Erin Donohue 1:59.99

ACC javelin champion

A great athlete - not just a runner. Nice to see her reaching some fast times.

I don't understand the negative and often ugly comments. She is an Olympian and has done it through hard work. And the comments about her appearance make me laugh. Most of the losers who post on this board couldn't come close to getting a date with a woman like this. So they are left to snipe on a message board. The misogyny gets real old.

The usatf site has Donohue listed at 5'7 and 143 pounds, which is quite heavy for a runner of that height. This makes her 4:03 all the more impressive.

What I wonder is how would any runner who has that much excess weight above the hips, trim down and get to a more reasonable weight? Is it a matter of just running more miles? Certainly I think that Erin should NOT be lifting any weights.

But, say if she wanted to lose 10 to 20 pounds, to be healthier and faster as a runner. How would she, or anyone, do this?

4:03 (her recent PR) is about right

Running Bear wrote:

A serious question for you mid-distance guys... What does a 1:59:99 translate to for the 1500?

My guess would be bulimia or anorexia nervosa would be her best choice to lose weight. She is a bit tall, maybe a tibial/femoral reduction surgery would help also (which would also reduce her weight).

Seriously people, you do not need to fit the mold to be a good runner. Some people simply are built bigger than others, just as some are built smaller than others. Erin has had much success even though she appears to be too big. My guess is that Erin is naturally very muscular (her weight has not changed much since high school) even if she doesn't look completely ripped. Maybe she is too big to set a world record, but if she was smaller, maybe the loss of muscle mass would result in a loss in speed. Maybe if she dieted to lose weight, she wouldn't be able to train as hard. Maybe she is doing the best she has with the body she has, and she is doing damn good at that.

Usain Bolt is too tall to be a good sprinter. Paula Radcliffe is too tall and too heavy to be a good marathon runner. If Paula can run 2:15 weighing in over 110 pounds, I think Erin is able to run an 800 or mile weighing 140. She may not be able to do well in a marathon at that weight, but that is probably the reason she is running the 800m, not the marathon.

She probably shouldn't lose any weight at all! You may not realize it, but runners who remain "big" by runner standards even after years of training really ought to remain that way. It's their body's way of coping with the demands of training and racing--what happens to all those college girls pushed to drop weight to run faster? They maybe run a bit faster for a few weeks, but then crash and burn because of "overtraining" (really, we should say "underrecovery") and injuries--often serious stress fractures in the femur, hip, and pelvis. Perhaps a bigger runner--Like Erin, or Solinski, or Peter Snell--has weaker bones, or a loose SI joint, and losing their muscle (trust me, it's ALL muscle on them) would throw their body out of whack, making them more prone to injuries, and would also probably sap some of their real, physical strength--it's no accident that "big" runners like the aformentioned trio are all famous for their raw endurance--their ability to power through the toughest part of the race. Watch Peter Snell roar down the homestretch, while everyone else practically walks backward:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82mkWDm0jAY

Awesome job for a great young Woman

Erin Donohue runs like a duck. For that single reason, I dislike her.

3:53.63 (methinks my normal formula doesn't work so well going from 800 to 15000).

Running Bear wrote:

A serious question for you mid-distance guys... What does a 1:59:99 translate to for the 1500?

mcmillan says 4:07, which is not as spectacular as I thought

The averages on Purdy put it at 4:01.9

Guy from NJ wrote:

My guess would be bulimia or anorexia nervosa would be her best choice to lose weight.

Those don't sound very healthy to me. Carrying around excess muscle or fat bulk is not that healthy either.

I'm not saying that Erin should weigh 95 pounds. And there's a big difference between Radcliffe being 5'8 110 pounds and Erin at 5'7 143. For a given height, that's almost a 40 pound difference! Yeah I'm not saying 95 pounds. But I do think she would be healthier and faster, as a runner, to be around 10 pounds lighter than she is. And 130-135 pounds is not too light for a 5'7 woman.

I think losing muscular and fat bulk that is interfering with her running movements, and her breathing, would be an advantage to her, not a disadvantage. And I think hitting the weights to build a bigger upper body is not a very good idea for a runner.

Maybe I'm answering my own question, stop using weights, portion control, increasing exercise, decreasing calorie intake to a healthy minimum.

rsbones wrote:

bruinboy wrote:

Take that John Cook!!

Yeah, now all she has to do is keep that same pace for...twice the distance...to prove Cook wrong. Easily done, huh?

Well now, that's embarrassing. Better check your distances, bro. (And if you got into UCLA, then then you single-handedly just brought the school's rep down a few notches.)

You know, this would all be well and good if she wasn't running amazing times. 4:03 and 1:59 and you're telling her she needs to change? Get your head checked.

I would go slightly faster like 4:01 or 4:02.Going down the listSuzy Favor 1:58.1/3:57.4Rowbury 2:00.47/4:00.3anna pierce 1:58.8: 3:59.38CHRISTIN WURTH THOMAS 1.59.39/3:59.98Slaney 1:56.90/3:57.12Some of this depends on what you mean by translates. If your a 1500m runner and your run 2:00, you are going to be close to breaking 4:00. If you look at points tables, it will be more like a 4:05.

last lap wrote:

4:03 (her recent PR) is about right

Running Bear wrote:

A serious question for you mid-distance guys... What does a 1:59:99 translate to for the 1500?

Why are you comparing her to a marathon runner? Some of the best 800 runners were broad and powerful - Mutola, Quirot, even Alysa Johnson have builds similar to Donohue.

concord wrote:

Why are you comparing her to a marathon runner? Some of the best 800 runners were broad and powerful - Mutola, Quirot, even Alysa Johnson have builds similar to Donohue.

+1

Men with a variety of builds (McMullen, Wheating, Webb) can succeed in middle distances, too. It is not as simplistic as declaring that someone has to fit certain size parameters to run well in 800m/1500m. The best female 800m runners have often had powerful and muscular builds, Radcliffe would get smoked even in the first round of USATF outdoor nationals at 800m. Donohue's physique looks great to me and clearly is serving her well in terms of performance.

You guys are hilarious. Like five of you fell for the "twice as far" comment.

Seriously though, good run by Erin and I hope she does someday break 4:00.

I think Guy from NJ was being sarcastic there.

As others have said, people are built differently. Endomorphs, mesomorphs, ectomorphs. Google it. Different bone structure and density, different metabolisms, etc. This is accepted for male athletes (think Nick Symmonds vs. Dathan Ritzenhein; or even better Chris Solinsky vs. Kenyans), so why not females?

Erin should not stop lifting weights because she is naturally muscular. Whereas most runners are naturally thin. She is healthiest at a certain weight, but if she did not lift weights, then that weight would be composed mostly of fat instead of muscle. Does this make sense? And if she reduced her caloric intake too much, her body would store *more* fat as a survival mechanism and she wouldn't have enough energy to train. I'm sure she knows what's best for her and obviously it's working.