The continual emphasis on pounds for runners..this should stop

Caught the last autocorrect of runners, but not the first two. Oh well

OK, so this thread seems to have gone off the rails, but here's my experience. As a very tall runner I ran best at 175-180. I quit and lifted weights for a while and topped out near 220. Running was very, very hard, but I did it because I don't believe the crap about 4 minute TABATA workouts making you aerobically fit. Anyway, I cut back on food intake with intermittent fasting and paying attention to quality of food. I did all else the same and shed about 20 pounds in a few months. Running is so much easier now. It just is.

Again, nope.I am a runner who believes that runners, in addition to running, should, in fact, have a conscience.And sure, they should.

Stuart Smalley wrote:

Stoppit Smith wrote:

Again, nope.

I am a runner who believes that runners, in addition to running, should, in fact, have a conscience.

And sure, they should.

Crazy Thread?

I am sorry, but do conscience and running run opposite of each other?

Can runners NOT be nice and accepting?

Runner's CAN be not nice. Runner's CAN be not accepting. Having an opinion does not give you the right to decide what someone's opinion may be.

You are either a troll, idiot, or lunatic if you think you are the conscience for all runners.

But that is what you did for you.Nobody should suggest to you to do otherwise, OR, especially, nobody should suggest that you needed to lose weight at 220.That would have and should have been up to you.

Broseph Meattles wrote:

OK, so this thread seems to have gone off the rails, but here's my experience. As a very tall runner I ran best at 175-180. I quit and lifted weights for a while and topped out near 220. Running was very, very hard, but I did it because I don't believe the crap about 4 minute TABATA workouts making you aerobically fit. Anyway, I cut back on food intake with intermittent fasting and paying attention to quality of food. I did all else the same and shed about 20 pounds in a few months. Running is so much easier now. It just is.

If body shaming is what you think it is then you're in the wrong sport buttercup!

4 sec per mile per pound when racing the 10,000. Everyone doesn't get a trophy anymore! The ones who train harder, cut weight when they know it's time to race and have no life but the long white line are the winners.

Bleu wrote:

If body shaming is what you think it is then you're in the wrong sport buttercup!

4 sec per mile per pound when racing the 10,000. Everyone doesn't get a trophy anymore! The ones who train harder, cut weight when they know it's time to race and have no life but the long white line are the winners.

I always thought it was 2 seconds. I'm happier with this 4 second figure! Got a link to somewhere authoritative so I can get twice as fast when I lose more weight?

Thanks, OP, for starting the BEST THREAD EVER if this works!!! Woo hoo, weight loss here we come. See ya in the dust, fatties.

And they are doing this for themselves.Not because someone shamed them into saying they had to.Buttercup?Just wondering...4 runners, 3 places.Okay, expert, how many times recently have you broken the tape?Yeah. We all train hard, dude

Bleu wrote:

If body shaming is what you think it is then you're in the wrong sport buttercup!

4 sec per mile per pound when racing the 10,000. Everyone doesn't get a trophy anymore! The ones who train harder, cut weight when they know it's time to race and have no life but the long white line are the winners.

I'm sure we do! LOL!

Stoppit Smith wrote:

...Yeah. We all train hard, dude

You can't outrun a bad diet.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

... how many times recently have you broken the tape?

More than a few times, and always at a certain weight. If you don't care about performance, weight doesn't matter. If you do, it does. The clock doesn't care about your feeling, buttercup.

But if it is my effort for my best time based on my training for my personal goal, then the clock does not need to care.Additionally, do you know who also does not have to care??You.☺

Stuart Smalley wrote:

The clock doesn't care about your feeling, buttercup.

I will also truncate this out further because there are important life lessons to be gleaned from this.Yesterday, in the first two running portions of a shorter Monday workout, here is where I was1.47 miles in 10:48.67 walk .46 miles in 3:12then some walking/jogging afterward for a total of 4.7 (Mondays usually are easier)Let's say, for sake of argument, that you, "Stuart Smalley" were an elite runner (since you seem to represent yourself as one) and did this first 1.47 in a 5 minute pace, or a 7:21. That is a great time--that would be .47 ahead of me--or, in other words, .47 miles ahead, I could still see you. You are faster then, sure, and I will give you that. But that does not give you the jurisdiction to provide training critique, dietary critique, form critique, body shape critique or any other critique any more than it would give a friend who would finish .47 behind me.If you would have trained this 1.47 portion any slower than 5 minutes per mile, it lessens the validity of the advice you would give as it would simply reduce it to being mean (i.e. smack talking), rather than actually giving something with significance.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

But if it is my effort for my best time based on my training for my personal goal, then the clock does not need to care.

Additionally, do you know who also does not have to care??

You.☺

Stuart Smalley wrote:

The clock doesn't care about your feeling, buttercup.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

But if it is my effort for my best time based on my training for my personal goal, then the clock does not need to care.

Additionally, do you know who also does not have to care??

You.☺

Stuart Smalley wrote:

The clock doesn't care about your feeling, buttercup.

I definitely care about the people I beat. Knowing that I did everything I could (training and diet) to beat the people who don't care as much.

For you.But it does not give you automatic permission to advise them on how to do them. Unless they ask, of course.

WinnerWinnerChickenDinner wrote:

Stoppit Smith wrote:

But if it is my effort for my best time based on my training for my personal goal, then the clock does not need to care.

Additionally, do you know who also does not have to care??

You.☺

I definitely care about the people I beat. Knowing that I did everything I could (training and diet) to beat the people who don't care as much.

Here’s the thing for me. If I am not pretty slim, I am not really a distance runner, not even really a hobby distance runner, don’t really have an easy pace(it’s all relatively hard), I can’t really build running mileage to competitive levels , most because it's not fun if I weigh too much. I will get injured running to heavy( yes, I can run 20-30 miles a week at any weight and not get hurt), Just 10 pounds takes me out of what I consider the real distance running game, (doing my best with the talent I have and what I have to put into it). 20 pounds and I am very limited. Just try carrying those kinds of weights in a backpack and run. The demands rob efficiency over distance tremendously. Worse, it kills the potential deep joy of running.

Aside from PR’s and podiums, it is just so much more of a pleasure to run for an hour or two , or more, as a thin running trained person. I think a lot of people in the new market driven, consumers who run/slog/walk), “running” craze, just haven’t ever had that experience.

Most comments being made about running and weight these days , miss the point. Good, defend all body types if you want , make a million definitions about what’s “beautiful”, but that’s not really about running at it’s core.

Weight has a dramatic impact on both endurance and sprinting athletics. Even 100m athletes are relatively lean. The biomechanics of running are greatly affected by weight. Of course, each individual has an ideal weight to maximize biomechanical efficiency, and going below or above that weight will worsen times.