Printable View
The article seems to be looking at track and road athletes, though. Fell runners do appear to be generally somewhat sturdier, what with all that ascending and descending generating a slightly different set of muscles to the more linear road runner's build.
That calculation (for a distance runner) says I should be 70.7 Kg. My target is actually 70kg so pretty much in the right ball park
I'd say the physique of a top fell runner has more in common with a road cyclist than a marathon runner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brotherton Lad
I'm 174cm which is about 5'8" (I was measured in a gym) and currently weigh about 140lb which is apparently the average for a woman so my running weight for long distance should be 119lbs or 8st 7lbs! That's blooming ridiculous. I'd literally have to be anorexic to get to that weight. The least I've ever weighed as an adult was 9st3lbs but I was suffering from depression and was pretty much anorexic at the time. My bones stuck out and I had no boobs. I now eat healthily, have banished scales from my house and do loads of exercise. I'd like to lose a couple pounds just to feel a bit lighter when running and to help with my knee injury and that's easily achievable but that's it, I'd rather be a loser than a miserable rake!:rolleyes:
I think that's true BL. I know there are a few whippet thin fell runners about but if you were to compare the average runners at the start of a fell race with those at the start of a road race, there are far more muscular and sturdy looking runners at the fell race. I like that idea too because I'm a bit sturdier :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brotherton Lad
Me too, and a sturdy one at that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hes
No one who runs the fells is a loser, it's been proved in many Sturdies;)
77.8 its a start, also started running again, yes
Is it weigh-in day today? 65 kg - bang on my target. Any thinner & I'll start looking a bit worrying, so that's as far as I go, article or no article. Now all I need to do is to run a bit faster...
Still not training enough to lose lots, but another kg gone in the last two weeks, so I'm not complaining. Currently 78kg. Two more before Coledale please.
Frustratingly slow progress for me, but at least going in the right direction. 65kg.
As our diet coachy fellah keeps saying, there's more to getting fitter than just losing weight: it's as much about body composition, i.e less fat, more lean muscle. Muscle being denser than fat, you can be changing body shape and composition even if you don't lose much weight.
Well that will explain my 'fell runners thighs' then :). To be honest I've been running my nuts off but haven't lost much (any?) weight at all yet this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by plodding bear
no change for me
I actually went up a few pounds :o
but I am now "on it" and heading back in the right direction :closed:
Brotherton LadQuote:
Originally Posted by Brotherton Lad
No offence, but road/track runners and fell/mountain/ultramarathon runners at the top end are as fit as each other, and the race winners seem to have very similar weight to height ratios, build and I believe this translates to speed endurance. I think this 'sturdier' build for fell runners is just an excuse for us eating too much and supping too much ale.
You only have to look at the best fell runners and road/track runners from the UK to see what I mean:
Joss Naylor and Billy Bland vs Steve Jones, Ron Hill, Ian Thompson, Basil Heatley, Brian Kilby and Jim Peters.. the list can go on.
I am not a race leader or winner, and don't sincerely believe I ever will be. I am a social runner who is trying to get better like most of the runners on this forum. My only real competition is against myself.
However, if I wanted or felt I could improve to the point where I may win (if I had been born with the correct genetics giving me the ability to generate a massive v02 max..I don't think I am, or young enough..those days are sadly gone!), I would have to approach the figures in the article.
Modern day equivalents Ryan Hall sub 2hr 5 min marathon runner 5'10" 59kg..vs Joss Naylor 5'11" 60.5kg just goes to show that the article is spot on for athletes at the top end.
What I take from the article is that if I want to run in the top 10-15% of the pack, I will not do it unless I am in the correct weight category, which if I calculate from the article is just over 73kg at my height 185cm. I think that this is absolutely correct. To be a winner and approach the 100% mark for my age category, I would probably have to duck under the 70kg mark. Of course I would have to train like buggery!
Have a look at these age adjusted marathon tables http://misweb.cbi.msstate.edu/~rpear.../menmar40.html
The first person and the only person 160lb (72.59kg) ever to run a 10k under 27 minutes is Chris Solinsky form USA. Take a look at this http://www.grtconline.org/content/view/605/9/ and here is the video of him doing it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OccUg...watch_response Chris Solinsky is the fat b**tard with the white compression socks on;)!! I think Solinsky was running out of his skin to go that fast and would probably have to drop another 4-5 kg to be an Olympic medal contender.
What I am saying is that if you are not fat (i.e. average weight give or take a kilo) and a reasonable runner, you will probably keep up with these gold medal Olympic athletes for 100m, 200m maybe 400m, or even 800m, but then they will cream you, no doubt, because hand in hand with getting their weight down, their training to get their v02max up they also have the confidence to know that they can run that fast for THAT LONG, because their speed endurance becomes amazing, whether they run on the fells, roads, track or cross country.
77.1 for me today. Lost quite a bit of strength and had very little energy following the last illness related weight of 74.9, so for the past 2 weeks I've just eaten what I wanted and plenty of it including pints of full fat milk as I needed to gain. Got my energy back but strength is still down on what it was, though thats to be expected really. Anyway getting back on thinking about what i'm eating. Will be adjusting my goal weight as well now my training has changed. Need to think about a new target though.
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
deleted.
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?
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 :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hes
Chicken mushroom pie and chips with Dandelion & Burdock (full fat) for lunch please! :thumbup:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
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
Americans think in lbs so presumably the 5.5 lbs per inch is correct, not the 5.06 lbs conversion from 2.296 kgs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I would have thought that too. Also even the Kgs for the 5 foot may be different (wrong?). I did not check that conversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
in the table, my 80kg target was for end of Feb (which I woefully missed)
I've actually got a 78kg target for mid-May...
according to that calculation I should be aiming at 73kg
I got down to about 76kg when I was at my fittest ever last summer
I'd be pretty skinny at 73kg, but not completely out of the question I don't think...
Sorry I missed the weigh-in. I got back very tired from running in the heat yesterday & forgot. I've decided to retire from the table, for 2 reasons. First, I think my weight fluctuates a lot due to changes in fluid retention, so it doesn't say much about fat gained or lost. Second, I just can't be bothered to work out yet again what half a lb is in metric. Thanks Dr Pat for your efforts, please delete me. I shall continue to follow the thread with interest.
May I join? I am 63.5 kg, target 60.5. It would be interesting - but time consuming - to add height - 170 cm for me - and BMI - 21.9.
Added you Mike.
I think I'm out too. Like Alexandra the metricness of it all means a) the weight loss/gain is always a small decimal of a kilo b) my weighing machine is ancient and the kilo scale is barely legible so c) I always have to weigh in lbs and convert and d) I think in stones and pounds anyway and when I look at a kilo figure I really have no idea what it means and have to convert to stones and pounds for any chance of comprehending it :)
No offence taken silentrunner. It's a good article, I was merely adding a personal observation.
I'm 5' 10". When I was doing alot of marathon running my race weight was 67.5kg (I prefer to say 10st 9lbs), that's a tad heavy by his figures, but I rarely ventured above 50 or 60 miles a week.
Switching to the hills my weight has gone up to 70.5kg (also to do with age, beer and fewer miles), but my body has also changed shape. Thighs got bigger and I developed additional muscle at the top of the quads from climbing.
I'm certainly not saying elite fell runners are less fit than road athletes (I'd say they are fitter in a more 'rounded' way, :D ), rather that there is a requirement for additional strength as well as speed endurance, which means you can get chunkier body types at the front as well as the classic lean and wiry mould
DrPat - you haven't updated my "Remaining"
I also think in stones/lbs, but I really don't find it a prob to convert to kg
eg: 9 stone 11 pounds
= 9x14 + 11 = 137lbs,
then divide by 2.2 = 62.27kg,
then round to nearest half kg = 62.5kg
Missed that Daz.
My old scales favors lbs/stones they are the bigger black numbers on the outside of the dial with smaller/red numbers on the inside for Kg, but I manage.
Dr Pat, my latest weight is 83.0, 5.0 above my target. Slowly, steadily coming down.