I totally agree. I'm not the norm.
Without much work I weigh 145 ....511.
I think I was 6ft 120pds. In highschool.
I lost an inch when I broke my back :-)
So I totally agree it's not easy across the board or even possible maybe?
Again if the goal is running a fast Marathon ....I don't think it hurts to be a touch on the leaner side.
I can't it's healthy ...I can't say it's for everybody.... but I can say for me it's certainly faster.
Sub Elite Marathoner wrote:
Right now I weigh about 165 (5'11"), would I see significant improvement if I were more like 130? If so, how do you drop 35 pounds in a healthy manner?
134 lbs. That's what Galen Rupp weighs, and he's your height. Also, Ryan Hall weighed 134 lbs in his prime and he was 5'10".
Thus, regardless of your height, the answer is 134 lbs!
Good argument
134 it is...
It’s mostly genetic. Don’t worry about it. Just train. I was 5’6”, 140-45lbs. Ran 100-120 up to 140 miles a week. 2:32 Marathon. Just train.
Alan
I agree it doesn't matter but if you wanna run 2:10-2:20 there might be a reason.
I'm sure there are few exceptions, but I doubt many people run 2:20 that weigh 160.
And literally few/none below 2:10
Yes but just eat relatively healthy and train hard. Your weight will be what it is. Someone running 100mi a week shouldn’t be dieting.
Alan
Derek Clayton was 6”1.5’, 159lb. First man to break 2:10.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
I was 5’6”, 140-45lbs. Ran 100-120 up to 140 miles a week. 2:32 Marathon. Just train.
wow that really sucks
Sub Elite Marathoner wrote:
luv2run wrote:
I think every person has an ideal training weight and an ideal racing weight. If you try to get below that weight you are likely to get sick or not recover very well or train poorly. To get that low you would have to restrict your energy intake severely so that you are got going to be able to train well.
Also, what do you mean by "competitive"?
By competitive, I mean OTQ. It makes sense that loosing too much weight would be detrimental to health and performance. So I guess the core of my question is: how do I know what my ideal weight is, and what is the healthy way to get there?
Experimentation. You lose (not "loose") weight and when things start to fall apart in terms of training or getting sick or injured you find that weight.
One thing that might guide you a bit is if you have your body composition assessed. Let's say you are at 12% body fat. You can calculate your weight at 7% body fat (assuming no loss of lean mass) to give a goal for an ideal weight, but you are still sort of guessing at a body weight or what is an ideal BF% for you.
Going from 2:32 to OTQ of 2:19 (30 sec/mile) is a pretty big jump if you have been running the marathon for a while.
Best wishes. Stay healthy
Wow! 159 lbs on a 6-1 frame and breaking 2:10! What does the guy look like? (muscular upper body? big legs? etc.). Some people will say 159 lbs at 6-1 isn't all that big for a competitive runner, but...running a World class sub-2:10 at that size is simply mind-blowing!
:
He looks like a normal, fit dude. He has actual visible muscles in his thighs and calves.
Runningart2004 wrote:
It’s mostly genetic. Don’t worry about it. Just train. I was 5’6”, 140-45lbs. Ran 100-120 up to 140 miles a week. 2:32 Marathon. Just train.
Alan
Interesting take if the goal is 2:32 and no faster...
I've 2:28 while running less than you (95 avg, peak 120) @ 5'9" 143.
Trying to get under 2:25 now and dropping a few pounds is part of that. Not starving myself, but I have to make smarter choices about what I eat because my normal diet keeps me around 145 lbs even when I'm running 110 miles every week.
I think there's a lot of people talking past each other in this conversation. It's true that if you eat right and train right you will end up close to your ideal racing weight. It's also true that most marathon runners, even "sub elites" don't eat right. I enjoy pizza and beer quite a lot.
This is easy... up your mileage and your body will get very close to a natural weight within 6-10 months of constant ~100mpw.
I'm confused a little by your post.
First, it seems hat you're suggesting a certain weight might be fine for a certain time (2:32), but if you want to faster you need to be lighter, and you seem to be basing that off of the fact that you've run faster on less mileage and were lighter when you did it.
That logic doesn't make a ton of sense to me because it boils marathon times down to a simple function of height, weight and mileage. That obviously doesn't make a ton of sense. Maybe you just have a naturally bigger engine than the other poster or your training plan was better or your course was faster or your weather was better or you are mentally stronger or you just had a great day.
Then you seem to agree with that poster that running miles and making good food choices will get you to the right weight, but then say that people aren't perfect in their diets so that approach won't work. Which implies then that there should be a concerted effort to specifically lose weight. While I don't think hat perfection is required or that a pound or two makes a difference, if you do think that, shouldn't the advice simply be to be very disciplined with your food choices during your training cycle?
The simple answer is that while as a general rule, all other things being equal, lighter is usually better, all other things aren't equal. We all have different frames, genetic predispositions, etc.
There is no universally "right weight."
Sub Elite Marathoner wrote:
Loser spotted wrote:
You’re a hobby jogger, fool. Get back to us when you are sponsored and get paid to run. With your times, you should seriously consider taking your hobby jogger a$$ into ultra’s. Lose some weight, hobby jogger.
Elite = sponsored/paid to run, I said sub-elite, rere. I get comped entry in most races other that WMMs. And in a year or two, I'll be in those as an elite too. Bet I could dust your turkey trotting a$$. Enjoy your age award, scrub.
Don't get too big of a head bro. You've run 2:32. That's a far cry from WMM. The road to that level is littered with guys like yourself who washed out and never made it. As someone who has been comped to WMM when I'm at top fitness I could run a 2:32 any given Sunday if I felt like it. Getting down 30secs plus faster a mile is a different ball game.
Sub Elite Marathoner wrote:
Loser spotted wrote:
You’re a hobby jogger, fool. Get back to us when you are sponsored and get paid to run. With your times, you should seriously consider taking your hobby jogger a$$ into ultra’s. Lose some weight, hobby jogger.
Elite = sponsored/paid to run, I said sub-elite, rere. I get comped entry in most races other that WMMs. And in a year or two, I'll be in those as an elite too. Bet I could dust your turkey trotting a$$. Enjoy your age award, scrub.
Hahahaha! I'm 176 and can run faster than you. How does it feel to be overtaken by a fattie?
Keep on playing with your weight, hobby jogger. Us REAL sub elite marathoners know that it's only hobby joggers who obsess about their weight! The real runners are obsessing about their training, and letting the weight do its thing with big mileage weeks while eating mostly a healthy carb rich diet.
But go on, keep on obsessing hobby jogger, and send us an update on your inevitable stress fracture or slumping form from diet fatigue. Hahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaha. Haha!
The inevitable question surfaces then: what I the line between sub elite and hobby jogger? Also, you anonymous claims of faster times aren't worth the paper they are written on. For all we know, you're a 200lb fattie trying to get a BQ.
Smoove wrote:
I'm confused a little by your post.
First, it seems hat you're suggesting a certain weight might be fine for a certain time (2:32), but if you want to faster you need to be lighter, and you seem to be basing that off of the fact that you've run faster on less mileage and were lighter when you did it.
That logic doesn't make a ton of sense to me because it boils marathon times down to a simple function of height, weight and mileage. That obviously doesn't make a ton of sense. Maybe you just have a naturally bigger engine than the other poster or your training plan was better or your course was faster or your weather was better or you are mentally stronger or you just had a great day.
Then you seem to agree with that poster that running miles and making good food choices will get you to the right weight, but then say that people aren't perfect in their diets so that approach won't work. Which implies then that there should be a concerted effort to specifically lose weight. While I don't think hat perfection is required or that a pound or two makes a difference, if you do think that, shouldn't the advice simply be to be very disciplined with your food choices during your training cycle?
The simple answer is that while as a general rule, all other things being equal, lighter is usually better, all other things aren't equal. We all have different frames, genetic predispositions, etc.
There is no universally "right weight."
All I'm doing is countering the simplistic logic that since he ran 2:32 by just running and not worrying about anything else, that's what everyone else should do.
I then go into my own personal experience - which is that I will eat like crap if I'm not explicitly dieting and that keeps me from running my best time. I think that's the case for a ton of runners. Of course we can't run our best times if we're eating like crap regardless of training and so we have to concentrate on eating well, which results in a lower weight.
So I don't really care what people want to call it, but "concentrating on your weight" or "concentrating on eating right" are the same thing to me and it's very important to running your best race.
And you should note that I used the phrase "your ideal racing weight" and not "the ideal racing weight". There are a ton of individual factors that go into it.
As to the question of whether a pound or two will affect your race time - all else being equal physics is on the side of "yes, it will"
Really fast runner... Trust me wrote:
The inevitable question surfaces then: what I the line between sub elite and hobby jogger? Also, you anonymous claims of faster times aren't worth the paper they are written on. For all we know, you're a 200lb fattie trying to get a BQ.
Well I'm not. Only a REAL sub elite marathoner would no not to go down the diet trap. Please. A BQ is child's play.
Also your rules apply equally to OP about his mythical 2:32 claim, which I doubt he's done. Because he probably faded to 3 hours in the final 8 miles from his dinners of eating a single pea. Hahahahahaha!
And to add, sorry that I come off sounding like a jerk. I really do appreciate your posts on this forum.