Body Fat

well if 9% is too big for a distance runner then i guess my 11% was definitely too big. but it doesn't matter cuz i was the best on my team eventhough everyone else was skinnier. so i'd say 9 percent is just fine

how was your test done? some tests are highly inaccurate. i once got tested with one of those little pinch things that pinches your flab around your body, with that i was around 3+%, which is rediculous. I am skinny and very tall, but 3% is BS, half a year later I got it taken through a machine that you lay down on and it scans all over your body, and it had me at 11%, which sounded more accurate.

you would be more efficient but that is about it. how much more efficient i have no idea.....

you wouldn't want to skim off too much as it could actually be detrimental but losing a few pounds rarely hurts a runner.

You could apply a variety of formulas to the same set of numbers and get different % values. I could give you different numbers if you gave me the skinfold values and it would depend on what you want to hear. If you had skinfolds done, did they do the abdomen and did they do the anterior (front of the middle) of your thigh? If you have those two thicknesses, add them and if you are a guy and the sum is 10-15mm then you are very lean. If a girl, you are really lean if 15-20 is the sum. I could give you a % based on those two sites, but I won't because they won't agree with other methods and converting those sites to a % just adds an additional error. So I just use the sum of those 2 sites and know what is really lean (as listed above). You are good if 10-20 for guys and 15-30 for females.

if you go for a proper reading, 8% is about the upper limit (according to coe's "better training for distance runners")

The difference between 7-10% is so miniscule, that the effort you would have to put forth to cover that distance would probably hinder your performance more than losing the fat would help. In other words, you're lean enough, so no sense in starving yourself and losing valuable energy from food that could go towards a strong training session.

3% additional body fat for a runner weighing 150 lbs. comes out to an additional 4.5 lbs. of fat. Are you saying carrying this additional weight is okay, and it's not worth the effort to try and lose it? Sure, he shouldn't starve himself, but taking steps (running more, eating less fatty or high-calorie foods) to get rid of it would certainly be in his best interest if he wants to get faster in distance running. He's losing valuable energy lugging weight around which faster guys may not have on their bodies.

I run 100-120 miles a week, am 5'6', 145 pounds, have run a half-marathon in 1:09:40 and a road 5k in 15:43, my body fat is over 10%. Which of these numbers are important? Which are not. Worry about the important numbers and the others will take care of themselves.

Alan

distance guy wrote:

3% additional body fat for a runner weighing 150 lbs. comes out to an additional 4.5 lbs. of fat. Are you saying carrying this additional weight is okay, and it's not worth the effort to try and lose it? Sure, he shouldn't starve himself, but taking steps (running more, eating less fatty or high-calorie foods) to get rid of it would certainly be in his best interest if he wants to get faster in distance running. He's losing valuable energy lugging weight around which faster guys may not have on their bodies.

5 pounds will add maybe 2-5 seconds a mile. Not too big of a deal especially in early season. It's so easy to lose 5 pounds in two months of training that it's safe to be 10 pounds over race weight now.

Runningart2004 wrote:

I run 100-120 miles a week, am 5'6', 145 pounds, have run a half-marathon in 1:09:40 and a road 5k in 15:43, my body fat is over 10%. Which of these numbers are important? Which are not. Worry about the important numbers and the others will take care of themselves.

Alan

Your road 5k is soft, like your middle.

distance guy wrote:

3% additional body fat for a runner weighing 150 lbs. comes out to an additional 4.5 lbs. of fat. Are you saying carrying this additional weight is okay, and it's not worth the effort to try and lose it? Sure, he shouldn't starve himself, but taking steps (running more, eating less fatty or high-calorie foods) to get rid of it would certainly be in his best interest if he wants to get faster in distance running. He's losing valuable energy lugging weight around which faster guys may not have on their bodies.

That's a good point. I guess I was assuming that he was already as lean as his body would allow and stressing over a number rather than performance. If it's a case where someone has legitimate room to improve b/c they are not in good shape, then yeah, losing the weight of the fat is great. I just have issues with the accuracy of some of these body fat testing mechanisms, so I take the numbers with a grain of salt. I also feel that some people's physiology would dictate that they carry "thicker" skin, and to take it below a certain level can make them generally feel like shit all the time and affect performance/health. I'm no doctor (obviously) so I could be totally wrong, but I'm just speaking on the experiences of myself and other runners I know.

I agree the devices used to take the measurements may not be accurate at all. However, if he and his teammates were all done at the same time, by the same person, in the same manner, with the same device then it's at least useful for comparison's sake. If I was this guy's coach, my focus would not be on his weight at all - I'd just try to get him as fast as possible with mileage and workouts. As Alan said, the times are the most important thing, and the weight will take care of itself. I was merely stating, that by getting more fit, and trimmer, this guy will naturally get faster. They go hand in hand: by getting faster, he'll get thinner, and he'll get faster by getting thinner too. Either can happen first.

It doesn't matter who you are or whatever your body type ....running fast is relative. But, if your body fat is a healthy 3-6%, you are on target to obtaining your best results running, however fast. There are many talented guys out there (5'6", 145lbs, running 1:09 half) that could eat better, train more appropriately (cardio and light core upper body toning) and get that body fat within this range that could take significant time off of PRs. Combigning the loss of useless weight (fat) and improved fitness, it's two fold.

This can all be done by eating healthy, appropriate amounts of food. The last thing you need to do is starve yourself which is what many young college athletes do. And then they get sick, hurt, and end up running worse in the end.

Good luck.

Im 9.1% and im fit as hell, Im a triathlete though, so I only run like 4o mpw rather than 150 mpw like 99%of the peeps on this board

If you're running 100-120 miles a week and staying at 145 then your body ain't gonna lose any more fat. I've been "built tough" since high school, never had your typical runner's build, yet still successful in my view (Indiana All-State XC, 15:53, 4:27, 9:32 in HS, 1:09:40, 2:33:58 today). I've also only had one injury requiring any significant time off in my 14+ years of running.

Sidenote: There was a book eons ago (1980s, Long Distance Runner's Guide to Training and Racing, Gary Bjorklund, Ken Sparks) with heights and weights and bf% of many elite runners, a number of the males were in the 8-11% range. I've been measured anywhere from 7-11%. Run, Run, Run, Run...the rest will take care of itself and your body will find IT'S OWN OPTIMAL WEIGHT.

Alan

So, Alan, do you want me to break the news to John Korir that "your body will find it's [sic] own optimal weight," or would you like to?

-----------------------------------------

You need the weight to come down before you start speed. When I am running very well, I am about 53 kilograms.

MR: What about when you’re not in shape?

JK: 57. That is heavy.

99% of the people on this board dont run anything close to 150 miles a week, it is amazing though how fast people can get and how much they can train as an anonymous poster (haha).

Well...is he forcing his weight down or is it through training? Train enough and the weight will come down. It's important, but relative. Wasn't Pre like 5'9' 150? That's big by runner's standards. Herb Lindsey, former US halfmarathon record holder, was about the same height and weight. Too much is made of weight and too little is made of training. Eat well, train well, your body will take care of the rest.

Alan

running art,

dont have the book - Long Distance Runner's Guide to Training and Racing

would be interested to see the heights and weights and bf% of many elite runners. any chance of you posting a few?