Frustratingly slow progress for me, but at least going in the right direction. 65kg.
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' thenOriginally Posted by plodding bear
. To be honest I've been running my nuts off but haven't lost much (any?) weight at all yet this year.
no change for me
I actually went up a few pounds
but I am now "on it" and heading back in the right direction :closed:
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.
Last edited by silentrunner; 28-03-2012 at 12:27 PM.
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.
deleted.
Last edited by DrPatrickBarry; 28-03-2012 at 07:05 PM.
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?
Last edited by DrPatrickBarry; 28-03-2012 at 01:18 PM.
Silentrunner you obviously take running far, far too seriously; you mentioned vo2 max for a start
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote