Obese, 42, sub 16

you're asking if a person carrying 100 pounds of blubber can run as fast as he did 27 years ago?

what?

It's clearly a long-term goal. Losing the weight is the obvious first short-term goal. Nobody is suggesting a 16 or 17 5k at 250 pounds regardless of age.

After losing the flab, the following thread is what I need with slight modification from mile to 5k.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7406347

Going from a lean marathoner to a pile of lard in a few months is actually more impressive than sub-16, since you would need to double your daily calories that you ate while training for a marathon, but with no exercise whatsoever. That is a "binge" like Hitler invading Russia was an "incident".

asbelk wrote:

Hellelujah wrote:

How does one gain 60 lbs in a couple of months? Did you have surgical lipoinjection?

Binge eating disorder, genes, no exercise.

Hellelujah wrote:

How does one gain 60 lbs in a couple of months? Did you have surgical lipoinjection?

Hellelujah wrote:

Going from a lean marathoner to a pile of lard in a few months is actually more impressive than sub-16, since you would need to double your daily calories that you ate while training for a marathon, but with no exercise whatsoever. That is a "binge" like Hitler invading Russia was an "incident".

A 4 hour hobby jogging marathoner near 170 pounds is not a lean marathoner. 160/170 was the minimum. The later marathons, I was at 180/190. Over five years, it was an unbalanced pendulum, swinging more to the heavy end and less to the leaner end. Entire large pizzas and half-gallons of ice cream in one day over several to six months accumulate.

16:05 wrote:

I am 39, 5'11", 135 lbs. I ran 14:47 in college at the same racing weight. I am running 35-40mpw consistently, usually with two hard tempo runs per week. I ran 16:05 last month in a 5k. If you want to run as fast now as you did in high school you will have to train better than you did in high school. You will need to be at the same or a better racing weight and probably need to do slightly more volume and a similar amount of quality. It is doable but it will be a major commitment of lifestyle. time and effort.

I'm a lot like this guy, except older (40) and ran sub-14:00 back in the day. Current training is ~30mpw, usually with one tempo and one workout. I ran 15:57 this year. Sub-16:00 as a master is a lot harder than it was a couple decades ago, at least in my experience!

For the OP, it's awesome that you've decided to get in shape, and I wish you the best of luck. It's fine to have big audacious goals, but make sure to put appropriate emphasis on intermediate goals too. If you can break 20:00 this year, that would be a great start. Then aim for 19:00, etc.

The details of your training program really don't matter, as long as they're not completely out to lunch. Daniels is fine -- just don't get hung up on the specific paces he calls for based on the times you "hope" to run. Do the mileage, do the workouts at whatever paces you can handle, and stick with it.

Great to hear this from both of you. Thanks! Minus the sardonic juvenility, there's a lot of wisdom and motivation here.

Emphasizing intermediate goals is certainly going to be key. Around 247 pounds today, I'm not sure a sub 20 would be best to shoot for this year. I'm shooting for under 200 pounds by the end of the year and a couple of races and time trials to baseline my fitness.

Next year, consistently losing weight, training, stretching, strengthening, eating well, and properly recovering, I hope a sub 20, maybe even sub 19 by the end of the year, would be doable. My body does respond to training, but in my early 40s, proper recovery is essential to avoid injury.

I should find a local club too for more accountability and motivation.

Jack Daniels is a great plan to follow. I prefer beer, but to each their own.

But in reality, what does running a sub 16 get you? I wouldn't try to repeat that feat, it will only most likely leave you feeling like the failure that you already are.

asbelk wrote:

It's clearly a long-term goal. Losing the weight is the obvious first short-term goal. Nobody is suggesting a 16 or 17 5k at 250 pounds regardless of age.

No, losing 100 lbs is a long term goal. It takes a long time and most people don't have the willpower to stick it out

HardLoper wrote:

No, losing 100 lbs is a long term goal. It takes a long time and most people don't have the willpower to stick it out

To entertain your semantic quibbling, it is short-term in the sense that it must happen much earlier than the ultimate long-term goal. And thanks for again pointing out the audaciousness of the goal.

asbelk wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

No, losing 100 lbs is a long term goal. It takes a long time and most people don't have the willpower to stick it out

To entertain your semantic quibbling, it is short-term in the sense that it must happen much earlier than the ultimate long-term goal. And thanks for again pointing out the audaciousness of the goal.

How fast do you really think you can lose 100 lbs? All I'm saying is you are probably underestimating how hard it is.

Bill Bronger wrote:

Jack Daniels is a great plan to follow. I prefer beer, but to each their own.

But in reality, what does running a sub 16 get you? I wouldn't try to repeat that feat, it will only most likely leave you feeling like the failure that you already are.

It obviously gets me exactly the same thing as whatever you've gotten out of achieving your running goals.

I'm a failure only if I give up trying. Try focusing more on the positive. It should help you grow out of your sardonicism.

HardLoper wrote:

How fast do you really think you can lose 100 lbs? All I'm saying is you are probably underestimating how hard it is.

To go from 250 to 150 with the training I plan to do, around 3 years or so. I've lost 60 pounds in less than a year before, so I've experienced the difficulty of such a weight loss.

asbelk wrote:

Bill Bronger wrote:

Jack Daniels is a great plan to follow. I prefer beer, but to each their own.

But in reality, what does running a sub 16 get you? I wouldn't try to repeat that feat, it will only most likely leave you feeling like the failure that you already are.

It obviously gets me exactly the same thing as whatever you've gotten out of achieving your running goals.

I'm a failure only if I give up trying. Try focusing more on the positive. It should help you grow out of your sardonicism.

I think he/she is just being realistic. Its going to take you two years to lose that much weight. The statistics just aren't in your favor.

Using age grading to illustrate:

At 18 years old, a sub 16 5k is an 83% age graded score

At 45 years old, a sub 16 5k is an 89% age graded score, and 83% score will get you around 17 minutes. one minute is an eternity in a 5k.

So, not only do you have to lose 100 pounds, which is monumental in itself, but then you also have to IMPROVE over your 18 year old self. Unfortunatly, statistics aren't on your side.

That said, its good to have lofty goals. If you never set the goal and go after it, you'll never know what may have happened. I say go for it, but also be sure to enjoy your progress along the way. Good luck!

PS - post updates if you want/can.

asbelk wrote:

It's clearly a long-term goal. Losing the weight is the obvious first short-term goal. Nobody is suggesting a 16 or 17 5k at 250 pounds regardless of age.

I think you are missing a real opportunity here. Continue to train to break 16 while also training to stay 250 lbs.

If you pull that off you become a LR hero.

lots and lots of drugs

pqiuety wrote:

... Unfortunatly, statistics aren't on your side.

That said, its good to have lofty goals. If you never set the goal and go after it, you'll never know what may have happened. I say go for it, but also be sure to enjoy your progress along the way. Good luck!

I understand the stats. They only prove the obvious -- difficulty and loftiness -- but not impossibility.

Thanks for the encouragement.

pqiuety wrote:

PS - post updates if you want/can.

Thanks for your interest.

rough rider wrote:

I think you are missing a real opportunity here. Continue to train to break 16 while also training to stay 250 lbs.

If you pull that off you become a LR hero.

Ha! I actually will concede a 250 pound sub 16 is impossible.

obviously1 wrote:

lots and lots of drugs

Funny, but I'm not completely against chemical assistance.

I agree a miracle. You were barely under 16 for 5k back in high school. Now you're 42 yrs old and 250 lbs. I don't see it happening. There are a lot of guys on this board who are your age and younger, not obese and who can't break 16.

I wish you luck getting into shape.