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

extremism is bad wrote:

tl;dr

But I agree. As long as your BMI is below 18 you're good.

BMI is irrelevant, body fat % is the important thing. Get a $5 calipers and you're set.

[quote]Stoppit Jones wrote:

I also ran a 1:41:10 at the difficult La Jolla Half in 2016 with a weight of 172 which is still a BMI of about 27 for my 5'8" height.

When I run, I feel good.

I don't worry about my weight as I run.

Nor should others

Congrats on your contributions to the obesity epidemic. Sounds like you're too lazy to actually be in shape and looking for validation.

I see. So I am lazy now based on weight.This, again, is proving my original point.Wow. Many of you really can't stop it.

But.... wrote:

Congrats on your contributions to the obesity epidemic. Sounds like you're too lazy to actually be in shape and looking for validation.

Stoppit Jones wrote:

What I am saying is that the elites are (rightfully so) focused on their training programs and usually the ones doing 100 mpw. As a result, they do not care what someone else weighs or what body shape they present themselves in. Trying to race at their best on a particular day is what they do. Trying to be in the best fitness for their race is what they do. Training for improvement is what they do. These are the lessons we should take from the elites.

But, what we should not do in trying to be like the elites is to ostracize anyone that does not look like them.

Nobody should ever tell anyone, especially here, that they need to lose weight. They just don't. See the original premise...it needs to stop.

It's all about final goal. If someone wants to be faster, they need to lose weight, or at least, it's one of the important factors to be faster. That's science.

Bad Wigins wrote:

BMI is irrelevant, body fat % is the important thing. Get a $5 calipers and you're set.

Could anyone in the real world have a BMI of 18 and high body fat ? There is this persistent myth on this forum about "skinny fat" that nobody has ever managed to produce a shred of evidence about.

First you compare your weight to your finishing times, then you compare weight between elites, then you say that you're almost as good as a Kenyon because you were within a mile of him when he was finishing.

I'm going to use your logic,

When I studied less, I got better grades. When I studied more, I was more tired and got worse grades.

Einstein and Stephen Hawkins did not care how much each other studied.

I once visited Cambridge. I pretty much have my Phd from Cambridge.

If you say that someone should study more to get better grades then you are a big meanie.

Studied less?Within your logic, since you essentially portray yourself as someone academic, I am incredibly surprised that you have not asked anything about what my training is.You just fell into the same shallow pit that the others did without knowing it and basically, you trapped yourself.You assumed that because of my stance on this and my weight that my training is lackluster.So, fair enough. Let me take you through a day of my "studied less" training.After yesterday's work day 8:30-4:30, I went to the track near where I work then--5200 meters running in 23:44 600 meters walking400 meters of running in 95 seconds200 meters walking400 meters of running in 80.88 seconds800 meters of walking400 meters of running in 89 seconds400 meters walkingand a final slow untimed 400 meter walk on the 23:44, if I had trained at 90 seconds per lap to get a 19:30 for the 3.23 miles, essentially I would only finish .57 miles ahead of myself or 917 meters, meaning that someone doing the 19:30 would only be 2.3 track laps ahead. Of course, having said that, for someone to train at 90s would put them in a different tier for racing altogether.You see, it's easy to assume, and it's easy to try to pick apart someone's argument, supposedly to find a place where it would crack. Times were accurate on a timex ironman watch with lap by lap memory.So, now, back to your argument. If you look at what is before you, it is not that the blanket statement of studying more can yield better grades, but the flaw is that you assume that someone who1> does not look smart does not have better grades2> learns slower cannot get the same grades3> learns slower does not try as hardor, more capstone, that you make an eyeball snapshot judgment about someone based on what you want to believe is true.Please, I welcome you to post a day's workout or plan and tell me, qualitatively and quantitatively exactly how you study "harder," how this "harder study" results in better grades and why, most importantly, I should sweat what I look like when I study and whom I should try to please.Chop it up all you want for its fallacies, but fact is, your argument is still shallow.MikeOf course, on race day, I'd have slowly warmed up, stretched and been primed for a better time overall. But, this was training

If someone wants. Right. It's for them to want...not you.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

Congratulations on finishing .72 miles ahead of where I would be now in a race.

I was kind of rooting for you, and then you post this. Really one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen on this board. 0.72 miles doesn't matter. So in your mind if you DNS a 100m race, you're only 0.06 miles behind. That's WAY less than the 0.72 miles, so you're definitely a winner in that case! Except that in reality, of course, you're a total loser. 0.72 miles in a 5k puts you just in front of the walkers. That's not a place of pride or anything to brag about. Gee, best of the worst. Is that really all you aspire to?

There's nothing wrong with being fat, but having a loser mentality is another story entirely. You're a loser, and you're trying to convince people that they should follow in your loser footsteps. Best of luck with that and enjoy wallowing in defeat.

Stoppit Jones wrote:

If someone wants. Right. It's for them to want...not you.

Zede wrote:

It's all about final goal. If someone wants to be faster, they need to lose weight, or at least, it's one of the important factors to be faster. That's science.

People writing here or any other running forum, usually, write because they race or want to lower their times, and obviously one of the factors is weight.

So i think that majority of people saying "you are fat" to another one, is a "fat" in running terms, not in absolute terms.

If this was a Sumo forum, someone would say "you are insane skinny" :-)

Sorry for my bad english.

corrected post:

If we are not winning the race or being anywhere on the medal stand, why should it matter to anyone but ourselves where we finish, or what our time is.

There is nothing loser about it. This is what empowerment is about.

Cut out the walkers and the joggers and you have races of 100.

100 is really just no fun.

I'll take the events where everyone feels wonderful that day, no matter how they look.

Unfortunately, you lose here because you cannot be pleased with yourself unless you're the best. It must be sad with THAT anchor to carry

Hey Stoppit, what's it like being too dim to properly use the quote feature on this site?

Feels good. Now, anything real to add?:)

Stoppit Quote wrote:

Hey Stoppit, what's it like being too dim to properly use the quote feature on this site?

I tried to remove the weight, running and training aspect from my analogy. Obviously, this was difficult to follow. I'll break it down.

Studying less = Heavier weight

Studying more = Lighter weight

Grades are relevant to times run.

Therefore, by the transitive property as set forth by Morgan and Bartholomew,

Your claim would be as follows,

When I weighed more, I was faster, when I weighed less, I was slower.

You never presented training as being part of your claim.

I cannot comprehend what your illogical methods of rationalizing of your training.

Again let's try another analogy. By your rationalization.

I am a kiwi, I am brown I am green on the inside. If I was yellow on the outside, white on the inside, I would be a banana. Therefore, a kiwi is almost as tasty as a banana.

Don't get me started on the education of a student. I don't think you're ready for this jelly.

Many of you here are full of assumptive attacks, aren't you? Considering I have a Master of Education degree and work at a college, I certainly believe I am suitably ready for any jelly.Wow. Presumptive.

Tomato Tomato wrote:

Don't get me started on the education of a student. I don't think you're ready for this jelly.

Stoppit Jones wrote:

Many of you here are full of assumptive attacks, aren't you? Considering I have a Master of Education degree and work at a college, I certainly believe I am suitably ready for any jelly.

Wow. Presumptive.

Tomato Tomato wrote:

Don't get me started on the education of a student. I don't think you're ready for this jelly.

I was trying to avoid having such a productive thread go off topic. We can compare master degrees too though, or 6th year degrees. Or working at a community college.

Or we can eschew any judgment or competition other than that which takes place on the street with a clock, as was, of course, my original premise.Gee whiz. Everything does not need to be won.

Tomato Tomato wrote:

Stoppit Jones wrote:

Many of you here are full of assumptive attacks, aren't you? Considering I have a Master of Education degree and work at a college, I certainly believe I am suitably ready for any jelly.

Wow. Presumptive.

I was trying to avoid having such a productive thread go off topic. We can compare master degrees too though, or 6th year degrees. Or working at a community college.

In fact maybe the issue is deeper than weight. Maybe many of you are just too far judgmental of anyone on ANY premise that you see fit.

What does any of that have to do with running?