Does weight really matter?

I mean you're pretty much dead on. I almost feel as if I can get to the 2:40 marathon that would be about as far as I could go without changing much. But you're right, it is about time to have to pick one or the other.

You know, track was my best sport, and the funnest in my opinion. 800- 1:52 and Mile- 4:13 were respectable times. It is just there is a certain shape you get in when you are racing. Not racing track for two years may set me behind.

That's awesome to hear. Keep it up!

Yes of course weight matters but for taller marathoners in particular I don't think it matters nearly as much as race day temperature, humidity, and course profile. Mileage is also much more important than weight and yours is pretty low. Get that up to where you are peaking in the 90-100 range and you will see significant improvement. You will probably also lose a few pounds.

I'm 6-6. I too thought I was stuck at 190 until I started eating better, gave up booze, and upped my mileage. Now I tend to race in the 180-185 range. Last 5 marathons have been between 2:41 and 2:49. I feel much fitter and faster at 180 but if the weather doesn't cooperate it doesn't really matter on the clock.

I don't think weight matters as much as body fat percentage does. You can be skinny fat which is just an unhealthy as being overweight. I think your frame likes to be at a certain weight, mine hovers around 170. I have to seriously cut calories to drop down to 160. My performance is better at the lower weight as well as my heart rate at the lower weight. This is because of loss of body fat not necessarily weight. I.E. blood circulates easier through a leaner body than a fat body. I know people who have more muscle mass, low body fat that can run relatively fast. So is it really weight that is the issue or the body fat???

Smoove wrote:

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

I've been waiting with bated breath, but I've been disappointed so far...

BigBoy wrote:

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.

Sorry, it seems you're accidentally posting on LetsRun. We have nothing to offer well-rounded (get it?) individuals like you. Try an Instagram post?

As an aside, English composition is more important to engineers than math or science. I've had projects that are dead on arrival because we underestimated the technical communications aspect.

How about letting the person read my posts and this thread before offering your own opinion and agenda. Capisce?Second, I will address this thread since I did make that thread.It sounds like some of you (see: Smoove and Tomato Tomato) want to have your greek letter egos stroked in the process of addressing things like weight for a particular runner or runners that you really have no business doing. In other words, it means more to you that someone is positive to you than what you do. I am certain that many of your former frat brothers were athletic and I likely you did not say a thing to any of them.I like this thread much like a like the one I created in April. What we weigh is none of your business. And you cannot tell anyone that they do or do not or will or will not feel more fleet, lighter or quicker at a certain weight. You just can't. You can try, but you will likely be wrong.What many of you are missing is that you are simply going by a number. This number can fail your logic in many ways.For instance, in the original thread that I made, I talked about my weight being 172. In April, it was 172, today, this morning it was 172. At my height, it's roughly a 27 BMI, which motivated a lot of you to refer to me as fat and call me a troll and other names.what numbers you did not know and still apply are that I have a waist that is about 34 (roughly 34.25 if you want to be exact) and a hip ratio that is about 39.5. This puts me at an .867 ratio. the start of unhealthy for men is a ratio of .90 or more. This can be backed up by any physical that a medical practitioner could give, as it is on their form.I sense people like "BigBoy" are the same. 6'4" 190 is not overweight at all and technically 6'4" 210 or 220 are roughly in proportion, numerically to what numbers I have.Just two weeks ago, as part of my training for my marathon, I did a 21:29 5K after work. I still had quite a bit left to give. This was not a race situation or anything like that.As a result, I am not going to be nice, but direct, and I am not going to stroke egos except to say that I wish BigBoy well and that I am sure he is doing perfectly fine and what he chooses to run and how and at what weight is up to him.Keep up the good work, all SUPPORTIVE runners. The rest of you can just ...I don't know yet. Just.Mike

Weighting Is the Hardest Part wrote:

OP: "... any thoughts?"

Plenty, per a recent thread (beware: vitriol-agenda-troll alerts) :

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8135299

My two Lincolns: yes-- just look at body shapes and adaptations of those best at the events. If it's worth anything, I'll take your "heft" any day, given my size and results relative to yours (5 ft, 10.5 in, 169-175 lb, glacial recent 10k-half road results).

Garph wrote:

As an aside, English composition is more important to engineers than math or science. I've had projects that are dead on arrival because we underestimated the technical communications aspect.

As a middle aged professional, I have seen lots of folks progress through their careers. In my experience, people often organically change their career paths when opportunities present themselves. This is often true of accountants in particular, but I have seen it quite a bit with engineers as well. I would submit that those who can communicate well are those to whom these opportunities present themselves. Ignoring your weaknesses because you don't perceive them to be important may have some logic to it, but it may also limit future opportunities. I know that you identify as a blue collar guy, so you may not care about evolving into a CEO or whatever else may come along, but we all change over time. My advice would be to at least minimize the impact of your weaknesses. I try to do this myself, with differing degrees of success with different weaknesses.

Not a criticism, just food for thought from a middle aged guy to a soon-to-be young professional.

I am also going to add to this.....

I have, as I have previously stated, drifted within a range of 171-184 over the last 18 years (I am now 43).

I have never had any injury, other than a normal strain here or there.

My knees still work beautifully

I do not have tendinitis anywhere

My joints still work

Runners who want to judge weight to feeling really need to know how someone strides, what their top to bottom composition is and overall, what their proportions are. My bigger lower body and size 12 shoes certainly provide a welcome foundation for my upper body.

Oh, and I also run in 8.3 ounce shoes.

How bout them apples:)

1. If you try and stroke me without my permission I will report you.

2. Do not place your assumptions of my affiliations in college on me. You would be wrong. I was never in a frat nor did I ever want to be in one.

3. This thread was not started so you could begin spouting off your stats. That's inconsiderate and it takes away from the focus on the OP. Stoppit, you're being selfish.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

I like this thread much like a like the one I created in April. What we weigh is none of your business. And you cannot tell anyone that they do or do not or will or will not feel more fleet, lighter or quicker at a certain weight. You just can't. You can try, but you will likely be wrong.

P.S. Stoppit your grammar, woof.

BigBoy wrote:

... But it brings me to think, does weight honestly matter? Or would you think it would be more concentrated on true fat loss? Since you see all these pro's looking thin as can be. Interesting to think about... any thoughts?

I've run similar times in college (30 years ago). I've since run 36 marathons, and realized that there are 2 factors that influence my marathon times: (1) weight, (2) weekly mileage:

At 173 lbs and 70 mpw, I can run a 3:05 marathon (185 mins). But at 188 lbs (15 lbs heavier) and 36.7 mpw (33.3 mpw less), I only managed to run a 3:40 marathon (220 mins). I think the extra 15 lbs slowed me down by 13 mins (2sec/mile or 0.867). The 33 mpw less, slowed me down the other 22 minutes (.667 min/mpw). So the formula for me is:

PRnew = PRold +0.867*(wt gain) - 0.667(mpw gain)

PRnew =185 +0.867*(15) - 0.667(-33)

PRnew =185 +13 + 22 = 205 mins = 3:40

I'm sure the above formula breaks down if you get your BMI below 20, which is where most elite marathon runners are. There are also some diminishing returns on increasing mileage above 70 mpw, which the formula does not take into account. However, using this formula for a modest weight and mileage change, assume that you can lose 11 lbs and get your weight to 179 lbs (a similar BMI to Chris Solinsky) and bump your mpw up by 5, you may be able to improve on your 2:41 marathon (161 mins) to a 2:28 marathon (148 mins) as follows:

PRnew = PRold +0.867*(wt gain) - 0.667(mpw gain)

PRnew = 161 +0.867*(-11) - 0.667(5) = 148 mins = 2:28

Thus, weight matters if your BMI is above 20.

Weekly mileage also matters most if your mpw is less than 70.

I was a decent runner, but came for a family,and a culture, at least the majority, that hates skinny men. So, with my insecurity , I opted to try to be buff and run. I was definitely the studliest on the distance team , and 20 pounds overweight, lifting out of intelligent periodization etc.

I don't care who you are, your range is affected by weight. It might even start to decline as early as 400M due to trying to be an Adonis when you are slow twitch. For others it might be the 800 , but definitely by the mile.

I just tell this bit of a story for the studs who might rethink their priorities. Totally optional of course. I personally would have rather been self assured, skinny and fast as enjoying all that.

Not saying I would have been great, but I wonder how much running talent is gone in this country due to loathing of skinny men? Don't think Kenya Has that problem.

See, he doesn't disappoint. Thanks Stoppit!

The interesting part is that I really don't even think he reads our posts. I mean, my advice was to have good body composition and to do what you like; that as a general rule, being lighter will mean being faster, but it may not be worth it to the OP.

He's like a political pundit with an agenda who cannot process information on his own, but rather just spews forth the same lines over and over again without regard to context.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

what numbers you did not know and still apply are that I have a waist that is about 34 (roughly 34.25 if you want to be exact)

Just two weeks ago, as part of my training for my marathon, I did a 21:29 5K after work. I still had quite a bit left to give. This was not a race situation or anything like that.

Are you trying to be funny? This is a joke right? 7 minute miles are an easy pace, something that you should be able to jog during an easy long run. The key word being easy. Holding that pace for only 5k? What was the point of that? Some really abbreviated easy 2nd run of the day where you didn't have much time? I probably would have just skipped it because a run that easy and short wouldn't do a whole lot.

If you are being serious, my advice to you is that the most likely reason you are so slow is because of your 34 inch waist. Lose some weight tubby and you will see your times improve.

I am in no way defending this guy, because his logic is incomprehensible to me; but I will say this: people have different body types. I am 5' 8" with a 33 inch waist (and wear either pants with a waist size of either 33 or 34, and I am lean, fit and a pretty decent masters runner.His problem is that he just busts out the same lines over and over and cannot accept the simple fact that. as a general rule, being lighter will make you a faster runner. He also has trouble accepting the fact that we are all free to make that very logical point, and that doing so, particularly in the context of a thread in which the OP asks about weight, is neither mean nor inappropriate.

If you are healthy and fit you weigh what you weigh.

If you're big and lose weight through sickness, you won't run fast. If you are heavy due to not working out, you won't run fast.

Some people are just not built for certain events.

So at 200 pounds you will not be a world class marathoner. At 120, likely you won't be a great 100 or 400 runner. But you might win the Kentucky derby. As a jockey.

I came out of high school 5'8" 133. I went to college at 22 years old and was 6' 184. 2 years later I was 6'3" and 210.

At 20 I was world ranked top 25 in the 400, but by the time I was 210, I was slower and ready to retire. I was fit, but I just kept growing.

Run how you want. No expectations. Sometimes you aren't meant to be.

Take up cycling. With your endurance you'll be a good cyclist. There you can measure weight and power, and have a firm expectation.

Nothing I have written detracts form the OPs point at all.

By quoting statistics, it makes me real.

It makes my anecdotes real.

It makes my support of his point(s) real.

Keep in mind, he is considerably faster than I am; therefore, using my statistics would be apropos in painting the situation, not in making it about me.

Methinks, ye be too ensconced in internet lingo and possibly jaded by the like.

I'd likely be right.