And does it depend on weight, level of fitness, and/or speed? Could an elite really run a marathon almost two minutes faster just by dropping two pounds?
And does it depend on weight, level of fitness, and/or speed? Could an elite really run a marathon almost two minutes faster just by dropping two pounds?
4444555554444 wrote:
And does it depend on weight, level of fitness, and/or speed? Could an elite really run a marathon almost two minutes faster just by dropping two pounds?
This seems to have held roughly true for me so far. At 5'8" 155, I still probably have 10-15 pounds to go, so I sure hope it continues to hold because it means I will have gone from 23 -> mid/low 16 in just over a year.
I definitely depends on type of mass lost too. An elite losing 2 pounds wont do much because it is unlikely to be fat and can easily be relevant muscle because they are already so lean. Being too light can also make it hard to train properly this reducing performance.
Here are some data points for me:
2007 - 38:00 10k (175 lbs)
2009 - 35:00 10k (165 lbs)
2010 - 33:30 10k (155 lbs)
2012 - 32:30 10k (150 lbs)
Sure looks like it. Pretty much losing 5 lbs -> 1 min improvement in 10k (slightly under the 2s/lb/mikle you stated). Only outlier above seems to be the 2009 time where a 35:30-36:00 would be a better fit, but I suspected that course if being short anyways.
Just another statistic wrote:
Here are some data points for me:
2007 - 38:00 10k (175 lbs)
2009 - 35:00 10k (165 lbs)
2010 - 33:30 10k (155 lbs)
2012 - 32:30 10k (150 lbs)
Sure looks like it. Pretty much losing 5 lbs -> 1 min improvement in 10k (slightly under the 2s/lb/mikle you stated). Only outlier above seems to be the 2009 time where a 35:30-36:00 would be a better fit, but I suspected that course if being short anyways.
Or it could be due to training as well. What was your training history during this timeframe?
The less weight, the better the quality in your training, your body carrying less weight causes less wear and tear on your body.
o.O wrote:
The less weight, the better the quality in your training, your body carrying less weight causes less wear and tear on your body.
Up to a point.
Lose to much mass and drop to much weight and you can run into problems...hence why anorexia is not a good thing, even for runners.
It works for me. One year I lost 10 lbs in one month (coming off an injury- I wanted to lose the weight).
I ran low key 10k's during that month and my improvement was according to this "rule of thumb".
Whatever it actually is, the important thing is that losing weight (to a point) will make you faster.
No.
It's totally ridiculous as a general rule. Can Symmonds drop to 140 (a totally reasonable weight at his height) and run a 3:15 mile?
Sure, it helps basically every athletic endeavor to not carry around useless fat but 2 sec/lb/mile is likely to be a huge overestimate. Maybe it works if you're 4'10.
I guess it varies highly per individual.
In my case, I lost 30 pounds and it was closer to 3s. But I somehow doubt that if I get down to 110 pounds, I will break the 10K world record.
For elite runners, they are likely close to their optimum race weight already, where losing two pounds would make them weaker and slower.
No, of course not. It's a guestimate. It might hold true if you're already overweight and losing pure fat. Do you think Ezekiel Kemboi would drop 2 seconds by losing a pound? or a straight-up anorexic?
Consider this - that dude ran a 4:40 mile with a 40 pound weight veset. Do you think he would drop to 3:20 without it?
I put on 5-10 pounds in college from eating a lot more (lots of lean meat, protein shakes, and ice cream) and adding heavy lifting. I got stronger and more athletic, and faster.
A fat guy will knock off two seconds per pound per mile.
An underdeveloped athlete who runs will likely be better off adding muscle more often than not.
It generally held true for me, and I think it does for most sub-elites and rec-runners/weekend warriors. There is definitely a point of negative returns. Once your body fat percentage gets to a point, your immune system doesn't work quite right and you get sick all the time. I always trained for the bulk of my season at 150-153 then dropped to 148 for the last third. If I tried to stay at 148 (corresponded to 1-2% body fat), I'd get sick and miss training.
also, they way most people will lose that weight is through training in a way that would, itself, make them a better runner.
Jeez, if I had know that, I could have run about 12 seconds faster for this 5k
http://joggingjeans.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/dannydenim.jpg?w=600
I ran a road mile in 4:29 at 155 last fall. I would not have run 3:49 at 135.
Just another statistic wrote:
Here are some data points for me:
2007 - 38:00 10k (175 lbs)
2009 - 35:00 10k (165 lbs)
2010 - 33:30 10k (155 lbs)
2012 - 32:30 10k (150 lbs)
Sure looks like it. Pretty much losing 5 lbs -> 1 min improvement in 10k (slightly under the 2s/lb/mikle you stated). Only outlier above seems to be the 2009 time where a 35:30-36:00 would be a better fit, but I suspected that course if being short anyways.
You don't think an additional 5 years of training had anything to do with it?
When you're fat, yes. When you've got low body fat no.
I feel like I remember Frank Horwill talking about how the normal person's weight was supposed to be 115 for the first 5 feet and then add 5 lbs per inch, and distance runners were supposed to be between 80-90% of that. so at 5'10 3/4 I should be anywhere between 135 and 152 as long as I have really low body fat.
It isn't as simple as fat = bad muscle = good. Too much muscle in the arms, or even the lower leg will just slow you down. It also depends on the event. If you're talking about the mile gaining muscle in the right places will probably make you faster. For the marathon, well one can only weight so much.
The first place I heard this rule was in Fixx's book and he specifically says it's for LONG distance runners and that it is just a rule of thumb. Everyone in this thread saying it's not a good rule are saying so either on the basis that it's a rule of thumb so it can't be used for everyone or that it did not hold true for [x] 800/1500m runner. IF you recognize that rules of thumb are very general and have many exceptions and IF you recognize that this rule is for 5,000m-Marathon types then it is a very useful rule.
