Does weight really matter?

If running was your number 1 priority, then you're a professional runner, which I am not. I have/had laborious job that a skinny runner would have trouble doing. HVAC and landscaping. Though I am a boi-med engineer with a 3.7 gpa, I am trying to get on the fire department/ police department bc those seem like a lot more rewarding of a job. I have a pretty blue collar mindset, which is what helped me a lot with running. But no, running is not my number one priority. Future kids, wife, house, career, those are far more important than running.

I enjoy these posts. "Does weight really matter?" - OP

Most Responses - "Yes!"

OP - "But rationalization A and rationalization B"

Performance wise, yes it does.

Emotion wise, its based on the individual

it's***

No need to correct yourself. If you haven't picked up on it by now, my grammar certainly has others fired up. I'll take the hot seat on that deal. Thanks for sharing!

I have to admit that I did ask myself why the OP bothered to ask the question since he never really seemed to have any intention of changing his course of action. Not that he should change anything, just that it seems weird to ask if it matters if you don't really intend to use the answers in any meaningful way.

I received money from Houston Marathon. They give out money for everybody it seems like. Age group, masters, weight, it's awesome. Tough course, very humid climate but a solid race held every year. Keep it up!

Agreed, but he is being very positive about it all which should be applauded

Plus, I am enjoying the anticipation of the eventual Stoppit Smith arrival.

No I am taking information from this. I lift heavy almost every time I work out. Maybe if I cut down on lifting heavy and just started with lighter weight and higher reps, kept my diet about 500kcal less a week, and increased some mileage, maybe I could start seeing better performances in not only weight loss but running times as well. Interesting to think about.

You all are what is making this thread enjoyable. Everything that y'all have said has been informative, even down to my poor grammar skills. If every post had this great of feedback, LetsRun would be a better place to ask questions and gain information. I have certainly learned a lot from you all. Thanks!

Everyone is different, so this may not work for you, but I'm an example of someone who can run myself skinny (note it likely includes losing muscle mass as I'm not ever very fat). I don't count calories, I just eat healthy and I eat when I'm hungry. When I increase my mileage significantly, which for me is going up to 80+miles/week, I lose a lot of weight. I cycle my mileage with my strength training, so I do more strength training at lower mileage and less at higher mileage. During high mileage I'm only doing strength training max 2x per week.

If you cut back on strength training and increase mileage significantly, you may be able, like me, to drop weight without needing to worry about including calorie deficits thought diet.

I can only get up to about 60-65 miles a week. Outside of long runs, I hate running longer than an hour. I know I am going to take some heat bc I'm training for another marathon and 60-65 isn't a lot of miles, but it's all I can invest into running right now without killing my mojo. I honestly get bored and start losing motivation running longer than an hour.

What kind of mileage do you do?

My bad. I see you mentioned above. Bad internet connection.

BigBoy wrote:

I lift heavy almost every time I work out.

So you've got to decide:

1) Do you want to run as fast as possible given your body type and ability? If so, no more lifting (every time you would normally lift, throw in a double, pool session, bike ride - something with a direct aerobic benefit, or just stuff a carrot or two in your mouth), a sensible diet that gets you down 10-15 lbs, and an increased intensity in training (that excludes lifting) that burns more calories.

2) Do you want to continue to run fast times, but have muscles to boot, look as good as you can naked, and eat and drink pretty much what you want? Nothing wrong with that either.

1) You will get faster no doubt. How fast? I have no idea. 2) You will recognize slight improvement but likely maintain where you are at.

The choice is yours sir, but there is always a price to pay if you want to achieve your respective level of greatness.

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

BigBoy wrote:

BMI is inaccurate, as it shows my body fat % to be 23.1 and is nearing the "overweight" range which is ludicrous.

You don't understand what BMI is, the healthy range 18.5 to 25 which you are in is not measuring body fat, this is purely a number resulting from the division of weight by height squared (in metric). BMI is simply a weight range for a given height expressed as a formula.

BMI is meant for populations, not individuals. It is a fair comparison to make a USA map of states and show BMI per state and conclude the south has more obesity than the north. That's easier than having four sets of heights and weights to compare two states, men/women for each state. Only with populations can you average out the variables.

With individuals, there are so many variables it's not even worth using. You have almost as much chance of a fit person being out of range as in range. Being over 6'1" or under 5'2" distorts the scale. There's no provision for fat distribution, age, sex, bone structure. It measures all 5'9" people the same; you could find a thin-framed 120 lbs young woman and a big-boned middle-age 170 lbs man, both healthy, yet outside the "normal" range. Even moderate muscle affects the scale, and some people who do a lot of lifting will be way outside (I am 29 BMI by default despite being otherwise healthy— or 30 dressed for winter after a good meal). BMI over 35 or under 15 is certainly a problem. But closer to normal ranges, you really can't infer anything.

Some clinicians understand this and look at the bigger picture. Unfortunately, some of them put too much into the BMI number. BMI gets misused a lot, though fortunately not in this thread so far. Be wary of it.

EyesSkata wrote:

Some clinicians understand this and look at the bigger picture. Unfortunately, some of them put too much into the BMI number. BMI gets misused a lot, though fortunately not in this thread so far. Be wary of it.

On the other hand

"Conclusion

Body mass index is an adequate measure of adiposity for clinical purposes. In the context of lay press critiques of BMI and recommendations for alternative body-size measures, these data support clinicians making recommendations to patients based on BMI measurements."

Also

"In addition to the many risk factors associated with poor health, reducing body mass index (BMI) will have a considerable and independent impact if you want to reduce the risk of developing ischemic heart disease (IHD)."

The often-repeated claim about BMI not taking account of diifering body compositions its totally irelevant for the overwhelming majority who are not built like NFL Offensive linemen.

You are not a very fast runner.

Maybe it's something you love to do.

If you want to run really fast you have to lose 30 pounds.

If you don't want to do that be happy with being the 'big guy'.

At 6'4" you should think about being a miler.