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?
I'm sure it's not accurate across the board, but it was basically true for me. I'm 5'7" and did my best running at 132-136 pounds. I got down to 129 lbs. during that same period and just couldn't maintain the weight.
Mass/weight varies as the cube of height. The 2 x inches thing is just a coincidence.
A better guide--one that I read about years ago--says start at five feet and 100 pounds for women, 110 for men. Then add five pounds per inch for women and 5.5 lbs/in for men. This gives you "average" weight; the runner should be at least 10% below that. Example: a 5-10 male would, on average, weigh 110 + (10 x 5.5) = 110 + 55 = 165lb.; 90% of that is 150 (*still* pretty chunky in our sport).
Even though that's "better," it's still (partly) linear and still not a big help. Different weights and bodyfat %ages work for different people.
Was wondering about this from a chicken and egg perspective...
are lighter runners faster (because they weigh less)?
or are faster runners lighter (because they run better/faster/more)?
Nature vs. Nurture if you will.
Runner starves themselves in order to get down to some mythical optimal weight and in the process gets hurt or runs even slower.
The muscles produce force to make you run.
If you're training hard and long enough you really shouldn't have to worry about weight.
Pre was like 5'9 and 150-60 as was Herb Lindsey.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
Runner starves themselves in order to get down to some mythical optimal weight and in the process gets hurt or runs even slower.
The muscles produce force to make you run.
If you're training hard and long enough you really shouldn't have to worry about weight.
Pre was like 5'9 and 150-60 as was Herb Lindsey.
Alan
Yeah, Alan is right.
Take me, for example: I ran just under 3 hrs for a marathon at 175 pounds (5'10); after reading about the whole 2lbs/inch guideline and thinking that I could try pearing myself down, I dropped weight down to ranging between 145-150 over the course of about eight months.
Long story short, I'm running slower now than I was then. I'm of a pretty thick build for a runner (used to weigh 250 in high school), and I'm literally at the point where I run a half marathon at a slower pace than my last marathon. I'm currently trying to get back to a more sustainable and healthier weight.
A few cases of great milers to consider -- all have weights beyond the conventional "double your height in inches" rule:
Peter Snell; 5 ft, 10 in (70 in)... weight 176. Jim Ryun; 6 ft, 2 in (74 in)... weight 168. Herb Elliott; 5 ft, 11 in (71 in)... weight 150. I think Ryun was even leaner when he was in high school.
All three have a weight considerably over their height in inches doubled. I concluded years ago that the rule tends to apply better to long distance runners. Most milers (or half-milers) seem to require the extra bit of body weight due to the additional power that the mile demands over longer distances. One more to make my point: Nick Symmonds is 5 ft, 10 in with a weight of 165.
I'm 6'2" which is 74 inches. I'd be a walking skeleton if I was 148. My optimal racing weight was 165-170.
So, no it doesn't work.
So Jack Bacheler should have been 20 lbs lighter?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/34/d8/52/34d8526dc9d732e9191643f29b24d034.png
At 5'-9" my best running has always been at 143#. I have tried to get to 138 in the past, but my body began falling apart and I couldn't hold it. My doctor for many years was an avid cyclist and verrrrry thin and when I told him that I wanted to be as thin he said it was not advisable since our builds were so different. So I stay at 2.07 even at 67 yo. Whatever you are comfortable with is where you should be.
I like old threads and I cannot lie wrote:
So Jack Bacheler should have been 20 lbs lighter?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/34/d8/52/34d8526dc9d732e9191643f29b24d034.png
Darn, I never knew Jarod Word had been around for so long.
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 agree it’s a good rule of thumb for the average dedicated runner. Spot on for me as a matter of fact. No way this is optimal for the average elite runner
Betting you didn't break 13 minutes in the 5k either. You don't realize that 165-170 is too heavy for your best times.
For those more familiar with cm and kg (Europe) a good height to weight ratio should be 'at least 10 below the last two numbers of your height in cm.'
Example, a runner with elite goal times who is 170cm, should be around 60kg or less. 50-52 would probably confer better results.
Many of the very top elites are around "20 below their height in cm"
examples -Tergat, 1.82/60kg, Bouabdellah Tahri, 1.90/68kg.
Average elite Japanese marathoners (sub.2:13) around 1.68/52kg.
Ghost in China
People run better if they are not malnourished. Me personally I run better at 65 kilograms than at 55-60 kilograms(my height is 1.7 meters). When I try to get my weight down to the 55-60 kilogram range I get injured and underperform. You don't run that fast if you can't run due to injury. It's better to be a bit bigger than to be a bit too light. The main thing is to make sure you are eating enough quality animal sources of fat and protein.
I find it interesting how Sarah Hall almost never weighs herself.
Quote:
Because she doesn’t count calories or attach certain rules to her diet, Hall said she is able to recognize what her body needs to continue training on a high level. She’s weighed herself maybe eight times this whole year, she said.
“[The scale] doesn’t tell me anything because I’m not trying to be a certain weight,” she said. “I focus on my energy levels and figure when I’m fueling well and not eating a lot of junk, my body finds where it needs to be.”
Which my basic philosophy on weight and running is just eat healthy and train. Genetically speaking some are destined to weigh more and others are destined to weigh less. And to try to artificially lower your weight due to some arbitrary number on the scale or some formula will result in bad outcomes.
I think a better formula would be height in meters times weight in kilograms. A 6' 6" man should weigh 4.4 lbs. At that ratio, he could run a sub 2 thon in trainers.
I think the formula here works pretty well . . .
