Take your height in inches, double that no. for your ideal weight in pounds. So, 5 10= 70 inches x 2 = 140 pounds. A better measure is your % body fat. Shoot for about 3 to 5% body fat.
Take your height in inches, double that no. for your ideal weight in pounds. So, 5 10= 70 inches x 2 = 140 pounds. A better measure is your % body fat. Shoot for about 3 to 5% body fat.
Paul Kersey wrote:
Porkie wrote:
Peter Snell was 5'10" and 1 70.
And he ran the 800 and the mile. Not the 5k or 10k.
Ok then, Rob DeCastella, OZ, WR marathon at what, 5'11, 163.
Your VO2 max and heart mean a lot.
128
Porkie wrote:
Paul Kersey wrote:
And he ran the 800 and the mile. Not the 5k or 10k.
Ok then, Rob DeCastella, OZ, WR marathon at what, 5'11, 163.
Your VO2 max and heart mean a lot.
I googled and it said his weight was 143. That is a far cry from 163. 143 is within a believable range for a world class marathoner at that height. 163 is not.
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Porkie wrote:
Ok then, Rob DeCastella, OZ, WR marathon at what, 5'11, 163.
Your VO2 max and heart mean a lot.
I googled and it said his weight was 143. That is a far cry from 163. 143 is within a believable range for a world class marathoner at that height. 163 is not.
Can't remember which podcast, but he said his weight would fluctuate between 65 and 70 kilograms(145-155 ibs). See the key word, fluctuate. I think most people who find good long term success in running find a good range for their weight to be at. For someone 5'10 it will be different for everyone, it might be 130 or 150 ibs, or even 160 ibs.
For example:
https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ma/henry-marsh-1.htmlhttps://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/vi/lasse-viren-1.htmlhttps://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/le/cam-levins-1.htmlAll those athletes were very competitive and world class. Yet weighed differed for each.
I was 5' 10-1/2" and weighed 138 when I ran my 10k PR at 19 years old. I could not have dropped weight without serious effort that probably would have been detrimental to my running. A year later I ran about the same time but was probably a few pounds heavier. Lots of injuries followed and I never regained that shape. My guess, though, is that had I been able to continue training and competing at that level 143 pounds would have been about right for me.
110 pounds. For marathon 105 pounds.
145 is way too heavy. You want to be around 120 or less at that height for optimum results.
OK
120-130 (max) is spot on
david l- wrote:
120-130 (max) is spot on
139 is wayyyy too heavy. No wonder so many of you struggle to break 14.
Rick Cheney wrote:
david l- wrote:
120-130 (max) is spot on
139 is wayyyy too heavy. No wonder so many of you struggle to break 14.
If your not knocking on deaths god dam door from starvation get off the starting line!
david l- wrote:
120-130 (max) is spot on
+1
125 +-3
139 is wayyyy too heavy. No wonder so many of you struggle to break 14.
139 is wayyyy too heavy. No wonder so many of you struggle to break 14.
this thread is going to churn out Male bulimics
DELETE wrote:
this thread is going to churn out Male bulimics
Not if you don't eat anything in the first place!!
You can weigh what you want, as long as you look like a skeleton with a condom pulled over you.
Man this thread is sad. Half of you need to go to a therapist. There is no ideal weight. I’m 6’0”, 154lbs, 28:17
Seriously, at 5'10 anything over 135 isn't that enjoyable for 10k-marathon.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday