Your weight should be twice your height in inches?

this works perfectly for me

when i was in shape (not anymore) i weighed 145 lbs for a 72 inch tall man

im sure im the exception, but this sounds good to me

dwigt schrude wrote:

what a stupid rule. weight grows cubically with height. you do just grow in three dimensions.

FTFY

For a man, 110 for his first 5 feet, and then 5.25lbs per pound after that, minus 5 to 10%.

So a 5'10" male should weigh (110 + 5.25(10))/10 x 9 = 146.25

I actually think these calculations are too high. I'd probably want to weigh around 140 or less for "best" results.

alan culpepper also looks like a p*ssy

i am 6'4" and 152 pounds

exactly double my height in inches.

it worked for me.

i am a 751 3k guy so close to elite and it works for me.

just a rough theory and probably only works for taller runners

but i laughed when i did the math and it was exact.

Same for me. Exactly twice my height.

5'8" female at 136 lbs.

Although I will say that my young whippersnapper racing weight was 10 lbs. lighter.

kprunner wrote:

i am 6'4" and 152 pounds

exactly double my height in inches.

it worked for me.

i am a 751 3k guy so close to elite and it works for me.

just a rough theory and probably only works for taller runners

but i laughed when i did the math and it was exact.

Okay this is obviously Kyle Perry but I dont think Kyle Perry would actually post this...

6:00 miler wrote:

http://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank01.html

For a man, 110 for his first 5 feet, and then 5.25lbs per pound after that, minus 5 to 10%.

So a 5'10" male should weigh (110 + 5.25(10))/10 x 9 = 146.25

I actually think these calculations are too high. I'd probably want to weigh around 140 or less for "best" results.

Great site reference. I'm amazed at how accurate this simple comparison to weight and height is.

I think this is a fairly good rule for guys, but definitely not for girls. My male teammate and I are both 5'8, but he weighs 130 and I weigh 108. We're both fit (he's stronger than me though, for sure, but i do have a really small frame). Neither one of us are too small or too big. If I weighed 130, I would be f-ing fat and would have to be a rec runner. And that's it.

Hey guys everyone doesnt necesarily fit this rule but for distance racing our ethiopian formula is ur height in inches x 2 minus 10 or at least minus 8. This formula originated from us talking about and am surprised many good runners dont know it but its okay as long as u run alot and u dont feel weak. Guys who starving urselves ur performance wont be good too weak. Let ur body get there by running more not starving. U have no idea how much bekele eats a day i mean jesus. He eats like 20 bananas a day and the other regular meals. He is known for the bigest eater. We have a saying eat and run hard. If u dont eat u cant run. That formula is not a strict one. Some perform better at minus 5. Thanks guys run alot of miles is the secret. The ethio way=99% Arthur Lydiard way

It seems though that it applies to female elite runners as well.

kprunner wrote:

i am 6'4" and 152 pounds

exactly double my height in inches.

it worked for me.

i am a 751 3k guy so close to elite and it works for me.

just a rough theory and probably only works for taller runners

but i laughed when i did the math and it was exact.

I was going to say that as a 6'4" guy, this rule seems impossible (I'm closer to 170 than 150 and still rail thin).

However .... touche.

at my optimal training...I was around 118 at 5'8", running low 1:07 for half...but i think that set me up for injury even though i was fit

I wonder whether this means that that is an optimal rule for everyone to strive for since distance runners in theory are in the best shape--in terms of athletic health.

Welcome back Dylan!!!!!!!

Were you in a COMA the last 6 months?

5'7 and 135lb. In the last three months I have lost about 8lb. Losing more than this is not going to be pretty. A lot of people on my team are lighter than I am: they just have smaller frames. You are a bit limited by your bone and muscle structure - my rib cage is just bigger than some people's - already you can count all my ribs.

It is easy if you are short, difficult if you are tall - nice rule of thumb for average height guys.Like someone pointed out - 7ft tall and 168 = 168#5ft tall = 120# which would be CHUNKY.

dylan383 wrote:

I've read that elite runners' optimal weight should be twice their height in inches. What do people think about this? Is this true?

nope nope wrote:

That's a good rule for the average non-running Joe, but for an elite runner, no way. Way too heavy unless you're built like Solinsky.

I am 6'4" (76 inches) and weigh, after a run on an empty stomach, like 158. I have absolutely no bodyfat - skin, veins, muscle and bone. There is no way I could weigh 152 and not be losing muscle. Way too heavy? What should I weight, 140?

Years ago I conducted a personal experiment with weight and what I came away with was:

At 6' 2 3/8", my normal running weight was 161. What I found was that my ideal weight for racing distances 10k and up was 151-154 but for 800-mile more in the 155-157 range.

At the lighter weight (151-154) I could recover from long runs and sustain the relatively slower pace for distance better, but for the 800/mile I would be underpowered, I wouldn't quite have the turnover. At 162 I could run almost as well at 800/mile, but significantly slower for long distance. At 168, I could sprint well but everything beyond 400 meters slowed down, although I could shovel snow better and push open doors with greater ease.