Am I fat? 5’11 and 172lbs; 40 years old; 70 mpw

When I was you weight/age 5'10"/165/40, I consistently ran 2:45 marathons. I got down to 150 and ran 2:35. I could not stay there, however.

I was always the heaviest looking guy on my HS and Uni xc team. Just the way I am built.

I was 5'6" 140lbs running 100+ miles a week, upwards of 120-140, weekly 20-22mi long runs, upwards of 26mi long runs, even went on a limited protein diet for a while. I was lean as could be at 140lbs and tested at 8% body fat so wasn't really getting any lower.

Ran a 2:32 marathon. Easily bigger than any other runner of my height and beat most of them.

Just train hard and eat healthy and accept your genetic limitations.

Alan

Am i fat? wrote:

Here is the deal. I am 40 and have been running, not well or with any talent, since college. Recently I have gotten into marathoning and now do 3 or so a year. I don’t really train per se, I just stay in marathon shape by running 70 to 80 mpw year round. PR in the marathon is 2:58 high.

When I compare myself to other runners I see myself as huge. I am not fat for the general population, but for a distance runner I see myself as obese. My question is whether this is true, and I am actually fat and should really diet to lose weight, or if this is body dysmorphia or something psychological. I like the way I look generally, I just feel self conscious next to runners and wonder if I should diet to look more like them.

5' 11" 172lbs and 40yrs old and you run 70mpw. You are in great shape. A grown man who weighs less than 150lbs looks like a little boy.

I'm around your age (slightly younger), am 5"11 and weigh 135 to 138. Run around 30-45 MPW but I run it fairly hard.

Do you do a lot of intensity? Long runs? Tempo runs?

Hey Porky wrote:

It's what you're eating that's making you fat! Read this book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Get_Fat

Yeah but nothing in that book is relevant if he wants to perform at his best in endurance sports.

That said, 40 year old men worrying about performing their best in endurance sports is kind of pathetic. Run for fun, health, as a hobby, to keep the beer gut in check, or whatever but seriously, who the heck would want to sacrifice good food and good times just to look like an anorexic high level runner? News flash - elite runners look terrible to the rest of the world and are nowhere near "healthy".

To be a serious competitor on a National level as a masters don't you have to be at least less than 150 lbs? Look at the 50+ Grand Masters thread here - all the National class guys that are running fast times getting all the glory are well below 150 lbs. In fact, I've noted a few guys who said they are under 140 lbs!

I would think it's bad enough dealing with age-related performance decline that shedding as much weight and muscle would be a necessary element to compete at the high level some of those guys are doing in the Grand Masters thread.

Fitness/recreational running is much different. I know a fair number of guys over 50 who are heavy and muscular but run low mileage (less than 20 mpw) and maybe jump in a local race or two every year just for "fun" (myself included in this group). For a lot of these guys running is secondary to weight training.

But to be a National class level masters runner it seems hands down that you have to be as light, skinny and diminutive as possible. If I recall correctly, wasn't Whitlock killing those marathons at 120 lbs?

Several items of concern here:

1) The idea of being self conscious next to small marathon runners is somewhat comical as times and place is what matters, not shape.

2) If you wanted to be “not fat” you should probably do more than just run 70 mpw. I’d highly recommend some actual strength training to help increase your metabolic state for higher fat burn and improve muscular performance and cadence. F the stigma against weight and strength training for marathon runners, change the mold.

P.S. age is just a number, don’t be foolish. Take care.

Going to letsrun to ask if you’re fat is like asking a vampire if you should donate blood. Do whatever you want, though in the marathon you won’t see anyone above 140 running anything special. As a talentless f*ck myself i wouldn’t worry too much, just enjoy yourself and live a balanced life

You can getting super lean, super light and still not feel right if the geometry of your body isn’t right. How you hold your body is the foundation.

Go get a test. It'll take the guesswork out. And chances are you'll be surprised by the number, which will give you a kick in the ass. Add some weights too if you're trying to get leaner. Or add some speed work.

What did you eat in last 2 days for breakfast, lunch, dinner?

Everyone will come to equilibrium weights based on what and how they are eating, along with their mileage load. It may or may not be ideal.

I was under the impression that having a bowl or 2 of relatively bland breakfast cereal was a good way to start the day. A dietician pointed out it was too focused on carbohydrates and wouldn't last until lunch. Michael Pollin's book has good advice in 1st sentence. "Eat food, mostly plants, not too much". Food being non-processed stuff your great-grandmother would recognize or could make. If you are not following that advice, you may be above your ideal weight.

I switched to more of a focus on fats and proteins in morning and Whole Foods and weight is dropping steadily.

Every extra non-ideal pound might be costing you a minute in marathon, which you have to compensate for with excess mileage.

Lose 30 pounds and you will be ready to run the marathon.

I'm 5'11", 61 y.o., muscular legs, typical skinny runner up above.

Ten years ago I was 160-162. I ran well for years at 164-165. I weighed myself every morning. Any time I was 166 or above, I'd shout "fat pig!"

As recently as three years ago, my weekly average weight (seven weigh-ins averaged) was 166-167.

Right now I'm averaging around 171. I consider anything over 169 to be fat. I can't stand this weight. But it's hard to control my appetite. And that's key.

I have a pretty good diet, but when I cut meat way down and eat 95% vegetarian, the weight comes off. I rarely eat sweets. But I like a big Martini every night. 500 calories. It should go.

Beer will kill you. If you're drinking beer, don't. Cut it out. Cut out sweets and refined starches. Get Matt Fitzgerald's RACING WEIGHT. Great book! He's got a red lentils w/kale recipe that always helps me lose weight.

So yes, you could and should be lighter. You should shoot for 165. You'll absolutely notice it in faster race times.

Don't listen to anybody telling you that 140-150 is reasonable. It's not.

If you're a competitive runner and taking racing very serious (like a lot of masters do these days), you need to be at your ideal racing weight which generally is going to be on the lighter side (140-150 lbs might be good for a short guy but maybe too light for a much taller person).

For fitness/recreational running, weight is less important unless a person is really heavy and needs to lose some weight to reduce the stress on the joints. But if someone is a competitive runner who takes racing very seriously and wants to perform at their highest level, then low body weight would be optimal.

https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20849248/your-fastest-weight/

I'm 5' 8 1/2, and only just under 150lb. I'm 62 now, but have raced and trained consistently since teenage years. I was never much lighter than high 140s, even when running my best track times in my late 20s (in England where we have club competition in track leagues).

In my mid 50s, I was first Grandmaster in a fairly big $$$ 10k with a time that was about 87% age graded. They had out the first 6 overall (all African) and first 3 40+ and me, and compared to the others, I looked like a middle-weight boxer.

It's not a question of weight per se, but of fat percentage. For me I'm going to be heavier than most, even when I'm at my fittest, but I know there isn't much weight that can come off and still sustain good energy levels. By the way at that size I did manage to get on the world master's rankings a couple of times and place four times the USATF Masters Championships.

If you think you are at a reasonable fat percentage, then don't worry what you look like compared to more lightly-built guys.

For running, is 10 pounds fat and 10 pounds muscle usually considered a good or bad trade off? 20 Pounds total.

During my mid 50's I messed with my body composition significantly.

I'm 6'5 tall. I am a low mileage X-training type exerciser.

I was 190 and 14% body fat measured in a water tank. 26.6lb fat Running around 22 for a road 5k

Lets say 25 miles a week . 2 hours spin . 2 hours strength/core etc.

I got down to 170 and a guestimate of 10% BF with one experiment of "clean" and restricted calorie eating Omnivore diet. I guess my guide was the Racing Weight book as much as anything. I did it reasonably slowly.

So, at one point I was down 10 lbs fat and 10 pounds muscle. By this point I had added a few more hours of running per week and 1 hour more of spin. My relative strength was very good (DL/Squats) and I did run my best 5k's, but this is food obsession territory for me, and I still was only about 1:15 down for 5K. I think I was running as good or better somewhere in between 190 and 170 but I don't race much, so I don't know for sure.

Lots of children trying to give advice to a person old enough to their father.

"Age is just a number" - bollocks. Aging is real. Metabolism slows, as does thyroid function, testosterone production, etc. This in addition to neuromuscular degeneration. If think this won't happen to you, dream on.

"Run more miles to lose weight" - you're already over 100km/week. More nonsense. When you are older, 80% of weight loss is related to diet.

The OP would not be considered overweight, so he should not worry about it.

Babydick Johnson wrote:

Lots of children trying to give advice to a person old enough to their father.

"Age is just a number" - bollocks. Aging is real. Metabolism slows, as does thyroid function, testosterone production, etc. This in addition to neuromuscular degeneration. If think this won't happen to you, dream on.

"Run more miles to lose weight" - you're already over 100km/week. More nonsense. When you are older, 80% of weight loss is related to diet.

The OP would not be considered overweight, so he should not worry about it.

Seems like most the people here posting responses to the OP are older or much older than his 40 Years.

By running standards you are not only fat but obese.