Weight & Race Pace

BeepBeep67

So I finally put new batteries in scales at home and was a little surprised that I'm + 3.8kg since my low weight before injury (expected maybe 1.5 - 2).
So it got me thinking on how does weight translate to race pace - with all other things being equal, is it linear or where does the coorelation begin and end.
I'm basically 5% heavier than in May, does that mean I'm 3 secs slower per min due to carrying the extra weight (I've lost some fitness over that period obviously)?
I recently ran 11:38 for 2miles versus 10:14 for 3k (11 mins for 2M) at my low weight, 12 mins x 3secs = 36 secs, pretty close.
So my new strategy is to add SFE (stop f**king eating) to my HTFU plan.

opus

This is a calculator I came across before that tries to predict the effect of weight on your times.

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

Says you gain over 2 mins per kg lost for a marathon which is the bit I was interested in.

SnappyDresser

Used to be obsessed with my own weight vs running performance. Then decided about 18 months ago never to weigh myself again. It was a fruitless task. Yes lower bodyweight will result in faster times but only to a point where power, strength are not compromised. Better to enjoy your food, your training, your races and not worry too much about a few extra pounds unless you are a serious contender in races. The late great George Sheehan put it best by saying that he knew he could knock x secs off his time if he lost weight but in the end having a good quality of life, enjoying a few beers was more important and throw away the scales. Use your own instinct to tell you when you have piled on and increase your training and reduce your food intake but dont use the scales. Otherwise you will be on and off that scales non stop and worry about every increase/decrease...:)

shels4ever

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

So I finally put new batteries in scales at home and was a little surprised that I'm + 3.8kg since my low weight before injury (expected maybe 1.5 - 2).
So it got me thinking on how does weight translate to race pace - with all other things being equal, is it linear or where does the coorelation begin and end.
I'm basically 5% heavier than in May, does that mean I'm 3 secs slower per min due to carrying the extra weight (I've lost some fitness over that period obviously)?
I recently ran 11:38 for 2miles versus 10:14 for 3k (11 mins for 2M) at my low weight, 12 mins x 3secs = 36 secs, pretty close.
So my new strategy is to add SFE (stop f**king eating) to my HTFU plan.

I've gone a bit ott on the weigh issue and what i'm eating in the last couple of week(need to do the same with what i'm drinking soon too) but need to keep one vice... I've a race weight in mind that I was @in '99 so not sure if i'd reach that, but jsut plan on putting as much though into my food as i do into running. Why waste the 6 hours running a week on a few kebaps and crisps.. although village runner was eating more in a day then I could manage in a month...

mloc123

They say 1second per kg per km. My views on this change from week to week, depending on my diet. I am 73kg and 5'10", I am 6kg overweight... maybe more. Some weeks I think 'stop being such a lazy git and stick to your diet'... other weeks I think '6 seconds a km is f*ck all anyway'.

This week is the latter. I'd love to drop that 6kg to look better squeezed into a trisuit but it involves alot of effort, maybe when my run times are at a standstill I'll get a bit more serious about it... afterall it is an 'easy' 6 seconds/km. Funny thing is I have dropped about 7 stone in total over the past 18months or so, the last one is the killer :rolleyes:

tunney

mloc123 wrote: »

They say 1second per kg per km.

Who said this? Link?
Cause everything I have read is 4 seconds per kg per km.

mloc123

tunney wrote: »

Who said this? Link?
Cause everything I have read is 4 seconds per kg per km.

I read it on here at some stage... suddenly dropping that 6kg looks alot more appealing

Condo131

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

So my new strategy is to add SFE (stop f**king eating) to my HTFU plan.

I need to do that too! Weak willed though! :(:(

Hmmm....chocolate...just finished 2 bars!:rolleyes:

Rule of thumb: 10lbs = 2.5 mins in a 10k (or 2 mins in 5M). Opus's calculator comes out at 2.3 mins for the Mar.

However Rule of Thumb 2, Marathon time = 6 x your 5 mile time 2.6 min, a difference of 18 sec. (My problem is that I'm now approx. 1 stone heavier than when I was running my best (long time ago!). That 1 stone = 16.8 mins, based on the above Rules of Thumb! I need to drop weight and Dublin is now 11 weeks away as of yesterday! :eek:

shotgunmcos

mloc123 wrote: »

Funny thing is I have dropped about 7 stone in total over the past 18months or so, the last one is the killer :rolleyes:

Jesus!! :eek: Well done thats phenomenal!!

RubyK

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Jesus!! :eek: Well done thats phenomenal!!

Wow mloc123, fair play to you, that must have taken a lot of hard work!

robinph

But if you run 1000miles and loose 1 stone in weight do you then run the next race faster because your 1 stone lighter, or do you run it faster because you've done 1000 miles of training?

If we are just talking about how much slower will I run if I'm wearing a heavy rucksack then the weight is relevant and there is probably a linear scale you can use to calculate the time difference. I'm assuming that anyone here is not thinking of losing any weight by liposuction though, so the training being done in the mean time is more of a factor. If some weight disappears in the process then so much the better.

Ignore the scales, eat enough to fit with how much exercise you do, and be happy.

shotgunmcos

i008787 wrote: »

Used to be obsessed with my own weight vs running performance. Then decided about 18 months ago never to weigh myself again. It was a fruitless task. Yes lower bodyweight will result in faster times but only to a point where power, strength are not compromised. Better to enjoy your food, your training, your races and not worry too much about a few extra pounds unless you are a serious contender in races. ...:)

+1 I'm being a bit more anal about weight as its only a few weeks from my A goal of the year so the sacrifices are small for being at peak shape. I do agree with being relaxed about it though. Luckily my OH reminds me that I haven't eaten chocolate in 5 days.. its ok to have a scone in the great scheme of things. I have one, mood improves, I thank her for it she likes the acknowledgement and that you have allowed yourself to be vulnerable for a moment. That scone became food for the soul of your relationship.

tunney

robinph wrote: »

But if you run 1000miles and loose 1 stone in weight do you then run the next race faster because your 1 stone lighter, or do you run it faster because you've done 1000 miles of training?

If we are just talking about how much slower will I run if I'm wearing a heavy rucksack then the weight is relevant and there is probably a linear scale you can use to calculate the time difference. I'm assuming that anyone here is not thinking of losing any weight by liposuction though, so the training being done in the mean time is more of a factor. If some weight disappears in the process then so much the better.

Ignore the scales, eat enough to fit with how much exercise you do, and be happy.

In short - no.

Its a simple function of work required to move mass. Less mass, less work.

But if you still do the same amount of work but have less mass then what happens?

TFBubendorfer

Over the last 2 years my weight has oscillated between 142 pounds and 152 pounds (64 kg to 69 kg) (I'm 5'10" or 178cm, btw) and my race times have remained pretty much constant.

I still weigh myself regularly but more out of habit than anything else because I sure have given up doing anything about it. I eat what I want, when I want, and at times my weight goes down, at times it goes up and I have no idea why.

Actually, when I went off sugar during lent, I dropped 7 pounds over 4 weeks without going hungry once. My race times didn't improve, though.

My conclusion is, if you're overweight then of course losing weight is going to help. If you have reached your "natural weight", then it does not seem to make an iota of difference.

T runner

Ive been looking into this as i try to lose weight for teh Berlin marathon.

This can be deceptive. Losing weight will only benefit you if you ahve the right body composotion. Must be gradual.

You need to work out roughly what body composition you need at ideal race weight. Muscle to fat. By training you will lose fat and gain some muscle weight.

Thats why its misleading. The 4 s per kg per m would count the loss in weight but i doubt that this would be a direct reduction in fat percentage. It would be based on an altered body composition.

To lose weight you need to eat the correct amount for your ideal body composition. This is not dieting. You will lose weight while training until you reach this composition and then your weight will level off without changing your eating habits.

Typically eliminating one vice should start to see the weight shift. For me it was spoons of sugar.

If you have a higher percentage of muscle mass to fat at a given weight your metabolism will be higher. This is because it takes more energy to hold muscle mass than fat.

So dont do it by dieting. Try and workout what you need to eat for your desired body composition. You will lose weight and get faster

Gringo78

tunney wrote: »

But if you still do the same amount of work but have less mass then what happens?

If you do the same 1000 miles at the same pace as before but weigh 5kg less, you may ironically lose pace as you are actually doing less training.

Your race times don't magically drop, you need to stimulate them through training, so dropping 1 or 2 kg won't make a difference to your race times unless you try to make a difference by training faster. If you do the same interval session after dropping a kg, it may seem easier to complete, when actually what you need to be doing is running a few seconds a mile faster per rep to achieve the same training effect as before due to the dropped weight.

robinph

tunney wrote: »

In short - no.

Its a simple function of work required to move mass. Less mass, less work.

But if you still do the same amount of work but have less mass then what happens?

I'm not saying that loosing weight doesn't make you faster. What I'm saying is that the unless you just loose weight by starving yourself then the training is having a bigger impact on how fast you are running.

A person weighing 15st runs distance X in 1 hour. They do a load of training and now weigh 13st and run distance X in 45 minutes.

Put a 2st weight belt on them though and they will still be running quicker than the 1 hour that they did the distance in initially.

mloc123

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Jesus!! :eek: Well done thats phenomenal!!

RubyK wrote: »

Wow mloc123, fair play to you, that must have taken a lot of hard work!

Now that I think about it, its getting closer to 2 years. Hardest part is just eating right, my diet had been junk up until then... cornflakes, white bread, rolls for lunch.. rubbish food essentially.

When it gets to this end of the season it is hard to lose fat imo.. peaking for A races, training is high intensity and you don't want to chance getting run down or ending up sick for the sake of dropping a few pounds. Roll on the winter :rolleyes:

searay

mloc123 wrote: »

They say 1second per kg per km. My views on this change from week to week, depending on my diet. I am 73kg and 5'10", I am 6kg overweight... maybe more. Some weeks I think 'stop being such a lazy git and stick to your diet'... other weeks I think '6 seconds a km is f*ck all anyway'.

This week is the latter. I'd love to drop that 6kg to look better squeezed into a trisuit but it involves alot of effort, maybe when my run times are at a standstill I'll get a bit more serious about it... afterall it is an 'easy' 6 seconds/km. Funny thing is I have dropped about 7 stone in total over the past 18months or so, the last one is the killer :rolleyes:

I was shocked that you considered 73kg as overweight for your height and stuck it in a BMI calculator. The score came out as 23 which would be regarded as normal. Many people regard the BMI calculations as a bit unrealistic as it doesn't account for sex, muscle mass etc.

I'd suggest you re-consider whether the 67kg target is realistic. You've come along way from where you were and maybe it should be about fitness now.

tunney

mloc123 wrote: »

Now that I think about it, its getting closer to 2 years. Hardest part is just eating right, my diet had been junk up until then... cornflakes, white bread, rolls for lunch.. rubbish food essentially.

When it gets to this end of the season it is hard to lose fat imo.. peaking for A races, training is high intensity and you don't want to chance getting run down or ending up sick for the sake of dropping a few pounds. Roll on the winter :rolleyes:

Fair fvcks to you. As a former fattie I know how hard it is to shift it and keep it off.

tunney

searay wrote: »

I was shocked that you considered 73kg as overweight for your height and stuck it in a BMI calculator. The score came out as 23 which would be regarded as normal. Many people regard the BMI calculations as a bit unrealistic as it doesn't account for sex, muscle mass etc.

I'd suggest you re-consider whether the 67kg target is realistic. You've come along way from where you were and maybe it should be about fitness now.

I was 99kg at one stage. On race day this year I was 67kg, I think if I ever stand on a start line for a similar race again I need to be 65.5kg. I am also 5 foot 10. 67kg is very achievable over time with proper diet and regular exercise and i don't see why mloc shouldn't go for it as well. Its very realistic, very achievable and very admirable.

mloc123

I would describe myself as a fat runner but as an average person 'normal'. Certainly in other social circles people that are the same weight/build or heavier probably wouldn't consider themselves or me overweight.... but line up at the start of a race and its another story

BeepBeep67

When I was 30 and fast(er) I was 66kg and I'm 6ft, 77.5kg now down from 95 (7 or so years ago) and 86 in '07, have dropped to a low of 73.7 this year and still felt fast and strong.
Would like to get to around 70 next Summer to see what I could do on the track. The OH gives out when I get too thin and sends out a search party for my bum .

W.B. Yeats

Jesus, you folk are all seriously light
I'm 166cm and 70kg- I was probably 78kg 3 months ago- on a BMI I am currently 25.3 but I'm naturally very stocky. I reckon I can hit 67kg but after that I think I will be heading into what I consider to be unhealthy territory. I played loads of rugby as a young lad and haven't been 65kg since I was about 15 years of age.....

estariol

This question always leaves me very confused, are these pro-ported performance v weight gains in anyway reliable for real world people. In my own case I don't have any weight really to lose (barring lean mass)! find my race times fail to really improve much over the last few seasons, while I realise that certain physiques/body types will always struggle to really make any major strides forward.
I guess what I'm asking in reality does these time improvements only apply when body fat is the type of weight lost?

TFBubendorfer

W.B. Yeats wrote: »

Jesus, you folk are all seriously light
I'm 166cm and 70kg- I was probably 78kg 3 months ago- on a BMI I am currently 25.3 but I'm naturally very stocky. I reckon I can hit 67kg but after that I think I will be heading into what I consider to be unhealthy territory. I played loads of rugby as a young lad and haven't been 65kg since I was about 15 years of age.....

Now let's keep it real. 65 kg for a 166 cm lad would be nowhere near unhealthy.

A BMI over 25 is overweight, btw.

tunney

estariol wrote: »

This question always leaves me very confused, are these pro-ported performance v weight gains in anyway reliable for real world people. In my own case I don't have any weight really to lose (barring lean mass)! find my race times fail to really improve much over the last few seasons, while I realise that certain physiques/body types will always struggle to really make any major strides forward.
I guess what I'm asking in reality does these time improvements only apply when body fat is the type of weight lost?

Fat or non functional muscle.

tunney

I find that people are too quick to say "I'm not overweight" or "Sure you do X,Y or Z you're too skinny".
Lets roll back the clock 20-30 years - would the average bloke on the street be classed chubby then? Yes. By extension the average runner compares themselves to the average person today and thinks "I'm skinnier than him so I'm okay".

My 2c.

tunney

W.B. Yeats wrote: »

Jesus, you folk are all seriously light
I'm 166cm and 70kg- I was probably 78kg 3 months ago- on a BMI I am currently 25.3 but I'm naturally very stocky. I reckon I can hit 67kg but after that I think I will be heading into what I consider to be unhealthy territory. I played loads of rugby as a young lad and haven't been 65kg since I was about 15 years of age.....

Pretty chubby for a 15 year old.

T runner

estariol wrote: »

This question always leaves me very confused, are these pro-ported performance v weight gains in anyway reliable for real world people. In my own case I don't have any weight really to lose (barring lean mass)! find my race times fail to really improve much over the last few seasons, while I realise that certain physiques/body types will always struggle to really make any major strides forward.
I guess what I'm asking in reality does these time improvements only apply when body fat is the type of weight lost?

Id say to improve you can look at things like the effectiveness of your training for your goal races at your given mileage.

Working on form might be an easy way to get a percent or two.

Work on core muscles will actually change your body composition slightly, help your form and ebable you to train with less injury.

Bump the mileage. Use the 10% rule. Add only slow easy running initially and gradually adapt to the higher mileage . You can even cross train to add aerobic fitness and slowly convert the cross training to easy running (good for avoiding overuse injury).

All you can do re weight is make sure your diet is good and the combination gives you the best body composition for what youre trying to do.

mloc123

tunney wrote: »

I find that people are too quick to say "I'm not overweight" or "Sure you do X,Y or Z you're too skinny".
Lets roll back the clock 20-30 years - would the average bloke on the street be classed chubby then? Yes. By extension the average runner compares themselves to the average person today and thinks "I'm skinnier than him so I'm okay".

My 2c.

Yeah, I knew a guy a while back that got very offended when somebody implied he was fat one day at lunch time. He didn't think he was overweight and maybe even considered himself skinny... at a guess his bf % was higher than mine.

W.B. Yeats

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Now let's keep it real. 65 kg for a 166 cm lad would be nowhere near unhealthy.

A BMI over 25 is overweight, btw.

Tell me something I don't know
BMI has serious limitations however and actually is only moderate at assessing body weight.
I'm not a typical shape at all and that's why for me 65kg will be very light for me- fine probably not unhealthy but certainly losing muscle as opposed to body fat

Targeting weight loss based on a punter on the interweb's opinion is probably not best practice anyway so you'll excuse me if I follow a plan customised to meet my requirements

W.B. Yeats

tunney wrote: »

Pretty chubby for a 15 year old.

Way harsh man:D

tunney

W.B. Yeats wrote: »

Tell me something I don't know
BMI has serious limitations however and actually is only moderate at assessing body weight.
I'm not a typical shape at all and that's why for me 65kg will be very light for me- fine probably not unhealthy but certainly losing muscle as opposed to body fat

Targeting weight loss based on a punter on the interweb's opinion is probably not best practice anyway so you'll excuse me if I follow a plan customised to meet my requirements

Sorta ties in with one of my earlier posts, no?

Slogger Jogger

I'm c. 68kg, which can fall to 65kg following a very long run, but I make sure to eat all around me to get that weight back on asap I'm as light as I'm ever been in donkeys years but running better too but its not all about weight as T Runner suggests.

When I took up running c. 7 years back I shedded weight big time for my first marathon. Between 3 and 4 stone. Went from avg 36 inch waist to 30.

Looking forward to gaining some guiltfree kgs next year as I won't be able to run as much as I've been doing.

opus

Since last Jan when I started following a training plan for the Cork marathon, I've been losing weight very slowly. Haven't really changed my eating habits, in fact, probably eating a bit more now but guess the exercise really does make a difference. I'm ~182cm and was 74Kg back in Jan, was ~72Kg by May and am ~69Kg now. Still in the normal BMI range in any case, it's only gone from 22 to 21.

Am hoping the few less kg will help me improve a bit in the Berlin marathon in Sept. Time will tell....

menoscemo

I am 175cm (about 5" 8.5) and before I started running I went from 89kg to 75kg in about a year. I took up running about 18 months ago at 75kg and now after about 1600 miles (1000miles so far this year) I am still exactly 75kg. If I go on an eating/no training binge I quickly go up to about 77kg, but it comes off again in about a week.
I might get down to 74kg the odd time but it will go back on even if I'm training.

Basically I am training hard and getting the results, my times are still consistently dropping as I train more. Even though I am a fat f**ker in running terms I am happy with where I am at, maybe when improvements start panning out I'll put serious effort into dropping a few more KG.

I am with Robinph on this one. Surely Improvements are down to training you put in more than the weight you are?

mloc123

menoscemo wrote: »

I am with Robinph on this one. Surely Improvements are down to training you put in more than the weight you are?

Of course they are, but I think weight will help. It would be interesting for somebody run with extra weight.. backpack etc.. and see how it affects pace in the real world.

menoscemo

mloc123 wrote: »

Of course they are, but I think weight will help. It would be interesting for somebody run with extra weight.. backpack etc.. and see how it affects pace in the real world.

Obviously if someone has to run with extra weight (i.e. backpack) they will slow down. But that does not necessarily mean extra body weight will have the same effect. Not all body weight is fat or dead weight, and losing body weight does not necessarily mean losing fat either. In most cases it will mean losing some muscle and power too.

mloc123

Thats the problem with 'weight', of course it should be specified that losing fat is what people are after. Thats where bf % comes in I guess.

T runner

menoscemo wrote: »

I am 175cm (about 5" 8.5) and before I started running I went from 89kg to 75kg in about a year. I took up running about 18 months ago at 75kg and now after about 1600 miles (1000miles so far this year) I am still exactly 75kg. If I go on an eating/no training binge I quickly go up to about 77kg, but it comes off again in about a week.
I might get down to 74kg the odd time but it will go back on even if I'm training.

Basically I am training hard and getting the results, my times are still consistently dropping as I train more. Even though I am a fat f**ker in running terms I am happy with where I am at, maybe when improvements start panning out I'll put serious effort into dropping a few more KG.

I am with Robinph on this one. Surely Improvements are down to training you put in more than the weight you are?

In my opinion you eat and train for the type of body you have.

Therfore if you find out the optimum type of body composition desirable for you and eat according to that you will get that composition.

Youe weight will initially drop and the plateau when you reach the body composition you are eating for.

If you have plateaued at 75 KG and you may or may not have the optimum body composition.

Say you havent and a body composition (which happenned to weigh 72kg) was ideal for you (in running terms). If you eat the correct combo and amount of foods to give you this new composition, your times would improve compared to you doing the same training and not changing your consumption (either nature or amount or both).

TFBubendorfer

T runner wrote: »

In my opinion you eat and train for the type of body you have.

Therfore if you find out the optimum type of body composition desirable for you and eat according to that you will get that composition.

Youe weight will initially drop and the plateau when you reach the body composition you are eating for.

If you have plateaued at 75 KG and you may or may not have the optimum body composition.

Say you havent and a body composition (which happenned to weigh 72kg) was ideal for you (in running terms). If you eat the correct combo and amount of foods to give you this new composition, your times would improve compared to you doing the same training and not changing your consumption (either nature or amount or both).

Ok.

So, how does one find out the "optimum type of body composition desirable for you"? Trial and error, or is there a better way?

T runner

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Ok.

So, how does one find out the "optimum type of body composition desirable for you"? Trial and error, or is there a better way?

I think its trial and error, but its not rocket science.

Ratio of healthy lean mass to fat is the indicator of good health not body weight.

Basically alter the eating habits slighly until weight starts to come down. Eventually weight will plateau. Are you at correct composition?
(are you strong and lean enough for your purposes?)
If not alter some more etc. etc.

Here are ways to adapt eating habits:

replace beverages with water

Breakfast like king. Apparently those who miss breakfast are 5 times more likely to be overweight.

Graze: small portions often. If you eat a large plate of food that is greater than your immediate calorific requirements it will go to fat storage. Eat more often=eat less = store less fat.

Fuel workouts properly.

Fuel recovery properly to during heavy training to avoid losing muscle mass. Eat As soon as possible after training

Cut back on sugary, salty, fatty foods.

Take a carb/protein drink after a workout which will kill most of your appetite.

Eat filling foods: People eat a consistant volume\weight of food. If you eat more watery/fibrous foods you will take in less calories than dense high calorific food.
We judge the amount of food by weight. Its up to us what thw weight contains.

Train consistantly and progreessively and do strenght training.


(I took many of these tips from "Performance nutrition for runners" by Matt Fitzgerald.

menoscemo

T runner wrote: »

In my opinion you eat and train for the type of body you have.

Therfore if you find out the optimum type of body composition desirable for you and eat according to that you will get that composition.

Youe weight will initially drop and the plateau when you reach the body composition you are eating for.

If you have plateaued at 75 KG and you may or may not have the optimum body composition.

Say you havent and a body composition (which happenned to weigh 72kg) was ideal for you (in running terms). If you eat the correct combo and amount of foods to give you this new composition, your times would improve compared to you doing the same training and not changing your consumption (either nature or amount or both).

As I said, I don't know if i'm at optimum weight. When I stop improving, based on the same or more training than before then I'll see if dropping a few pounds will help.
Honestly though, I have tried to drop below what I am now by eating less and very healthily (which I generally do anyway), and yet my weight stayed constant. I feel that to lose weight I would have to eat so little that it would leave me weak and I couldn't train properly.

T runner

menoscemo wrote: »

As I said, I don't know if i'm at optimum weight. When I stop improving, based on the same or more training than before then I'll see if dropping a few pounds will help.
Honestly though, I have tried to drop below what I am now by eating less and very healthily (which I generally do anyway), and yet my weight stayed constant. I feel that to lose weight I would have to eat so little that it would leave me weak and I couldn't train properly.

You may be at your optimum body composition. If you eat healthy, train regularly, graze on small portions etc and are lean then you probably are.