4:43 at 5’11 193 pounds.

I, for one, am fairly impressed.

I am 6’2”, 190 and feel like a Sasquatch running around. I don’t buy into the x seconds per mile per pound as a straightforward calculation but you should definitely see some drop in time as you lose weight. Plus, you should see lower risk of injury. Ok... I will cease being captain obvious now.

It’s good! Well done, big fella.

I ran 4:37 at age 14 at 5'11" and 185 pounds. I gradually started losing weight after that and ran 4:15 at age 19.

Weight loss seems somewhat secondary in this example.

Maybe 4:30 if you could drop down to about 150 and train like a miler with a lot of intervals and speed work. Not sure of your frame size so maybe 150 isn't reasonable.

Anyway, your time of 4:43 is pretty good all things considered.

highhoppingworm wrote:

I, for one, am fairly impressed.

I am 6’2”, 190 and feel like a Sasquatch running around. I don’t buy into the x seconds per mile per pound as a straightforward calculation but you should definitely see some drop in time as you lose weight. Plus, you should see lower risk of injury. Ok... I will cease being captain obvious now.

The x seconds per mile of course is an approximation. It fits fairly closely for longer distances and when a fair bit overweight. For shorter distances, the weight penalty decreases. If you're already close to ideal weight, losing a few pounds will make very little difference.

For the mile at his size, losing weight alone won't do that much, losing 30 pounds will probably get him 5 or 6 seconds in the mile, and nothing in the 400m (as an example). But it might help him 10 seconds a mile for the 5k, and 15 seconds a mile for the 10k and up.

When I was doing the dec, I ran about 4:45 at 6'1 200#. But a 5k I would more like 20 minutes, because the weight penalty was greater there. When I was a distance runner, I was more like 4:20 and 15:30.