At what body weight and above does 5k time suffer the most?

so Craig Mottram and Chris Solinsky both over 160lbs and both running 12:55 throw a wrench into your calculations

why don't you make it a BMI figure?

I meant in general, guys that big are not going to be running under 18 minutes for 5k easily. I didnt realize Solinsky and Mottram were over 160.

casual commentary wrote:

so Craig Mottram and Chris Solinsky both over 160lbs and both running 12:55 throw a wrench into your calculations

why don't you make it a BMI figure?

wait, were they that weight when they ran those times? hasn't it been a few years since mottram went 12:55?

I weigh around 180-185 and have no problem breaking 17. If all goes well this spring I should be under 16.

I believe its all about the training, and the weight will work itself out as long as you don't eat like a total pig.

Broke 17:00 when 175-185 pounds. If the engine is big enough, it can carry a load.

Im 160 and at 1547 5k. not great, but im a 800 guy.

Sub 17 or 18 is not the time you should be looking at to see what is optimal weight by looking at groups of people. Because at slower time like those, many other factors exist.

Also, people need to realize, different bodies will have differnt optimal weights in distance events. Just because 5 foot 4 ethiopians weight 115, doesnt mean everyone should do that

D1 Mid-distance guys can weigh as much as 170 and not have a problem hitting 16:XX on an XC course and low 15's on the road. Of course, they have talent.

FWIW, when I finally got 16:XX I was 158lbs (I'm 6-2). I was only a sub 20 guy at 167. Stated above, a balanced diet and higher mileage will help you find your ideal weight.

For two people of the same height, how much of a difference in weight does bone mineral density contribute? Or, put a different away, how much of a difference in skeletal weight exists on average between two people of the same height, if one is considered "big boned", and the other not?

Blacks supposedly have higher bone mineral density (thicker bones?) than whites.

Im 170-175 and run 15:50's and still getting faster. BMI definitely needs to play a role in your calculations

They are both listed at 160 on wikipedia and I don't think an elite runner's weight changes all that much throughout their career. Solinsky at least as been quoted as saying he is between 160-165.

For what it is worth, the fastest kid in my state when I was a senior in high school ran a 9:2x full 2-mile and he was 165 @ 5'11''. He was also the only kid that year who could run sub-16 for 5k XC pretty much regardless of the course.

Daniel Komen was 240 pounds and smoked 3 packs a day when he ran 12:39.

not many humans under 90 or so pounds run fast 5000m either.

the relationship between weight and 5000m velocity is U-shaped.

casual commentary wrote:

They are both listed at 160 on wikipedia and I don't think an elite runner's weight changes all that much throughout their career. Solinsky at least as been quoted as saying he is between 160-165.

For what it is worth, the fastest kid in my state when I was a senior in high school ran a 9:2x full 2-mile and he was 165 @ 5'11''. He was also the only kid that year who could run sub-16 for 5k XC pretty much regardless of the course.

Damn, what state did you go to? The xc time would be way back in my state meet and that 2 mile time would just barely make it to state

Please make sure the course is certified a lot you are prob considering thiose HS courses that end up being 2.7 miles

Weezy wrote:

Also, people need to realize, different bodies will have differnt optimal weights in distance events. Just because 5 foot 4 ethiopians weight 115, doesnt mean everyone should do that

This. I'm a mid-d guy, and I'm probably even on the big side for an 800m runner. I haven't weighed less than 160 since I was in 9th grade. I spent the year after college training for and racing longer events just because I wanted to see how fast I could run 5K-half marathon. I was 180 when I set my PRs. If I'd dropped weight from there, I would have looked like a Holocaust victim. I couldn't have possibly competed at 170. Hell, I don't know if I could have survived if my weight dropped to 170.

Steeplemcgee wrote:

Im 170-175 and run 15:50's and still getting faster. BMI definitely needs to play a role in your calculations

I agree. There is a big difference in 175 pounds on a 6-3 frame than a 5-3 frame.

5k times don't suffer that much but marathon times sure do.

This guy said it best! Its all about the engine really. You can be 190 but if you have some serious cardiovascular ability breaking 13 wouldnt be an issue.

At least as important as the size of the engine is running efficiency.

As everybody knows by now I have a hard time breaking 20, and have gone around 18:30-18:40 IIRC after losing weight when I was sick.

5'10", 180-185, lean

The thing is, that I'm pretty sure I have a big engine. Back in college we did the obligatory VO2max measurements, both on bike and on treadmill, and mine was huge...I weighed around 172-173 at the time.

I think my distance running efficiency is abysmally low, but BMI definitely matters.