I originally posted this on uk.rec.running - I wondered if anyone has an
opinion on this?
A runner / cyclist's performance is often predicted by their power to weight
ratio (obviously a gross over-simplification, with technique, training and
endurance aside).
Assuming their power output stays the same, dropping body fat (thus overall
weight) will increase performance and where running is concerned, probably
reduce injury. The big proviso is that power output must stay the same for
the experiment, and if at any point of weight loss the athlete's performance
drops, they are deemed to have gone 'too far'.
The other experiment would be maintain the weight, but drop the body fat
percentage and increase muscle mass. Again the power : weight ratio is
pushed towards better performance. Maybe the runner's injury rate would
drop in this situation also (i.e. calf muscle bulk has been shown to be
inversely proportional to shin splint incidence, in certain ranges)?
So, the question would be (if you were the coach), which method would you
choose, and what would your indices of performance and 'pushing it too far'
be?
Take two situations:
a) overweight neophyte (but I guess they would probably drop weight as a
product of increasing power, i.e. metabolism )
b) slim to average weight trained runner / cyclist
Dave