Large Framed Muscular Runners

Kevin Krause. 5'7", barrel chest, more muscular than McMullen. Prob 155.

Kinney finalist in hs, low 14's for 5k at WM. Tough as hell.

I am also 6 footish and weigh around 170 but have a body fat of 4% according to dexascan and haven't been able to drop from that weight for 8 + years. You should do what you like to do. Running the marathon will put you at a disadvantage due to your weight compared to other lighter runners. Obviously you will be at less a dissadvantage in the shorter races. I have ran well for my size in the marathon (2:17) but am going to try and get my personal best in the mile/1500 down this outdoor season (4:04/3:48). Just make sure you are having fun with what you are doing.

does anyone know how much 170 lbs in is in kilos?

yes

77+

I hear you on this one. I'm about 6'4" and 170 pounds. I have decided to spend most of my time on the 5k. Interestingly, BYU has a kid running who is 6'8" and 190 lbs and runs track and cross country, and he manages to get by...

Thanks for the response. I always feel like I am at a disadvantage at the longer distances, but at the same time I feel I am more of an endurance runner vs. a speed runner. Kind of a double-edged sword...I have never trained specifically for the 5K. May take a stab at my PR at that distance? What type of workouts do you feel give you the greatest benefit in the shortest amount of time?

wassermann wrote:

I hear you on this one. I'm about 6'4" and 170 pounds. I have decided to spend most of my time on the 5k. Interestingly, BYU has a kid running who is 6'8" and 190 lbs and runs track and cross country, and he manages to get by...

Good to know that I am not alone...Is this the guy?

Speaking of BYU, Henry Marsh was a big old thunderthighs, I'm guessing 5"11, 160 pounds, back in the 1970s, AR in the steeple and maybe even a number 1 world rank in an off year. Someone will know where to find his stats.

I saw Notre Dame's Jake Watson run a steeplechase this past weekend at a meet in South Carolina and he definitely surprised me by being a bigger framed fellow. Not huge by any means, but definitely bigger than what one would expect for an upper echelon NCAA Div. 1 runner.

I'm about 6' 157-165 and I have been taking a whole lot of crap for the past 3 years running collegiately on a program that is geared for the 10k. I'm running my first 10k on the track in three weeks and I was wondering what I might hit. I went 31:35 in a 6 mile race during the summer a 20:20 XC 4 mile race and recently did 10x1000 with 200 recovery at about 3:07 avg. We do a lot of long intervals like that. The longest stuff I've done recently was an terrible indoor 3k stuck in no mans land and feeling down, I ran 8:53. What say the spartans of letsrun? What is a good 10k goal.

Anybody ever heard of Chris Solinsky?

Maybe the Beast (James Nielsen) can offer some advice

Joe 6-pack wrote:

I am 6-0' 170 lbs. Was recently tested for bodyfat. Right around 7%. I have always considered myself more of a distance runner (marathon), but I am starting to wonder if I should focus on specifically training for shorter races 5/10K. All of my PR's from the mile and up were based on training for the marathon. Are there any other "Paul McMullen" types out there? I can't seem to lose any more weight and wonder if, based on my body-type, if I should switch to shorter distances? Thanks.

Oh Lord. You're a stud. Are you well hung, too? I bet you get all the chicks. Why are you wasting your time running? Lift weights seriously and take advantage of your Alpha-Male genetics...jog a little if you like, but why in the world would a manly virile male like yourself waste your life trying to become a scrawny, unattractive skeleton like me?

I know that post is a troll, but I can tell you that while running at 162 instead of 143 has slowed me down (a little) above the mile, my 800 speed is better, and being really cut (I hit the weights HARD) and buff DOES make a difference with the women. They might swear up and down that it makes no difference, but they are talking about 200+ lb muscleheads, not runners. For most women, a 162 lb guy in a shirt looks skinny, but when the shirt comes off, and they see what a difference a ripped bod makes they pretty much moisten up. So unless you are on scholarship or going for sponsorship, go for the lean machine situation.

pasty 14:12 5K guy wrote:

Oh Lord. You're a stud. Are you well hung, too? I bet you get all the chicks. Why are you wasting your time running? Lift weights seriously and take advantage of your Alpha-Male genetics...jog a little if you like, but why in the world would a manly virile male like yourself waste your life trying to become a scrawny, unattractive skeleton like me?

Not that I recommend it, but if you want to lose muscle you should eat less protein. Run and train for whatever distance you like the best. Who cares if you might be a little better suited for a different distance. If you want to see what you're capable of, train for it and do it. However, the longer the distance, usually the skinnier the runners. Solinsky seems to manage alright (extreme understatement), even at 10k, so it can be done.

I'm faster now than I was 2 years ago, even though I'm 15 pounds heavier, but I can tell you, I felt a lot more fluent and relaxed when I was lighter. I'd like to get back close to there again and see how I feel.

Most elite distance runners have a BMI around 20.0, but some are in the 21s. Just accept what you are and don't try to be something you aren't.

Why are "big" guys always the ones who are tough as hell? Since when did strong=tough?

gun wrote:

does anyone know how much 170 lbs in is in kilos?

Divide by 2.2.

THOR, GOD OF THUNDER wrote:

Why are "big" guys always the ones who are tough as hell? Since when did strong=tough?

Because they don't look (majority of them) light and efortless when running and most of them are muscleing their way through the races. They just look like bulls on the courses.

On the other hand, light and small runners (as most of the fast ones are) have much more grace in their stride. Most people don't realize that they work just as hard during the races, however, their muscles aren't bulging out when trying to push during the harder stages.

Maybe that's the reason why so many AMericans are having wet dreams about Pre- he was a short stocky guy, who appeared to be tougher than his competitors. Viren was tougher than him, but nobody addressed him so, because he was skinny and long-legged.