weight loss and performance

It is going to be different for different people. The amount of muscle mass you have and specifically what type of o2 carrying capacity those muscles have. I would suspect that 5% might be right, but it may be much more.

I was 165 or so training about 70-80, then added marathon paced runs for about 6 months and I saw huge drops in my performance and training.

I dropped about 45 seconds or so in my 5k and my training pace dropped from 7:00 to about 6-6:25's fairly easy.

It really does help.

what kind of weight drop did you achieve?

For the average sized male distance runner, a reduction in time of 2 seconds per mile for each pound of fat lost is realistic. As long as the weight is not lost too quickly - one pound per week fat loss max, is sensible.

Sorry, I realized I didn't put that down. I went from about 165 to about 148 or 150. The weight coming off really helped. I just felt much lighter and could really move.

It might have been helpful to lift weights twice a week to maintain strength while doing this, which I didn't do until this past year. I didn't really add any weight, maybe 2-4 lbs by doing this, but I noticed a considerable increase in my strength, recovery, and race results as well.

The thing that really did this was the marathon paced runs. I did anywhere from 6-12 miles of this about 2-3 times a week (I did one interval workout a week and strides as well about 2-3 times along with these runs; the rest was just easy mileage). Sometimes the pace was a little bit quicker than MP, but not much. After about 4 months of this you will really notice that you lose quite a bit of uneccessary weight.

Hope this helps.

hmmm wrote:

For the average sized male distance runner, a reduction in time of 2 seconds per mile for each pound of fat lost is realistic. As long as the weight is not lost too quickly - one pound per week fat loss max, is sensible.

This is the dumbest thing I have read all day and that's saying a lot since I read most of the stuff on here. Looks like the original poster should be able to take off a minute per mile on any distance if he sheds that 30 lbs.

He probably could drop 1 minute per mile if he lost 30 lbs.

A couple years ago I was about 35 lbs over racing weight and could barely manage 8:00 pace for any distance (used to train up to 20 miles at 6:00 pace). If I ran hard for a mile on the track I was around 7:00 (old PR was 4:20).

I trained for about 8 months (after 6 years of fatness) and lost 20-25 lbs. I was running about 70 miles a week (after a sensible buildup) and most of the running was at 7:00-7:30 pace (it comes back fast once the weight goes away). At the end of the 8 months I was able to do 2 hour runs with an hour up the middle of the run at 6:20 pace and could run in the 5:30s for 10k. I don't know what my mile time would have been since I didn't get a chance to do one but probably in the 4:40s.

I had to stop because of a non-running related injury. I stopped running completely about 8 months ago and gained all the weight back. Once again I can probably only manage 8:00 pace.

Personally I think dieting is a waste of time. When I got fat the first time, I started cutting out all the snacks I used to enjoy. Eventually I was eating all the healthy food and running a few days a week, and I was still fat and slow. I never believed I could ever run a 6:00 mile again.

To the original poster...you just have to decide that the most important thing is that you will get in shape. Then devote an hour a day to it...walking and running until you get in shape, then running. You don't have to run very hard to lose weight. Give it 6 months and you will be fit again.

2 seconds/mile per pound is pretty much what I've experienced. But to be frank, it could be closer to 3 seconds. I've equated it to lifting weights. Trying to lift too much simply is a struggle.

It's plain and simple math. Your VO2 max is expressed in milliliters of per kilo of body weight. If your absolute VO2 stays the same but you have less weight to drag around for every 2.2 pounds or 1 kilogram you lose, you gain about 1 point in your VO2. If you look at Daniels VDOT chart, every point increase is about 4 seconds per mile. Pretty much in line with the 2 seconds per pound of fat lost.

I'm sure jtupper himself could explain it much better, but that's the jist of it.

Its correct to say there is a direct relationship between weight and performance. However to indicate 2 seconds per mile is simply a subjective guess.

The improvement depends on starting weight and physical condition.

Lighter is better (within reason, performance begins to deteriorate due to strength loss at a certain lower level of body weight)

No Offense wrote:

hmmm wrote:

For the average sized male distance runner, a reduction in time of 2 seconds per mile for each pound of fat lost is realistic. As long as the weight is not lost too quickly - one pound per week fat loss max, is sensible.

This is the dumbest thing I have read all day and that's saying a lot since I read most of the stuff on here. Looks like the original poster should be able to take off a minute per mile on any distance if he sheds that 30 lbs.

How stupid do you feel now?

Well it's a pretty good guess if you ask me. Let's say you have someone who runs 10k in 45:16. They would have a VDOT of 45 from Daniels running formula which is directly related to that person VO2 max and running economy. VO2 is is expressed in milliliters per kilogram of body wieght per minute. If their stating weight was 80kg (176 pounds) they would use 3600 milliliters of oxygen per minute at their VO2 max. If that same person dropped 10kg. (22 pounds) to 154 and their aerobic capacity didn't change and still were able to process 3600 milliliters in 1 minute, they would increase their VDOT to 51.4 from 45. This would effectively allow them to run a 10k in 41:00. That's a 256 second difference in 6.2 miles or 41.29 seconds per mile. That in my estimation is pretty close to 44 seconds or the 2 seconds per mile I stated earlier.

As with anything though, there is a point of diminishing returns. Lose the weight sensibly, and not too much to endanger your health.

Don't confuse people with facts and figures and sensible advice, their minds are already made up.

Athletes with eating disorders can be at a higher risk for medical complications such as electrolyte imbalances and cardiac arrhythmias. They are already engaging in strenuous physical activity and putting a lot of pressure on the body. Having an eating disorder puts them at great risk for sudden death from cardiac arrest. It is usually difficult to convince athletes that they are in need of help because they usually believe that they will become a better athlete, and perform better, if they lose more weight. Gymnastics is one sport where the size of the gymnast has changed drastically over the years. In 1976 the average gymnast was 5'3" weighing 105 lbs, and in 1992 the average gymnast was 4'9" weighing 88 lbs.