youre a fat tub of lard that should lose some weight
youre a fat tub of lard that should lose some weight
Stoppit Smith wrote:
By the time I said I was 5'8" 180#, none of the other factors would matter because weight would be the focus.
Folks are going to focus on the best bang for the buck and ROI given the facts. If you said 5'8 180#s and only run 10mpw then the first response would be you need to run more. I'm 5'8 and 150 and I can stand to lose 5-10#s to get to ideal racing weight.
there are many, many factors that go into performance level, of which weight is one, and an important one at that.
Simply put, if Cheptegei weighed 2 or 3 lbs more than he actually did last week, he wouldn't have the WR. That clear enough for you?
So you have been running about the same time for the last 25 years. You don't have the talent to run even close to a 15 minute 5K, so just stop talking like you are the next Michael Wardian, Ryan Hall or Nick Symmonds. Weight is just one factor.
You lost me at, meh.... I hate that phrase!
Stoppit Smith wrote:
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 trained better. You were MUCH fitter at 41. If you went in and got lab tested you would have some combination of higher VO2 and higher fractional utilization at various levels of lactate.
Weight is a very linear correlation with race time, especially as you start to go past the mile in distance. Take the same fitness and lose 10% of your weight and you run 10% faster. This happens to basically every runner, and cyclist (for uphills).
If you lose weight and run slower....either you dropped to such a low weight for you that you're now too skinny and lost fitness as a result, or you dropped weight so fast or with such a poor diet that your training and or muscle was compromised which in turn compromised your fitness.
In your case, unless you're at least 6'2" or more, you were simply less fit at 22 than at 41, either because your training was poor, your diet sucked, your life stress/sleep/recovery was off, or some combination of all.
nikea wrote:
You might be stronger with the added weight. I surmise your ideal weight for running a 5k is probably 160.
At 5'8"?
No. That's almost overweight on BMI. Nobody runs an optimal 5k at that weight.
If he does labor or gym stuff, he could still be a very lean 175 or 180, and if he loses weight down to 160 run slower because large weight loss starting at 8% or 10% body fat is still going to be very taxing even if you're a more muscle bound individual.
That does not change the fact he would likely run his fastest 5k somewhere between 125 and 145. Yes, this would involve losing excess muscle in a controlled manner, which generally involves very slow dieting and cutting back on the gym, and isnt a route most would want to go....but we are talking optimizing for top end performance, not optimal health or aesthetics.
All I got out of this is that you weigh significantly more than me even though you're 3 inches shorter and you're much, much slower than I am. I think weight is a factor.
The OP makes no sense and his standards are way, way off. Olympic A standards are roughly 13:20 (4:17/M)/27:30 (4:25/M), which would be equivalent to about 22:00 for 8k and mid 17 for 4M. If you're 60 seconds off at 5000m (14:20), then you should be running something like 19:00 4M and maybe high 23, low 24:00 8k.
As for weight, it is one among many factors. But it is not inconsiderable, because that indicates what you have to move against gravity for thousands of steps per race. All kinds of injuries are linked to being overweight. Getting in top shape will usually organically lead to losing weight, because you will be training enough to get your metabolism faster, etc. But when you're talking about a few pounds here and there for athletes training already at the desirable max for their talent and experience, it should not be over-prioritized. Indeed, focusing on weight is unhealthy. Focus on eating well, sleeping a lot, and training hard, and the weight should work itself out and never be an issue. Losing weight just for its own sake when you're training a lot already is likely to prove counterproductive. But if you're 20-40 lbs overweight, that's a different story. You're not coming close to maximizing.
I love that you honestly think your singular personal anecdote, full of unknowns, should outweigh science and collective experiences.
Simple answer is that weight is not really that big of a factor when you are trying to run a 19-20 min 5k. You cannot extrapolate from that to an elite or sub-elite runner or even a quality HS runner. 19-20 min just indicates that you run regularly and do some workouts every week. If you go to your local 5k, you will see all different shapes and sizes of runners finishing between 19 and 21 min. If you run a 5k at 19:30 when you are 180 and then run 20 min when you are much lighter, you were obviously not in the same physical condition. I was a string bean when I went to college. I just had my wisdom teeth out and weighed under 120. I was hardly running consistently and could not run a 5k in under 22 min to save my life. Fifteen years later, I started training consistently and got in shape. I was running 17-18 min 5ks at 135-140 lbs.
The fastest and easiest way to get faster is losing body fat, down to about 6% of your body mass.
You can be bulky, muscular, if you want, but excess body fat is just slowing you down.
What a stupid question. Of course weight matters. Of course it isn't the only thing that matters.
What a dumb post.
So,based on my original question, I can glean from this that you don't know the factors and attribute it to weight.
So, the reality at 22 is I was in my Senior year of college and playing 2-3 hours of basketball each afternoon with a very competitive group of people each day (a few were on the college team who were playing pick up ball during the Spring).
My fitness level was pretty similar, if not somewhat better than mine was in 2015 when I ran a sub 20.
The mere fact that you can pick apart my assumed fitness at 22 as if i was a slob at 144 and then call me fitter at 41, while 37 pounds heavier, shows that many of you don't truly understand body morphology, nor do you understand body mechanics.
Without knowing how someone is constructed, you become like Don Quixote dancing the Tarantella trying to convince someone that it's exclusively weight based on the limitations you have on the subject or even the limits of your coaches.
You seem to think that you've earned some royalty because you were running sub 15s that you can judge fitness and fatness. Yet here we sit on the same chat board, neither of us with an A standard or a medal.
So. I guess the simple answer is that you don't know. The more complex answer is that many of you are conditioned to a look or a dimension.
But you don't have the victories to be entitled to use it as a weapon.
So yes. It's that you don't know.
What is your point? There is 50 years of data and science that has proven that less weight makes you faster at long distance running. Any child could tell you this. Some people responding to you may be coaches who have never run. I don't understand why you are latching onto good runners that are not great. Are you telling a 14 minute guy that he should gain 20 pounds to hit the Olympic standard? You sound like a college dropout who is high on something.
At 22 I ran all the time and was a really good runner, but I sucked at basketball (weird, right). Then I played basketball every day for twenty years and now I'm pretty good at basketball even though I gained a few pounds.
brishen wrote:
I love that you honestly think your singular personal anecdote, full of unknowns, should outweigh science and collective experiences.
+1
Stoppit Smith wrote:
You seem to think that you've earned some royalty because you were running sub 15s that you can judge fitness and fatness. Yet here we sit on the same chat board, neither of us with an A standard or a medal.
Every one of your threads ends up with you saying 'You don't know better than me just because you're fast and I'm slow'
Either that or 'Men should be allowed to compete in women's races if they want to'
You've already decided how you want the thread to go before anyone has even replied. The whole point of your posting is to end up playing the victim.
Brittle Master 1958 wrote:
brishen wrote:
I love that you honestly think your singular personal anecdote, full of unknowns, should outweigh science and collective experiences.
+1
'Murica!
Stoppit Smith wrote:
So,based on my original question, I can glean from this that you don't know the factors and attribute it to weight.
So, the reality at 22 is I was in my Senior year of college and playing 2-3 hours of basketball each afternoon with a very competitive group of people each day (a few were on the college team who were playing pick up ball during the Spring).
My fitness level was pretty similar, if not somewhat better than mine was in 2015 when I ran a sub 20.
The mere fact that you can pick apart my assumed fitness at 22 as if i was a slob at 144 and then call me fitter at 41, while 37 pounds heavier, shows that many of you don't truly understand body morphology, nor do you understand body mechanics.
Without knowing how someone is constructed, you become like Don Quixote dancing the Tarantella trying to convince someone that it's exclusively weight based on the limitations you have on the subject or even the limits of your coaches.
You seem to think that you've earned some royalty because you were running sub 15s that you can judge fitness and fatness. Yet here we sit on the same chat board, neither of us with an A standard or a medal.
So. I guess the simple answer is that you don't know. The more complex answer is that many of you are conditioned to a look or a dimension.
But you don't have the victories to be entitled to use it as a weapon.
So yes. It's that you don't know.
OP is a mediocre competttive runner even in his age group and refuses to believe that being overweight is part of the problem. He comes on here periodically with the same stuff.
Shut it, fatty.