Weight and Marathon Time

You still have to do the training to get there. Think about it, you can't just grab a skinny guy off the street and run 2:33. But as you slim down you will be able to handle greater training loads.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

But as you slim down you will be able to handle greater training loads.

Igy

Thanks Igy. I did the 2:59 off of roughly 45 miles per week for 5-6 weeks.

Now, I'm about 175lb - and can do about 55 miles per week, average.

Average, because I can do a couple up weeks (60-70 mpw) then I have to come down for a week to 30-40.

I feel like if I zero'd in at 150lb. I also may be able to do 80-100 mpw.

Fatfontaine wrote:

Recently ran a 2:59 at ~180lb. I'm about 6 feet tall, and a still healthy running weight might be 150lb.

I've read up to 1 percent a pound, and also 2 seconds a mile. If I had a 6:51 pace, that's a full minute down to 5:51. That's about a 2:33.

Is this possible? Any anecdotes out there you know of that approach this type of range?

Yes, it is possible. In my experience about one minute per lb.

Getting down to 150 will be very tough, though. But good luck. Would be interested to heat howmyou get on,

These seconds per pound estimates are just that - estimates. They are based on certain generalizations ad assumptions. I wouldn't put too much weight (or don eh pun) on them.

As a general rule, the lighter you are the faster you will run in a marathon. How much faster is anybody's guess. I was 3 pounds lighter in my first marathon than I was in my second and third, and hat is my third fastest time, and I trained using the same plan for each and proceeded through my mid 04s in the process.

If you want to run faster, and don't mind he effort, lose s few pounds and see how you feel. But don't put pressure on yourself with expectations based on a best guess.

CW current weight

CvDot current vDot Jack Daniels velocity at Vo2Max

GW goal race weight

PvDot projected vDot at goal weight

CW = 180 CvDot = 54 based on 2:59

GW = 150 PvDot = 64 estimate of 2:34

CW / GW x CvDot = GvDot

in your case

180 / 150 x 54 = 64

Caveats .....

Since you have recently successfully completed a marathon the training side should not be a huge problem but it could be just because you are lighter does not mean you will be able to maintain the faster pace without hitting the wall. My guess is the formula is more reliable for races from the 1500 up to a half marathon.

As long as the weight loss does not reduce your ability to consume oxygen. IMO 150 is probably too light ie instead of just shedding excess fat you will lose muscle and strength which means the above formula does not apply.

Good Luck eat right stay healthy

Charlie wrote:

CW current weight

CvDot current vDot Jack Daniels velocity at Vo2Max

GW goal race weight

PvDot projected vDot at goal weight

CW = 180 CvDot = 54 based on 2:59

GW = 150 PvDot = 64 estimate of 2:34

CW / GW x CvDot = GvDot

in your case

180 / 150 x 54 = 64

Caveats .....

Since you have recently successfully completed a marathon the training side should not be a huge problem but it could be just because you are lighter does not mean you will be able to maintain the faster pace without hitting the wall. My guess is the formula is more reliable for races from the 1500 up to a half marathon.

As long as the weight loss does not reduce your ability to consume oxygen. IMO 150 is probably too light ie instead of just shedding excess fat you will lose muscle and strength which means the above formula does not apply.

Good Luck eat right stay healthy

Actually, I think weight loss is supposed to be more beneficial the longer the distance.

But without knowing anything about this guy, a 2:59 at 6 ft and 180 pounds on 45 miles a week is pretty damn good.

Fatfontaine wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

But as you slim down you will be able to handle greater training loads.

Igy

Thanks Igy. I did the 2:59 off of roughly 45 miles per week for 5-6 weeks.

Now, I'm about 175lb - and can do about 55 miles per week, average.

Average, because I can do a couple up weeks (60-70 mpw) then I have to come down for a week to 30-40.

I feel like if I zero'd in at 150lb. I also may be able to do 80-100 mpw.

Fontaine,

In addition to losing weight and increasing your volume, I would work on areas that will make you a better athlete. That is, you may have a marathon goal, but also improve your 10k ability. As part of this, again if you haven't already done so, make sure your training has roots in science. In that regards, Daniels' Running Formulas is a good resource.

Best,

Igy

Hello

(sorry I'm french :) )

for a marathon, Fatfontaine (90kg, 3h/marathon) will reduce global time from 2 to 3 minutes each 2 pounds he will lose (if it's fat, not muscle)

http://www.vo2max.com.fr/physio/marathon.html

Best regards,

Sébastien

Fatfontaine wrote:

Recently ran a 2:59 at ~180lb. I'm about 6 feet tall, and a still healthy running weight might be 150lb.

I've read up to 1 percent a pound, and also 2 seconds a mile. If I had a 6:51 pace, that's a full minute down to 5:51. That's about a 2:33.

Is this possible? Any anecdotes out there you know of that approach this type of range?

If you go to 80MPW your running weight will self correct unless you eat 24/7.

And, no you are not going to run 2:33 off weight loss only. From the extra 25MPW and additional training you might get to 2:39 IMHO which is a really good marathon.

A Marathon at a 6:00 per mile pace is 2:37:18. That might be your goal but it's a lot to ask to take 51 seconds per mile off....

You need hard progressive runs, repeats on the track (or roads), long runs, races and rest the week before the big day.

I never ran a marathon but recently ran a 1:26 half. I'm 5'9 and 180lbs. Fairly muscular. I'd imagine I could run a lot faster if I dropped 30lbs but I like the way I look now.

I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion because it is something I have pondered frequently for the last five years. The self-correction of weight idea is largely a generalization. It is possible that simply running 80 mpw will bring your weight down to an optimal level. However, I needed to implement significant changes to my diet to lose weight even at 90 mpw. I am 6'1 and weighed 178 when I ran my first marathon in 2:30 (5:45 pace). I did this off of 6 months of training where I averaged about 75 mpw in 6 days of running. My peak mileage was 92. When I ran in college my racing weight was 158-160. If I were to use the 2 seconds a mile approximation that would equate to 36-40 seconds per mile or between 5:05 to 5:09 pace per mile. That comes out to 2:13-2:15 for the marathon. I do not think that I would have been a sub 2:15 guy in that race simply by losing 18-20 lbs (I think it could have gotten me to 2:22-2:25). It would require an increase in both training volume and intensity to achieve that perfomance. It is possible that losing a significant amount of weight would have allowed me to train more and harder without risking breakdown and injury. Another factor that may effect the impact of weight loss on marathon performance is the distribution of your excess weight. If you are carrying a ton of extra fat I think it would have a more detrimental effect than if you are carrying a extra muscle. That being said, a massive upper body is detrimental to marathon performance. All in all I believe that you could get down to 2:33 but it will require weight loss coupled with an increase in training volume and intensity. I would not advise you try to achieve all three of those components at the same time. I attempted to cut weight while increasing training volume and intensity in the training cycle following my 2:30 and it led to a string of injuries and sickness that have prevented me even returning to the form that saw me run 2:30.

Agreed. Higher mileage itself does not lead to greater weight loss. Your body is always reaching a point of homeostasis, and a healthy metabolism tends to quickly adjust to calories expended and calories consumed to maintain this set point. It takes a greater shock to the system to change this homeostasis point, and the risk you run in shocking the system is getting injured or sick, as you found out.

Smoove wrote:

These seconds per pound estimates are just that - estimates. They are based on certain generalizations ad assumptions. I wouldn't put too much weight (or don eh pun) on them.

As a general rule, the lighter you are the faster you will run in a marathon. How much faster is anybody's guess. I was 3 pounds lighter in my first marathon than I was in my second and third, and hat is my third fastest time, and I trained using the same plan for each and proceeded through my mid 04s in the process.

If you want to run faster, and don't mind he effort, lose s few pounds and see how you feel. But don't put pressure on yourself with expectations based on a best guess.

Smoove did you get a new phone? Or break your keyboard in the last couple weeks? Typos through the roof lately...

Ha, fair point. I was really slow at work until a couple of weeks ago, so I would comb the boards during slow periods. I am a fair typist on a conventional keyboard, and my typos appear in red as I type them on the full blow website when using my desktop.

But I have been really busy the last couple of weeks, so I have mostly been interfacing on my phone during little pockets of boredom, and the typos aren't as apparent and Siri autocorrects things in weird ways. I guess I need to proofread my posts from my phone from now on, because, at a minimum, my messages lose some credibility when portions of them are nearly incomprehensible.

I echo the words of caution here. Don't fall into the trap of thinking less weight means faster times. It will eventually get you injured or sick. If you do the right training and don't eat like a pig, your weight will auto correct. That may not be 150 lbs and you just gave to accept the genetics behind it.

I think his point is...

Daniels Vdot provides numbers that are inversely proportional to weight. So, you can take your current Vdot number, lower the weight by some proportion and hold everything else constant, and the Vdot number goes up, indicating you should be able to go faster in a direct correlation to your weight for time improvement.

However, the top half of the Vdot number is reliant on the measure of oxygen flow. Oxygen flow is not facilitated through fat, so any loss of fat and the assumption above holds. However, muscle IS invovled in oxygen transport/soncumption, so the above assumption is muddied. Likely a loss of muscle means a loss in oxygen transport/consumption, but also a lower demand for oxygen transport. Whether this equates to 1s vs 2s or actually starts to become harmful depends on a lot of things that cannot be easily predicted for a generic case. Obviously there will be a crossover point where loss of muscle mass becomes more detrimental than the reduced energy demands of being lighter, but no one will be able to say for sure whether it's worth it for the OP.

You will go faster ....

Extra fat doesn't help you stay healthy and un-hurt.

Everyone says if you lose too much weight you will get hurt and sick? I've been hurt and sick plenty of times when I've been chubby :-)

I get hurt and sick when I'm lean and I get hurt and sick when I'm overweight I don't think it matters we just use it as an excuse.

I've never heard anyone say you should get chubby...so that you don't get hurt and sick.

That excessive extra fat does not perform any important function on your body.

Idahohobbyjogger wrote:

You will go faster ....

Extra fat doesn't help you stay healthy and un-hurt.

Everyone says if you lose too much weight you will get hurt and sick? I've been hurt and sick plenty of times when I've been chubby :-)

I get hurt and sick when I'm lean and I get hurt and sick when I'm overweight I don't think it matters we just use it as an excuse.

I've never heard anyone say you should get chubby...so that you don't get hurt and sick.

That excessive extra fat does not perform any important function on your body.

You are thinking too direct cause and effect, the actual mechanism would have a one or two transition steps: Not eating enough food in an attempt to push even further to lower and lower weight can lead malnutrition if you're not careful. If you're not getting the right vitamins, minerals, nutrients you are more likely to get hurt or sick. Weight loss does not lead to sickness, unhealthy weight loss leads to sickness. OR, not eating enough increases the stress on your body too much, too much stress leads to injury or sickness.

As an example - you can be more likely to get a stress fracture because you weigh too much and are overloading your bones OR you are more likely to get a stress fracture because you do not have enough calcium in your diet and your bone density reduces and become more fragile.

bajbb wrote:

I echo the words of caution here. Don't fall into the trap of thinking less weight means faster times. It will eventually get you injured or sick. If you do the right training and don't eat like a pig, your weight will auto correct. That may not be 150 lbs and you just gave to accept the genetics behind it.

This. If you eat a whole foods diet (organic fruits, vegetables, grass fed meats, organic eggs, wild caught fish - nothing processed) and do some adequate training (at least 50 mpw) your body will auto correct to its ideal weight. Eat as much whole foods as you want - no need to count calories or any bullshit - just nothing artificial or processed.