EFFECT OF LOSING WEIGHT ON RUNNING PACE

DAVE_K · 12-11-2008 04:30PM #1

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 · 12-11-2008 04:47PM

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 · 12-11-2008 04:51PM

thanks Tunney!!

shels4ever · 12-11-2008 04:54PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:02PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:04PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:06PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:11PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:16PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:22PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:24PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:33PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:35PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:48PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:52PM

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 · 12-11-2008 05:53PM

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 · 12-11-2008 06:06PM

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 · 12-11-2008 06:19PM

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 · 12-11-2008 06:24PM

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 · 12-11-2008 06:32PM

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 · 12-11-2008 06:44PM

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 · 12-11-2008 10:59PM

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 · 12-11-2008 11:43PM

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 · 13-11-2008 12:07AM

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 · 13-11-2008 12:24AM

An article by distance coach Frank Horwill on Weight and Performance

Enduro · 13-11-2008 12:58AM

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 · 13-11-2008 09:51AM

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 · 13-11-2008 10:13AM

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 · 13-11-2008 10:15AM

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 · 13-11-2008 10:16AM

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 · 13-11-2008 11:28AM

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.

EFFECT OF LOSING WEIGHT ON RUNNING PACE

Comments