Jon Ulm
Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 6:32AM Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Common folklore is that Deek was a bear of a man, but he was actually only 5' 11" and 143 lbs during his competitive days. He had bigger thighs than most of hs running peers which is why people thought of him as "big".

Skin and bones...

http://media.olympics.com.au/aoc-image/marathon-aussie
Strom jr.
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 7:13AM - in reply to Jon Ulm Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
yah, he was not so tall during his prime--5'11' is about right

he had big legs, but otherwise was under 150 lbs.

i have it on good authority that since Rob has given up the running game he's grown to 6'3 1/2, 250 lbs.
HRE
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 9:03AM - in reply to Strom jr. Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Yeah. He's a big guy now. I think the reason people thought he was big during his career is that he was bigger than most of the guys he raced and as mentioned, because his legs, thighs particularly, were very big. Even though he wasn't huge in his day, those with that sort of build are likely to put on weight as we age much more easily than the typical wispy distance runner is.
Jon Ulm
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 9:40AM - in reply to HRE Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Take another look at that picture, Henry. He's skin and bones, not bigger.

Here's a more recent picture. Still not big.

http://dilimarathon.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/deeks.jpg
kpack
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 9:55AM - in reply to Strom jr. Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Strom jr. wrote:

yah, he was not so tall during his prime--5'11' is about right

he had big legs, but otherwise was under 150 lbs.

i have it on good authority that since Rob has given up the running game he's grown to 6'3 1/2, 250 lbs.


what? this is a joke? He does look a bit chunky these days. sports-reference, whatever that is, has him at 511 143. here is a si link that has him at 511 and 155:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1126019/index.htm

(note that i am far, far, far from a running expert. i thought i read something else saying that he was taller.)
Weary
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 10:57AM - in reply to Jon Ulm Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
He was only big in relative terms, and only then because all the other elites were so skinny, and even then only be a little. I once saw a reporter refer to him as a "tank." Come on, already.
Mr Crane
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 11:06AM - in reply to Jon Ulm Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
The following are physiological parameters of Deek taken at the AIS in 1982. Excerpt from de Castella on Running, p. 147:

Age 25
Weight 70 kg (154 lbs)
Body fat 6 %
Vertical jump 33 cm (13 in)
Alactic peak power, 10 sec cycle 13.0 watts/kg
Lactic work, 60 sec cycle 495 joules/kg
Maximum heart rate 190
VO2 max 86 ml/kg/min
Strength (cybex 60 degrees/sec)
- knee extension 1.66 ft/lb/kg
- knee flexion 1.07 ft/lb/kg
Sit and reach -22 cm
Blood pressure 128/82
Peal lactic acid 13.5 mmoles/L
RBC conc 5.8 x 10^12/L
Hemoglobin 16.7 g/100 mL
Goucher Needles
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 11:15AM - in reply to Mr Crane Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Love that 13 inch vertical--- that's what hundred mile weeks will do to your ups!
Jon Ulm
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 11:48AM - in reply to Mr Crane Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
His weight was actually 143 lbs.
get it together
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 1:07PM - in reply to Jon Ulm Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Jon Ulm wrote:

His weight was actually 143 lbs.


Obviously, it was. Sure.

You have one of the best journalists to ever cover running writing that he weighed 155 lbs and an exercise phys lab saying he is 150. Clearly, he was 143. Yep.
ukathleticscoach
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 1:18PM - in reply to Jon Ulm Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Still big for a marathon runner even back then
Jon Ulm
RE: Not widely known: Rob De Castella was not a big guy 12/8/2012 1:47PM - in reply to get it together Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Jon Ulm wrote:

His weight was actually 143 lbs.



get it together wrote:

Obviously, it was. Sure.

You have one of the best journalists to ever cover running writing that he weighed 155 lbs and an exercise phys lab saying he is 150. Clearly, he was 143. Yep.


Why would they be better authorities than Deek himself?

http://www.juanjosemartinez.com.mx/files/Deek_training_log.pdf