weight and running

greg wilhelm said:

Does anyone know of a calculation on how much an amout of weight affects
ones speed in a long distance run?

If the weight is just "baggage", distributed in a way so as not to affect
running economy, then a model based on the VO2max/running economy paradigm
would predict that your time as a linear function of weight.

In practice, if you lose excessive amounts of muscle tissue, or if you carry a
dumbell, or wear a heavy shoe, then the weight difference does result in a
change in running economy. It gets particularly interesting when you consider
the effect of losing lean tissue, because it's obviously not to a runners
advantage to be built like a pro bodybuilder, but their extra lean mass isn't
pure baggage either. These people would be able to improve their times by
losing lean mass, but they would be unlikely to get a 5% increase in speed for
a 5% reduction of bodyweight (whereas if the weight were purely baggage, it
would be reasonably to expect that)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Leafing through rec.running, I read greg wilhelm's message of 04 Dec
2004:

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know of a calculation on how much an amout of weight
affects ones speed in a long distance run?

From Bob Glover's book, "The New Comptetitive Runner's Handbook"

Men:
For the 10K, add approximately 2 1/2 minutes per 10 pounds of extra
weight. For the marathon, add approximately 10 minutes per 10 pounds.

Women:
For the 10K, add approximately 4 minutes per 10 pounds of extra weight.
For the marathon, add approximately 20 minutes per 10 pounds.

Glover's "rules of thumb" usually seem overly simplistic, but
suprisingly accurate. Like Donovan said, if the extra weight is really
extra baggage and not lean muscle, then the loss of weight will have a
bigger impact.

Phil M.

--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John
Short, South African coach.

In article said:

Does anyone know of a calculation on how much an amout of weight affects
ones speed in a long distance run?

How's your french?

http://www.vo2max.com.fr/physio_poids.html

Paul

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know of a calculation on how much an amout of weight
affects ones speed in a long distance run?

I've thought about this off and on for many years; here's my semi-scientific
and idiosyncratic take (flame shields are fully activated!):

My back of the envelope hunch is this: running is basically acceleration.
The force req'd is proportional to mass + vertical displacement - tendon
springiness. The latter is not much affected by weight loss -- so you get a
free ride there when you lose weight.

So I'd expect (and my experience verifies this) that speeds increase roughly
as the percentage of weight loss.

In addition, the limiting factor in highly trained athletes is the delivery
of oxygenated blood to the muscles, not muscle strength or conditioning.

People fret about muscle loss, since smaller muscles seem to imply less
strength. But running is not about peak strength, it's endurance strength.
If you're a well-muscled guy or gal, you can lose a fair amount of muscle
mass and improve your running. Upper body muscle mass is mostly dead
weight. Elite runners have thin, wiry arms. Look at a picture of a
world-class marathoner in mid stride. Note how un-muscled their thighs and
calves are (wiry but small). When it comes to endurance, it's not so much a
matter of muscle mass, but how well each muscle cell is supplied -- how good
the plumbing is.

When you lose muscle weight, you retain about the same lung surface area and
heart stroke volume, so each (smaller) muscle cell gets more oxygen per
myofibril.

Obviously, there's a point of diminishing returns here, but it was no
coincidence that Bill Rodgers was 5' 8 1/2 and 128 lbs when he was the
world's best.

My sedentary 5' 8 1/2 self would weigh about 160 lbs (what I drifted to when
I ran very little for a couple years). But I ran my fastest times when I
weighed 140, and in pictures, even at that weight, my legs looked bigger
than those of the world class guys.

-- Dan

Leafing through rec.running, I read Dan Stumpus's message of 04 Dec
2004:

Quoted message said:

People fret about muscle loss, since smaller muscles seem to imply
less strength. But running is not about peak strength, it's endurance
strength. If you're a well-muscled guy or gal, you can lose a fair
amount of muscle mass and improve your running. Upper body muscle
mass is mostly dead weight. Elite runners have thin, wiry arms. Look
at a picture of a world-class marathoner in mid stride. Note how
un-muscled their thighs and calves are (wiry but small). When it
comes to endurance, it's not so much a matter of muscle mass, but how
well each muscle cell is supplied -- how good the plumbing is.

Case in point: Lance Armstrong losing upper body mass due to cancer and
treatments, then coming back as a better cyclist. His lean body mass being
redistributed more appropriately for cycling.

Phil M.

--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John Short,
South African coach.

Hey Donovan,

What exactly do you mean by the vo2max/running economy paradigm? Surely
if you increase absolute vo2max you will be able run faster at any
weights, but I'm not sure that relative vo2max increases are
necessarily clear-cut performance-wise.

My personal anecdote is losing about 15 pounds of lean body mass with
significant portions coming off my legs. My relative vo2max jumped by
about 10%. Didn't really notice any major change in distance running
paces. Both before and after states were not specifically trained wrt
running; running was basically used for x-training. Two comparable
races are a 39:08 10k and a 31:12 5 miler, before and after
respectively. I think there were too many mitigating factors to see a
clear running performance jump.

I probably have somewhat more potential to run fast now at the lower
weight, but it's going to remain untapped without training specificity
and corresponding increases in running economy. In comparison, I'm
pretty sure had my absolute vo2max taken a 10% jump I'd be running
significantly faster instantly.

Basically, the size of your engine matters more than how much your car
weighs.

--abs

climb higher said:

Hey Donovan,

What exactly do you mean by the vo2max/running economy paradigm? Surely

There are some models of performance that use "velocity at vo2 max" as a
predictor of performance. These models ignore subtleties like anaerobic
threshold, fatigue resistance over very long periods of time, adaptions to
heat, etc.

According to these models, a linear relationship between speed and weight will
be observed as "baggage" is added or removed.

Quoted message said:

if you increase absolute vo2max you will be able run faster at any
weights, but I'm not sure that relative vo2max increases are
necessarily clear-cut performance-wise.

Not sure what you mean. vo2 max is measured per unit body weight. The field
does not talk about "absolute VO2 max".

Quoted message said:

My personal anecdote is losing about 15 pounds of lean body mass with
significant portions coming off my legs.

Then it's not really "baggage", therefore the loss probably has an impact on
strength (hence running economy), therefore, you don't see a linear
relationship. Likewise, I'm about 160 compared to about 140 out of high school.
The extra weight doesn't hurt me a whole lot, because it's all lean (less
body fat now than I had in high school).

Quoted message said:

My relative vo2max jumped by
about 10%. Didn't really notice any major change in distance running
paces. Both before and after states were not specifically trained wrt
running; running was basically used for x-training. Two comparable
races are a 39:08 10k and a 31:12 5 miler, before and after
respectively. I think there were too many mitigating factors to see a
clear running performance jump.

These are comparable times.

Quoted message said:

I probably have somewhat more potential to run fast now at the lower
weight, but it's going to remain untapped without training specificity
and corresponding increases in running economy. In comparison, I'm
pretty sure had my absolute vo2max taken a 10% jump I'd be running
significantly faster instantly.

Basically, the size of your engine matters more than how much your car
weighs.

Depends on whether the weight is part of the engine, or whether it's just
junk in the trunk.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

<< When you lose muscle weight, you retain about the same lung surface area and
heart stroke volume, so each (smaller) muscle cell gets more oxygen per
myofibril. >>

This makes sense to me, experientially;
but I've never read this, and most press
emphasizes: muscle = higher metabolism.
This goes against my sense of my own performance, for sure.

Though muscle tone, alignment,
and flexibility is crucial; careful light
weight-training can achieve this goal without
adding mass, though it's tricky.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Twittering One said:

<< When you lose muscle weight, you retain about the same lung
surface area and heart stroke volume, so each (smaller) muscle cell
gets more oxygen per myofibril. >>

This makes sense to me, experientially;
but I've never read this, and most press
emphasizes: muscle = higher metabolism.
This goes against my sense of my own performance, for sure.

True, less muscle mass means you gotta eat less. But the downside to being
more than a bit muscled is that it also slows you down.

I do remember eating less at 140# than I do now at 150#.

It's also more fun running when I'm light -- each stride takes me farther.
I'm making an effort to get down to that mythical 140 lbs.

Quoted message said:

Though muscle tone, alignment,
and flexibility is crucial; careful light
weight-training can achieve this goal without
adding mass, though it's tricky.

I've never done any weights. Maybe some runners need to, especially women
who want to tone their arms, but most guys don't need more muscle upstairs.

-- Dan

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Likewise, I'm about 160 compared to about 140
out of high school. The extra weight doesn't hurt me a whole lot,
because it's all lean (less body fat now than I had in high school).

Hi Donovan:

Betcha a month of crispy cremes that you'd run faster if you got down to
150.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Basically, the size of your engine matters more than how much your
car weighs.

Quoted message said:

Depends on whether the weight is part of the engine, or whether it's
just junk in the trunk.

The main energy source is the heart/lung/circulatory system. Beyond a
certain minimum, muscle *is* junk. Your heart and lungs are only capable of
oxygenating x liters of blood per minute, regardless of how many pounds of
thirsty muscle they have to feed.

If you've got more thirsty leg muscle, each cell gets less. The limit of
performance isn't muscle strength, it's oxygen delivered to each cell.

-- Dan

Quoted message said:

Betcha a month of crispy cremes that you'd run faster if you got down to
150.

What makes you say that? Kidding I hope? I know I'm close to 6' and anything
brlow 170 DESTROYS my running. I'm just too weak to sustain distance running.

(FabulustRunner) said:

What makes you say that? Kidding I hope? I know I'm close to 6' and anything
brlow 170 DESTROYS my running. I'm just too weak to sustain distance running.

I'm close to 6' and being at 170lbs has DESTROYED my running. PBs were
done at 150lbs, but at 140 I was cold all the time. Probably to do with
build?

FWIW pb marathon at 150 2:55, best marathon at 170 2:20. Counting +1kg =
+3'30" for a 3h marathoner who weighs 150lbs, that performance hit could
be purely due to the extra weight.

(FabulustRunner) said:

What makes you say that? Kidding I hope? I know I'm close to 6' and anything
brlow 170 DESTROYS my running. I'm just too weak to sustain distance running.

I'm close to 6' and being near 170lbs has DESTROYED my running. PBs were
done at 150lbs. Probably to do with build?

FWIW pb marathon at 152lbs 2:55, best marathon at 165lbs 3:20. Counting
+1kg =
+3'30" for a 3h marathoner who weighs 150lbs, that performance hit could
be purely due to the extra weight.

Quoted message said:

I'm close to 6' and being at 170lbs has DESTROYED my running. PBs were
done at 150lbs, but at 140 I was cold all the time. Probably to do with
build?

Yes I suspect that's it. If there really is such a thing, then I'm "big boned".
Not only did losing that weight ruin my running, but people were asking me if I
was ill, because I was so skinny (in relation to 180lbs) and I had bags under
my eyes etc etc. At 165 I did my best marathons, anything less and I couldn't
possibly do more than 9 miles. I was doing 70mpw at the time, and eating 5 FULL
meals plus snacks. The only way I could put on weight was with ice cream, cake,
and other sweets (gross stuff to have to force down). Problem was my
cholesterol went 40 points over the limit.

Quoted message said:

FWIW pb marathon at 150 2:55, best marathon at 170 2:20. Counting +1kg =
+3'30" for a 3h marathoner who weighs 150lbs, that performance hit could
be purely due to the extra weight.

That's not bad, for a skinny turtle <G>

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The main energy source is the heart/lung/circulatory system. Beyond a
certain minimum, muscle *is* junk. Your heart and lungs are only
capable of
oxygenating x liters of blood per minute, regardless of how many
pounds of
thirsty muscle they have to feed.

If you've got more thirsty leg muscle, each cell gets less. The limit
of
performance isn't muscle strength, it's oxygen delivered to each cell.

When I see our Olympic sprinters they all look like a chiseled Adonis.
How come they're not 120 pound gnats?

-DF

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

greg wilhelm said:

Does anyone know of a calculation on how much an amout of weight affects
ones speed in a long distance run?

If the weight is just "baggage", distributed in a way so as not to affect
running economy, then a model based on the VO2max/running economy paradigm
would predict that your time as a linear function of weight.

In practice, if you lose excessive amounts of muscle tissue, or if you
carry a
dumbell, or wear a heavy shoe, then the weight difference does result in a
change in running economy. It gets particularly interesting when you
consider
the effect of losing lean tissue, because it's obviously not to a runners
advantage to be built like a pro bodybuilder, but their extra lean mass
isn't
pure baggage either. These people would be able to improve their times by
losing lean mass, but they would be unlikely to get a 5% increase in speed
for
a 5% reduction of bodyweight (whereas if the weight were purely baggage,
it
would be reasonably to expect that)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

In warmer weather baggage (fat) is really a killer, especially at longer
distances.
I'm close to 10 lbs. heavier than I was two years ago mostly due to lifting
weights (upper body only).
It hasn't seemed to effect my times that much.
I'm content to continue and lift even if it does slow me down, I'd rather
eat more and acheive a more balanced sense of fitness. It's not like I'm
going to be going to the Olympics or putting food on the table depends on my
times.
I think you can pretty well muscled and still acheive decent times. Here's a
pic of a friend of mine who just ran 2:55 in Philadelphia couple of weeks
ago:

http://www.teamutopia-usa.com/images/brmast2003/smmc.JP

He was an accomplished NCAA wrestler.

Parker

"Parker Race" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

greg wilhelm said:

Does anyone know of a calculation on how much an amout of weight affects
ones speed in a long distance run?

If the weight is just "baggage", distributed in a way so as not to affect
running economy, then a model based on the VO2max/running economy
paradigm
would predict that your time as a linear function of weight.

In practice, if you lose excessive amounts of muscle tissue, or if you
carry a
dumbell, or wear a heavy shoe, then the weight difference does result in
a
change in running economy. It gets particularly interesting when you
consider
the effect of losing lean tissue, because it's obviously not to a runners
advantage to be built like a pro bodybuilder, but their extra lean mass
isn't
pure baggage either. These people would be able to improve their times by
losing lean mass, but they would be unlikely to get a 5% increase in
speed for
a 5% reduction of bodyweight (whereas if the weight were purely baggage,
it
would be reasonably to expect that)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

In warmer weather baggage (fat) is really a killer, especially at longer
distances.
I'm close to 10 lbs. heavier than I was two years ago mostly due to
lifting weights (upper body only).
It hasn't seemed to effect my times that much.
I'm content to continue and lift even if it does slow me down, I'd rather
eat more and acheive a more balanced sense of fitness. It's not like I'm
going to be going to the Olympics or putting food on the table depends on
my times.
I think you can pretty well muscled and still acheive decent times. Here's
a pic of a friend of mine who just ran 2:55 in Philadelphia couple of
weeks ago:

http://www.teamutopia-usa.com/images/brmast2003/smmc.JP

Oops, cut off a letter!

http://www.teamutopia-usa.com/images/brmast2003/smmc.JPG

Quoted message said:

He was an accomplished NCAA wrestler.

Parker

Quoted message said:

Here's a
pic of a friend of mine who just ran 2:55 in Philadelphia couple of weeks
ago:

http://www.teamutopia-usa.com/images/brmast2003/smmc.JP

BF? Because all I got was some [censored] site, with pics of all men.

Quoted message said:

Oops, cut off a letter!

SOS there too.