Important of weight race?

couerdelion

I've taken this quote from one of the logs. El Director is wanting to increase his speed and is being told that he needs to lose weight. I was starting to comment in the log but didn't want to derail it and it has a fair bit of crossover for all of us who are A/R/T ists and those of us who want to lose weight.

kennyb3 wrote: »

I'd say you could look at getting to at least 12 stone and even 11.5 or less over time. If you can get withinn at least a stone of some pro's of similar height you wont be bad. Someone like Frodeno is about 12st at 6ft'4 sure.

Now whilst I realise Iron distance is different to Olympic, Ain-Alar Juhanson is 14st 13lbs and winning ironmans. Surely if weight is really that important he would be back of the pack?

kennyb3

I was mainly talking in relation to his running times to be honest. This has been done before

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055417822

If you are lighter you are naturally going to run faster given all other factors being equal and you have the weight to lose (i.e arent already 10 stone and 5% body fat)

T runner

couerdelion wrote: »

I've taken this quote from one of the logs. El Director is wanting to increase his speed and is being told that he needs to lose weight. I was starting to comment in the log but didn't want to derail it and it has a fair bit of crossover for all of us who are A/R/T ists and those of us who want to lose weight.



Now whilst I realise Iron distance is different to Olympic, Ain-Alar Juhanson is 14st 13lbs and winning ironmans. Surely if weight is really that important he would be back of the pack?

It makes a difference for running for sure. But you have to be leaner.

Reducing weight by half a stone might ahve no effect on your performance (or a detrimental one) if the ratio of muscle to fat is the asame (ie muscle mass (and useful muscle mass) is lost).

A study was conducted (dont ahve link sorry) where one group created a deficit of X amount of calories by eating less.

Second group created calorie deficit by excercising more.

The second group only lost one third of the weight of the first group.

However the first group did not sustain the weight loss in the medium term and were more illness prone.

The first group were more than likely faster. (im paraphrasing big time here).


Cutting weight by becoming leaner and creating a slight deficit between exercise and intake is the only way to make a reduction in weight count towards an improvement in performance and keeping healthy.

If you do it this way, you will be leaner, stronger (and lighter) and teher will be a noticiable increase in performance.

Half a kilo a week should nearly be the upper limit for correct adjustment of body composition.

kennyb3

BTW Ain-Alar Juhanson is known for his super biking and not so much for his running.

He obvioulsy like his bike based on his volumes

couerdelion

kennyb3 wrote: »

I was mainly talking in relation to his running times to be honest. This has been done before

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055417822

If you are lighter you are naturally going to run faster given all other factors being equal and you have the weight to lose (i.e arent already 10 stone and 5% body fat)

Sorry I just quoted your post to El D as context, I wasn't pointing it out as being wrong. In the main I agree that lighter means faster, and that's what we are all aspiring to.

There must be some kind of law of diminishing returns though where you get to a certain % and whilst theoretically you are going to be faster your ability to resist injury and train to your peak is lost?

Thanks for the link.

kennyb3

couerdelion wrote: »

There must be some kind of law of diminishing returns though where you get to a certain % and whilst theoretically you are going to be faster your ability to resist injury and train to your peak is lost?

Of course there is but its very much a personal thing im sure, just as breaking down due to training volumes is.

Some people handle more, some people handle less.

shels4ever

Weight is only on factor in the whole equation, there are lots of other elements that come into play. If the weight is functional then it may not be a big a problem, but fat slows you down.

Gringo78

T runner wrote: »

Reducing weight by half a stone might ahve no effect on your performance (or a detrimental one) if the ratio of muscle to fat is the asame (ie muscle mass (and useful muscle mass) is lost).

I'm looking to lose 7kg over the next 15 weeks which would amount to approx 0.5kg or say 1lb a week. My weight/diet has been relatively stable over last 6 months, the main change I am now making is an increase of 25miles per week training which would amount to 2500calories a week saving and also taking 500-1000 calories a week of junk out of my diet (I have a sweet tooth).

How do I figure out if I am actually losing muscle mass aswell? Should I be taking on extra protein during this time to supplement the extra miles?

kennyb3

BF % test at start and finish.

And what muscle mass are you worried about losing?

You wont be losing it from your legs with extra running once you get sufficient protein on board.

Gringo78

kennyb3 wrote: »

BF % test at start and finish.

And what muscle mass are you worried about losing?

You wont be losing it from your legs with extra running once you get sufficient protein on board.

I'd be worried about losing it in the legs - I would have always assumed I could not lose it as I'm upping the mileage but T-runner got be worried. A low cal protein shake after long runs would prob be no harm then.

TheRoadRunner

kennyb3 wrote: »

BF % test at start and finish.

+1

You can buy inexpensive weighing scales that roughly calculate your BF composition. They are not perfect but if you use it as a yard stick you won't go wrong.

I actually got a BF test done a couple of months back with the calipers and the BF estimate from that was 0.2% more than my scales so they are reasonably accurate (assuming caliper test in accurate). When I put weight (fat) on I can immediately see a rise in my BF composition. Nothing better than a weekly weigh in to keep you honest when it comes to junk food.

T runner

Gringo78 wrote: »

I'm looking to lose 7kg over the next 15 weeks which would amount to approx 0.5kg or say 1lb a week. My weight/diet has been relatively stable over last 6 months, the main change I am now making is an increase of 25miles per week training which would amount to 2500calories a week saving and also taking 500-1000 calories a week of junk out of my diet (I have a sweet tooth).

How do I figure out if I am actually losing muscle mass aswell? Should I be taking on extra protein during this time to supplement the extra miles?

You should take ona s much protein as your body composition requires. So if you reckon youre weight in muscle will increas youd need a little extra protein.
Take protein after every hard session. This is very important. for realising the gains.

If you plan to lose .5 kg a week and youre not diteing then it will probbaly be fat and you will increase youre leaness as well as losing weight. Youre right to make sure youre getting the protein though.

Generally you should eat the amount a man with an athletic body composition weighing (your target) weight would eat. So if you have a slight reduction in volume, maybe keep the protein level constant (dont reduce it).


Your weight should drop gradually until you reach your target body comp (weight) amd then stabilise.

Eat healthy, drink water, but dont reduce your protein intake to below what you need.

A slow reduction while keeping well fed healthy and fit means the gains through less weight (more leanness) will be realised.


There is a yoke for measuring your leanness. Think it costs around 60-70 quid.

Ill have a look and post if i find.

Bambaata

As most will say weight, bf% and muscle mass need to be looked at together. As already stated no point just looking at weight alone, you wont get much information there. I can vary hugely after certain sessions.

I use a Tanita scales to weigh myself daily and find it great to keep you honest. While it might not be 100% accurate i believe it is always the same %out so tracking progress (which is main aim) is consistent. I use this - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tanita-BC570-Glass-Composition-Monitor/dp/B000VI55TC/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1288621931&sr=8-9

BMcCrystal

My 2 pence..

Since last season I'm racing 5/6 kg less. It's made a difference to me but I have flirted with over doing it and 'the weight issue' can get in your head.

What has worked for me is getting the sugar out of my diet. At the start I was climbing up the Walls for a biscuit but after a few weeks the cravings go.I'd eat 6/7 biscuits after diner. Now replaced with fruit or protein. All spending what I've done in the day or what I've on tomorrow.

I think if you live by a few simple rules your body composition will look after itself. Don't be too fixed on the scales.. The belt on your trousers will tell you if you've lost weight or not.

1- plenty of fruit & veg
2- lean meats and loads of fish
3- browns before training/ whites after( this is when your body needs it)
4- loads of fat. Ie..Coconut oil( I put it on everthing)
5- always treat yourself as a reward, otherwise you'll fall off the wagon and binge.

Basically use the paleo method with a few tweaks.

T runner

Gringo78 wrote: »

I'd be worried about losing it in the legs - I would have always assumed I could not lose it as I'm upping the mileage but T-runner got be worried. A low cal protein shake after long runs would prob be no harm then.

Didnt mean to get you worried! That sounds right, once youre getting adequate Protein at the right times you will lose only fat at the rate of loss you are projecting.

I might get one of the body comp testers linked a few threads back myself.
Good for monitoring healthy weight loss.

tunney

couerdelion wrote: »

I've taken this quote from one of the logs. El Director is wanting to increase his speed and is being told that he needs to lose weight. I was starting to comment in the log but didn't want to derail it and it has a fair bit of crossover for all of us who are A/R/T ists and those of us who want to lose weight.



Now whilst I realise Iron distance is different to Olympic, Ain-Alar Juhanson is 14st 13lbs and winning ironmans. Surely if weight is really that important he would be back of the pack?

Macca, Crowie - what weight are they?
First tier and even second tier IM pros are not that heavy.

Also when is the last time Ain-Alar Juhanson won a race and who else was in it

couerdelion

Macca is 175lbs at 6ft. 0"
Crowie is 150lbs at 5ft. 10"

Juhanson has won 2 IM Lanzarote I think. I aren't sure if he's 1st, 2nd or even 3rd tier, I just like the fact that he's a weight I can aspire to get to at the moment.

El Director

Just saw this thread and obviously it interests me. I am now on a mission to get below 80kg (after a weight this morning I'm 83.5kg, down from 88kg in Jan). I am eating a lot more fruit and I have reduced portion size. I hope to do it in a healthy way and I am determined not to allow it "fcuk with my head".
I will be getting a BF% number soon too and will post back when I do.

BTW I think we should be careful when comparing ourselves to pro athletes.

kennyb3

BMcCrystal wrote: »

5- always treat yourself as a reward, otherwise you'll fall off the wagon and binge.

Prob the most important bit you wrote. This is what make all the other stuff sustainable.

Its unrealistic to think you ll never eat s'hite again. just eat right 95% of the time

El Director wrote: »

BTW I think we should be careful when comparing ourselves to pro athletes.

Think it was a case of comparing pro's with pro's above and as i said on your log i think for amateurs its a case of getting to within half a stone or so of the pro's (or closer if you can and are dedicated).

tHE vAGGABOND

I think if you live by a few simple rules your body composition will look after itself. Don't be too fixed on the scales.. The belt on your trousers will tell you if you've lost weight or not.

Deffo +1

I lost a load of weight [6 stone] last year, the process of which got me running. When I stopped "dieting" I was just over 14 stone in or around 91k

Im now running around 30 miles a week [plus or minus] and have been for a while, and eating properly [but Im a huge believer in treating yourself, and cheat meals - you have to reward yourself].

But I weighted myself for the first time in AGES on Sunday, and Im "only" 89/90k - and my first reaction was shock and horror that I had only lost a couple of kilo's with all that hard work. But very quickly I remembered that exact point, quoted above, that my body shape has changed, and my belts are tighter and so on [I also remembered that I had two large breakfasts that morning - as described in my log!].

So forget the scales, flat out ignore IMHO - as all they do is feck with your head, as your body weight can change + or - a few KG on any given day for loads of reasons.

As everyone has said, eat properly and exercise regularly and change will come - if its reflected on scales or not.

robinph

I'm always unconvinced by these threads when they pop up and the talk of dropping a couple of kilos to make yourself X seconds faster appears. Yes, if you strap a couple of kilos to my back and send me off to run then I will go slower with the extra weight. But, dieting to loose a couple of kilos in body weight will not make me run faster.

Training to run faster will make you run faster, if you happen to loose a bit of weight in the process then that is going to help. Don't get so hung up on the weight issue and claiming that it directly relates to speed though. Now, running and adjusting your food intake in order to change your weight is a different issue, but the trying to change your weight in order to get faster is coming at it from the wrong direction.

Train to get faster and the bonus side effect of that is probably the change in weight. But do not aim to loose weight and expect a side effect of that to be getting faster.

sconhome

couerdelion wrote: »

Macca is 175lbs at 6ft. 0"
Crowie is 150lbs at 5ft. 10"

Juhanson has won 2 IM Lanzarote I think. I aren't sure if he's 1st, 2nd or even 3rd tier, I just like the fact that he's a weight I can aspire to get to at the moment.

Interesting segment in a Triathlete Europe interview with Macca where he got his weight down for racing and resulted in poor performances. It was only by increasing his weight (preseumably muscle mass or lean weight) that his performances improved again.

Gringo78

robinph wrote: »

Training to run faster will make you run faster, if you happen to loose a bit of weight in the process then that is going to help. Don't get so hung up on the weight issue and claiming that it directly relates to speed though. Now, running and adjusting your food intake in order to change your weight is a different issue, but the trying to change your weight in order to get faster is coming at it from the wrong direction.

Train to get faster and the bonus side effect of that is probably the change in weight. But do not aim to loose weight and expect a side effect of that to be getting faster.

I agree with this in principal, but if you have weight to lose, then it will not happen unless you make a conscious effort to do so. I weigh 76kg at the moment and according to various formulas, 64kg might be an 'elite' racing weight for a long distance runner. I weighed 70kg in the past and ran well at that weight so I want to get back to that weight and definitely feel that having to carry 6kg less 'fat' around will improve my race times, as well as the training I will do.

For a lot of amateur runners, its tough to fit in the training with work/family etc and weight loss is something that can be gradually done and is not time dependant like training. I've tried to start snacking on fruit now, I have to do a lot of driving for work and was tending to munch on crap in the car but have now found that grapes are a great & much healthier alternative to chocolate.

By the way, I don't believe it makes you faster, rather it makes the effort level easier of maintaining a certain pace. The results of this will be more pronounced over longer distances i.e effectively closes the gap between your 5k pace and your marathon pace. McMillan would have you slowing down by 15% from 5k to marathon pace whereas for me its closer to 20%. I'd hope the weight loss would get me back towards 15% slowdown.

El Director

Hey guys, came across this article, it may be of interest to some here.

http://triathlon.competitor.com/2011/07/nutrition/racing-weight-lose-weight-or-lose-fat-2_35283

BTH

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

+1

You can buy inexpensive weighing scales that roughly calculate your BF composition. They are not perfect but if you use it as a yard stick you won't go wrong.

I actually got a BF test done a couple of months back with the calipers and the BF estimate from that was 0.2% more than my scales so they are reasonably accurate (assuming caliper test in accurate). When I put weight (fat) on I can immediately see a rise in my BF composition. Nothing better than a weekly weigh in to keep you honest when it comes to junk food.

Hey TRR, what scales are you using that are coming out that close to actual BF? I have a scales from Argos and I'm a bit sceptical as to the figures its been giving me. Just using it as a standard to track movement as opposed to using it as the actual figure