You've worked hard. It's time for your Sunday nap.
You've worked hard. It's time for your Sunday nap.
Recently ran a sub 2:36 marathon at a smidgen over 200lbs. Is anyone aware of a faster time for that weight? I am curious.
a high school teammate of mine once ran a 4:43 mile as a senior and he was ~205lbs. i always bring that up when runners complain about not being the typical 'runner build'. like sure, it might matter what size you are at an elite level (but not always, looking at you Chris Solinsky) but it definitely doesnt matter if youre willing to work hard.
I think it needs to be based on BMI to even out the height differences somewhat.
A 5'9", 200# man has a BMI of 29.5, and definitely would be a thicker gentlemen. Either quite muscular, quite fat, or a mix.
6', 218# is about the same BMI
6'3", 236# " "
6'6", 255# " "
No fvking 6'7" beanpoles that barely hit 200#. That is a 22.5 BMI, on the skinnier side of normal.
Stew, my name is George Staub. 6ft 205lbs. In my prime my times are 5km 15:24, 10km 32:00, half 73:31, full 2:38 road, 2:37:13 treadmill for UC Berkely sports med department, 50km 3:23:21, 50 miles 6:04, 100km 7:45:31, 100 miles 16:4. These times and distances can all be authenticated. Thanks, Ges
Silly Pippilo9nging wrote:
I knew a 212-pound masters runner who ran about a 16:12 on the roads ... so equivalent to maybe a 15:45 on the track.
A "masters" runner at "212 lbs" who runs a 16:12?....PEDS? 🤔
bmiplease wrote:
I think it needs to be based on BMI to even out the height differences somewhat.
A 5'9", 200# man has a BMI of 29.5, and definitely would be a thicker gentlemen. Either quite muscular, quite fat, or a mix.
6', 218# is about the same BMI
6'3", 236# " "
6'6", 255# " "
No fvking 6'7" beanpoles that barely hit 200#. That is a 22.5 BMI, on the skinnier side of normal.
That's a good point...weight is irrelevant without factoring in the height aspect. There's a significant difference between a 6'3" 200 lb guy vs a 5'6" 200 pounder when it comes to distance running.
Kid on my high school team was a lineman on the football team, probably 5'8 and 220, but ran 4:55 in gym class. I was there and can confirm it was a legit mile (unlike that classic body building forum that pops up on here every now and then).
Nate might've been the best all-around athlete I've ever known personally. In track he won the shot and discus at conferences, then ran on the 4x1, which also took first. Seeing that big white boy hawk down kids half his size on the back straight was an awesome sight.
Halfway through senior year he stole a car, though, and went to jail. Haven't heard from him since.
i agree that a true clydesdale should be more weight/height ratio than 200 lbs and 6 foot 6......
Height really shouldn't be much of a factor if both people or the same weight are pretty much equally fit.
What do you guys think about a 6'4" 98kg chap running 10 miles in under 60:00?
I don't have any proof of these things so I understand they'll be taken with a big grain of salt.
My Senior year of Highschool I ran a mile in 5:32 at 6'6 and 315lbs and could do 5k in the 18:20ish range.
No PED's, swear on my mother it's true. I was right at about 16-18% bodyfat for these runs, although it's not easy figuring out accurate BF percentages when you can drop 15lbs in a 2-3hr workout session and you have to put that 15lb's back on and take them back off in the span of a day and two workouts (not counting putting it back on one last time for the workout the next day).
Personally, I don't think someone is truly a Clydesdale unless they're 230+ and 6'4+
For what it's worth, trying to run at the sizes I did it at is insane if not flat-out stupid. Realistically speaking I didn't need to be able to run more than a mile for football, and I only attempted a 5k at 310-315lbs three times ever because of the absolutely ridiculous stress it put on my body - including lingering chest pain after the third attempt from working my heart so hard that I nearly had a heart attack and in all honesty probably should've had a heart attack.
I've known a few guys in the 225-240lb and 6'1-6'4 range that could absolutely fly though. I really had no business trying to run like I did at the size that I was, I had a 1600lb three-lift-total for powerlifting and was built like a brick shithouse.
mem wrote:
I don't have any proof of these things so I understand they'll be taken with a big grain of salt.
My Senior year of Highschool I ran a mile in 5:32 at 6'6 and 315lbs and could do 5k in the 18:20ish range.
No PED's, swear on my mother it's true. I was right at about 16-18% bodyfat for these runs, although it's not easy figuring out accurate BF percentages when you can drop 15lbs in a 2-3hr workout session and you have to put that 15lb's back on and take them back off in the span of a day and two workouts (not counting putting it back on one last time for the workout the next day).
Personally, I don't think someone is truly a Clydesdale unless they're 230+ and 6'4+
For what it's worth, trying to run at the sizes I did it at is insane if not flat-out stupid. Realistically speaking I didn't need to be able to run more than a mile for football, and I only attempted a 5k at 310-315lbs three times ever because of the absolutely ridiculous stress it put on my body - including lingering chest pain after the third attempt from working my heart so hard that I nearly had a heart attack and in all honesty probably should've had a heart attack.
I've known a few guys in the 225-240lb and 6'1-6'4 range that could absolutely fly though. I really had no business trying to run like I did at the size that I was, I had a 1600lb three-lift-total for powerlifting and was built like a brick shithouse.
0/10 ☝️??
Well a woman with "thunder thighs" won Boston yesterday, does that count?
But she's still on the small & diminutive side. ☝️
At 46 yo, I ran a 3:14 downhill marathon for a BQ. At 5'9" 220 lbs. prolly 60 pounds overweight. I ran my best when I was in the low 140's in college. I've never seen anybody close to my size/age run near me. I am the self proclaimed, World's Fastest Fatman :)
Cheers
I've run a marathon every year since topping 300lbs. (7 years running) and have been sub-2:40 for every race (12 marathons total). My last marathon (Boston) was 2:34. It seems as if the fatter I get, the faster I become!
Stew681 wrote:
I'm 6'4 and usually hover between 210-220lbs. I know I'll never be under 200lbs unless I want the anorexic look. Right now my times are, 5k - 18:55, 10k - 40:00, HM - 1:33, 100K - 12hrs.
I'd be more impressed if you were 5'10".
It's about BMI, not weight.
Look at BMI not weight wrote:
Stew681 wrote:
I'm 6'4 and usually hover between 210-220lbs. I know I'll never be under 200lbs unless I want the anorexic look. Right now my times are, 5k - 18:55, 10k - 40:00, HM - 1:33, 100K - 12hrs.
I'd be more impressed if you were 5'10".
It's about BMI, not weight.
+1
Definitely about BMI. There's a hell of a lot of difference between a 6-3, 200 lb runner and a 5-8 runner at 200 lbs. ☝️The more short & stocky a person is the more difficult it is to distance run...nothing new there.
George E Staub wrote:
Stew, my name is George Staub. 6ft 205lbs. In my prime my times are 5km 15:24, 10km 32:00, half 73:31, full 2:38 road, 2:37:13 treadmill for UC Berkely sports med department, 50km 3:23:21, 50 miles 6:04, 100km 7:45:31, 100 miles 16:4. These times and distances can all be authenticated. Thanks, Ges
Mighty impressive. Also impressive that someone 60+ years old is on these forums!