Calculator that predicts time based on weight.

BenMicheal

I seen an online site that someone here put a link up for that calculates your time based on weight loss/gained.

Its like the McMillan calculator except with weight.

Probably describing it very badly. Anyhelp appreciated!

Krusty_Clown

Here you go.

Clearlier

Be careful about reading anything in to these calculators. While it may be fun to see what it thinks you might get if you lost all the weight in the end the only thing that matters is the time that you run.

BenMicheal

Clearlier wrote: »

Be careful about reading anything in to these calculators. While it may be fun to see what it thinks you might get if you lost all the weight in the end the only thing that matters is the time that you run.

Totally agree! Its just out of interest!

sconhome

Am I right is assuming that this does not factor in any performance benefit of losing weight? Its just a snap shot of your current time and what you 'could' have done if you were same fitness but at a different weight?

frozenfrozen

It's pretty much just "working out" how fast you would have run if you had a lot of helium balloons tied to you or stones in your pockets

robinph

Loosing weight is a by product of doing more training and it is the training that will make you quicker, not having liposuction to remove a few spare grams of fat.

sconhome

robinph wrote: »

Loosing weight is a by product of doing more training and it is the training that will make you quicker, not having liposuction to remove a few spare grams of fat.

I was wondering about this (not the liposuction!) but in theory if you ran 20k today and after removing 5kg ran the same 20k (at the same fitness levels ) you would be faster (?)

I would have thought there is a cumulative circular benefit of the training too, losing excess weight makes training easier and you become more efficient allowing you to train more / longer / faster losing more excess weight etc until balance is struck.

(Obviously you real runners can substitute miles & pounds in there instead of the triathlete measures )

robinph

The only way to prove a difference, without resorting to liposuction, would be to train a pair of twins for a race and have them both wearing weight belts 24/7 for the X months of training leading up to the race. Then on the start line you remove the weights from one of them and see what the difference is. The lighter guy will obviously go quicker, but that is different from saying that to run quicker you need to loose weight.

If the two twins had a spare 5kg to loose though and one of them did extra training, and sorted out the eating and ended up loosing those 5kg that now lighter guy would end up running quicker than the difference from the weight belt type of test as they had trained for it at the now lighter weight. It's a combination of doing everything right, not getting fixated one one aspect.

rom

robinph wrote: »

The only way to prove a difference, without resorting to liposuction, would be to train a pair of twins for a race and have them both wearing weight belts 24/7 for the X months of training leading up to the race. Then on the start line you remove the weights from one of them and see what the difference is. The lighter guy will obviously go quicker, but that is different from saying that to run quicker you need to loose weight.

If the two twins had a spare 5kg to loose though and one of them did extra training, and sorted out the eating and ended up loosing those 5kg that now lighter guy would end up running quicker than the difference from the weight belt type of test as they had trained for it at the now lighter weight. It's a combination of doing everything right, not getting fixated one one aspect.

Finally a reason for jedward

Clearlier

robinph wrote: »

Loosing weight is a by product of doing more training and it is the training that will make you quicker, not having liposuction to remove a few spare grams of fat.

Although I understand the logic of your point in the real world your level of training has very little influence on your weight. As a rough guide I would say that your weight is 80% diet and 20% training. I grew up with the myth that you can lose weight through exercise. I remember as a kid thinking that if I ever got fat (as if) then I'd just exercise it all off. 20 years on I weigh between 88 and 90kgs at 1m 75 or about 14 stone and 5 ' 9" in old money*. I have run 50 mpw for several weeks and been more or less sedentary for periods. Aside from some very short periods my weight has been a constant for 7 or 8 years. Now n=1 is no basis for generalisation but I've seen enough in other people to have confidence that I'm far from the only one to have this experience.

If you want to lose weight you need to sort out your diet (in my case leave sugar alone).

*As a former rugby player I haven't exactly got the build of a long distance runner but I guess that a 38" waist tells its own story.