is 2 seconds per pound per mile accurate

I tested this idea. I was 172lbs and am now down to 148 (HS/College weight). Lost weight through carefully planned balanced eating over 6-8 weeks. I am also male which makes weight loss significantly easier. My wife also followed the plan I did and only lost 14-15 lbs over 8-10 weeks. Maybe because I am old, but I have seen no significant difference other than I can train with a little less fatigue on my joints. I did run faster in a mile race last week than I did at the same race last year, but only 2-3 seconds. Losing 24lbs should have meant more than a 2 second improvement according to this theory. Long story short I wouldn’t bank on this idea being the ticket to states. Training is what will get you there.

OP: I would not rely on whatever race weight calculator you are looking at. I doubt that you have anything close to 30 pounds to lose.

If you have a little weight to lose, train and eat healthier. Start out by reducing intake of (or giving up) grains, fried food, added sugar (candy, desserts, ice cream) and do not drink your calories (no soda, juices, Gatorade etc.).

Read this article by elite runner Allie Kieffer.

https://www.self.com/story/my-weight-has-nothing-to-do-with-how-good-a-runner-i-am

Why are you so sure on that formula?

Btw, many anecdotes here seem to suggest otherwise.

Are you saying you're around 200 lbs, 40% bodyfat, and can run 6:00 pace for a half??

Please don't focus on weight. In fact, throw out the scale, and the measuring tape. If you want to get faster, you need the big three: clean diet, strength, miles. Everything else will take care of itself.

George213 wrote:

Why are you so sure on that formula?

Btw, many anecdotes here seem to suggest otherwise.

VO2max is measured in ml of oxygen per minute per kg of body weight. There is a linear relationship between VO2max and weight, all else being equal. That leads to a linear change in vdot.

I don’t have any reason to doubt someone’s personal experience, but I do doubt that “all else is equal.” One possible issue is that it’s the brain holding people back. You’re used to running at 5 minute pace and feeling like it’s hard, so you trick yourself into thinking it’s still hard, even when you’re five pounds lighter and you’re using way less oxygen.

If you want to be convinced, try dropping 5%of your body weight and running on an alter-g.

First of all I’m skeptical of the 2 seconds per mile thing.

I’m a female runner and my senior year of HS really wanted to improve a lot. So in January I started cutting calories while trying to get enough of all my nutrients to stay healthy. I sat around 1200-1500 calories a day and I’m 5’1”. I actually didn’t drop a lot of pounds, went from 108 to 104 extremely fast and then 104 to 100 took much longer. But I’m pretty sure I gained muscle because I was definitely thinner and increased my protein intake.

Ran a PR early in March. Then I started having my old injuries flare up. I cross trained and eased up on my training and then let myself gain back the weight, because I had skipped a period after basically never skipping them ever and my mileage was nothing crazy. My watch didn’t stay still on my wrist anymore because my wrist was smaller. I think my hair might have been thinning. Two weeks after my PR and about 5 pounds heavier I ran a PR by 2 seconds. I don’t think I would have PR’d by 10 more seconds if I didn’t gain back the weight. I think I might not have gotten injured if not for the diet, if it interferes with your menstrual cycle that’s a clear sign something is going on.

Leave weight to be last if you’re at a healthy weight already. Don’t eat less, exercise more. There are plenty of other things you can do to get faster.

800 dude wrote:

VO2max is measured in ml of oxygen per minute per kg of body weight. There is a linear relationship between VO2max and weight, all else being equal. That leads to a linear change in vdot.

Before anyone jumps on this, let me correct myself and say it’s an inverse relationship, not linear.

Thanks for the input. But as far as I know, Vo2max is a bit different from VDOT. VDOT takes into consideration your running economy aside from oxygen uptake. And as S.Canaday always says: "running economy is the name of the game", so while there may be an inverse relationship between weight and Vo2max, such relationship may not be nearly as strong between weight and VDOT/racing performance, and therefore difficult to calculate.

Btw, good to talk to you, your posts grab get my attention, as you're one of the most knowledgeable people on here!

Rick Sanchez wrote:

You are overthinking this. Just eat healthy and run.

This is the best advice you will get. Eat healthy and eat enough. Don't weigh yourself, just let your natural, healthy weight happen.

George213 wrote:

Thanks for the input. But as far as I know, Vo2max is a bit different from VDOT. VDOT takes into consideration your running economy aside from oxygen uptake. And as S.Canaday always says: "running economy is the name of the game", so while there may be an inverse relationship between weight and Vo2max, such relationship may not be nearly as strong between weight and VDOT/racing performance, and therefore difficult to calculate.

Btw, good to talk to you, your posts grab get my attention, as you're one of the most knowledgeable people on here!

Many thanks, and I take your point. I admit that "all else being equal" is doing a lot of work in my formula. Still, I think when it comes to VO2 changes induced solely by weight loss, it's a fair assumption. When it comes to training induced changes, there's reason to question whether certain adaptations might be mutually exclusive. It might not be possible to maximize one's efficiency and one's VO2 at the same time. But if we're talking just about losing non-functional body fat, then I don't think the economy should be much affected beyond a SLIGHT change in stride pattern as one gets used to a few more centimeters per stride.

0/10