Even if you are very lean, thermoreglution is likely the biggest limiting factor in the marathon at this weight. This is why many marathon runners are short and skinny. However, in cold/cool conditions, taller and heavier individuals often do better. Just look at Boston marathon 2018 with that torrential rain, 20 mile headwind and 40°F temperatures. Many runners with a traditional "marathoner body type" ended up getting their butts kicked! You should definitely go for an OTC in cool weather.
As for weight training, it's great for injury prevention as well as enhancing strength to weight ratio, another important component to running performance. You would only gain weight in a caloric surplus, not by lifting weights in of itself.
Thanks for the response. Interesting point about thermoregulation…I do notice I fall apart really quickly in hot and humid conditions.
Even if you are very lean, thermoreglution is likely the biggest limiting factor in the marathon at this weight. This is why many marathon runners are short and skinny. However, in cold/cool conditions, taller and heavier individuals often do better. Just look at Boston marathon 2018 with that torrential rain, 20 mile headwind and 40°F temperatures. Many runners with a traditional "marathoner body type" ended up getting their butts kicked! You should definitely go for an OTC in cool weather.
As for weight training, it's great for injury prevention as well as enhancing strength to weight ratio, another important component to running performance. You would only gain weight in a caloric surplus, not by lifting weights in of itself.
Thanks for the response. Interesting point about thermoregulation…I do notice I fall apart really quickly in hot and humid conditions.
That is why I went to 800/1500 in summer. Beat the guys who killed me on the roads.
This is 100% BS. You need to explain how someone can gain any weight/body mass when it is consuming itself (fat stores, muscle) because it's not receiving enough calories (caloric deficit)?
Sure, happy to explain (along with a gratuitous note that it’s a good idea to triple check your ken of knowledge before rushing to call something BS). Couple references for claims are below, both well known for digesting scientific articles to make them easily palatable to the general public. All numbers below are approximate estimates, but scientists have no disagreement on the qualitative conclusions based on these estimates.
Calories from burning a pound of fat: ~3600
Calorie surplus needed to store a pound of fat: ~3600
Calories from burning a pound of muscle: ~700
Calorie surplus needed to generate a pound of muscle: ~2700
Density of fat: ~0.9 compared to water
Density of muscle: ~1.1 compared to water
Consider a person who has gained say 1.2 lbs of muscle (using 2700x1.2 = 3240 C) and lost 1 pound of fat. They have done so, i.e., gained 0.2 lbs, at a calorie deficit of 3600 - 3240 = 360 C.
It’s likewise easy to show that one can either gain or lose weight at maintenance as well as show that one can lose weight in a surplus. The differential densities can be used to show that one can become smaller in size while gaining weight or bigger in size while losing weight; or to show that one can maintain weight in an overall modest surplus or deficit.
I just want to say that I think you are misunderstanding "building muscle" with "putting on weight." You can certainly build muscle in a slight caloric deficit but you won't be putting on weight. Additionally, I am unsure about the numbers you are throwing around for kcals of fat, protein, and carbs. Both carbs and protein offer 4 kcals/g which equates to ~1800kcals per pound while fat is 9 kcals/g or ~4100kcals per pound. I would also like to say that you don't "store" muscle and it's not a readily used fuel source under normal circumstances or even in slight caloric deficits. The body builds muscle through the process of utilizing the amino acids/protein from our diet (or previously broken down protein) and translating them into the correct protein sequence based off the instructions provided by the myonuclei. These instructions are based off the specific demand that is being imposed on the muscle, such as lifting, running, etc. Ultimately, it comes down to the imposed demand and while you can have a body composition shift (ie. decreased fat mass and increased muscle mass) at even a slight deficit, you will not be putting on mass as you are utilizing fuel more than you are consuming. I would be happy to discuss further the mechanisms of muscle synthesis and breakdown with you should you like and could even refer you to some of my favorite papers on the subject that were used in my dissertation on muscle metabolism and proteostasis.
Sure, happy to explain (along with a gratuitous note that it’s a good idea to triple check your ken of knowledge before rushing to call something BS). Couple references for claims are below, both well known for digesting scientific articles to make them easily palatable to the general public. All numbers below are approximate estimates, but scientists have no disagreement on the qualitative conclusions based on these estimates.
Calories from burning a pound of fat: ~3600
Calorie surplus needed to store a pound of fat: ~3600
Calories from burning a pound of muscle: ~700
Calorie surplus needed to generate a pound of muscle: ~2700
Density of fat: ~0.9 compared to water
Density of muscle: ~1.1 compared to water
Consider a person who has gained say 1.2 lbs of muscle (using 2700x1.2 = 3240 C) and lost 1 pound of fat. They have done so, i.e., gained 0.2 lbs, at a calorie deficit of 3600 - 3240 = 360 C.
It’s likewise easy to show that one can either gain or lose weight at maintenance as well as show that one can lose weight in a surplus. The differential densities can be used to show that one can become smaller in size while gaining weight or bigger in size while losing weight; or to show that one can maintain weight in an overall modest surplus or deficit.
I just want to say that I think you are misunderstanding "building muscle" with "putting on weight." You can certainly build muscle in a slight caloric deficit but you won't be putting on weight. Additionally, I am unsure about the numbers you are throwing around for kcals of fat, protein, and carbs. Both carbs and protein offer 4 kcals/g which equates to ~1800kcals per pound while fat is 9 kcals/g or ~4100kcals per pound. I would also like to say that you don't "store" muscle and it's not a readily used fuel source under normal circumstances or even in slight caloric deficits. The body builds muscle through the process of utilizing the amino acids/protein from our diet (or previously broken down protein) and translating them into the correct protein sequence based off the instructions provided by the myonuclei. These instructions are based off the specific demand that is being imposed on the muscle, such as lifting, running, etc. Ultimately, it comes down to the imposed demand and while you can have a body composition shift (ie. decreased fat mass and increased muscle mass) at even a slight deficit, you will not be putting on mass as you are utilizing fuel more than you are consuming. I would be happy to discuss further the mechanisms of muscle synthesis and breakdown with you should you like and could even refer you to some of my favorite papers on the subject that were used in my dissertation on muscle metabolism and proteostasis.
Nope, I’m not misunderstanding, rather if you actually read my post carefully, I provided a very concrete example of overall weight gain under a calorie deficit. It’s counterintuitive and counter to longstanding pop science or bro science myths, so I sympathize.
My post didn’t use the phrasing “store muscle” that you are ascribing, and it’s moot to the point of whether weight gain is possible under a deficit or vice versa.
As I already noted, the fat (and muscle) burning calorie equivalents have varying estimates in different papers and I’ve seen numbers ranging from 3500 to 4100 per pound of fat. Those numbers don’t change the crux of the argument, in fact 4100 C /pound of fat only strengthens the argument.
I cited my sources that have scientific article references within them. Hesselman’s blog article also shows DEXA based empirical evidence for his clients consistent with my claims above. You are welcome to cite your sources if you are implying that weight gain isn’t possible under a calorie deficit or vice versa.
…while you can have a body composition shift (ie. decreased fat mass and increased muscle mass) at even a slight deficit, you will not be putting on mass as you are utilizing fuel more than you are consuming…
The above is your central misunderstanding that, as I note further above, is a very common error of making the “it’s just physics” mistake because it conflates conservation of mass and conservation of energy neither of which is violated in my concrete example above.
This is 100% BS. You need to explain how someone can gain any weight/body mass when it is consuming itself (fat stores, muscle) because it's not receiving enough calories (caloric deficit)?
Sure, happy to explain (along with a gratuitous note that it’s a good idea to triple check your ken of knowledge before rushing to call something BS). Couple references for claims are below, both well known for digesting scientific articles to make them easily palatable to the general public. All numbers below are approximate estimates, but scientists have no disagreement on the qualitative conclusions based on these estimates.
Calories from burning a pound of fat: ~3600
Calorie surplus needed to store a pound of fat: ~3600
Calories from burning a pound of muscle: ~700
Calorie surplus needed to generate a pound of muscle: ~2700
Density of fat: ~0.9 compared to water
Density of muscle: ~1.1 compared to water
Consider a person who has gained say 1.2 lbs of muscle (using 2700x1.2 = 3240 C) and lost 1 pound of fat. They have done so, i.e., gained 0.2 lbs, at a calorie deficit of 3600 - 3240 = 360 C.
It’s likewise easy to show that one can either gain or lose weight at maintenance as well as show that one can lose weight in a surplus. The differential densities can be used to show that one can become smaller in size while gaining weight or bigger in size while losing weight; or to show that one can maintain weight in an overall modest surplus or deficit.
Your sources are discussing body recomposition - losing fat while gaining muscle- which is NOT the same as gaining weight/body mass, which is what you claimed above. For reference, you wrote -
"You can gain weight in a modest calorie deficit while weight training and you can lose weight in a modest calorie surplus."
In fact, your sources seem to agree with me. For example, the video you posted cited a study that found subjects in a caloric deficit resistance training program lost, on average, 4kg of fat while gaining 2kg of muscle mass. For those that can't math, that -2kg of total body mass, which means they lost weight.
Of course you can "turn" fat into muscle mass in a caloric deficit through resistance training, but again, that's not what you were saying. YOU won't put on weight/body mass, and you'll only make "muscle gains" for so long as it won't work for the long term - that's why body builders do bulk/cut cycling.
Sure, happy to explain (along with a gratuitous note that it’s a good idea to triple check your ken of knowledge before rushing to call something BS). Couple references for claims are below, both well known for digesting scientific articles to make them easily palatable to the general public. All numbers below are approximate estimates, but scientists have no disagreement on the qualitative conclusions based on these estimates.
Calories from burning a pound of fat: ~3600
Calorie surplus needed to store a pound of fat: ~3600
Calories from burning a pound of muscle: ~700
Calorie surplus needed to generate a pound of muscle: ~2700
Density of fat: ~0.9 compared to water
Density of muscle: ~1.1 compared to water
Consider a person who has gained say 1.2 lbs of muscle (using 2700x1.2 = 3240 C) and lost 1 pound of fat. They have done so, i.e., gained 0.2 lbs, at a calorie deficit of 3600 - 3240 = 360 C.
It’s likewise easy to show that one can either gain or lose weight at maintenance as well as show that one can lose weight in a surplus. The differential densities can be used to show that one can become smaller in size while gaining weight or bigger in size while losing weight; or to show that one can maintain weight in an overall modest surplus or deficit.
I just want to say that I think you are misunderstanding "building muscle" with "putting on weight." You can certainly build muscle in a slight caloric deficit but you won't be putting on weight. Additionally, I am unsure about the numbers you are throwing around for kcals of fat, protein, and carbs. Both carbs and protein offer 4 kcals/g which equates to ~1800kcals per pound while fat is 9 kcals/g or ~4100kcals per pound. I would also like to say that you don't "store" muscle and it's not a readily used fuel source under normal circumstances or even in slight caloric deficits. The body builds muscle through the process of utilizing the amino acids/protein from our diet (or previously broken down protein) and translating them into the correct protein sequence based off the instructions provided by the myonuclei. These instructions are based off the specific demand that is being imposed on the muscle, such as lifting, running, etc. Ultimately, it comes down to the imposed demand and while you can have a body composition shift (ie. decreased fat mass and increased muscle mass) at even a slight deficit, you will not be putting on mass as you are utilizing fuel more than you are consuming. I would be happy to discuss further the mechanisms of muscle synthesis and breakdown with you should you like and could even refer you to some of my favorite papers on the subject that were used in my dissertation on muscle metabolism and proteostasis.
I cited my sources that have scientific article references within them. Hesselman’s blog article also shows DEXA based empirical evidence for his clients consistent with my claims above. You are welcome to cite your sources if you are implying that weight gain isn’t possible under a calorie deficit or vice versa.
Hesselman's blog anecdotes from your post says nothing about weight gain but only about body recomposition regarding fat and muscles mass. The best I can find from the post to support your argument is when he writes "his (client) weight during the last scan was within 8 grams of his weight when we started. So this is an example of virtually perfect body recomposition." Again, this is not weight gain.
Sure, happy to explain (along with a gratuitous note that it’s a good idea to triple check your ken of knowledge before rushing to call something BS). Couple references for claims are below, both well known for digesting scientific articles to make them easily palatable to the general public. All numbers below are approximate estimates, but scientists have no disagreement on the qualitative conclusions based on these estimates.
Calories from burning a pound of fat: ~3600
Calorie surplus needed to store a pound of fat: ~3600
Calories from burning a pound of muscle: ~700
Calorie surplus needed to generate a pound of muscle: ~2700
Density of fat: ~0.9 compared to water
Density of muscle: ~1.1 compared to water
Consider a person who has gained say 1.2 lbs of muscle (using 2700x1.2 = 3240 C) and lost 1 pound of fat. They have done so, i.e., gained 0.2 lbs, at a calorie deficit of 3600 - 3240 = 360 C.
It’s likewise easy to show that one can either gain or lose weight at maintenance as well as show that one can lose weight in a surplus. The differential densities can be used to show that one can become smaller in size while gaining weight or bigger in size while losing weight; or to show that one can maintain weight in an overall modest surplus or deficit.
Your sources are discussing body recomposition - losing fat while gaining muscle- which is NOT the same as gaining weight/body mass, which is what you claimed above. For reference, you wrote -
"You can gain weight in a modest calorie deficit while weight training and you can lose weight in a modest calorie surplus."
In fact, your sources seem to agree with me. For example, the video you posted cited a study that found subjects in a caloric deficit resistance training program lost, on average, 4kg of fat while gaining 2kg of muscle mass. For those that can't math, that -2kg of total body mass, which means they lost weight.
Of course you can "turn" fat into muscle mass in a caloric deficit through resistance training, but again, that's not what you were saying. YOU won't put on weight/body mass, and you'll only make "muscle gains" for so long as it won't work for the long term - that's why body builders do bulk/cut cycling.
Speaking of math, I presented a very concrete example for which you appear to not have a counterargument (or perhaps selectively ignored). It is very similar to examples contained within the references I cited.
No disagreement on anything in your post above except your last sentence; the fact that my references talk about body recomposition doesn't mean they don't also talk about what I claimed. Except your last sentence, nothing you said above counters the concrete example I provided.
Your last sentence is a claim not backed up by science or a scientific reference. But you are welcome to your opinions.
This is 100% BS. You need to explain how someone can gain any weight/body mass when it is consuming itself (fat stores, muscle) because it's not receiving enough calories (caloric deficit)?
Sure, happy to explain (along with a gratuitous note that it’s a good idea to triple check your ken of knowledge before rushing to call something BS). Couple references for claims are below, both well known for digesting scientific articles to make them easily palatable to the general public. All numbers below are approximate estimates, but scientists have no disagreement on the qualitative conclusions based on these estimates.
Calories from burning a pound of fat: ~3600
Calorie surplus needed to store a pound of fat: ~3600
Calories from burning a pound of muscle: ~700
Calorie surplus needed to generate a pound of muscle: ~2700
Density of fat: ~0.9 compared to water
Density of muscle: ~1.1 compared to water
Consider a person who has gained say 1.2 lbs of muscle (using 2700x1.2 = 3240 C) and lost 1 pound of fat. They have done so, i.e., gained 0.2 lbs, at a calorie deficit of 3600 - 3240 = 360 C.
It’s likewise easy to show that one can either gain or lose weight at maintenance as well as show that one can lose weight in a surplus. The differential densities can be used to show that one can become smaller in size while gaining weight or bigger in size while losing weight; or to show that one can maintain weight in an overall modest surplus or deficit.
In my previous article I debunked the myth that you can't lose fat and build muscle at the same time. You can and most people should. And that's not the only major misconception surrounding thermodynamics and the energy balan...
I cited my sources that have scientific article references within them. Hesselman’s blog article also shows DEXA based empirical evidence for his clients consistent with my claims above. You are welcome to cite your sources if you are implying that weight gain isn’t possible under a calorie deficit or vice versa.
Hesselman's blog anecdotes from your post says nothing about weight gain but only about body recomposition regarding fat and muscles mass. The best I can find from the post to support your argument is when he writes "his (client) weight during the last scan was within 8 grams of his weight when we started. So this is an example of virtually perfect body recomposition." Again, this is not weight gain.
You are correct on that, my apologies. I corrected the first reference above.
I am a man and have a similar build. 5'10" and at my absolute lightest I can't get below 160 without making friends and family alarmed. I naturally have a lot of lower and upper body muscle. When I finally just embraced this and stayed strong, I settled into about 165 (with very little weight lifting) as my best racing weight and literally never got injured. Being strong is a gift that most distance runners don't appreciate. It really decreases injury and allows you to gain raw speed easily.
Well said. Not everyone can be 5 foot six and 115 pounds. Most people shouldn’t even try to do that.
I am a naturally muscular person. My legs look more like a soccer player than a runner, and I get asked if I lift weights or do cross fit. I do lift twice a week, but noting too heavy. Up to 30 lb dumbells for squats, deadlifts, lunges, etc. Im wondering if a person like me should be lifting or are there different types of exercises that would be more beneficial for running. My goal is injury prevention as well as performance. I have the goal of OTC in the marathon for 2024. It’s a stretch goal and I definitively need to maximize any potential. I am wondering if I am too heavy. I am 5’10” and 152 lbs.
In a nutshell, the answer is lighter is better, until it isn't. If you're running well and not getting injured, then you probably shouldn't worry about the weight. Right now, the extra muscle may well help protect you against the stress fractures common to swimmer-turned-runners. Over time, you'll probably shed some muscle doing marathon training. Hopefully the chassis will catch up to the engine in the process.
Veering into broscience, I wonder whether you can get away with some extra muscle because you come from swimming -- capillary development and all that is maybe a lot more extensive than, say, someone who had added the beef lifting only. There is a occasional poster, 'retired swimming coach', who has also coached some very good runners. I'd love to get his take on this.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
