Any runners 170lbs or more qualify for trials?

My weight for Berlin in 2002 was a fully carbo-loaded, glycogenized 154. I will probably start the Olympic Trials heavier, about 158 or so, but I seem to be much stronger at that weight.

jaosn

Dear Wannebekila,

Maybe that is the problem. Evidently you want to be someone else (Wanna bekila...). Bekila was not only a great runner, but a great human being. You seem to be neither. I'm happy being me and have accepted that I don't have the 'ideal' running body. Maybe your lack of comfort in yourself is the reason that you propegate the negativity that is all-too-common on this site. Your behavior is painful to watch - amazing how many frustrated people there are out there who feel so free to insult others.

I enjoy the running, have seen much of the world through sporting related activities, and have picked up some fine running performances along the way. I feel that I run to within inches of my potential. I'm not sure what more I can do or why I should be anything but content.

mplatt wrote:

Krummenacker makes me look like a little kid standing next to him.

He has at least 2 inches on me.

You've seen the dude in the shower?

170 is the optimum weight for a marathoner.

If you are 7'5"

Not saying heavy dudes shouldn't go for it, but I wouldn't say that size is irrelevant (especially in the 'thon). Also don't assume that just because a guy is heavy that he isn't as lean as guys lighter than him.

Peter Maher (a Canadian, so technically he didn't qualify for the trials) reportedly was 275 pounds and a smoker before starting to train, then lost 100 pounds. He ran 2:11 and a lot of sub-2:15s, and I saw him after he took 5th at NYC in (I think) 1990 and he was ultra-lean but still big--definitely 170+, and that was right after a marathon. The catch is that he's 6'6".

The guy who really stands out for me, though, despite not being quite world-class, is Allen Just, a Californian who ran 2:18 in the 1980s while weighing 180 at 6' tall. I raced him many times; he looked--I swear--like a top decathlete, with big lifter-type arms and chest. I never found out his rationale for maintaining so much muscle; as far as I know he didn't do triathlons or any of that, just ran fast. Maybe he knew what worked for him, although 99% of people would say that he'd have run 2:12 if he weighed twenty pounds less. Nice guy--wonder what became of him?

tim broe isn't a marathoner, but he is 5'11", and weighs in at 175, and he's arguably the best overall distance runner in the USA. Don't believe it, look at his usatf.org bio...and YES krum is 170

aaron

Tim Broe is 145-150. That bio is wrong.

The usatf website also has Jorge Torres listed at 145 pounds, he's around 115-120 from what I've read.

Fred Kieser has gotta be pushing 175 to 180. He'll be top ten at B'ham.

Question to Miles and Miles (and other middleweight runners): do you think your 155 - 160 lbs is optimal for you or might you do better if you were lighter? Have you experimented at lighter weights and done poorly?

Based on the photographs, Webb seemed to have lost weight last spring and it clearly didn't lead to faster racing (although factors could certainly be involved).

Another point that is relevant to the Olympic marathon (and most World Championship marathons too) is that larger guys are supposed to suffer more in the heat because they have less surface area relative to their mass and so their sweat won't cool them as effectively. How big is Abera? 5'4" and 95lbs? Do you big guys find you suffer more in the heat compared to other marathoners?

(self disclosure - I'm a big guy too 6' 160lbs, although I'm not a marathoner or particularly fast)

Richard Elliot, in "The Competitive Edge", says that both Miruts Yifter (5'1") and Jack Bacheler (at 6'7") were both pretty good runners, so worrying about your basic build is mostly wasted energy.

Bacheler was a two-time Olympian ('68 5k, '72 marathon) and ranked #10 in the world for 10k in '69, so he was as competitive as anybody we've got now. I'd have to imagine that at 6'7" he carried some weight.

asharry wrote:

tim broe isn't a marathoner, but he is 5'11", and weighs in at 175, and he's arguably the best overall distance runner in the USA. Don't believe it, look at his usatf.org bio...and YES krum is 170

aaron

I'm 5' 10" and 150. I stood next to Broe last fall and he was definitely smaller than me.

Derek Clayton would not be a 2:05, 2:04 man now, as you put it. The man maxed himself out. If there was ever a case of someone reaching his potential, it was Derek Clayton. The man did not have the necessary speed to run 2:05. Hell, he could only manage 13:45 and 28:45. Now you need to be close to 29:10 for Marathon pace and surging tactics! He'd be toast.

Derek Clayton was one of the best marathoners ever and let's leave it at that. Let's not start thinking the man could be racing the likes of Tergat and Khannouchi and Abera.

I know a guy who is 5' 9" and 175. he can bust a 14:45 5K, and there is absolutely no fat on that man. definitely under 5%.

Yes, big guys suffer far more in the heat. The big guys are absolute toast on hot days. They have far more volume per surface area, meaning they generate far more heat but cant adequately dissipate. And when your body temperature gets too high you are obviously in big trouble. It is no surprise that the winner in Atlanta was one of the lightest guys in the race.

All this talk of 'optimal body type' is a little bit amusing. If you were a Soviet coach and you were recruiting children for the next generation of top athletes, I'd live and die by that information. But for any given individual, I'm not sure how it is relevant (besides the obvious part about it helping to direct you towards what sports and events you might possibly have the best chance at performing at a high level). Besides Lance Armstrong, I dont know of any top athletes who have been able to morph their body. Of course, he did it because of chemo and cancer.... I'm 5' 10", have 5% body fat, never lift weights, and have a 36" chest. Of course I would love to have a frame like Ritz, but I dont. And I dont really know how I can change mine to move much of any distance towards it. It seems like the challenge is always to do the best you can within the natural inherent framework you were born with.

If you want more info on running in heat, read Tim Noakes, The Lore of Running (get the FOURTH edition). The best book on running you will ever get, period. It contains an enormous amount of scientific literature that will change the way you look at running. It also have a great section on history's great runners, what made them great, and how they trained.

The figures I have seen on Bachelor stated 6'6" and 160. A sight to behold.

I do think it is silly, though for people to say the best of earlier times would be the best now. Clayton was a 2:08 guy on his best day and that is what he would be now. The idea that these guys would automatically run several minutes faster is preposterous - they weren't competing with the un-tapped talent pool of East and North Africa at the time. 2:08 is a stroll for these guys.

Cypher wrote:

Derek Clayton would not be a 2:05, 2:04 man now, as you put it. The man maxed himself out. If there was ever a case of someone reaching his potential, it was Derek Clayton. The man did not have the necessary speed to run 2:05. Hell, he could only manage 13:45 and 28:45. Now you need to be close to 29:10 for Marathon pace and surging tactics! He'd be toast.

Derek Clayton was one of the best marathoners ever and let's leave it at that. Let's not start thinking the man could be racing the likes of Tergat and Khannouchi and Abera.

Derek Clayton was a pioneer, he blaized a trail for others to follow, of course we can't say what he would run today, but I am sure he was as talented as Khalid Khannouchi, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

Following the trail laid down by the likes of Derek Clayton we now have a better understanding about training and we can learn from his and others workload and their mistakes.

is christian H really 180????? even when he is fit?