for a serious long distance person i'd say 25, but only if theyre intense. u cant be slogging slow mileage unless youre actually slow.
for a serious long distance person i'd say 25, but only if theyre intense. u cant be slogging slow mileage unless youre actually slow.
Dude log some long runs every week and you will earn a BQ. Don’t change anything else you should be running Boston this year with that 5k time.
Personally I'd say it's anyone who targets a certain time in a distance.
Anyone can get off the couch and say "I'm gonna run a marathon in 6 months." Then after those 6 months are up and they've finished their marathon, they may never run again. But someone who says "I'm gonna run a marathon in under 4 hours" or something to that extent, I would say that's a serious runner.
100mpw.
Anyone who does not have serious disability can run at least 100mpw. It's tried and tested.
If you run less than that, you lack motivation and commitment.
The number doesn't really matter IMO
you can be brand new to running and be very serious about it and have a training plan and do everything right, but because you are new to running you might only be running 20-30 miles a week at first
you could also run 50 mpw and not have a training plan or any goals, just jog 7 miles every day
I would consider the 1st more serious than the 2nd, as long as the 1st continued to build mileage as they improved
bartholomew_maxwell wrote:
15? 20? minimum
That is middle to back of the pack jogger. 50 miles for men and 40 for women.
bartholomew_maxwell wrote:
15? 20? minimum
Great question in all seriousness..I think it's all entirely relative with where that person is in their running development..
2010-2012, I considered myself "semi serious" as I always ran a few times a week, whether before work, after work, whenever I had time. I challenged myself with different routes, road/trails, and kept evolving. Had no concept of mpw, racing strategies or any kind of training plan, I just ran because I loved it. I didn't even have a watch until late 2011.
2013-2014- Started signing up for 5k's yet still had no aspirations to run longer than 6 miles on any given day, but never went a week without running at least 3x. Finding time whenever I could.
2015-present- My fitness has definitely improved and overall aerobic strength is light years beyond what it was in 2013, yet I seldom if ever go over 35-40 mpw, balancing a young family and career. I pay more attention to "easy running" and incorporating strides and leading up to races some interval work. More structure to avoid injury and lethargy.
My passion for running has always been there, but it's been a steady evolution. I know of guys who ramped up to 50-70 mpw, had a few solid years and now already before 40 y/o, dealing with chronic injuries and semi burn out. If you find ways to incorporate running into your day among life, in some capacity, your serious about it. But who are we kidding, there's a fine line between serious about your fitness/joy of running and desiring an OTQ or pro sponsorship, that's another realm IMO.
This post was removed.
My vote is 40 mpw minimum or else you are a jogger (nothing wrong with that though)
70. it's a fact
BoysoftheChorus wrote:
Givetallugot wrote:
Maybe 50 miles per week. Ability wise, to be considered a serious runner, I would say qualify to Boston.
I'm 38 and I've never qualified for Boston, falling a minute short last fall. However, 2 years ago I ran 17:30 in a 5K which I think is decent for my age. I'm better at shorter races and I'm always finishing in the Top 5 in every local race. Big fish, small pond.
Before I started running, I heard about people running 40 miles a week and I always thought that was impressive.
Wow. Rubbish quality area. I ran 17:20 in a local race and came 145th!
I stopped focusing on counting miles or structured workouts, but on time on my feet and running by feel, and I'm just as serious as the rest of you.
bartholomew_maxwell wrote:
15? 20? minimum
The answer is whatever amount makes you fast. A runner who breaks 14min for 5k off 60mi/week is way more serious to the sport than some hobby jogger flapping his feet for 90-100mi/week just to barely run 17:30.
asdfghjkl wrote:
My vote is 40 mpw minimum or else you are a jogger (nothing wrong with that though)
Plenty of 40 MPW guys and gals are actually joggers too.
If you can't actually hit a pace that delineates jogging from running, it doesn't matter if you are at 40 MPW or 70 MPW.
If you're going 40 MPW at 8 minute pace, you are definitely a jogger.
If both feet are always touching the ground at the same time. you're a jogger.
If you couldn't break 60 seconds for 400 meters when you were in high school but run 40 MPW now you're a jogger
Nojoke wrote:
70. it's a fact
Stem cells wrote:
70mpw
Yes, it is 70. Ya, there are always outliers, but as a rule of thumb, it's 70.
the whole snobbery about hobby joggers on lrc is sickening, moran.
coroninho wrote:
Not the mileage you run, but how many posts you make on LetsRun per week.
The fewer, the better.
+1
I’m 36 and qualifed for Boston last year averaging 25 mpw for the year but 40 mpw during the 4 months before the marathon. I consider myself a semi-serious runner. Serious to me is 45-50 mpw year round.
In the past 6 months I’ve been running 35 mpw but now the mayor of my city locked us up and considers a 5k a long serious run, so training has gotten trickier
windyashell wrote:
the whole snobbery about hobby joggers on lrc is sickening, moran.
yes i hate snobby hobbyjoggers too
At a certain age, you have to factor in that you will probably be able to run less mileage, in general . So i offer you this formula:
1800 divided by your age or 42 mpw, whichever is less.
Try it out with some different ages. At about 43 years old, you start to be able to factor in less mileage and still be a serious runner. It works.