Overweight to Raceweight goal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry

A couple of the vertically challenged blokes in the office (5' 8") are questioning that calculation. For me at just under 6 foot, it worked out at a believable figure.

Doing the calculation in Kg or lbs gives different results, obviously that is why some of you are getting odd results.
Working in Kg I get 70.7 kg (155.86 lbs)
Working in lbs I get 148 lbs

In his calculation he uses 2.296Kg or 5.5 lbs this is wrong it should be 5.06lbs.

But which one is correct metric or imperial?

Are US lbs different to UK lbs?

---

US lbs and UK lbs are the same, using metric is better and more accurate as there is chance of confusion. You are correct that 5.5lbs is wrong, it should be 5.06lbs. I hadn't noticed because I calculated in kgs only.

Well for a 5ft8 sized chap like myself 74 kgs is average and 67 kgs seems to be the order of the day, which seems about right I'd say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hes

Silentrunner, don't shatter our dreams!!! Of course you are right and the elite fellrunners are as much a bunch of whippets as the elite road runners but that provides no comfort to us average fellrunners:wink:

I still stand by my belief that losing a stone and half to become the perfect winning weight for a long distance runner would make me look like a skeleton and I have no idea, as a vegetarian, how I would manage to consume enough to have the energy to run long distance and yet maintain that weight but then I run for enjoyment and not to win (good thing really!) and I would hate to become obsessed about my weight and running...plus I've discovered egg and chips at the cafe in Feizor.:o

---

I do not want to shatter anyone's dreams, so sorry.. I am merely presenting the data that is out there, that I like to be aware of when managing my goals, which I expect are no different from most of the others on the forum.

Chicken mushroom pie and chips with Dandelion & Burdock (full fat) for lunch please! :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Silentrunner you obviously take running far, far too seriously; you mentioned vo2 max for a start ;). I personnaly do not run in the hills just to win races. I do like to be fit though and wouldn't mind losing a couple of pounds or so in the process. Comparing ourselves with the top distance runners is kind of pointless, especially from a weight perspective - I could just as easily say I need to put on a bit of weight to get in the England rugby team :)

---

You are right, I take my running very seriously ;). If I did not, I suspect it would just fade away like many other hobbies and interests I have taken up over the years.

But I take your point about comparing ourselves with top distance runners... I think we are the heros who have spent miserable winter evenings upping mileage to get to spring fitter whilst juggling families, spouses and jobs while these top runners train a few hours a day, get massages (I wish), food prepared for them and regular naps and pep talks!!

Just had a look at Emile Zatopek and apparently he was half an inch taller, weighed 69kg and was the same weight as an average man?!

Surely that's wrong (8 x 2.296kg) + 1.148) + 56.2 = 75.716kg

He was a kilogramme heavier than his 10 per cent target, hardly average.

I don't see the harm in comparing ourselves to top runners. I personally aspire to be as good as I can be and am interested in any advice available.

DD

I saw that he was also much lighter than 'average'.

On Linford Christie, the weight is wrong. A close friend who is a sprinter (10.6 100m) trained with Linford. My friend is 5'10" and weighs 88kg (near zero body fat) and tells me that at weigh in, 6'2 1/2" Linford Christie was over 15st (95kg), so some bits of the article are not perfect.

70.5 kg again for me. No change.

and don't forget to update me, Dr P, to 65kg. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry

A couple of the vertically challenged blokes in the office (5' 8") are questioning that calculation. For me at just under 6 foot, it worked out at a believable figure.

Doing the calculation in Kg or lbs gives different results, obviously that is why some of you are getting odd results.
Working in Kg I get 70.7 kg (155.86 lbs)
Working in lbs I get 148 lbs

In his calculation he uses 2.296Kg or 5.5 lbs this is wrong it should be 5.06lbs.

But which one is correct metric or imperial?

Are US lbs different to UK lbs?

---

Americans think in lbs so presumably the 5.5 lbs per inch is correct, not the 5.06 lbs conversion from 2.296 kgs.