 20 mpw (roughly 2.5 hours), one hour of spinning, and 3.5 hours lifting weights. My 8k last year was 29:53, I did not participate in a 5k.

Although still early, this thread is on top of the list for dumbest thread of 2019.

Having only spent 5 minutes skimming through this dreck, I feel as if I've been cheated out of 5 minutes of my life. That's 5 minutes I could have spent running or doing whatever the h*ll I want to which is none of your business.

28 year old male wrote:

How do you factor in other forms of working out into this? Or as a hobby jogger should I only be running?

I spend about seven hours per week working out, and even during my "heavy" running cycle I will max out at about 20 mpw (roughly 2.5 hours), one hour of spinning, and 3.5 hours lifting weights. My 8k last year was 29:53, I did not participate in a 5k.

There is a lot of good info in this thread now, so not surprised that you missed it. This chart is only factoring in running. It is highly encouraged for the 20 minute 5ker running 60 miles a week to drop some of that mileage for other activities such as spinning and lifting weights. Remember it should be personalized for yourself, but appears on average you are a light runner for your ability and it may be worth to run more. Maybe take the least valuable of your other time (doesnt have to be lifting or spinning) out to add some more miles.

Herein lies the problem with that, I switched away from running because I found that running more than about 30 mpw I kept getting injured. Even when I am prepping for a half marathon I keep it under 30 mpw, I've maxed out at 1:29:00 for the half, and I'm pretty satisfied with that based on the mileage.

I was a 16:21 5ker my Senior year of high school at 55 mpw, but a string of injuries my first two years of college put a damper on that.

That makes sense. Obviously your personal risk of injury has to be taken into account.

I'd wonder if its not the mileage that causes injury though, but the intensity. Based on your 8k time on 20 mph I think you could significantly improve your half if you slowly bumped up to 40-45 miles a week but could avoid injury.

formerbosox9yo wrote:

I run for enjoyment wrote:

I run for enjoyment for about a hour or so a day. Don't really care about mileage and PRs, but I usually do between 60-80 miles a week and run about 17 minute range for local 5k's.

Ok, so you spend a little too much time running. According to the chart you should be taking some of that time running and using it to focus on family, career, or society as a whole, not just your running.

So for every hour a week run, you will get it back x 7. In other words, anyone who runs less than, say, 5 hours a week, has a moral duty to run more, so they can live longer and use those extra hours of life to focus on family, career, or society as a whole.

BTW, how many hours a week do you spend on this site? Is your post an example of you 'giving back to society'?

My wife has often kicked me out and told me to go for a run when I'm moody saying, "You'll be in a much better mood once you've run."

HRE wrote:

SillyTroll wrote:

But my state of well being has a direct effect on those I encounter on a daily basis. I am much more pleasant to deal with (easy-going and generally more relaxed) when I am able to run regularly). Where I don't run, I'm grumpy, sleep more, and have low energy. It would therefore be selfish of me not to run at least 50 mpw. It also keeps me off of anti-depressant medications.

What is selfish is to run any mpw just to have an impressive/arbitrary 5k time if you don't enjoy running or aren't able to support yourself/your family on the income generated from running.

My wife has often kicked me out and told me to go for a run when I'm moody saying, "You'll be in a much better mood once you've run."

You obviously have withdrawal symptoms when you don't run. Caffeine addicts, alcoholics, etc. get moody when they don't get their fix either.