is 2 seconds per pound per mile accurate

I should also mention I am in much better running shape than I was last year bc I increased mileage and my easy pace has naturally become about a minute faster.

Is it safe to assume you are a high school female? Will 20:xx 5K get you to state in your state? Do not attempt to lose weight too fast. If you were to lose weight quickly, you would lose muscle.

So you're a high school female? wrote:

Is it safe to assume you are a high school female? Will 20:xx 5K get you to state in your state? Do not attempt to lose weight too fast. If you were to lose weight quickly, you would lose muscle.

+1

Not only that, the faster you lose weight the more likely you are to gain it back.

weightloss struggle wrote:

and I will admit im not fat

Sounds like you are

You are overthinking this. Just eat healthy and run.

weightloss struggle wrote:

According to a race weight calculator I need to lose 30 pounds give or take. My best xc 5k time last year was 22:13, and I will admit im not fat but I could change my diet and lose some weight even if not for racing. I want run in the low 20's and hopefully qualify to state. If I lose 30 pounds, (safely all fat not muscle), could I really cut off 3 minutes from my time?

Can't be completely right else I had potential to be WR holder. I'm the same height as Galen Rupp, but weigh 57 pounds more than his published weight (fat not muscle, too much soda, pizza, whiskey). By that 2s/lb rule, if I was his weight my half pace should be 1:54 per mile faster. That would put me Down around 4:23/mile pace for a half!!!

Seriously though, it's a diminishing return sort of thing, and people that are overweight enough to experience this probably weren't running enough anyway. You run more to lose weight and get faster. Was it the running more, the weight loss, or both?

I'm really not I look like a regular teenage girl but I want to have more muscles/less fat and get abs to run faster

thank you for the advice everyone, this has been tricky because I don't want to undereat, so I think losing it slowly and just making healthier choices will help. Also yes to make state the times in my region last year were in the 19's to mid 20's I am in a pretty small division of my state.

would 4 months be a good time frame? thatsy how long there is till the state qualifying meet

weightloss struggle wrote:

would 4 months be a good time frame? thatsy how long there is till the state qualifying meet

Four months most likely is too short of a time period to lose that amount of weight. Do not starve. Stay away from bad foods. No soft drinks (even diet drinks are bad). Eat well. I have seen female athletes create unnecessary injuries by starving themselves. Runners come in various shapes and sizes. If you want to do additional exercises to increase your fitness: 1) push-ups, 2) sit-ups, 3) deep knee bends, 4) pull-ups, 5) bent knee leg raises before school in the morning. Maybe it'll take 20 to 25 minutes in the mornings. Have a good season!

weightloss struggle wrote:

would 4 months be a good time frame? thatsy how long there is till the state qualifying meet

Just focus on eating a healthy diet consistently year around. Do not do what new year revolution dieters do, that is crash diet for two weeks than go back to eating junk the other 50 weeks. Just focus on eating whole plant foods and avoid junk food i.e. white sugar, white flour, candy, soda, refined oil, and sports drinks.

In reply to op, 1 pound per week seems like the consensus of whats both healthy and fast. -500 kcal per day

A better formula would be if your body fat percentage reduces by X percentage points your speed should increase by X percent all else being equal. If you went from 20% bodyfat to 18% bodyfat you would improve 2%. This comes out to very roughly 2 seconds per mile per pound.

I'm pretty sure this only applies if the weight you are losing is fat. Also, this formula starts to break down once you get faster that 20 minutes or so for the 5k. For example, a guy like Solinky couldn't lose 40 pounds (which would still put him at a higher BMI than some elites) and then drop an 18:45 10k.

Here's my cautionary tale:

I was a good runner. I had qualified for nationals and was knocking on the door of setting schools records at pretty much every distance. I was only a sophomore in college when I decided to try and cut weight. I figured if I could that well at 170ish lbs that cutting some weight would be the fast, easy answer to finally setting those school records.

Well it got out of hand - FAST! By the time I got back to school I had lost 30 lbs from an already healthy weight and was sitting at a BMI of 17. My body had flipped a switch and gone into starvation mode. It ruined my college career and I ran slower for my last two years of eligibility.

Trust me when I tell you that wanting to lose a few pounds to get to race weight can quickly turn into an obsession. It would shock you, even if you think "I wont let it turn into a thing", just how quickly it can become a problem. If you want to run faster, train smart and consistent. There is no short cut to faster times that is sustainable. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just eat healthy and train hard. Your body will find what works best for IT.

Oh Please wrote:

Can't be completely right else I had potential to be WR holder. I'm the same height as Galen Rupp, but weigh 57 pounds more than his published weight (fat not muscle, too much soda, pizza, whiskey). By that 2s/lb rule, if I was his weight my half pace should be 1:54 per mile faster. That would put me Down around 4:23/mile pace for a half!!!

Seriously though, it's a diminishing return sort of thing, and people that are overweight enough to experience this probably weren't running enough anyway. You run more to lose weight and get faster. Was it the running more, the weight loss, or both?

It's not a "diminishing return sort of thing." It's actually very simple physics. Basically, take your current VDOT, multiply by your current weight, divide by your goal weight, and you get your new VDOT.

You're probably right that you didn't have the potential to be a WR holder, but that's more likely because you don't have 57 lbs of non-functional fat to lose. Rupp, like most distance runners, has an incredibly slight build: narrow hips, very long legs. Even if you were at very low body fat, you would probably weight a lot more than him.

But if you're actually running a 1:22 for the half at a weight of 195 lbs, then you are absurdly talented. I've never heard of anything like that.

Just so I'm not being totally irresponsible, what I was talking about above is just the physics. There's more to it biologically. You can really mess yourself up by not eating properly. You can lose muscle mass, bone density, and your hormones can go haywire. Listen to what some of these other people have said. The math only applies if you drop totally non-functional fat and don't experience any other negative effects from your diet.

If you want a pretty solid approach, Fitzgerald's book Racing Weight is worth checking out. It's about eating for performance and body composition, without counting calories or starving yourself.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of elites you see are (1) photographed under lighting that makes them look especially ripped, (2) taking drugs that make it much easier to maintain that kind of body composition, and (3) at a racing weight that they don't maintain year round. Don't use them as your guide.

weightloss struggle wrote:

According to a race weight calculator I need to lose 30 pounds give or take. My best xc 5k time last year was 22:13, and I will admit im not fat but I could change my diet and lose some weight even if not for racing. I want run in the low 20's and hopefully qualify to state. If I lose 30 pounds, (safely all fat not muscle), could I really cut off 3 minutes from my time?

I would suggest getting Matt Fitzgeralds book "Racing Weight" studies have been done and yes the faster runners weigh less and are leaner. The issue is that your race weight and body fat % is controlled by your genetics so you can only go so low healthy. Losing weight and body fat takes time, 4 months is not enough time. I bulk up over the winter and cut over the spring into summer for the fall season. last year I ran at 160-165lbs, bulked up to 185 through lifting and eating and then began to slowly cut 250 calorie daily deficiency .5lbs a week. Its proven scientifically that 500 calorie deficiency a day will cut into your lean muscle mass, slower, though longer, is better.

Focus on getting your diet as clean as possible, no need to go low carb, low fat, atkins, paleo, whatever the trend is. Just eat clean control, portion size and eat to excel. Also, make sure you're getting your core work in an upper body work, that will be the biggest body comp change you can make. Girls need to carry more body fat than guys but the goal is to keep your lean mass and lower your body fat as low as is healthy. It will take time but consistency and resilience is rewarded.

Also at 160-165 I ran 1:30 half, slow by the standards of LR. At 175-180lbs I ran a half at 1:35 so yes weight does play a crucial role in time but body fat% is the bigger issue than actual weight.