EFFECT OF LOSING WEIGHT ON RUNNING PACE

DAVE_K

There was a link up here to a website with a calculator where you could put your weight and pace in and then it would tell you how fast you'd go if you lost x number of kgs etc. I've trawled back through the threads but can't find it there or by googling.
ANYONE ANYONE

tunney

Keep you knickers on.......

http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/weighteffect.php

When trying to loose those pounds don't forget to supplement with BCAAs.

DAVE_K

thanks Tunney!!

shels4ever

I've heard its 2 seconds per mile per pound, But I dont think that takes into account training if you train more you will get faster . To be honest I wouldnt go by this as all.

Train hard and you will run faster and the weight will come down itself. To lose weight to run faster for me wouldnt be a good way to do it.

MCOS

tunney wrote: »

Keep you knickers on.......

http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/weighteffect.php

When trying to loose those pounds don't forget to supplement with BCAAs.

Thanks Tunney!

Whats BCAAs? Sweet so according to this calculator dropping about 4-5 kg for me gets me under 3'20' for the Marathon and more importantly squeeks under the 40minute mark for 10k which is one of my goals for next year (of course keeping training constant)!

Quick question, does dropping the same 4kg have a significant impact on the Bike?

tunney

shels4ever wrote: »

I've heard its 2 seconds per mile per pound, But I dont think that takes into account training if you train more you will get faster . To be honest I wouldnt go by this as all.

Train hard and you will run faster and the weight will come down itself. To lose weight to run faster for me wouldnt be a good way to do it.

Emmm I completely disagree. The benefits that you get from watching your diet and dropping weight can't easily be matched by training. You are talking significant performance gains.

Training alone is not enough to lose weight. As they say on the fitness boards "A six pack is made in the kitchen".

tunney

MCOS wrote: »

Thanks Tunney!

Whats BCAAs? Sweet so according to this calculator dropping about 4-5 kg for me gets me under 3'20' for the Marathon and more importantly squeeks under the 40minute mark for 10k which is one of my goals for next year (of course keeping training constant)!

Quick question, does dropping the same 4kg have a significant impact on the Bike?

Branch Chained Amino Acids, anecdotely they reduce the amount of weight lost when "cutting". At the very least they are proven to aid recovery when training hard.

4kg of *fat* lost will have an impact on a hilly course. On a flat course not really any. Power to weight is only really relevant on hilly courses.

MCOS

tunney wrote: »

Training alone is not enough to lose weight. As they say on the fitness boards "A six pack is made in the kitchen".

100% agree with this. Its the main reason why so many new years resolutions die out early in the year. People dive into the gym but see no physical gains because the enthusiasm is not coupled with diet discipline.

Trust me I lived with the UK Body For Life Champion and her Personal Trainer last year!

My diet is my personal weakness

shels4ever

tunney wrote: »

Emmm I completely disagree. The benefits that you get from watching your diet and dropping weight can't easily be matched by training. You are talking significant performance gains.

Training alone is not enough to lose weight. As they say on the fitness boards "A six pack is made in the kitchen".

I know what you mean, but I think training should be the main focus . Of course you need to eat right while training also

Just going on your link 1 ran a 10 k in 63 mins back in April, and It would suggest that I would run a 55 min 10 k now. But in fact I would run sub 50 mins easy now.

My point is that if you train hard the benifits will be greater then just weight loss alone. Balance between training and diet is a must.

hunnymonster

It's not an either or situation. Training and weight control should both influence your performance. When you get as good as you can with one (training, ideal body composition) then the only way to improve is the other.

tunney

shels4ever wrote: »

I know what you mean, but I think training should be the main focus . Of course you need to eat right while training also

Just going on your link 1 ran a 10 k in 63 mins back in April, and It would suggest that I would run a 55 min 10 k now. But in fact I would run sub 50 mins easy now.

My point is that if you train hard the benifits will be greater then just weight loss alone. Balance between training and diet is a must.

The point in this discussion though is the effects of weight loss *alone* on performances.

Go do a 5km time trial with 10kg weights on your back. Then do it again tomorrow without them.

shels4ever

Ok so your saying that if i drop 10kg in the next few week and then run i'll take X amount of time of my 10k time, maybe...

But I think the idea is to get faster so weight loss and training will defo give better results, Would depend on your starting point also.

So increased training plus weight loss will give far better results then jsut weight loss.

cfitz

tunney wrote: »

Go do a 5km time trial with 10kg weights on your back. Then do it again tomorrow without them.

That's not a genuine argument. That 10kg on your back would be useless weight. The 10kg you're carrying in your body is serving some purpose and you may or may not be better off without it.

tunney

cfitz wrote: »

That's not a genuine argument. That 10kg on your back would be useless weight. The 10kg your carrying in your body is serving some purpose and you may or may not be better off without it.

No its not a fair argument I know that. But if you lose fat and not lean muscle you will see benefits.

OuterBombie

Howdy,

Train consistently and towards your goals, keep an eye on your diet, and your body composition will take care of itself.

Weight is only one variable of body composition, and while useful to monitor, its not the end all and be all.

Ray.

shels4ever

I do agree with your basic point, but if the aim is to run faster then you train /eat well for it and the weight factor will take care of itself.

For example if i want to run 45 mins for 10k, do I just reduve my weight by 5kg and not train. Or train hard drop 3 kg in the process and do it that way. I know which way I'd rather.

tunney

shels4ever wrote: »

I do agree with your basic point, but if the aim is to run faster then you train /eat well for it and the weight factor will take care of itself.

For example if i want to run 45 mins for 10k, do I just reduve my weight by 5kg and not train. Or train hard drop 3 kg in the process and do it that way. I know which way I'd rather.

If you are 5 foot ten and 150lbs, roughly 10% BF, and run a 10km in 35:00s and you reduce your %BF to 5% by reducing your weight to 142lbs (10st 2), and the weight lose was fat only, then your 10km would come down by a 1:20 Imagine the training you would have to do to get that 1:20 off your time - huge amounts. Say you did that huge amount of training and ran 33:40 at 10% - if you'd lost the weight you'd have run 32:21 See where I am going with this?

ss43

tunney wrote: »

If you are 5 foot ten and 150lbs, roughly 10% BF, and run a 10km in 35:00s and you reduce your %BF to 5% by reducing your weight to 142lbs (10st 2), and the weight lose was fat only, then your 10km would come down by a 1:20 Imagine the training you would have to do to get that 1:20 off your time - huge amounts. Say you did that huge amount of training and ran 33:40 at 10% - if you'd lost the weight you'd have run 32:21 See where I am going with this?

Would dropping from 35:00 to 33:40 via training not be easier than halving your body fat percentage from 10% to 5%?

cfitz

ss43 wrote: »

Would dropping from 35:00 to 33:40 via training not be easier than halving your body fat percentage from 10% to 5%?

Perhaps if you were already doing the optimal training but you weren't looking after your diet then the weight loss would come quickly without much work.

I think this is a silly debate.

tunney

cfitz wrote: »

Perhaps if you were already doing the optimal training but you weren't looking after your diet then the weight loss would come quickly without much work.

I think this is a silly debate.

It is really.

ss43

cfitz wrote: »

Perhaps if you were already doing the optimal training but you weren't looking after your diet then the weight loss would come quickly without much work.

I think this is a silly debate.

If you weren't looking after your diet it'd be unlikely that you'd only have 10% body fat. 10% is quite low and 5% is very low even for elite runners (nevermind 35min runners).

Losing weight will have a positive effect on running performance if it's weight that is unnecessary in the first place i.e. fat, or muscle that isn't used much for running e.g. arm muscles.

Losing muscle from your legs would result in significant weight loss but I couldn't see it improving performance. For that reason, I don't think any calculators for effect of weight loss on running can be taken serious.

It's not a trade off anyway. If you're not training as hard as you can, train harder. If you're not eating as well as you can, eat better.

plodder

Interesting thread. I do think diet is an underestimated factor for runners (like me) at the less serious end of the scale - not only with respect to pace, but risk of injury as well.

Only when you start running, do you really appreciate the effect that processed high energy foods have on the body.

I'm hoping to knock 25 minutes off my marathon time next year, and figured I would have to lose a good bit of weight as part of it (plenty of scope, since I'm around 95kg). The calculator on that website gives some food for thought though.

baza1976

tunney wrote: »

It is really.

+1000000
Really is silly..
did 3 marathons in the last year. same weight for each 1 of them. First marathon was 4hr 19min, 2nd 4hr 50min and DM08 was completed in 3hr 48min. what was the difference?......... proper training.
this losing weight thing i would expect to find in womans own mag lol.. not that i read that

Hey i am jsut a novice but I am going to train even harder for my next marathon and if the weight falls it does but I won't tell people the PB factor was my weight.. no it was training.

Stupid_Private

This is the best calculator ever... I entered in last years marathon time and the weight I was then. It shows that for todays weight I could go 7 minutes faster.... roll on April!!!

Stupid_Private

An article by distance coach Frank Horwill on Weight and Performance

Enduro

Interesting link there. I did some quick calcs, and came up with being approximately 15% under average, which is exactly what is recommended for distance runners. Phew . I know myself that I run a lot better when I'm a few kg lighter, particularly when hill climbing. Its very noticable.

I've also seen unbelievbably dramatic improvements in other runners when they've lost excess weight

Peckham

hhmm, according to that calculator if I drop half a stone I'd be a 2:50 marathoner :eek:. If only that's all that it took.....dropping half a stone is not unrealistic for me, although 2:50 would take a lot more effort than that!

tunney

Stupid_Private wrote: »

An article by distance coach Frank Horwill on Weight and Performance

Good article. I had been aiming for 145 lbs but based on that its 140lbs I should be looking at. Man that will be tough. Worth it though.

TheRoadRunner

Stupid_Private wrote: »

An article by distance coach Frank Horwill on Weight and Performance

according to that calculation I'm screwed ! May as well hit the boozer

tunney

I think alot of people don't comprehend the difference fat loss makes on running performance. It really is staggering. But as the article posted by Stupid_Private says - no one likes to be called overweight and no one likes to be told to lose weight.

VO2max is given in ml/kg/min
A friend went to get lab tested in Trinty the guy (Bernard???) said her Vo2max was only okay and then referred her to her BF% and pointed out that if the % came down the Vo2max would go up.

(I don't place much store by VO2max but I know some people do)

plodder

Stupid_Private wrote: »

An article by distance coach Frank Horwill on Weight and Performance

Good article, and it's so obviously true - no technically over-weight person will ever win a marathon. If you stand at the finishing line of any marathon and look at the general condition of the runners. The first 500 who finish will be a heck of a lot leaner, than the last 500 . It's absurd to suggest that weight has no effect on it.

cfitz

tunney wrote: »

Good article. I had been aiming for 145 lbs but based on that its 140lbs I should be looking at. Man that will be tough. Worth it though.

Last time I weighed myself I was about 19.8% lower than what that says is average. Groovy.

Peckham

If I'm working that formula correct, it's suggest that I should be 9.35 stone (5'8" male) as a long distance runner. That's over a stone less than where I am now, and I'm normally a bit heavier than I am at the moment. :eek:

hunnymonster

I've never looked at the men's weight/height/speed ratio's but if you look at the women, the world's fastest are all 10-25% less than the minimum weight considered necessary for health (and reproduction). It would appear from the research that there is a very real distinction between athletic performance and health at both ends of the scale (pun intended).

While I have no problems with the elite doing damage to their bodies in the persuit of excellence, I'm not sure we can recommend it to the average runner/triathlete who doesn't earn their living from sport.

One example of this is bone health. Elite marathoners tend to have weaker t-squared scores (a measure of bone density) than the general public. This is believed to be due to the conbination of lots of mileage and low body weights. At the other end of the scale, those people who never exercise also have lower bone density than the moderate person who excerises regularly (weight bearing) and maintains a healthy weight. There are similar results in gynaecological studies, rheumatology etc.

Racing Flat

The first man we know of who considered weight-watching to be a relevant factor was Jack Lovelock (NZ) who won the 1936 Olympic 1500m in a world-record time. He was a medical student, and weighed himself immediately after every race (880yds, mile, two miles). He soon discovered that his best racing weight was 9st 61/2lbs (59kg); if he was more than this, he wasn't fit enough, if he was significantly under, he was stressed


Taken from the Horwill article, my bold italics, which I think is so true. While we may strive to be as light as possible, we must not forget the second bit - going below race weight may leave you stressed. I know my race weight (funnily enough works out at 10% less than average). I am delighted when I go below this, but that's when everyone says - 'you look gaunt' so perhaps this is an indication of stress.

Racing Flat

hunnymonster wrote: »

One example of this is bone health. Elite marathoners tend to have weaker t-squared scores (a measure of bone density) than the general public. This is believed to be due to the conbination of lots of mileage and low body weights.

So true. Sadly though, I'd say it's gotten to the stage where it's probably impossible to be an elite female distance athlete without being osteopoenic/porotic.

These people seem to take stress fractures for granted nowadays, it's seen as just a consequence of the necessary training rather than a sign of perhaps serious weight or nutritional deficiencies.

Maybe we should bring weight categories into running! Anyone up for lightweight, middleweight, heavyweight categories in the next BHAA race

cfitz

hunnymonster wrote: »

I've never looked at the men's weight/height/speed ratio's but if you look at the women, the world's fastest are all 10-25% less than the minimum weight considered necessary for health (and reproduction). It would appear from the research that there is a very real distinction between athletic performance and health at both ends of the scale (pun intended).

While I have no problems with the elite doing damage to their bodies in the persuit of excellence, I'm not sure we can recommend it to the average runner/triathlete who doesn't earn their living from sport.

One example of this is bone health. Elite marathoners tend to have weaker t-squared scores (a measure of bone density) than the general public. This is believed to be due to the conbination of lots of mileage and low body weights. At the other end of the scale, those people who never exercise also have lower bone density than the moderate person who excerises regularly (weight bearing) and maintains a healthy weight. There are similar results in gynaecological studies, rheumatology etc.

Are there studies to show the problems that these top athletes (who are below what is considered the minimum healthy weight) suffer from? There are probably plenty of studies to show that people who are below their minimum 'healthy' weight are likely to suffer from x, y, and z. But I'd be interested to learn whether the risks are as high when you're in the kind of shape that the top athletes are in.

Racing Flat

cfitz wrote: »

Are there studies to show the problems that these top athletes (who are below what is considered the minimum healthy weight) suffer from? There are probably plenty of studies to show that people who are below their minimum 'healthy' weight are likely to suffer from x, y, and z. But I'd be interested to learn whether the risks are as high when you're in the kind of shape that the top athletes are in.

Because distance athletes have the combination of 'repetitive impact' (loads of miles) on their bones and often a restricted diet (through a desire to be as light as possible to maximise performance or through an eating disorder (I suppose that's a bit of a continuum), they may have more risk factors for osteoporosis (brittle bones) than a non-athlete who is on a restricted diet, all other things remaining equal. Added to this, the hormonal factor in females (and possible contraceptive complications*), mean that low bone density (osteopoenia and osteoporosis) are probably pretty widespread in female athletes. It is probably vastly underdiagnosed. Less intake of meat and calcium products is also sometimes prevalent in young women and may be a factor.

I know of a now retired international athlete who went to have her bone density checked and the staff doing the test wanted her to go in a wheelchair they were so terrified that the next step she took could lead to a hip fractue her score was so low:eek:. However, because of the possible combination of risk factors, recreational athletes may also be at risk -it is not just your elites who are vulnerable. Wimmin athletes, check your bone density!

*when docs are prescribing contraception it doesn't always come naturally to them to check if the person does a lot of exercise and if this may need to be considered...

At the same time impact loading of bones is necessary for healthy bones, there just needs to be a good balance of bony degeneration and regeneration, so don't assume loading or weight bearing exercise is bad!

dna_leri

tunney wrote: »

http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/weighteffect.php

.

For me this calculator is uncannily accurate.

I ran a 10K in just over 44 min in April at 73 Kg.
According to the prediction if I lost 4 Kg, I should be at 42 mins.
In October I ran just under 42 mins at 69 Kg - spot on!

Now I just need to lose another 4 Kg to get under 40 mins - possible...

shels4ever

cfitz wrote: »

Are there studies to show the problems that these top athletes (who are below what is considered the minimum healthy weight) suffer from? There are probably plenty of studies to show that people who are below their minimum 'healthy' weight are likely to suffer from x, y, and z. But I'd be interested to learn whether the risks are as high when you're in the kind of shape that the top athletes are in.

There was a book by some English international last year, I cant remember her name but she went through all the probles she suffered. I'll see if i can find it.

Racing Flat

The downside of this is that I love food! And so I can focus and eat what I need to eat (or not eat!) to hit race weight for 2 months or so in the build up to a key race, but generally I'm happy to tuck into the fish and chips or the chocolate:D, the rest of the time.

I suppose I'd take 2.59 in a marathon and being able to eat whatever I want over 2.54 having to 'diet'...some days. But then I'd take starvation and 2.59 over eat like the Klumps on Nutty Professor (my dream) and 3.01 everyday!


It's all about how much you want it....

Racing Flat

Is anyone else surprised that Linford Christie was underweight? Granted he didn't have much fat, but he had so much muscle...

rainbow kirby

Racing Flat wrote: »

Maybe we should bring weight categories into running! Anyone up for lightweight, middleweight, heavyweight categories in the next BHAA race

Anyone got a Fat Bitch category for me? :pac:

MCOS

Racing Flat wrote: »

The downside of this is that I love food! And so I can focus and eat what I need to eat (or not eat!) to hit race weight for 2 months or so in the build up to a key race, but generally I'm happy to tuck into the fish and chips or the chocolate:D, the rest of the time.

I suppose I'd take 2.59 in a marathon and being able to eat whatever I want over 2.54 having to 'diet'...some days. But then I'd take starvation and 2.59 over eat like the Klumps on Nutty Professor (my dream) and 3.01 everyday!


It's all about how much you want it....

Hmm.. I suppose its a bit silly to watch weight now as we are entering silly season and I already have a box of scots clan in my living room. I guess being fit and active and having goals just makes you feel guilty about eating the crap. However didn't Usain Bolt wash down a bucket of chicken nuggets before his heats? Isn't Ricky Hatton lobbing back the fish n chips before he starts to shape up for the next fight? Rob Kearney smokes like a trooper :mad: yet he will face Rockokoko et al on Saturday.



If you love food, indulge... just in moderation (this is the part I need to work on ) and eat smart in the lead up to your event. If you eat well enough anyway you only have to tweak your diet then.

Peckham

Racing Flat wrote: »

I know my race weight (funnily enough works out at 10% less than average).

How did you work out your race weight? I've often wondered about this. I'm consistently around the 11 stone mark, but peak marathon training brings it down to 10.5 stone and then I slowly go back up to 11 stone. So, I've taken 10.5 stone as my race weight, albeit that would probably put me mid-range on a BMI score.

Peckham

MCOS wrote: »

Rob Kearney smokes like a trooper :mad: yet he will face Rockokoko et al on Saturday.

:eek: Is smoking common amongst professional athletes? Am surprised by that.

hunnymonster

cfitz, the studies I was talking about were done on professional athlete's or college scholarship people (most of this stuff is done in the US). Underweight Jane Blogs have a whole lot of other problems.

Racing Flat

@ Peckham - I suppose it's just the weight that I stabilise at when I'm running 50 miles a week consistently and eating healthily.* If I run 30 miles a week, I tend to be about 4-8lbs heavier. When at this 'race weight' I feel good, light but not weak, strong but not fatigued. My easy runs feel easy and I tend to race well. So I just assume that 'stabilised' weight is my race weight. I might have been a few pounds lighter for Ballycotton, and maybe the marathon, but I'm not sure, I didn't monitor it much this year, but will have to remember to check weight on race days in future to see if I have a more ideal 'race weight', in light of this thread.


* So I'm generally this weight most of the time now, but after holidays, Christmas, rest week (twice a year) I'll be up to half a stone heavier, might take about 3 weeks of training to stabilise again.

Racing Flat

Peckham wrote: »

I'm consistently around the 11 stone mark, but peak marathon training brings it down to 10.5 stone and then I slowly go back up to 11 stone. So, I've taken 10.5 stone as my race weight, albeit that would probably put me mid-range on a BMI score.

10.5 sounds about right then. But maybe 7lbs is too much of a difference between your consistent weight and your race weight? I don't like to be anymore than about 4lbs above. Confident I can lose about 4lbs in 2 weeks coming up to a race if needed without affecting performance, but 7 might be tough...Perhaps if you are happy with 10.5 as race weight, you should try to keep your consistent weight at 10'10'' to 10'12''?

cfitz

hunnymonster wrote: »

cfitz, the studies I was talking about were done on professional athlete's or college scholarship people (most of this stuff is done in the US). Underweight Jane Blogs have a whole lot of other problems.

I'm not sure I put my question across very well. Let's take bone density as an example. (I'm no doctor/scientist so this hopefully this example makes some sense.) Low bone density is something that makes you vulnerable to problems rather than being a problem itself. So my question is: If an athlete trains really hard and looks after herself, will other strengths gained from this make her less vulnerable to broken bones (despite her lower bone density) than someone who exercises 'moderately'?


-I'm not really that concerned about healthy weights for female athletes but I wouldn't like to think that I (a male athlete) would be significantly healthier at a higher weight.

hunnymonster

aha, I understand now. I'm not sure of the answer to that one. Let me go back and reread some of the stuff to see if the studies addressed that. I can't remember seeing it though. Gut instinct would say, yes someone with strong muscles ect is less likely to fall akwardly and break something but I would have to ask is it worth the risk? Every person can only answer that for themselves.