5'6" 140 lbs too big?

it seems a little big, but honestly all you need to do is train harder at this point

When you run more your weight will drop naturally. Don't force it.

I said don't force it wrote:

When you run more your weight will drop naturally. Don't force it.

Ha ha. Not always.

I ran upwards of 70-80 a week in high school and was 5'6' 140. Ran 4:27, 9:32, 15:53....back in the mid 90s. Fast forward 10 yrs and I was running upwards of 120-140 many times with two runs over 2 hrs (wed 18mi, sun 22mi was typical) and ran a 2:32 marathon. ..again 5'6' 140lbs. Didnt start lifting till late in running career (pssst...I didn't gain nor lose any weight in 15 + yrs of running).

Sometimes your genetics are your genetics. I outran many skinnier runners and most successfully at distances over 10k....but I had to run over 100mi a week consistently.

Alan

Thank you, finally someone else like me. I have a decent amount of muscle and work out with weights, I mean I still am reasonably lean. People call me skinny at 130, at 140 I actually look "athletic". I'm going to worry more about performance than what I weigh.

runningart2004 wrote:

I said don't force it wrote:

When you run more your weight will drop naturally. Don't force it.

Ha ha. Not always.

I ran upwards of 70-80 a week in high school and was 5'6' 140. Ran 4:27, 9:32, 15:53....back in the mid 90s. Fast forward 10 yrs and I was running upwards of 120-140 many times with two runs over 2 hrs (wed 18mi, sun 22mi was typical) and ran a 2:32 marathon. ..again 5'6' 140lbs. Didnt start lifting till late in running career (pssst...I didn't gain nor lose any weight in 15 + yrs of running).

Sometimes your genetics are your genetics. I outran many skinnier runners and most successfully at distances over 10k....but I had to run over 100mi a week consistently.

Alan

What was your body fat %? That's what really matters. 5'6" 140 isn't too bad if it's muscle rather than fat.

The one tIme I had It tested vIa hydrIstatIc I was I thInk 7-8%.....running 100-140 miles a week you are not going to have excess body fat.

Alan

My goal is to get up to that sort of mileage...I'm only running 56 mpw right now so I'm sure my BF % is higher. Just gotta keep working I guess.

cool kid wrote:

it seems a little big, but honestly all you need to do is train harder at this point

This. Solinsky weighs more than you and ran sub 27 for 10k. Training is your problem, not weight.

I think the few extra pounds you have isn't much of a limiting factor unless you are at the elite level. I think people worry way too much about weight. It's important to not have more pounds than YOUR UNIQUE body requires to run fast. But you can definitely be too emaciated to perform well. There is a 'goldilocks' zone for weight, but it takes years to figure out where it is.

its not big, dont listen to all the truth stretchers who claim to have an 18 BMI. big for you would be more like 155ish

Hunter S. Thompson wrote:

its not big, dont listen to all the truth stretchers who claim to have an 18 BMI. big for you would be more like 155ish

There is no such thing as "big for you". You are either heavy or you aren't. Height doesn't matter.

stop lifting those weights stubby. that extra muscle mass that you like becaue it makes you look "athletic" will hold you back from ever being a decent runner at that height. most elites that are 5'6" probably weigh between 110-125. there's a reason for that.

physics don't lie wrote:

stop lifting those weights stubby. that extra muscle mass that you like becaue it makes you look "athletic" will hold you back from ever being a decent runner at that height. most elites that are 5'6" probably weigh between 110-125. there's a reason for that.

The reason is because they don't lift weights. Has nothing to do with it being more beneficial.

Ideal weight is fastest weight. If you run better at 135, there's your answer. But you may not. After summer base, I weigh 140-ish and am 5' 8".

Lighter is too light for me. I think focus on weight is problematic.. Going vegan leaned me out but it was for health.

-10 respect at "stubby"

waitz wrote:

Hunter S. Thompson wrote:

its not big, dont listen to all the truth stretchers who claim to have an 18 BMI. big for you would be more like 155ish

There is no such thing as "big for you". You are either heavy or you aren't. Height doesn't matter.

its a guess and i meant relative to distance runners f*cktard

Hunter S. Thompson wrote:

its a guess and i meant relative to distance runners f*cktard

Relative to distance runners doesn't matter either. It's power to weight and gravity. Height and proportions do not matter.

modern exercise science disagrees with you, why are you splitting hairs? youre making yourself look dumb. gravity? yeah gravity matters? cool bro. wanna tell me next how wet the ocean is?

waitz wrote:

Hunter S. Thompson wrote:

its a guess and i meant relative to distance runners f*cktard

Relative to distance runners doesn't matter either. It's power to weight and gravity. Height and proportions do not matter.

tell david Epstein height and proportions dont matter