Addressing Letsrun and their take on weight

well, knowing wtf you’re doing when training trumps weight but 2 people at the same fitness, one 20lbs less, will smoke the other like a 5 alarm fire. lighter = faster....duuhhh!

Fine. But

How did i run 29 seconds slower at age 22 and at 144 than I did at age 41 and at 181????

That doesn't add up

You might be stronger with the added weight. I surmise your ideal weight for running a 5k is probably 160.

Maybe you are fitter, and now at 41 you could run even faster on lower weight.

It is not a general obesity /lifestyle weight criticism, just simple power to weight physics...lighter equals faster.

I was happily around 60kg and 1.65m weight wise, but I was fastest when 53.5kg

You were not as fit , physically or mentally, when you were at 22, as you are now. Perhaps you were making serious training errors. I know you will deny it , so don't bother.

weight is only one component of your overall physical make up.

achieving the right combination of speed, endurace, strength and power will require a different ideal weight/phyique for every individual.

Well I know that when I lose the excess, I go faster and for longer. I do it sensibly. I gain weight slowly and lose it slowly. This is running and that's how it goes. There are lots of psychological issues around this subject which can involve bullying and eating disorders etc, but if you are in control of your own emotions, you are in a better place to deal with these issues.

Is this david45’s new alt?

click click click wrote:

Is this david45’s new alt?

No, it's a dick who has been around for years.

Weight makes a huge difference. The problem is a lot of people are sensitive and think if you mention weight that equates to eating disorders. Dont compare yourself times from 20 years ago, do a time trial, then lose 10 pounds and do another one while keeping your training similar and see what happens

Rojo a thread laying down some ground rules around discussing weight respectfully and constructively years ago.

By and large, most (albeit not all) posters are sensible about this topic. In general, if two runners are equal across all parameters but one is lighter then the lighter one wins. Most posters will also acknowledge that optimal bmi for distance running is not optimal bmi for health and wellness more generally. Most posters are quite careful when giving advice about nutrition.

Remember, there are a lot of present and former high level runners here. A large proportion will have running acquaintances who've suffered with anything ranging from minor deficiencies in key nutrients all the way to psychiatric treatment for eating disorders. We are all well aware of what can happen if we get this conversation wrong.

Thanks for the reminder that we need to be tactful in discussing this topic. However, it's an important topic for us to discuss. It's not a conversation to be shut down or something to use to attempt to provoke a response from other posters.

I am 41 and about 20 pounds heavier than when I ran D1. I still run decent mileage in the 60-70 mpw zone, but now also lift and sit at a computer all day long. In college I was more of a 85-100 mpw runner. For a sense of where I am, I was about 140 in college at 5'10", so naturally about 160 now.

I had a knee issue a couple of years ago, and following an MRI, it was determined that my knee was fine structurally. I was Rxed some PT and went to see a sports-focused therapist who worked with me for about 6 weeks. At one point he said, "you know... you are 20 pounds heavier than you were in college, and you are 20 years older. At some point, these things are just going to make your body react differently to the stress of running." It made total sense to me. Reducing weight is not only going to help with speed, but also injuries. You just need to make sure that you're not too unhealthy.

This shouldn't be a taboo subject to discuss, and we should have more MD and PhD runners weighing in (no pun intended) with helpful advice. What is unacceptable is people making comments about so-and-so being a fat hog or otherwise. Let's keep it constructive.

At no point during that rambling post did you even come close to making a coherent response.

We are all dumber for now having read that may God have mercy on your soul.

But seriously, this has to be the worse argument I've ever read. Over distance, extra weight means extra energy spent. This is huge in endurance events. There is a point where if you're below a healthy weight it hurts but it definitely helps to be very skinny. The world-class runners are all very slight.

I'll take the knowledge I've obtained from my coaches which include Olympians and World Champs qualifiers, and my 17 years in the sport over your alleged experience which only outlines weights and times with no mention of training or any other factors.

It's such basic common sense that to question whether weight affects a foot race is ridiculous on it's face.

It's part of being good at distance running just like being tall is part of being good at basketball, and being big is part of football etc..

And you can do that. I'm sure you were trained very well.

However, you pretty much encapsulated my whole argument in the last sentence.

By the time I said I was 5'8" 180#, none of the other factors would matter because weight would be the focus.

And if my argument is so bad, why, after over 34 years of impact sports (tennis, basketball, xc, track and road racing, have I not had a ligament, tendon, meniscus, cartilage, joint, nerve, muscle or bone issue with either of my legs when, from 1997 to the present, I have ranged from 172-185 on my same body frame.

There has to be a case for body morphism (ecto, meso and endo) that's not entirely being fleshed out by some of your coaches.

The argument isn't that dumb. At all.

Are you David45's dad? You both seem to have a knack for being whiny clowns

I'm just saying I have no idea what your argument is. That weight is not a contributing factor or not the main factor. If you want to say that a 14:30 guy who is 5 lbs over ideal running weight is not going to hit the Olympic standard by getting down to ideal weight alone, sure I'll agree with that. But I could easily see it helping them cut 15 or more seconds off their 5K PR.

Obviously weight is not the only thing. Talent is the biggest decider. There a ton of people out there who I can smoke no matter what condition they are in if I'm coming off an injury, haven't run for months, and am 15lbs over my race weight. I've also seen guys who screw around then train hard for a few months and run 13:40 that can beat me when I'm in peak condition. At a certain point, your talent level is a ceiling you cannot breakthrough.

But someone who is training will run faster at their ideal weight. And they will be healthier. I'm not buying your argument about you not getting injured at 5'8" 180#. If you were doing the type of training to qualify for NCAA's or and OT's you'd be injured instantly at that weight. As someone whose done a lot of 120-mile weeks I can say extra weight is not going to be your friend when you're body is doing that much pounding. F=MA is a pretty sound concept and putting more F on your bones, muscles, tendons, and joints than is necessary is not helpful.

Unless you trying to make a living in this sport. Or a few seconds may make the difference between the Olympics or not. Don't worry too much about weight once you reach a weight you feel healthy and are happy at.