mpw is cheap recent PRs are all that matter.
mpw is cheap recent PRs are all that matter.
I met a girl who said she regularly did 70-80 mpw while training for half marathons, but these days she's out of shape and only doing like 30-40. From talking to her it sounded like she was a pretty serious runner, but then I found out that she ran those half marathons at like 9 minute/mile pace.
I suspect that there are a significant number of women (perhaps men as well) who do really high mileage because they're obsessive and want to lose weight, and not necessarily because they want to run fast.
I'm not sure if those people count as serious runners or just obsessive people.
Race distance X 3 plus 10.
310 meters??
Such a stupid question and OP.
I ran 25 MPW all summer and ran a 15:45 5k on the track. If I was in your office and told you that, would you think I wasn't a serious runner?
There is no set definition you psychos. Why are we trying to group everyone into "less serious", "more serious", "better", "worse", etc..
If anything, I disagree with you and would argue race times are a better indciator than mileage. KP Kelly runs 180 mile weeks, is he more serious than you?
one-hundred four-hundred wrote:
Dear Alan wrote: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?
I happen to enjoy the style. It lends a more personal touch in a mostly unwelcoming forum.
Amen
The Dingo^3 wrote:
KP Kelly runs 180 mile weeks, is he more serious than you?
Sorry, you lost all credibility with this comment.
"It's what I do because it's what I've always done." says Alan
And this is your REASON to do that? Seriously??? Smart - no, stubborn - yes.
I love how this already typical LR thread has taken its typical off-topic turn. Personally, I like Alan's posts.
Maria
I'm not sure why the question got you so worked up. All the OP asked was what you would consider a serious runner based on mileage. Others have said they use other metrics, others have basically said they don't judge. I'm in between. I try not to judge but I do prefer talking to runners about running who actually run a lot of miles and put in a lot of effort. The contrast is people who put in minimal effort, basically walk a race and then talk incessantly about how they are a runner when to me they are not a runner at all.
So, I get what the OP is saying, but I agree with others and think it's more about effort, although I do think it's likely (with the odd exception) that the more a person runs probably the more serious they are about it. And, for example, it's more likely to find someone running 10 mpw doing a 3 hour half marathon than someone who runs 60 mpw. Mileage matters.
I log 70-100 miles per week moving through the landscape, but I don't consider myself a "serious" runner. That's because in the ultra world very few of us are "serious" about anything. Mostly we're just pretty chill guys and gals who just like to feel the world go by in our hair.
It's also pretty hard to be serious when stoned to the gills.
Bing wrote:
I love how this already typical LR thread has taken its typical off-topic turn. Personally, I like Alan's posts.
Maria
Yeah go get it, Alan.
damn I should run less wrote:
Unslick Willy wrote:Hmm...considering you'll get competitive 1500/mile types all the way to competitive ultra types running 100 MPW...I'm going to say the average, non-competitive type for the 5K to the full Mary can be considered serious if they're putting in 10-50 MPW.
What if I run 51 miles a week? Should I drop down to 50 to be considered serious?
I run 55 mpw. Was wondering the same.
HardLoper wrote:
For 5k and above, 70 mpw peak (NOT all the time)
I agree. But with a caveat, the miles must include workouts, they can't be all easy miles.
Not Alan.
wellthen wrote:
35mpw
This isn't necessarily to say they are a "serious" runner, but at the very least, they understand that logging a few miles before a race is important to actually do more than just "finish."
I have a coworker that routinely posts her 1 - 2.5 mile runs 2-3x a week. She currently is moving up from jogging 5ks to 8ks. All the accolades go to her in the form "yea, get it girl" quotes. Trying to explain the need to run farther during training is like talking to a wall.
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.
I agree that serious mileage is determined by two factors, weekly mileage and percentage of those miles being race specific. Obviously a half marathon doesn't require the weekly mileage a marathon does. Again I'm discussing those racing for performance not to finish. I clock around 40-50 miles a week for half marathons including 3 key workouts. 1 track day, 1 tempo run and 1 long run, the rest is all easy miles with a typical week being 40+ miles. If I was to race a marathon I know I would need 70-100 miles to run it competitively. This is why I don't run marathons, I can not handle 70-100 miles a week, I tried it and failed. Between work, family and life, it was just two much, almost like having a second job. Does this mean my 40-50 makes me less serious a runner than a guy who runs 100. I say no, mainly because its the mileage I need to perform at a specific distance and do well.
Over 50 MPW and your either a total badass runner or a prancing Nancy.
Serious is as serious does. If someone is working to run father, faster they are serious no matter what their MPW, talent, or PRs.
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Some of you guys seem to take for granted that anyone can just build up to running 50+ mpw and it just comes down to willpower and desire.
I take running pretty seriously for someone with a full-time serious job, but I've been dealing with a lot of injuries over the last year and my body seems breaks down when I try to increase my mileage, so I've been doing a lot of strength & crosstraining to try to build up slowly but only averaging 10 to 15 mpw for the last 9 months. I'm only 32 fwiw.
I'd say anyone that has a structured plan that they follow to improve their running times and is running / doing running related workouts at least 6 times a week is serious.
biogen wrote:
mpw is cheap recent PRs are all that matter.
This is the correct answer. If you are good, mileage doesn't matter, the times do. I'm guessing if you are concerned about mpw being an indication of how serious a runner you are, then your recent pr's must not be that good
STFU
-Uncico Coleman 😘