Is the 2 seconds/lb/mile for weight loss relatively accurate? I ran a half in 1:30 on 40 easy miles a week, and I could stand to lose about 15 lbs (it's been a few years since college). Would this really result in a 30 second per mile improvement? Looking to run another at the beginning of April and hoping to lose a few pounds in the meantime.
Weight loss: 2 secs/lb/mile really accurate?
Training Advice/Discussion
General
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
In my experience it is surprisingly accurate. I have gone down & back up in weight over a 25-lb range... twice.
The first time I intentionally dropped 10 pounds over a fairly short period of time, I could not believe how much faster all my paces improved. It felt like an out-of-body experience.... and I kicked myself for training hard for years and never even considering diet or weight in the equation. -
I don't see how this is accurate. Last year I ran a 20 min 5k weighing ~190 lbs. My peak race weight was 134 pounds. So if I got down to that race weight, I'd be a sub-14:30 5k runner? Nah, wouldn't happen.
-
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
I don't see how this is accurate. Last year I ran a 20 min 5k weighing ~190 lbs. My peak race weight was 134 pounds. So if I got down to that race weight, I'd be a sub-14:30 5k runner? Nah, wouldn't happen.
It's an estimate, man, and probably not so great of one for people who've become fatasses like you. It probably is close to accurate within a 20lb window, but it depends on the person and their build. -
Guppy wrote:
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
I don't see how this is accurate. Last year I ran a 20 min 5k weighing ~190 lbs. My peak race weight was 134 pounds. So if I got down to that race weight, I'd be a sub-14:30 5k runner? Nah, wouldn't happen.
It's an estimate, man, and probably not so great of one for people who've become fatasses like you. It probably is close to accurate within a 20lb window, but it depends on the person and their build.
+1. A range of 1-2 seconds per pound per mile would probably safely satisfy most hair-splitters. -
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
I don't see how this is accurate. Last year I ran a 20 min 5k weighing ~190 lbs. My peak race weight was 134 pounds. So if I got down to that race weight, I'd be a sub-14:30 5k runner? Nah, wouldn't happen.
Josh Hamilton is a troll. Don't take anything he says seriously. -
kskdk wrote:
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
I don't see how this is accurate. Last year I ran a 20 min 5k weighing ~190 lbs. My peak race weight was 134 pounds. So if I got down to that race weight, I'd be a sub-14:30 5k runner? Nah, wouldn't happen.
Josh Hamilton is a troll. Don't take anything he says seriously.
Please. Everything I post is 100% true. -
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
Please. Everything I post is 100% true.
Except for that... -
Peter G. wrote:
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
Please. Everything I post is 100% true.
Except for that...
......and that.... -
P. Griffin wrote:
Peter G. wrote:
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
Please. Everything I post is 100% true.
Except for that...
......and that....
......and that.... -
My guess is that there is some point of diminishing returns. As an extreme example (and all too common): a runner starts to lose weight and gets faster and as the weight comes off the performance improves. The runner thinks "Wow, if I just keep losing weight I am going to win ______".
However, at some point the runner is going to reduce energy intake and workouts will start to suffer. The runner may get sick or just not have the energy to train or perform well and times start to creep up again.
My suggestion to folks is to train well and eat well enough to support the training and the speed will take care of itself. I also think that people have an ideal training weight that they can maintain for much of the year and then when in the key competition period drop a FEW pounds and be sharp. Then the weight comes back on. (Not in a Lolo Jones way, but that is a pretty unique case). -
luv2run wrote:
My guess is that there is some point of diminishing returns.
I agree with this. There are plenty of high school boys who are like 5'10" 150 lbs and run 4:2x. They aren't going to go 3:5x just by dropping to 135. -
Sartor Resartus wrote:
I agree with this. There are plenty of high school boys who are like 5'10" 150 lbs and run 4:2x. They aren't going to go 3:5x just by dropping to 135.
If it's an unneeded 15 pounds, then of course they will drop to 3:5x. -
Unneeded pounds in distance running for men is any weight you gain after your PR for any distance race after age 21.
There are very few exceptions.
2 seconds/lb/mile is probably conservative. -
kskm wrote:
Sartor Resartus wrote:
I agree with this. There are plenty of high school boys who are like 5'10" 150 lbs and run 4:2x. They aren't going to go 3:5x just by dropping to 135.
If it's an unneeded 15 pounds, then of course they will drop to 3:5x.
Define "unneeded". -
Define "unneeded".[/quote]
You precisely know what he means moron. -
This sounds like one of Frank Horwill's sketchy rules of thumb. It suggests that a 2:30 marathoner weighing 150 at 5' 10" (not boned-out, but probably no more than 6 to 8 percent body fat) would drop to around 2:21 by losing 10 pounds and changing nothing else. Possible, but most likely bullshit. And I ran 2:23 at 5' 10 and 138 pounds, and I can tell you that at 128 I would not have run 2:14, I would have been in the damn hospital or wrongly accused of being a crackhead.
-
I've found for me, dropping from 185 to 154, it's worth about 2.5 seconds per pound per mile. I'd like to think dropping 20 more pounds would work the same, but I have some doubt.
-
This convo would be shorter if ppl pointed out that we are talking about losing fat. Obviously some runner who already had low body fat won't benefit as much as a fat hobby jogger.
-
Tom Osler has been credited with coming up with this rule of thumb. I think Jack Daniels studied it and found it was somewhat accurate.
Cavernous Vagina wrote:
This sounds like one of Frank Horwill's sketchy rules of thumb. It suggests that a 2:30 marathoner weighing 150 at 5' 10" (not boned-out, but probably no more than 6 to 8 percent body fat) would drop to around 2:21 by losing 10 pounds and changing nothing else. Possible, but most likely bullshit. And I ran 2:23 at 5' 10 and 138 pounds, and I can tell you that at 128 I would not have run 2:14, I would have been in the damn hospital or wrongly accused of being a crackhead.
