I coach a kid who ran at FootLocker last year. His BMI was 17.2 at that race. He was healthy, he's just a late bloomer and is naturally very thin. Always has been. So is his little brother I'm now coaching. He would get to 18.0 in the offseason and was truly out of shape for him.
Yes. They have BMI requirements for high school wrestling for the safety of the wrestlers, why not have it for the safety of the runners.
BMI scores wrote:
Personally I think this is a terrible idea, but just for fun here would be the minimum weights:
4'10" - 86.1
4'11" - 89.1
5'0" - 92.2
5'1" - 95.3
5'2" - 98.4
5'3" - 101.6
5'4" - 104.9
5'5" - 108.2
5'6" - 111.5
5'7" - 114.9
5'8" - 118.4
5'9" - 121.9
5'10" - 125.5
______________________
I have been below the minimum weight you listed for my height nearly my entire adult life. I'm in my late 30s BTW and have never had a problem with food. No, there should not be minimum weight requirements. But coaches and fellow athletes need to be on the lookout for people who have lost as significant amount of weight and/or those who seem to have a problem with food.
billy bob n beantown wrote:
I coach a kid who ran at FootLocker last year. His BMI was 17.2 at that race. He was healthy, he's just a late bloomer and is naturally very thin. Always has been. So is his little brother I'm now coaching. He would get to 18.0 in the offseason and was truly out of shape for him.
But he's not a woman so I don't see what relevance that has to this conversation.
Anyhow, 18 was just given as an example, it doesn't necessarily have to be that number exactly.
Let's keep the standard up for a change. If there is going to be any body related criteria, keep the fatties/hefties/chunkies from turning XC into a jogging class.
When specifying such a requirement, a maximum and a minimum cut point should be provided.
Pblover wrote:
As another poster said, BMI isn't super accurate. I did the Bod Pod testing once (more accurate) and it turns out that I have a higher amount of muscle than the average girl my same height and weight. So, my BMI is less than what those basic charts assume.
And yes, lots of runners are naurally under the BMI and are totally fine. The exercise physiologist performing the bod pod testing actually said my body fat could decrease For competitive endurance athletic sake and that I would be just fine
I agree with your 1st sentence. The rest of it I struggle to make sense of. A higher percentage of muscle makes one's BMI higher, not lower (since muscle is relatively heavy). If you have more muscle than other women your same height AND WEIGHT, you would have less fat or really light bones. And yet your exercise physiologist says you could lose fat? Confused.
John Clendon wrote:
Should a men's BMI minimum be included with this rule? If not, why not? Doesn't a male become unhealthy if they are too low? Or are men just invincible and tough.
Nah bro, male 4:4x miler in eighth grade. Freshman year had some eating issues and couldn't break 5:20. BMI was 16.
BMI scores wrote:
Personally I think this is a terrible idea, but just for fun here would be the minimum weights:
4'10" - 86.1
4'11" - 89.1
5'0" - 92.2
5'1" - 95.3
5'2" - 98.4
5'3" - 101.6
5'4" - 104.9
5'5" - 108.2
5'6" - 111.5
5'7" - 114.9
5'8" - 118.4
5'9" - 121.9
5'10" - 125.5
This list looks like optimal weight, not minimum weight.
BMI scores wrote:
Personally I think this is a terrible idea, but just for fun here would be the minimum weights:
4'10" - 86.1
4'11" - 89.1
5'0" - 92.2
5'1" - 95.3
5'2" - 98.4
5'3" - 101.6
5'4" - 104.9
5'5" - 108.2
5'6" - 111.5
5'7" - 114.9
5'8" - 118.4
5'9" - 121.9
5'10" - 125.5
The above is crazy. Humans are not all the same. My wife who is not a runner is 5'7" and even after our second child only weighs 102 lbs wet. That's 12.9 lbs less than your "minimum". She is 100% healthy, eats whatever she wants and is albeit skinny as a rail healthy for her body makeup. her light weight is partly due to extremely small bones. Her wrists are about 1.5 times the diameter of my thumb.
This entire post is highly inappropriate. Humans are different, lets not discriminate diversity.
PS. My sister who is also 100% healthy and not a runner is 5'9" and weighs 110lbs after 3 kids. Same situation as my wife. Small boned.
Then your wife and sister are two of the skinniest non-anorexic women on the planet. However I doubt they more than 800-900 calories per day or less as most of the people who claim they eat everything mainly eat salads with no dressing and coffee.
fdvscdsa wrote:
billy bob n beantown wrote:I coach a kid who ran at FootLocker last year. His BMI was 17.2 at that race. He was healthy, he's just a late bloomer and is naturally very thin. Always has been. So is his little brother I'm now coaching. He would get to 18.0 in the offseason and was truly out of shape for him.
But he's not a woman so I don't see what relevance that has to this conversation.
Anyhow, 18 was just given as an example, it doesn't necessarily have to be that number exactly.
Because elite men in endurance sport are also over-represented when it comes to eating disorders and the problems they cause. If there is going to be a limit for females, I guarantee you 100% there would have to be a limit for males as well. There is absolutely no possible way you could legitimately pass a rule telling females how much they can weigh and not tell males the same. 0% chance of that happening.
So my point is a males BMI would have to be higher than the females limit. This kid was 100% healthy and at 17.2. He is naturally very thin. His BMI as a freshman was even lower. About 16.7. To be fair to not exclude those who are actually built to be elite distance runners, you would have to set the female BMI very very low, probably around 16.0. Other females would see that number and think that is where they also needed to be. It would not achieve the desired result AT ALL. It would in fact cause a massive problem.
Boise State should get a special dispensation BMI of 14, which is what their top runners look like, age-wise.
good question
I think the weigh-in in wrestling is actually part of the problem not the solution...if I understand it correctly you stave yourself and dyhrate yourself - weigh-in and then go eat and drink and wrestle later in the day at a higher weight. Isn't this sorta cheating the weigh-in system.
to do it properly the weigh-in should be done ring side right before the match -with no chance to go eat and rehydrate...this makes you wrestle at your actual weight. you want to wrestle below your true weight - good luck doing it in that condition.
this solution for CC would create more problems than it would solve -
1) in wrestling its main purpose is to have competitors of the same size/weight competing vs each other because it would be highly in favor of bigger/heavier wrestlers vs lighters one....there is no such thing in CC/track - about height or weight.
2) if you are underweight as a runner - that is your problem - you live & race and train that way - if it helps you in the short time - that is your choice - it probably won't help you in the long term....I'm not sure I believe it really helps you in the short term - but it could.
3) a better solution would involve education than punishment.
4) the real competitive disparity in our sport has to do with drugs! that is what we need to focus on first.
finally if you are going to pass some BMI requirement is has to be for both men and women and what are you going to do about bulimia? mouth swab before competitions? this is going to get pretty ridiculous
ideer wrote:
They can be as heavy as they want, but anyone with BMI below 18, will have to sit out until they make weight. Should be helpful and even the playing field.
My first instinct is say that's crazy, but putting all PC aside, it is not a bad idea. I certainly would not have max, because it is kind of difficult it would almost impossible to make it fair. However, being extremely underweight is not only unhealthy, it is like taking a PED. Lots of females can achieve success by starving themselves.