Wait, you can't get under 190 lbs without 'becoming anorexic'?
Lol. Sounds like Rosie O'Donnell logic.
Wait, you can't get under 190 lbs without 'becoming anorexic'?
Lol. Sounds like Rosie O'Donnell logic.
Weight does matter, obviously. Whether it is muscle mass or fat, you have to carry that weight with you when you run. If you could lose 30-40 pounds, it would help you to run faster. Make no mistake about it.
That said, if you want to look good (that is, not too skinny) and reaching an elite level is not your goal, you may as well keep your weight.
This is what I got from this:
1. I'm big
2. LetsRun can talk mad trash to one another
3. I'm a loser
4. I'm not serious about running, though 60 mpw and running 16 lows and a 2:41 marathon should be very exceptional times and I am going to go on a limb and say that puts me ahead of about 95% of y'all.
5. Runners can't serve two masters (lifting AND running)
6. Weight makes a difference
Yup, just about covers it.
BigBoy wrote:
This is what I got from this:
1. I'm big
2. LetsRun can talk mad trash to one another
3. I'm a loser
4. I'm not serious about running, though 60 mpw and running 16 lows and a 2:41 marathon should be very exceptional times and I am going to go on a limb and say that puts me ahead of about 95% of y'all.
5. Runners can't serve two masters (lifting AND running)
6. Weight makes a difference
Yup, just about covers it.
I can't speak to the accuracy of all of your points other than number 2 is right, from all your posts number 3 sounds very accurate and number 6 is correct.
You detract from your point (which may be your plan) with your ten cent words. Speak plainly.
"severe dieting" and you can only get down to 197ish from 200you haven't really tried, come on!your obviously aren't changing:- the workload- pace/intensity- your diet!-stop lifting (if you are)your body found a stasis and you aren't working to break it. or you don't know what 'severely' means. it'll take a few weeks to reduce calories and adapt to it, but running so much should burn more calories especially if you carry "a ton of muscle"i'm not saying it's easy in practice, but it's a math game. more miles or intensity, less calories, etcskip a few meals or get food poisoning and you'll be ahead of the curve and understand what you need to do (don't actually do this)sorry to jump on you, but your post sounds so ridiculous. i could get you to lose 10 real pounds in 3 weeks
ralff wrote:
It does matter. Those are very impressive times for that weight, but they would be faster if you were lighter.
I am 6'3" and 200 pounds, even after running 80-100 mpw year-round. My weight stays very stable during breaks and times of less running. I carry a ton of muscle and have lost a pound or two a year over the past 4 years.
I have run in the 2:45 range for the marathon, but I am not sure I can push much further at my current weight. Even with severe dieting, I only get down to 197ish.
I have terrible running genetics, but I still think it's fun to keep pushing.
His 10 cent words are better than your 2 cents of advice. As far as I have seen, you really haven't done anything except troll.
This post was removed.
As it relates to T&F, in events 400m and longer, the heavier one is the greater need for 200m speed.
1976 Olympics, A. Juantorena does not win 800m gold at his size without superior 200m speed. 1976 Olympics, John Walker does not win Olympic gold without being a sub-1:45 800m man at his size.
Thank you for sharing Patrick Cutter with me. I struggle with feeling like I belong in running being a bigger runner than other guys around me. This really helped.