Corrected post:
That is fine. And in perspective, are your times really that much more stellar to feel entitled to judge people's bodies at all?
Running is not a beauty contest.
It never was
Corrected post:
That is fine. And in perspective, are your times really that much more stellar to feel entitled to judge people's bodies at all?
Running is not a beauty contest.
It never was
All money that funds health care comes from a pool from which you don't determine its ending channel.It's still really nobody's business and especially not regarding running and runners.It's still a no
Lurker wrote:
[quote]Stoppit Jones wrote:
In addition, honestly, weight really should be a private thing.
[quote]
I think this argument held more water before we had partially communally funded health care.
There you go back to the relativism argument again. You really are all over the place.
I also ran a 1:41:10 at the difficult La Jolla Half in 2016 with a weight of 172 which is still a BMI of about 27 for my 5'8" height.When I run, I feel good. I don't worry about my weight as I run.Nor should others
gregmacd wrote:
I meant to say:
I've found in my own training that when my BMI is less than 25 (the upper end of normal), I can run a marathon in less than 3:15. However, when my BMI is greater than 26.5 (overweight), I've run 3:40 or slower.
That is because reducing running to something as seemingly simple as weight yields the confusion that cannot be relegated to one meaning, clause or declaration. That I am all over the place shows that there are some people who do not fit the mold about thinking, reasoning or explanation.Magically and similarly, there are some people who do not fit the mold about weight.I think you traipsed yourself into my argument side and for that, I wholeheartedly thank you:)
Smoove wrote:
There you go back to the relativism argument again. You really are all over the place.
That is the very thinking that allows politicians on both sides of the aisle think that the state and federal coffers are to be used as they see fit. That is simply wrong. We, collectively, have a say in how the limited resources that we collectively decide to pool (via legislation passed by our representatives) should be spent. If I am going to be asked to pay $50,000-$60,000 a year in income taxes and am being asked to pay that amount so that I can fund my degenerate brother's health insurance, I think that I have a legitimate basis for suggesting that we, as a society, have a valid interest in identifying and pointing out unhealthy trends in our communal health. 2 out of three adults in our nation are overweight. 1 out of 3 is obese. Even for kids, those numbers are 1 in 3 and 1 in 6, respectively. If you don't think that this is a public health crisis and, accordingly, a valid topic of public concern, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Stoppit Jones wrote:
All money that funds health care comes from a pool from which you don't determine its ending channel.
[/quote]
No person who is doing the same running and training (regardless of distance) on the same pavement as anyone else or who is racing (regardless of time) is any part of any of this problem.
Lurker wrote:
That is the very thinking that allows politicians on both sides of the aisle think that the state and federal coffers are to be used as they see fit. That is simply wrong.
We, collectively, have a say in how the limited resources that we collectively decide to pool (via legislation passed by our representatives) should be spent. If I am going to be asked to pay $50,000-$60,000 a year in income taxes and am being asked to pay that amount so that I can fund my degenerate brother's health insurance, I think that I have a legitimate basis for suggesting that we, as a society, have a valid interest in identifying and pointing out unhealthy trends in our communal health.
2 out of three adults in our nation are overweight. 1 out of 3 is obese. Even for kids, those numbers are 1 in 3 and 1 in 6, respectively. If you don't think that this is a public health crisis and, accordingly, a valid topic of public concern, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Stoppit Jones wrote:All money that funds health care comes from a pool from which you don't determine its ending channel.
I am not really sure that you have an argument.
Sometimes it is that running is an activity that is inherently satisfying and we shouldn't compare ourselves to others. Other times your argument is that we are so far behind the elites that our absolute performances are irrelevant. Sometimes it seems to be that your argument is that weight is not a factor in performance. Sometimes it seems to be that we should not worry about our weight and other times it seems to be that we should worry about our weight, but just not other people's weight.
All of it seems to be supported by some notion that some runners are being ostracized - ostracized - for their weight, although I cannot recall any recent instances of that actually happening in my world. If you are going to cite these boards as evidence, then I suggest that you need to get out more - an anonymous internet forum is in no way representative of the real world.
Stoppit Jones wrote:
I also ran a 1:41:10 at the difficult La Jolla Half in 2016 with a weight of 172 which is still a BMI of about 27 for my 5'8" height.
When I run, I feel good.
I don't worry about my weight as I run.
Nor should others
gregmacd wrote:I meant to say:
I've found in my own training that when my BMI is less than 25 (the upper end of normal), I can run a marathon in less than 3:15. However, when my BMI is greater than 26.5 (overweight), I've run 3:40 or slower.
Yea I don't know what this thread is about. If your goal is to get faster and lower your time at long distance events, then it would be prudent to concern yourself with your weight and see what you can do to decrease it while keeping your training unaffected - because weight it a proven performance factor in long distance running.
However, if you're content with how fast your running and it means more to you than just performance, then I guess try not to be too sensitive to other people's unsolicited advice/judgement.
Stoppit Smith wrote:
There only real problem is that it happens constantly, right here, on this website.
former tubbo wrote:There are a few different issues here. One is wether losing weight will make you faster. For most of us, it will.
Whether it is okay for a runner go criticize another runner's weight is a different issue. No, that's not ok, but I can't say I've ever actually observed this happening. I myself got fat for a few years after I stopped running competitively, and no runner ever said an unkind word to me about it.
Also, "you would be faster if you lost weight" is not the same statement as "you should lose weight so that you will be faster." I see nothing wrong with the former statement. It's just a statement of fact that holds true for most people who aren't professional runners (myself included). But whether I actually want to lose the weight to become faster is just a matter of my own preferences, and it really isn't anyone else's place to tell me whether I should or should not do so.
Find me one example of this happening on the site.
Exactly, so then maybe we stop making negative weight comments altogether on this site!Now you get it!Could not have said it better, except, maybe, the original postThank you
Smoove wrote:
I am not really sure that you have an argument.
Sometimes it is that running is an activity that is inherently satisfying and we shouldn't compare ourselves to others. Other times your argument is that we are so far behind the elites that our absolute performances are irrelevant. Sometimes it seems to be that your argument is that weight is not a factor in performance. Sometimes it seems to be that we should not worry about our weight and other times it seems to be that we should worry about our weight, but just not other people's weight.
All of it seems to be supported by some notion that some runners are being ostracized - ostracized - for their weight, although I cannot recall any recent instances of that actually happening in my world. If you are going to cite these boards as evidence, then I suggest that you need to get out more - an anonymous internet forum is in no way representative of the real world.
What about the fact that being overweight is directly correlated to many health problems.
I'll take being thin and fast any day.
Overweight to whom?Again, should this not be between the individual and maybe a trainer or health professional and not for other runners to decide?At what point does any runner truly get the jurisdiction to judge a body size or even a weight?What qualified you?
Harambe wrote:
What about the fact that being overweight is directly correlated to many health problems.
I'll take being thin and fast any day.
Stoppit Smith wrote:
Okay, letsrunners:
After reading threads here for years, it occurs to me that there is so much of an emphasis on weight for runners. If someone did not have a complex about being over or underweight, they can certainly learn how to have one here.
Let us start by saying that I can and will never look like Eliud Kipchoge, Dejen Gebremeskel, Meb Keflezighi or Dathan, Galen, Ryan or Alan. These are runners that I will always respect for their abilities.
However, I know that there are a lot of runners like me who likely drift several pounds upward or back down in a year. Within both men and women, there are people who are not going to be built what people consider perfect for running, yet we are out there giving it our all. People say weight makes a difference, but how much difference does it really make. Let's look...
in 1991-92 in high school--I ran one year of cross-country and one year of track in my senior year after playing football other years. Cross-country season I was about 155 pounds and track season about 145. My best times were
5k 22:02
5k street 19:56
2 mile 12:09
1 mile 5:33
in college I found it hard to fit there and negotiating a busy schedule and all, by the middle of my freshman year I was close to 184. In my sophomore year, I went up to my highest weight of 194. But I learned how to play basketball and worked my weight down again. By senior year I was back around the 148-150 range..and ran a 20:04 on a recreational 5K cross country race.
Flash forward to now. For the last 16-17 years, my weight is within a typical range of 168-183, with a median of about 172. At 43 years old, this should make me slower, right?
Not exactly.
For the last several years, I have been running and training and racing and I now have personal bests of
19:35 5K street (2015)
33:52 8K cross-country (2016)
43:04 10K street (2016)
1:41:10 half marathon (2016)
and I do this with a waist of about 34-35 inches and 39-40 inch hips, which would be considered big by many for a runner. I have never had a knee, ankle or any other injury and I can successfully mid-foot strike in shoes that weigh 8.3 ounces without crushing them.
My point?
Do not sweat your weight because your weight does not define you. I feel that I fit in as a runner no matter what anyone says.
After yesterday's 2.5 mile run on a local track after work in 18 minutes, I feel that I am still faster and can get there even if I am not what one would paint as a typical runner.
I think it's time we made a contract with ourselves..
Dear Self,
I am a runner. I am a good runner. I like the way it feels when I run and I like the way I feel after I have completed a good run. If I do not feel too fat or too skinny during my run, then I will not let anyone put that thought in my head before or after the run. I do this for me. I am the perfect weight, height, build, for me at this time. I do this world, this workout and my goals for me. I have earned it. Sincerely _____________
This needed to be said.
Mike
Hmm. Someone is butt hurt because a faster runner called him fat and slow
This isn't a good argument because human running performance is more like a curve than a linear thing there 50 seconds of difference is the same anywhere among the bell curve. Yes a 16 minute 5k is x amount behind a 14 but that doesn't mean the difference is absolutely the same between the 16 min guy and the 18. A 14 guy might be 99.9% while the 16 is 99% on the outlier part of the bell curve. Two minutes later and 18 minutes is only 75th percentile (making up numbers) and solidly in the beginning of the fat part of the curve. So this time differential argument is silly. That's like saying well that guy got a 1600 on his SATs and at 1400 mean semi smart guy Joe thinks he's so much smarter than me cause I got a 1200 but he shouldn't think that cause someone else got 200 points more than him. News flash is Joe is smarter and faster than you by a lot more than 1600 Kenyan genius is.
...Is smarte/after r than mean guy Joe (joe being the 16 minute guy - 1400 sat - let's run poster bad guy in Stoppit's argument .)
Fat people should be told to lose weight. If you are 200+ pounds you are fat and living an unhealthy lifestyle regardless of habits. Over 200 pounds is a high risk of obesity at any age. I race at 135 that is a healthy weight.
Stoppit Jones wrote:
Exactly, so then maybe we stop making negative weight comments altogether on this site!
Now you get it!
Could not have said it better, except, maybe, the original post
Thank you
Who is we? What is a negative weight comment, and who decides? Why are you so obsessed with weight?
If you don't like something, don't do it. You are not a moral authority on this site, so stopit.
I don't know why I'm replying to this post. You would have a basis if your times were at least semi decent but they aren't so your post is invalid.
Quick example: dropped 16lbs in college one year. Went from a 16:40 to consistent 15:20's.
Yes, variables were involved with consistent training, increase in mileage, etc. but 16lbs makes a huge difference.
With that said, being 180+ is not a good example. You could argue a 150lb guy vs. a 120lb dude is very doable (I as the example) but sorry man you haven't got anyone's attention.
This thread has inspired me to lose 10 pounds.