This is question I've been wondering quite a while and I've heard many conflicting viewpoints and numbers. I've heard 2 seconds per pound/mile all the way to 5 seconds per pound/mile. In your experience, what do you think the correct number or equation is, or is it different for everyone? Also, would a pound of extra water weight affect you in the same way that having a pound of fat on you?
2 seconds a mile is what I had heard.
I'm not even going to bother with the "water weight" question.
I am 5' 10'' and I weigh 155.
I want to lose 10 pounds over the next two weeks to test this question.
I train about 80 miles a week, but would love to do more. I just don't have the time.
I eat very healthy foods, but i eat like an 80 mile a week runner.
I am going to drop 10 and answer the question in 2 weeks based on multiple time trial, tempo and long runs.
Hold me to it.
I was thinking that if I had a colonic to remove the 3-5 pounds of shit that gets backed up there I could improve my 5k by 6-15 seconds.
I knew a guy who was about 6' 204 lbs, at 24 - 26 years old he ran 32:15 10k!
The guy could roll. Looked like a freight train coming at you. He won the FT Worth Cowtown 10k plus 200 division back in '86.
I think his name was Peter Baird. I wonder what the record is for over 200?
I have read in several places on these forums that it's 1% per mile per pound lost. So if you lose 10 pounds thats 10% per mile. That seems like a lot. Just to make it easy, let's say you can run a 5 minute mile. Then you lose ten pounds. Supposedly you then can run .10x300=30 seconds faster. This equals a 4:30 mile. That seems like way too much improvement for dropping 10 pounds.
By the way, the poster who said he will lose 10 pounds in 2 weeks is asking for trouble. That's too much to lose in such a short time, you'll get too weak and it won't be a fair test.
Fastest way to run faster?
Cut off a leg!!!! Oh wait, you need that muscle down there dontcha?
Worry less about weight, more about fat %. Keep it under 10% and you're fine.
Alan
I don't really think it has so much to do with weight as opposed to how much of that muscle is working for you. I'm a decent sized runner, about 6'1" 158, compared to my other teammates i'm monstrous. I think it all has to do with the power all that muscle is putting out. I'll use myself as an example, i used to be against leg lifting seeing as it would make me bigger, this turned out to not be the case at all, it actually made me faster and i lost weight. I figured it basically had to do with the fact that the bulkiness of the muscle wasn't supplying as much power as i'd originally thought, now with a somewhat aggressive weight program and decent enough mileage(65) i've found i've gotten much faster and much stronger. i'd say work on making those muscles as strong as possible without getting larger, before trying a diet or anything else drastic
Newton's 2nd law: F = ma. If you decrease the mass, you will increase the acceleration, given a constant force. But, if you lose muscle, you will decrease the force. This really is a stupid question. If you lose fat, of course you will decrease your time. If you lose muscle, then eventually your engine will not move your load as fast. Skinnier is not better.
hey i'm like about 5'9" 140 lbs. is this bad? i run primarily the 800 and 1600 but the 32 also
The question assumes there is a linear relationship b/t the 2. Common sense says that this is not the case.
If you are heavy and untrained every pound off will come with a big increase in spead, as you get fitter and weigh less every pound off will probably have a smaller gain in time.
Runningart2004 wrote:
Worry less about weight, more about fat %. Keep it under 10% and you're fine.
Alan
I agree with you here. Some people naturally have a larger bone structure and are naturally more muscular, so they are gonna be heavier. 10% body weight is pretty high for anyone considering themselves a competitive runner. Pretty much anything over 5-6% can potentially hold you back.
a friend of mine took a bunch of weight off, he improved his 1/2 marathon time, but lost some speed and slowed down in the mile and 800.
Seen this calc on a website. Can't really comment on accuracy - who's to say whether improving times are down to being lighter, fitter or both...?
I have no real interest in this question, per se, as I am happy with my weight, but there is an easy solution to this question. Go out and run 6x mile repeats, w/ a heart monitor or just gauge the effort evenly if you are experienced. Halfway through the workout, add a five-lb. weight belt, and record the average difference. Much probably depends on how close you are to optimal wt. aleady, and the slowdown probably isn't linear, but this test hould give a good ballpark estimate.
okay okay wrote:
I have no real interest in this question, per se, as I am happy with my weight, but there is an easy solution to this question. Go out and run 6x mile repeats, w/ a heart monitor or just gauge the effort evenly if you are experienced. Halfway through the workout, add a five-lb. weight belt, and record the average difference. Much probably depends on how close you are to optimal wt. aleady, and the slowdown probably isn't linear, but this test hould give a good ballpark estimate.
That would actually be a horrible estimate, because if you actually gain 5 pounds the weight would be spread evenly across your body. With a weight belt you'll be stressing particular muscles more and that will limit your ability to run fast.
A better test would be to do an all-out time trial, then for the next 10 days train normally but eat like a pig so you gain 5 pounds of fat--most weight gained this quickly will be fat. Run the time trial again.
whatever-try a weight *vest* of five lbs.. the times should be compared in the SAME session, not a week apart.
okay okay wrote:
whatever-try a weight *vest* of five lbs.. the times should be compared in the SAME session, not a week apart.
Are you kidding? That's an even worse idea, to do them in the same session. You'll be fatigued from the first 3, because you have to do these at a close to maximal effort to learn anything useful.
Man, this dude would have destroyed the competition if he had lost 20 pounds!
I think many anorexic girls (and some boys) think that they run faster by losing weight, when in reality it is the relentless miles they put in that makes them faster. Maybe they would be faster if they kept some weight on?
okay okay wrote:
I have no real interest in this question, per se, as I am happy with my weight, but there is an easy solution to this question. Go out and run 6x mile repeats, w/ a heart monitor or just gauge the effort evenly if you are experienced. Halfway through the workout, add a five-lb. weight belt, and record the average difference. Much probably depends on how close you are to optimal wt. aleady, and the slowdown probably isn't linear, but this test hould give a good ballpark estimate.
I lost over 20 lbs in 4 months... DID NOT SPEED ME UP ONE BIT! The above idea is really very brilliant! Just do 4 mile reps as follows... Wear the weight (make it 10 lbs.) on the first and 3 rd rep (maintain the same HR for all reps). Don't wear the weighted vest on the 2nd and 4th...
Then you'll see... Losing weight does not make you faster (maybe a little).