Weight Vs. Running

145 even seems kind of fat for 5'7". I would shoot for the 125-130 range to maximize your potential.

Mr obvious wrote:

145 even seems kind of fat for 5'7". I would shoot for the 125-130 range to maximize your potential.

Jesus Christ, 145 for someone 5'7" is far from "fat"!

True, it's a bit on the larger side for the average distance runner, but unless this guy is around 20%+ body fat percentage, he's certainly far from "fat".

I know the running community as a whole is held to different standards and all, but don't throw around terms like "fat" like that, it can be very damaging to young kids, male or female.

The idea weight from some 5'7'' is any wear from 130-150 130 being on the really low side and 150 on the high side

I'm 5'6', 140-45lbs, under 10% body fat, 15:35 5k pr, 1:09:40 half marathon, 2:33:58 marathon pr.

As long as your body fat is under 10 then you're fine.

Alan

"145 even seems kind of fat for 5'7". I would shoot for the 125-130 range to maximize your potential"

How do you know that the person posting is not a female? 125 and 5'7" could be a dangerous weight for a girl. I do university track, am 5'8" tall and weight 150-155. I have put on weight every year as I get stronger, while my body fat continues to drop. Muscle is denser then fat, so you can put on weight, even while slimming down and getting faster.

Males are supposed to weigh more than females. Since when is 125 pounds dangerous for a girl who is 5'7?

irun wrote:

I'm curious how much weight can affect how well a person gets in shape when the amount in question is a small deviance than what one would hope it to be. When I was in high school, I was 5'7 and weighed 145 when I was 16 and I ran pretty good times. Now I'm 21 and 5'7 and about 160 lbs. Should I try to focus on getting back down to 145 or should I just go on with my running and not worry too much about it?

Good question. I ask myself this all the time.

Back to topic, I think that if you continue to run some of the weight will fall off in time if there's significant fat. If you're going to be seriously training it will definately happen, and if you're not planning on seriously training, it probably doesn't matter.

I'm 5'7" and 130lbs and I would say I have a normal if not slightly small frame. There's just no fat on me as a product of marathon training and 70-90mpw. On another side, Alan Culpepper's bio on USATF claims he's 6'1" and 130 which I would say is skinny as a rail, but hey, he's a top american marathoner. I'm sure there are also 5'7" people who would have trouble dropping below 145ish due to frame, so that's a factor.

"Males are supposed to weigh more than females. Since when is 125 pounds dangerous for a girl who is 5'7?"

I didn't say that 125 is always dangerous, I said that it could be. There are huge differences in body type, and body compositions, that it is impossible to make a blanket statement about weight. Women have different body fat requirements for healthy functioning then men do. A male with extremely low body fat and weight will not have the same problems as a women, and can withstand low weights much better. If I was 125, I would be severly anorexic, or have almost no muscle mass, or have such low body fat as to be into a whole bunch of problems. (Lack of menstration, stress fractures etc) The original poster also did not state what event they are looking to improve times in. It makes a difference if they're looking to run a marathon or a 100m sprint. It would dictate a different body type and mucle requirements.

Also, as you age your body changes. I was around 130 when I was 16, but as I matured, I gained weight, even though the times I was running and my body fat readings remained the same or improved.

There are too many people in this sport with body image issues to be able to state a weight without knowing the person, events being competed in and current state of fitness.

I'm 5'7 160 lbs. with 5.5% body fat. I eat heathly, run fairly high mileage (70-100 mpw) and I can't get anywhere below 158. I think that you have a minimum weight that you can reach without getting sick or using other means (anorexia).

im 5 9 135 in highschool and my friends think im fat

Body fat percentage is a good indicator of how much you should actually. Get it done by water weighing or a professional with calipers and see how much body fat you have to lose. Example: I weigh about 150 Lbs, with a body fat percentage of around 19.65 %. Now a minimum healthy body fat percentage is 4-5 % before you start burning fat that is essential to bodily function (this is for men. For women the minimum is around 12%). So to get to a goal body fat percentage of 5%, I would need to loose 14.65% of my body weight. This is around 22 pounds of fat that I could lose before I start tapping into essential body fat. So my goal weight for optimum performance while maintaining necessary muscle mass and bodily functions (lightest I can be) would be around 128 Lbs. This goes too for people who naturally have more muscle, bigger bones, or have lifted to the point of having more mass too. Dont try to base your weight on what some article or guy tells you to weigh. Base it on how your body is constructed geneticly and through your own strength training. That being said, if you want to decrease your weight even more, you'll have to give up some muscle mass. If you allow the muscles not essential to running weaken significantly (basicly stop lifting) you can lighten your load even more. However, trying to lessen weight by losing weight in muscles essential to running is not only stupid, but hampers performance and increases you risk of injury. The main point: work on lowering your body fat percentage slowly but surely over an extended period of time (.5-1)% weekly, or even more gradually. Slow but steady will win this race. Just don't worry about weight, worry about body fat.

Chuck

when zola budd ran the olympics in 1984 she was 37kg(80pnds?which was her weight when she broke thw qorld record

The critical body fat phenomenon has been refuted by experts in sports medicine (ACSM, etc.). The new school of thought says that a negative energy balance (not high mileage or low body fat) causes menstrual dysfunction (and the resulting bone density issues). Simply stated: If you do not consume enough calories relative to your training, menstrual dysfunction will result, regardless of body fat percentage. I have known female runners with 20% body fat who have had irregular or absent menstrual cycles. Likewise, I have also seen runners in the 10-12% range with regular cycles. Why I said that men weigh more than women: heavier bones, more muscle mass, and the fact that muscle weighs more than fat--simple biology stuff. By the way, an anorexic weight is defined as one that yields a Body Mass Index of less than 17.5 (so, less than 112 pounds at 5'7, instead of the 125 that is mentioned). Those are the DSM-IV guidelines, I didn't write them. The term anorexic should not be thrown around without specifiying what it means--anorexia (loss of appetite) or anorexia nervosa (a psychiatric condition). An anorexic would be someone who is experiencing a loss of appetite or a psychiatric condition, not someone who is at a weight that is within normal limits.

Also, some people are just predisposed, because of genetics, to maintain muscle mass. I've never been a hardcore lifter and even quit doing pushups yet I maintain a pretty muscular (but healthy) frame even while running 100-120 miles a week. I think the skinniest I've ever been was around 137 before Chicago this year. Pre was around 5'9' 150-160. Just run and train hard and your body will drop to a healthy running weight.

Alan

Not Fat wrote:

"145 even seems kind of fat for 5'7". I would shoot for the 125-130 range to maximize your potential"

How do you know that the person posting is not a female? 125 and 5'7" could be a dangerous weight for a girl. I do university track, am 5'8" tall and weight 150-155. I have put on weight every year as I get stronger, while my body fat continues to drop. Muscle is denser then fat, so you can put on weight, even while slimming down and getting faster.

Sorry for not being more specific. 145 seems really fat for a female at 5'7". If you are female, you should shoot for 115-120.

Deena drossin is 5'4" and 104 lbs.

Geb is 5'5" and 120 lbs.

Tergat 6' 137 lbs

Paula 5'8' 115 to 119 lbs

They are the best and the weights don't lie. If you want to be an average regional runner you don't need to get down to these weights. Some people have a build that they cannot get down to these weights.

Lightweight (less than 140lbs):

Galen Rupp, Dathan Ritzenhein, Jared Ward, Chris Derrick

Middleweight (ranged 140-160lbs):

Matt Tegenkamp*, Scott Bauhs, Brett Gotcher, Bobby Curtis

Heavyweight (greater than 160lbs):

Luke Puskedra, Tyler Pennel, Jake Riley

*Matt Tegenkamp retired on Feb. 1, 2016

Better question is why do you care?? IF you run a lot and hit goal times, and you continue to progress the weight is just a number... Either very few or none of the posters here are Olympians, so you shouldn't be worried about being a stick/skeleton as long as youre performing effectively.

#7301886: mistake

#7301917: more correct