What would be an ideal weight for me? I would consider my build (bone structure) to be, midsize shoulders,neither wide nor small. My legs and butt tend to be a little on the thick side for a runner.Fairly skinny up top chest arms.
120lb
130lb
140lb
150lb
139-140 for a distance runner but depends on your event and your build.
225
manly man wrote:
225
i like big men. what's your phone number? ;)
Wow, talk about pinpoint accuracy, that's quite a range for him: 139-140. Haha, my vote would be for whatever weight you can run the fastest (yes, event does matter), but I also like the 225 vote one too. Close call.
I was 150-155 as a Junior/Senior & was 5'11"ish at the time. I was probably a bit more muscular than other runners, but felt like I was still very lean.
answer... whatever you feel the best at.
Paul Tergat is 5'11" and weighs about 132-135.
Of course, Paul Tergat can also maintain a 4:46 pace for 26.2 miles (2:04:55), a sub-4:00 mile pace for 3,000 meters (7:28.70), a 4:15 mile pace for 10,000m (26:27.85) and more closely resembles a starving Biaffran than a well nourished human being, but hey, it's something to shoot for.
yeah well Culpepper(yeah spelling but i dont care)..is like 6'2"...and 131lb...
..to bad he cant run as fast as Clayton who was about that height and 25lb heavier...
just run....it would be a really really dumb idea try and alter your weight in responce to a post on these boards..
a REALLY REALLY REALLY dumb idea.
Actually, you were spot-on accurate with your spelling of Culpepper. Well done. A+.
Sam F wrote:
yeah well Culpepper(yeah spelling but i dont care)..is like 6'2"...and 131lb...
..to bad he cant run as fast as Clayton who was about that height and 25lb heavier...
just run....it would be a really really dumb idea try and alter your weight in responce to a post on these boards..
a REALLY REALLY REALLY dumb idea.
Actually ran a hell of a lot faster at 5k and 10k many times over. Clayton's 2:08 and 2:09 were hotly debated as to their accuracy.
Is "responce" a word in England or something?
darkness wrote:
Actually ran a hell of a lot faster at 5k and 10k many times over. Clayton's 2:08 and 2:09 were hotly debated as to their accuracy.
Really? Although I know there was controversey about Clayton's 2:08, I've never heard the claim that his 2:09 at Fukuoka in 1967 was short. I can believe that people were amazed by that performance--when Clayton ran 2:09, no one had even broken 2:12 yet, let alone 2:11 and 2:10.
130-150, but you sound like you have a better build for a cyclist/duathlete.
Dunes runner:This is weight for a distance runner 1600m/3200m/5000m medium build h.s. runner 18 years old.
My thought were in the 138-145 pound range.
How much would being 5lbs take off my 3200m time. I remember in Chris Lears Running With The Buffalos that Wetmore was concerned with Gouchers weight.Goucher strayed from lifting because it put on too much bulk.
English teacher wrote:
Actually, you were spot-on accurate with your spelling of Culpepper. Well done. A+.
I am guessing you failed to read the rest of the thread...lol
anyway..whether the course was short or not(it was measured like 3 times so i find that unlikly)..Clayton is a good example of a runner that, when compared with other elites is rather large.
as to his 5k and 10k times...who cares....he was a so-so mid distance runner....that decided his best bet was the Marathon. And he pretty much took an all or nothing approach to training9he would only train for 10wks, because at the level he was training, that was about as long as he could go)...quite different from Culpepper from my understanding.
anyway you are halfway over the rainbow...if you think that you should alter your weight...due to any post on these boards....really, these boards are far more useful for comic relief..than anything else.