Right now I'm around 5'7, 130 pounds and I know I could lose some weight (feel a bit flabby). If I work at losing 5 pounds over the next month, could I see an improvement of as much as 30 seconds over 5k since I've heard that each pound is ~2 sec/mile. This will take some pleasure out of eating though but no big deal.
kind of a bad question. too many variables that are unaccounted for. body fat percentage, body type, etc. running fast isn't as simple as a simple formula in terms of height/weight leading to increased speed. sure - weight is important. but will losing weight MOST DEFINITELY make you fast? no one can know for sure. but hey, if it gives you a mental edge and you really want to cut some pounds, then, go for it. and let us know if it worked for you.
need to lose some weight wrote:
If I work at losing 5 pounds over the next month, could I see an improvement of 30 seconds over 5k since.
YES!! A well respected coach from the past calculated one pound = 1 min. improvement in a marathon.
This is over 2.2 sec/mile. 2.2 * 5 lbs. * 3.1068 equates to well over 30 sec. for a 5k.
Another example: While single I lived in a house with several guys. One of them lost 100 lbs. in 5 mo. During this time he started running every day and ran a timed mile each month. Then he quit running and didn't run a step for a whole month but did lose 20 lbs. At his next timed mile he ran 20 sec. FASTER then the previous month without running at ALL. This really opened my eyes to how much weight really plays a part in racing performance.
Hope this helps you in your quest for a faster 5k.
so your saying that if anyone lost 5 pounds they would be 5 min faster in the marathon?...maybe you should tell ryan hall this and he could possibly looking at gold at the olympics
I lost 12 pounds over 4 months and only improved my 10k by 40 seconds...which probably just came from an extra four months fitness.
I don't think that 2 seconds per pound per mile thing is correct. I can go 4:20 for a mile and am 5'10 150 lbs. I don't think dropping to 135 would get me a 3:50.
Consider This wrote:
I don't think that 2 seconds per pound per mile thing is correct. I can go 4:20 for a mile and am 5'10 150 lbs. I don't think dropping to 135 would get me a 3:50.
Diminishing returns. You're already in great shape. This "rule of thumb" is for the people at the top of the curve, who have BMI above normal.
I doubt 30 seconds, but 15 to 20 is a definite possibility.
Just try it and see what happens. Only try to lose about 1 lb per week. If you stay the same or slow down, then you know you were already at your optimal weight.
It varies per runner.
I tracked my weight versus PR's over my best ten year period. I am 5'7" and weighed anywhere from 135 to 142 pounds during that period. My PR's mostly came at 140-142.
I tracked my weight versus PR's over an 8 year period. I am 5'8" and weighed anywhere from 132 to 138 pounds during that period. My PR's mostly came at 132-135
try for 10 or something, that'll shave off more time. you can be 118 and still regular weight.
Oh Please wrote:
Diminishing returns. You're already in great shape. This "rule of thumb" is for the people at the top of the curve, who have BMI above normal.
It's worse than just diminishing returns - there comes a point at which the "return" is negative. That is: it's actually counter-productive to lose weight.
For distance runners the top of the bell curve for the population as a whole is almost certainly the wrong place to look. World class distance runners all have a BMI which is a long way down from the mean. You can probably come a good way to the left for the rule to still be applicable.
Oh Please wrote:
Consider This wrote:I don't think that 2 seconds per pound per mile thing is correct. I can go 4:20 for a mile and am 5'10 150 lbs. I don't think dropping to 135 would get me a 3:50.
Diminishing returns. You're already in great shape. This "rule of thumb" is for the people at the top of the curve, who have BMI above normal.
Thanks for the explanation. I actually hadn't thought of that. I guess that's because I have seen suggestions on here that if Alan Webb or Chris Solinsky would just drop a few pounds they'd win an Olympic gold medal and set the world record!
if you are one of those super muscular guys who gets into endurance racing and you are super lean but have a lot of muscle.... that guy tends to get faster with loss of weight. i'm talking about a guy who is 5'10 175 and super lean, that same person at 150 would be significantly faster
drtigc wrote:
so your saying that if anyone lost 5 pounds they would be 5 min faster in the marathon?...maybe you should tell ryan hall this and he could possibly looking at gold at the olympics
Theyre already at the lowest they can get before it has a negative impact. herp derp
richard Q. wrote:
try for 10 or something, that'll shave off more time. you can be 118 and still regular weight.
I don't know if the OP is male or female but regardless 5'7 at 118 is getting very close to unhealthy.
p[ojihujbknlopiuygh wrote:
richard Q. wrote:try for 10 or something, that'll shave off more time. you can be 118 and still regular weight.
I don't know if the OP is male or female but regardless 5'7 at 118 is getting very close to unhealthy.
Tony Sandoval raced under that weight. I weighed 112 @ 5'7" when I was a junior in high school.