Skinny runners

Ososlo

I've been a spectator at a few races over the past year and have seen the guys and gals who win and also those come quite close to the tops of races. The majority of these runners are very very slim. A lot of them look like they're underweight and couldn't have a healthy bmi. There was this particular lady who was placed in race a few days ago and she looked about 7 stone, if even that. She was shivering with the cold and looked really weak at the start of the race. I've seen her in other races too where she's been placed quite highly. It perplexes me as to how these underweight runners can be strong enough to be so fast? They couldn't be eating enough. I just don't get it I totally feel that being a perfect bmi or even towards the lower end of the bmi for your height is a good thing where running is concerned, especially for elites where every second counts, but being underweight with an unhealthy bmi, I dunno how you can have the energy to do all that training and race that fast. Am I missing something? Is it that you get away with this in your teens and 20s and maybe into your 30s but you end up paying for it in later life with poor health? Or is it a genetic thing where their body makeup is just different to the average person?

BobMac104

No I reckon the majority of race winners have perfectly normal BMI's here is a list of BMI's of olympic chmpions. Mo farah "skinny" personified has healthy BMI of 21.1


Usain Bolt (100 m, 200 m) 24.9
Ashton Eaton (decathlon) 24.4
Greg Rutherford (long jump) 24.4
Sven Kramer (speed skating) 23.7
Andy Murray (tennis) 23.7
Michael Phelps (swimming) 23.6
David Boudia (diving) 23.4
Marco Fabián (soccer) 23.2
Félix Sánchez (400 m hurdles) 23.0
Ivan Ukhov (high jump) 22.6
Christian Taylor (triple jump) 22.5
Taoufik Makhloufi (1500 m) 22.1
Alexander Vinokourov (bicycling) 22.1
Evan Lysacek (figure skating) 21.8
Aries Merritt (110 m hurdles) 21.8
Renaud Lavillenie (pole vault) 21.8
Kohei Ichimura (gymnastics) 21.1
Mo Farah (5000 m, 10,000 m) 21.1
Kirani James (400 m) 20.9
Alistair Brownlee (triathlon) 20.9
Ezekiel Kemboi (3000 m steeplechase) 20.2
David Rudisha (800 m) 19.6
Chen Ding (20 k walk) 19.1

RacoonQueen

I would guess they were always skinny and eat like pigs but just maintain their weight. Take into account most 'normal' sized runners/athletes also eat like pigs and tend to maintain weight rather than gain or lose.

huskerdu

BobMac104 wrote: »

No I reckon the majority of race winners have perfectly normal BMI's here is a list of BMI's of olympic chmpions. Mo farah "skinny" personified has healthy BMI of 21.1


Usain Bolt (100 m, 200 m) 24.9
Ashton Eaton (decathlon) 24.4
Greg Rutherford (long jump) 24.4
Sven Kramer (speed skating) 23.7
Andy Murray (tennis) 23.7
Michael Phelps (swimming) 23.6
David Boudia (diving) 23.4
Marco Fabián (soccer) 23.2
Félix Sánchez (400 m hurdles) 23.0
Ivan Ukhov (high jump) 22.6
Christian Taylor (triple jump) 22.5
Taoufik Makhloufi (1500 m) 22.1
Alexander Vinokourov (bicycling) 22.1
Evan Lysacek (figure skating) 21.8
Aries Merritt (110 m hurdles) 21.8
Renaud Lavillenie (pole vault) 21.8
Kohei Ichimura (gymnastics) 21.1
Mo Farah (5000 m, 10,000 m) 21.1
Kirani James (400 m) 20.9
Alistair Brownlee (triathlon) 20.9
Ezekiel Kemboi (3000 m steeplechase) 20.2
David Rudisha (800 m) 19.6
Chen Ding (20 k walk) 19.1

This is across a range of sports some of which require upper body strength like tennis and swimming and some require light weight and strength. like gymnastics.

BMI is a useful tool, but crude and its known that is not a useful indicator for athletes. Rugby players are used as an example of this. Brian O'Driscoll has a BMI of 30, which is typical of rugby players, but he doesn;t have a problem with obesity.

Middle distance running has always had a lot of very skinny athletes who are very strong. As RQ said, they probably eat loads when doing high mileage training.

I worked with a 400m runner who represented Ireland. There were not enough hours in the day for him to eat all he needed to eat to fuel his training and he didn't have an ounce of fat. He always said that he dreaded the day when he got injured and would have to watch what he ate.

Look at John Treacy. He always looked like he could do with a good dinner (I'm channelling my mother). He's 56 now, still really skinny and looks in rude health.

Its not that they are underweight, its a combination of body type, healthy eating and lots of training.

tunguska

Ososlo wrote: »

I've been a spectator at a few races over the past year and have seen the guys and gals who win and also those come quite close to the tops of races. The majority of these runners are very very slim. A lot of them look like they're underweight and couldn't have a healthy bmi. There was this particular lady who was placed in race a few days ago and she looked about 7 stone, if even that. She was shivering with the cold and looked really weak at the start of the race. I've seen her in other races too where she's been placed quite highly. It perplexes me as to how these underweight runners can be strong enough to be so fast? They couldn't be eating enough. I just don't get it I totally feel that being a perfect bmi or even towards the lower end of the bmi for your height is a good thing where running is concerned, especially for elites where every second counts, but being underweight with an unhealthy bmi, I dunno how you can have the energy to do all that training and race that fast. Am I missing something? Is it that you get away with this in your teens and 20s and maybe into your 30s but you end up paying for it in later life with poor health? Or is it a genetic thing where their body makeup is just different to the average person?

I know who you're talking about and she is very thin. But you're jumping to conclusions a little bit about people based on their appearance. I know ultra skinny runners and trust me they eat like horses. High volume training will take the weight off you very quickly, even though you're eating a lot. So its not a case of starving yourself to be thin, its just a bi-product of the training. They're perfectly healthy they're just lighter than most folks walking around.
Personally Im not crazy about the look myself and Im not looking forward to marathon training this year when I know my weight will start to drop and I'll look like a walking corpse, but having said that I'll be healthy and strong even though I'll be fairly light. So light doesn't necessarily = weak or unhealthy

b.harte

You're doing it wrong....:D
You need to reposition yourself and be a spectator back at the clubhouse or hall etc, those skinny folk can really put away the yum-yums, seriously, I was at a race earlier this year and there was no cake left for us "normal" runners. :eek:
Had to make do with a plate full of poxy egg sandwiches....on brown bread...:mad:...after a P.B. !
What I've noticed is that the pointy end runners tend to be lean as opposed to skinny, not too much in the way of extra padding, the rest of us normal folk could do with shedding a few lbs (kgs ).
I was at an IMRA race on Sunday and the top 10 didn't have a pick on them, lean but muscular (if that makes sense).
I'm not up to speed on the current thinking behind BMI but I think it's most useful purpose is to highlight to people where the risk is, not as something to aim for. If (non active) people are on the extreme ends of the scale I would imagine there is more at play there and additional health factors would start becoming an issue, for active people I think an extremely low BMI is not neccessarly cause for concern.
On a slightly related note I noticed (finally) that my weight is starting to come down (slowly) since I started to cut back on water during runs and cut out gels for longish runs, following some of the tips here and on other sites.

walshb

All the great middle distance runners were below the normal weight. It's essential for success. Look at Seb Coe. What, 125-130 lbs aged 25/26 and standing 5 feet 9/10. Crammy was 6 feet easily and probably weighed 130-135 lbs. Maybe 140!

Krusty_Clown

I eat a lot of food myself (I'm eating right now ). I reckon (just my viewpoint) that weight loss as a result of training = good. Weight loss as a result of food deprivation = bad. A bit of a sweeping generalization, but if you think about it, if training hard (and eating well), your weight/shape will normalize to whatever is most efficient for the type of training you are doing. If you were under-eating you would not have the strength to continue to the train at the same level and certainly wouldn't be winning races. The most successful long distance runners tend to be small/light as they train more than anybody else.

menoscemo

I know who you are talking about as well, but if you weren't eating right, you wouldn't be able to run close to the Olympic Marathon qualifying time twice in the space of a few months. Pretty high level of performance.
In a 10k you'll get both athletes coming from middle distance who might be a touch bigger and Athletes like in the OP who are coming from Marathon training and tend to be much thinner.

Ososlo

menoscemo wrote: »

I know who you are talking about as well, but if you weren't eating right, you wouldn't be able to run close to the Olympic Marathon qualifying time twice in the space of a few months.Pretty high level of performance.
In a 10k you'll get both athletes coming from middle distance who might be a touch bigger and Athletes like in the OP who are coming from Marathon training and tend to be much thinner.

that is quite frankly, astonishing.

Guess it goes to reinforce the point made earlier that one just can't judge someone by appearance alone. I think that anyone would view this person as worryingly thin. But yes you're right, there's no way one could do this unless one is eating correctly, unless there was something more sinister going on but in this case, I highly doubt it.

Bbrunnin

Hi i am a slim woman who took up running a good few months ago and have taken a lot of stick over being thin . I do think its in your genes if i hear one more time " but you don t need to exercise" i ll scream . up the skinnys ha ha ps defo have a large health diet well healthymost of the time

rom

If you are unsure if your running will benefit from weight loss then go to a high performance lab such as the ones in UCC, UCD, UL and get an assessment done. I was told that losing a stone would really benefit my running. I did and it did. If your BMI is over 25 and you are training for middle/long distance running then losing weight will be of benefit to you simply. How much ? Everyone is different and going to a lab and finding this out will be money well spent. Reminds me I need to book another appointment. I was told that a body fat between 8 and 10% is what a goal should be at the upper end. Weight should take care of itself then.

Ososlo

rom wrote: »

If you are unsure if your running will benefit from weight loss then go to a high performance lab such as the ones in UCC, UCD, UL and get an assessment done. I was told that losing a stone would really benefit my running. I did and it did. If your BMI is over 25 and you are training for middle/long distance running then losing weight will be of benefit to you simply. How much ? Everyone is different and going to a lab and finding this out will be money well spent. Reminds me I need to book another appointment. I was told that a body fat between 8 and 10% is what a goal should be at the upper end. Weight should take care of itself then.

My op isn't anything to do with my own weight (bmi 20) but thanks
It's just an observation about runners at the top of the field of races and how underweight some of them look.

rom

Ososlo wrote: »

My op isn't anything to do with my own weight (bmi 20) but thanks
It's just an observation about runners at the top of the field of races and how underweight some of them look.

You was meant in the plural context

Pisco Sour

It is also worth noting that due to the fact that the majority of people in Anglo Western countries these days are overweight or obese the public perception on what is a normal weight is severely distorted. A lot of people these days confuse "average" with "normal". The average person is not a normal weight these days.

Ososlo

Pisco Sour wrote: »

It is also worth noting that due to the fact that the majority of people in Anglo Western countries these days are overweight or obese the public perception on what is a normal weight is severely distorted. A lot of people these days confuse "average" with "normal". The average person is not a normal weight these days.

absolutely concur with that statement but the guys I'm talking about in particular look kind of malnourished. I'm not saying that they are.

tHE vAGGABOND

BMI is a complete load of rubbish and a terrible way to evaluate people in my opinion. Most professional rugby players have a huge BMI despite being seriously fit, having a pretty low body fat and doing mad amounts of weights and exercise.

Brian O'Driscoll has a BMI over 30 I believe.

When I was 20 stone fat and really unhealthy I was not a million miles over that myself.

So two people with a very similar BMI - but very different people. Its far too simple and assumes everyone is the same matchstick man.

Pisco Sour

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

BMI is a complete load of rubbish and a terrible way to evaluate people in my opinion. Most professional rugby players have a huge BMI despite being seriously fit, having a pretty low body fat and doing mad amounts of weights and exercise.

Brian O'Driscoll has a BMI over 30 I believe.

When I was 20 stone fat and really unhealthy I was not a million miles over that myself.

So two people with a very similar BMI - but very different people. Its far too simple and assumes everyone is the same matchstick man.

Wouldn't agree it is a load of rubbish. It is with regards to elite sportspeople of course, but for the rest of the population (in excess of 99% of people) it is a very fair method of measurement. Honestly, how many people with a BMI of over 30 are so because of muscle? Virtually none!

hollypink

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

BMI is a complete load of rubbish and a terrible way to evaluate people in my opinion. Most professional rugby players have a huge BMI despite being seriously fit, having a pretty low body fat and doing mad amounts of weights and exercise.

Brian O'Driscoll has a BMI over 30 I believe.

When I was 20 stone fat and really unhealthy I was not a million miles over that myself.

So two people with a very similar BMI - but very different people. Its far too simple and assumes everyone is the same matchstick man.

I disagree. Body fat percentage would be a better measure of course but it's not easy to measure that accurately. BMI applies to the vast majority of the population because the average person doesn't have a significant amount of muscle mass and low body fat like a professional rugby player, so it's a reasonable indicator.

RayCun

BMI is useful for tracking populations.
If you know two people have BMIs of 23 and 28, that doesn't tell you which one is healthier.
If the average BMI in Ireland went from 25 to 26 over five years, or the average BMI in Tralee is 23 and in Kilkenny is 24, it's not because of the numbers playing rugby.

syklops

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Wouldn't agree it is a load of rubbish. It is with regards to elite sportspeople of course, but for the rest of the population (in excess of 99% of people) it is a very fair method of measurement.

How can two people have the same BMI, but by some other arbitrary method of identification one is a 'normal' person and one is an 'elite athlete'.

Honestly, how many people with a BMI of over 30 are so because of muscle? Virtually none!

We obviously roll in different circles.

thewolf_ie

We are so used to seeing people with excessive weight. Once you feel good and have the fuel to stop your body breaking down......

Some people tell me I am to tin and I would be thinking I could shed a few pounds......,

rom

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

BMI is a complete load of rubbish and a terrible way to evaluate people in my opinion. Most professional rugby players have a huge BMI despite being seriously fit, having a pretty low body fat and doing mad amounts of weights and exercise.

Brian O'Driscoll has a BMI over 30 I believe.

When I was 20 stone fat and really unhealthy I was not a million miles over that myself.

So two people with a very similar BMI - but very different people. Its far too simple and assumes everyone is the same matchstick man.

BMI is a general theory that holds true for 99% of the population. You are using an exception to the rule to disprove it. In Japan a BMI of over 25 a person is considered obese. I would be of agreement of that. Personally I think Ireland should use the Japanese classification and not the US.

rom

thewolf_ie wrote: »

Some people tell me I am to tin

There heart is in the right place

syklops

rom wrote: »

BMI is a general theory that holds true for 99% of the population. You are using an exception to the rule to disprove it. In Japan a BMI of over 25 a person is considered obese. I would be of agreement of that. Personally I think Ireland should use the Japanese classification and not the US.

Japanese people on average are shorter than Irish people.

thewolf_ie

rom wrote: »

There heart is in the right place

I suppose I can look at it that way

MrCreosote

Being too skinny is definitely a recognised problem for elite sportspeople. Not sure who the OP is talking about, but there's a big problem with eating disorders in weight based sports and ones like cycling and running where weight is important. Particularly for female athletes.

Just because you eat a lot doesn't mean you eat enough.

You can be too thin. Will it help with running times in the short term- probably. Is it good for your long-term health? No.

rom

syklops wrote: »

Japanese people on average are shorter than Irish people.

I don't see your point. Kenyan's are taller btw.

tHE vAGGABOND

You can be too thin. Will it help with running times in the short term- probably. Is it good for your long-term health? No.

Thats a good point too..

A large person with a BMI over 25 and "Obese" who is active is likely to be far more healthy and live longer than the skinny person who is inactive and who has a BMI of 18 and "normal"

I think Ireland should use the Japanese classification and not the US.

Why? What would that achieve or prove?

Krusty_Clown

MrCreosote wrote: »

You can be too thin. Will it help with running times in the short term- probably. Is it good for your long-term health? No.

If you have an eating disorder, with potential long term health issues, will you be winning races? Nope.

Ososlo

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If you have an eating disorder, with potential long term health issues, will you be winning races? Nope.

this goes back to another point I made. Maybe you do get away with it (win races) while you're still young (in your 20s) but perhaps there is payback later in life.

Krusty_Clown

Ososlo wrote: »

this goes back to another point I made. Maybe you do get away with it (win races) while you're still young (in your 20s) but perhaps there is payback later in life.

maybe I'm being naive, but I would think that winning races (particularly long distance races) is about weight + strength + speed + endurance. While you might get lucky and hit the podium in a few races, if you are consistently winning, then you must be close to the ideal weight/strength ratio.

BobMac104

You can not win races starving yourself.

modern perceptions of normal body weight are being distorted significantly unfortunatley.

Ososlo

MrCreosote wrote: »

Being too skinny is definitely a recognised problem for elite sportspeople. Not sure who the OP is talking about, but there's a big problem with eating disorders in weight based sports and ones like cycling and running where weight is important. Particularly for female athletes.

Just because you eat a lot doesn't mean you eat enough.

You can be too thin. Will it help with running times in the short term- probably. Is it good for your long-term health? No.

yes, this is what I feel. But I guess with the training load of a top athlete it gets really difficult to match calories in with calories out.

walshb

The BMI tool isn't perfect, but it's a decent gauge for the average person on the street. I doubt very much any elite middle distance runner is above 22 on the BMI scale.

BobMac104

Yes but is that bang on in the normal BMI range?

MrCreosote

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If you have an eating disorder, with potential long term health issues, will you be winning races? Nope.

Well you might be. Eating disorder doesn't necessarily just mean starving yourself so you can't move. The potential longterm health issue could be 20 or 30 years down the track. Doesn't stop you winning now.

Plenty of female athletes in cycling, triathlon and athletics on the record about the pressure from coaches to keep losing weight.

robinph

There are a few scarily underweight people in our club, particularly some of the teenage girls and a couple of the senior women as well, that the club committee felt the need to arrange a nutritional talk from some specialists earlier this week after the regular training sessions. It has been done before, and will be done again no doubt, but there have been cases of members of the club getting admitted to hospital due to eating disorders and they have had to be physically restrained from running in some races when they turned up to run for the team but we couldn't responsibly let them do so despite them still being a good runner and needing the team points.

Ososlo

BobMac104 wrote: »

You can not win races starving yourself.

modern perceptions of normal body weight are being distorted significantly unfortunatley.

couldn't agree more but there are a few people I've observed recently and one in particular who looks far from a normal body weight. If I'm 8.9, she's at least (conservative estimate) a stone lighter and about the same height. Probably 10 years younger though.
Seriously, she just couldn't be a healthy weight so I just don't understand how she can do it. But she is doing it.

Ososlo

robinph wrote: »

There are a few scarily underweight people in our club, particularly some of the teenage girls and a couple of the senior women as well, that the club committee felt the need to arrange a nutritional talk from some specialists earlier this week after the regular training sessions. It has been done before, and will be done again no doubt, but there have been cases of members of the club getting admitted to hospital due to eating disorders and they have had to be physically restrained from running in some races when they turned up to run for the team but we couldn't responsibly let them do so despite them still being a good runner and needing the team points.

that is scary but good to hear the club are taking it so seriously. So I'm not just seeing problems then that aren't there.

Krusty_Clown

robinph wrote: »

there have been cases of members of the club getting admitted to hospital due to eating disorders and they have had to be physically restrained from running in some races when they turned up to run for the team but we couldn't responsibly let them do so despite them still being a good runner and needing the team points.

Is this person winning races (which was the premise of the thread)? Doesn't sound like it if they are being admitted to hospital.

Mr Creosote wrote:

Well you might be. Eating disorder doesn't necessarily just mean starving yourself so you can't move. The potential longterm health issue could be 20 or 30 years down the track. Doesn't stop you winning now.

I'm sure you could win a couple of races over a short period of time, however, it cannot be sustainable. You will ultimately be beaten by stronger runners who are not under-nourished or under-eating. If someone is consistently winning races over a long period of time, they are clearly eating enough to sustain health and well-being.

What does a consistent race winner actually look like?

This?


This?


This?


This?


Obese, the lot of 'em!

shels4ever

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Is this person winning races (which was the premise of the thread)? Doesn't sound like it if they are being admitted to hospital.


I'm sure you could win a couple of races over a short period of time, however, it cannot be sustainable. You will ultimately be beaten by stronger runners who are not under-nourished or under-eating. If someone is consistently winning races over a long period of time, they are clearly eating enough to sustain health and well-being.

What does a consistent race winner actually look like?

This?


This?


This?


This?


Obese, the lot of 'em!

To be fair they all look a bit fat .
It is true that there is a higher % of eating disorders in runners than the general population, this does have a larger impact on women, not to go into it to much but it is common for menstrual problems to occurs. I had a long chat with someone a few years ago who went through this. Also there was a book but an UK runner (cant remember her name right now will dig it up later) who was a former international who outlined a lot of fairly scary information. I think she was on

I know this is the exception rather than the rule but at the top level there is a very fine line.

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/staying-healthy/eating-disorders---positive-steps/2128.html

Also there are prob just as many over eaters at the backed of the field which can cause more problems a bit of balance is what is needed but you will always have extremes.

robinph

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Is this person winning races (which was the premise of the thread)? Doesn't sound like it if they are being admitted to hospital.

Yes, depending on who else turns up they would be winning or placing in a number of the local races.

Ososlo

shels4ever wrote: »

To be fair they all look a bit fat .
It is true that there is a higher % of eating disorders in runners than the general population, this does have a larger impact on women, not to go into it to much but it is common for menstrual problems to occurs. I had a long chat with someone a few years ago who went through this. Also there was a book but an UK runner (cant remember her name right now will dig it up later) who was a former international who outlined a lot of fairly scary information. I think she was on
.

Again, not to go into it much either but this must be an actual real problem for underweight/lighter female runners. I had issues here when I started upping my mileage (nothing compared to what proper runners are doing) and doing sessions (again, a drop in the ocean compared to what athletes are doing) even though I was a healthy weight and eating very well. A doctor I chatted to said he wouldn't like to see my bmi go below 20 for the amount of exercise I do for this reason. I fear for these younger girls who might have an unhealthy attitude and are not looking towards the future but living in the moment, but it's encouraging to hear that clubs take this matter very seriously.

rom

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Thats a good point too..

A large person with a BMI over 25 and "Obese" who is active is likely to be far more healthy and live longer than the skinny person who is inactive and who has a BMI of 18 and "normal"

Why? What would that achieve or prove?

I don't think we should be looking to the US for a scale on anything in this area.

Perhaps http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9260091/Forget-BMI-just-measure-your-waist-and-height-say-scientists.html may be a better approach. Note this ain't your jeans size but measured around your belly button.