There is a Jack Daniels Excel spreadsheet that will calculate the theoretical benefit of change in weight. It's a very comprehensive spreadsheet, but you can find the formula starting at cell P80. You'll have to change the personal data to reflect your own age, weight, height, and current fitness in cells B2 through C6.
I included knocking on the door of the Trials standard as being a serious runner, so the 13:51 qualifies.
But I get what you're saying - what about a 70 year old running 14:50? Well, honestly I do consider that person a hobby jogger since I don't believe it is possible to make a living on age group winnings. So it's a hobby. People can work hard at hobbies, but essentially it comes back to doing it for fun and fitness. I would consider satisfying the competitive urge to be part of fun.
But anyway, this is one definition. Yours may vary.
Surprised nobody has mentioned Andy Vernon yet (13:11 5k)
I do not so much disagree with the term "hobby." But no one who runs sub-14 Is jogging.
50 year olds running 13:51 are imaginary, like unicorns.
Well at least until 18 April 2023 when HG officially turns 50.
Depends on what you call "successful"...
I was 5'5.5", 140-145lb all through high school and college, and after college...
Ran 4:27, 9:32, 15:53 in high school waaaaay back in the mid '90s. Went to Indiana State XC (single class state too) as a JR and SR. Placed 12th as a Senior. Went to State Track Champs as SR, placed 7th in the 3200m
College was so, so...drank too much, changed schools...after college started running marathons ran 2:32:45, ran a 1:09:40 half-marathon, finished top 100 in Chicago.
So fair, not great. Was never FAT, just more muscular. Even while averaging close to 100 miles a week for a year, putting in 120-140 mile weeks, 22-26 mile long runs...my body was just happy to stay at 140+ lbs at under 5'6". Never lifted weights until I got out of competitive running. Even went so far as to try to lose weight, but I just felt tired and sluggish and slow. In fact my 2nd best EVER 5k came after a night of drinking at eating too much and that morning weighed like 150lbs.
Don't worry about weight. Just train. Just run. Don't eat like a fatso. The rest will take care of itself.
Alan
fisky wrote:
There is a Jack Daniels Excel spreadsheet that will calculate the theoretical benefit of change in weight. It's a very comprehensive spreadsheet, but you can find the formula starting at cell P80. You'll have to change the personal data to reflect your own age, weight, height, and current fitness in cells B2 through C6.
http://www.electricblues.com/archive/DanielsTables3-00-00.xls
According to this if I woke up tomorrow approx 35 pounds lighter I could run 2:10 seconds faster for a 5K haha
Herb Lindsay?
http://www.wikirun.com/Herb_Lindsay
Jogger by today's LRC standards (where anything slower than about 13:10 5K is considered a loser) but in his day an American record holder at 15K and 10 miles and winner of Bolder Boulder, top 10 at USOTs. At peak era he was something like 5'8" 145.
Chubby Runner wrote:
I'm have PR's of 4:57 and 17:37 (XC) but here's the embarrassing part... I'm 5'8 and 140 pounds... How much could my times drop if I dropped 15 pounds? Any experiences?
Watch this video and listen to what the commentator calls Pre at the 2:45 mark of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFty7To8oQkThen you may not be embarrassed about your weight.
fisky wrote:
There is a Jack Daniels Excel spreadsheet that will calculate the theoretical benefit of change in weight. It's a very comprehensive spreadsheet, but you can find the formula starting at cell P80. You'll have to change the personal data to reflect your own age, weight, height, and current fitness in cells B2 through C6.
http://www.electricblues.com/archive/DanielsTables3-00-00.xls
Is this thing really accurate?
ONJ_H^F wrote:
Non-hobby joggers would run the 5k fast enough to not be lapped twice in a Diamond League race. In a 13:05 race they are running 63 second laps. 15:25 - 13:05 is 2:20....
… and at the pace the 15:25 runner is going (74 seconds per lap), they would ALMOST get lapped (passing through 4200 at about 12:57). Not saying they couldn't get lapped in a faster race, because that could happen - but if you are going to give an example, learn to calculate correctly!
As far as stocky runners succeeding - I say train right and eat right, and your body will shape itself. You won't always look like Lasse Viren or Lawi Lalang at your peak - but then again, Kenenisa Bekele doesn't look as skinny as those guys either.
Putting aside the what-is-fast? nonsense, I agree with those who say if you are at a weight that feels well balanced, don't worry about it. I've been 155-175 lbs. for 40 years and get gaunt if I get to the low end of that (it's mostly in the legs). At 5' 10', I have a sub-50 quarter from HS and a sub-2:30 marathon (and a sub-2:50 @ 50).
Bottom line: if you eat properly your body will tell you what's right.
Noah Kemp; freshman at University of Portland, ran in my conference in high school, ran 15:30 5k, 9:15 3200, and was 5'9, really stocky. It's not all about build, its a lot of aerobic endurance
Stocky build runner here (5'6" 135-137 when I set my best PRs) I was almost the exact same shape as you when I was a junior in HS. Ran 17:45 and 4:54 when I was probably 140 lbs.
Here's the thing, your times will drop when you lose weight but losing weight should not be your main concern. Training healthy and progressing slowly over the coarse of years should be your goal. Your mile time is your better result than your 5k and my guess is like me, you're more of a 800/Mile dude. In HS though I maxed out at 40 mpw and ran those PRs. In college I maxed out at 70-80 mpw and ran low 17's for 5k, low 28 for 8k, 4:40 for the mile, and 2:04 for the 800.
So yes while you will probably lose more weight down the road and your ability to handle more training increases but seriously don't be a slave to the number on the scale. Worry about your workout and race #'s instead.
I'm 6'2" 195 but I'm slow by the standards here...4:20 1500M, 16:38 5K, 37:31 10K, 1 hr 20 min HM, 3 hr 8 min Marathon are my PRs.
Even doing 60-65 miles per week its been a struggle to slip under 190, I know that I can eat a little better but I am watching what I eat and it shouldn't be this hard.
So although I haven't been successful as a runner if you take into account my size its relatively been a success I guess.
Are you joking? That's not stocky. Jack Foster was 5-8, 140 pounds and ran a 2:11 marathon in his 40's.
Pre was 5-9 and over 150 after college and he ran some pretty decent times.
I was never a super light weight. 5-7 135-140 and I ran modest PR's over two minutes faster then you at 5k.
One of my training partners was 5-8,155-160 and ran 15:31 for 5k.
Reg Fields:
Nice times. Solid work.
Moe runs PDX wrote:
fisky wrote:There is a Jack Daniels Excel spreadsheet that will calculate the theoretical benefit of change in weight. It's a very comprehensive spreadsheet, but you can find the formula starting at cell P80. You'll have to change the personal data to reflect your own age, weight, height, and current fitness in cells B2 through C6.
http://www.electricblues.com/archive/DanielsTables3-00-00.xlsIs this thing really accurate?
I can't really say. It's logical that an overweight person will run faster if they get closer to their ideal weight. But a person at/near ideal weight wouldn't benefit as much from weight loss. Overall, the spreadsheet is a good resource for training paces, etc.
Umm no wrote:
According to this if I woke up tomorrow approx 35 pounds lighter I could run 2:10 seconds faster for a 5K haha
Sounds about right.
Have been a competitive runner for 40+ years.
5' 9" and struggle to get under 150 lbs.
Won area Championships in England in S/C when younger, and have run several times in the 5000m at 50+ and 55+ that would be in the top 10 in the U.S. (resident alien, so not on the ranking list here), some years creeping on to world rankings.