Weight Calculator



H

Ham String

Guest
Speaking of calculators, I recall there was a "rule of
thumb" of how much extra weight would slow you down as
compared to your normal running weight. For example, if I
weigh 180 pounds and run a 10k at 40:00, I can expect to run
a 10k at 190 pouds at XX:XX time. But I don't recall what
the rule of thumb was (I do know it wasn't very scientific).

Any recollections?
 
"Ham String" <ham@spam-blam> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Speaking of calculators, I recall there was a "rule of
> thumb" of how much extra weight would slow you down as
> compared to your normal running weight. For example, if I
> weigh 180 pounds and run a 10k at
> 40:00, I can expect to run a 10k at 190 pouds at XX:XX
> time. But I don't recall what the rule of thumb was (I
> do know it wasn't very scientific).
>
> Any recollections?
>
>
>

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.

Phil M.

--
"Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be
everlasting." -fortune cookie
 
Ham String wrote:

> Speaking of calculators, I recall there was a "rule of
> thumb" of how much extra weight would slow you down as
> compared to your normal running weight. For example, if I
> weigh 180 pounds and run a 10k at 40:00, I can expect to
> run a 10k at 190 pouds at XX:XX time. But I don't recall
> what the rule of thumb was (I do know it wasn't very
> scientific).

Well if you'll settle for unproven formulas, I can
make one up.

Your level of training, your natural talent, your
cardiovascular physiology, all give you the ability to pour
out a certain amount of energy per second, minute, hour,
etc., which is approximately the definition of power
(energy per unit time). Careful, I'm straying from
physiology which I know into physics which I've forgotten!
But follow along...

That amount of energy you can deliver for propulsion won't
really change if you are carrying extra pounds, whether they
are rainsoaked clothes when running during a downpour or 5
extra pounds of mocha-frosted chocolate brownies (back to
the icing theme again, why miss an opportunity).

Energy is proportional to mass x (velocity-squared).

Increase your mass by 10%, the velocity-squared must go down
proportionally, and the square root would give you the new
slower velocity.

What do you more sophisticated physics and athletic-
performance types think?

-- Josh, having fun with long forgotten high school
kinematics
 
I bought one of those talking weight calculators. So
far, the only thing it has said to me is, "one at a
time, please."
 
In article <[email protected]>, Phil M. wrote:
> "Ham String" <ham@spam-blam> wrote in news:usednb-rM_6WVBTdRVn-
> [email protected]:
>
>> Speaking of calculators, I recall there was a "rule of
>> thumb" of how much extra weight would slow you down as
>> compared to your normal running weight. For example, if I
>> weigh 180 pounds and run a 10k at
>> 40:00, I can expect to run a 10k at 190 pouds at XX:XX
>> time. But I don't recall what the rule of thumb was (I
>> do know it wasn't very scientific).
>>
>> Any recollections?
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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.

These are in the same ballpark as the numbers you get if you
assume a linear energy cost/weight/speed relationship
(matches about 40min 10k for a 150lb male, 48min 10k for a
120lb female).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
In article <[email protected]>, Joshua
Steinberg wrote:

> Energy is proportional to mass x (velocity-squared).

THat's an oversimplification -- it's the formula for kinetic
energy. You spend that much energy accelerating then the
figure is no longer relevant (at least not as far as forward
velocity is concerned).

The energy costs once you're done accelerating include the
cost of accelerating limbs, and also costs associated with
the up-and-down vertical motion.

> Increase your mass by 10%, the velocity-squared must go
> down proportionally, and the square root would give you
> the new slower velocity.
>
> What do you more sophisticated physics and athletic-
> performance types think?

If what you weere saying was true (that the energy cost of
running is quadratic as a function of velocity), the energy
cost of covering a given distance would be heavily dependent
on the speed at which the distance is covered. But we know
that energy cost does not depend heavily on speed which
means that the relationship is approximately linear.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Joshua Steinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Well if you'll settle for unproven formulas, I can
>make one up.
>
>Your level of training, your natural talent, your
>cardiovascular physiology, all give you the ability to pour
>out a certain amount of energy per second, minute, hour,
>etc., which is approximately the definition of power
>(energy per unit time). Careful, I'm straying from
>physiology which I know into physics which I've forgotten!
>But follow along...

That is the definition of power. Nothing approximate about
it. So far, so good.

>
>That amount of energy you can deliver for propulsion won't
>really change if you are carrying extra pounds, whether
>they are rainsoaked clothes when running during a downpour
>or 5 extra pounds of mocha-frosted chocolate brownies (back
>to the icing theme again, why miss an opportunity).
>
>Energy is proportional to mass x (velocity-squared).
>
>Increase your mass by 10%, the velocity-squared must go
>down proportionally, and the square root would give you the
>new slower velocity.
>
>What do you more sophisticated physics and athletic-
>performance types think?
>

There's some truth to it, but the effect is worse than
the energy cost of a single acceleration up to speed.
Those fat-encased body parts have to be re-accelerated on
every stride.

Also, all that adipose tissue sloshing around introduces
additional viscous drag and the layer of insulation
decreases the efficiency of the engine.

P.S. Did you do the ambulance chase (5K) today? If I may
brag, my 48 year old wife came in third -- overall. She
thought the course was short.

--
***********************************************************-
*************
Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/215 Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y.
13244-1150 [email protected] 229B Physics Bldg
http://barnyard.syr.edu/~tmc
***********************************************************-
*************
 
Joshua Steinberg <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> What do you more sophisticated physics and athletic-
> performance types think?
>
> -- Josh, having fun with long forgotten high school
> kinematics

I'm not so hot at kinematics, but Glover's book says the
weight penalty is a second per pound per mile (maybe
kilometer). If memory serves that's for distances over 3K. I
don't feel like looking it up a the moment, but that'll give
you and excuse to go pickup the book if you're into
formulas. There's a bunch of them in there.
 
Terry R. McConnell wrote:
> There's some truth to it, but the effect is worse than
> the energy cost of a single acceleration up to speed.
> Those fat-encased body parts have to be re-accelerated on
> every stride.

Hey, I'm just glad I didn't embarrass myself with my foray
into physics. It was fun to rethink high school's 11th
grade lessons.

> P.S. Did you do the ambulance chase (5K) today? If I may
> brag, my 48 year old wife came in third -- overall.
> She thought the course was short.

'fraid not. I was doing my own tuneup for the Mountain Goat
next week. Did my own 10 miles of flats and hills in the
university area. Someone was nice enough to sweep off The
Thousand Steps (the 178 brick, stone, and concrete steps up
from Euclid Ave to tiny Westminster Park), and so I enjoyed
the steps without the peril it has involved for the previous
3 months. I was thinking of sweeping them myself, in fact.
Thank heavens that, once again, if I ignore a problem, it
goes away.

I didn't even hear about a race called the Ambulance Chase.
Not that I pay too close attention. Who sponsors it?

-- Josh
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Joshua Steinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I didn't even hear about a race called the Ambulance Chase.
>Not that I pay too close attention. Who sponsors it?
>

I could swear I saw a post from you about a week ago
responding to an announcement of that same race posted here.

The race is sponsored by a student group at the Law School.
The lead vehicle is a real ambulance and many of the runners
-- future lawyers -- hone some vital career skills by
chasing after.

--
***********************************************************-
*************
Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/215 Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y.
13244-1150 [email protected] 229B Physics Bldg
http://barnyard.syr.edu/~tmc
***********************************************************-
*************
 
Terry R. McConnell wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Joshua Steinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I didn't even hear about a race called the Ambulance
>>Chase. Not that I pay too close attention. Who
>>sponsors it?
>>
>
>
> I could swear I saw a post from you about a week ago
> responding to an announcement of that same race
> posted here.

you did :) under thread called "5K Ambulance Chase in
Syracuse", of all things ;)

> Fayza wrote:
>
>> If any of you are in the Syracuse area and like to run,
>> well, I've planned an event that I'd love for you to
>> participate in. Here are the details:
>>
>> > Syracuse University College of Law's Annual 5K
>> > AMBULANCE CHASE
>> >
>> > * Date: April 24, 2004
>> >
>> > * Time: Registration at 9:00 a.m., race at 10:00 a.m.
>> >
>
>
> Neat. Thanks for the announcement. -- Josh in Syracuse

Dot who can't remember where my do-list is most of the time
so wasn't gonna say anything

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in news:yfVic.21581$_o3.696773@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> who can't remember where my do-list is most of the time so
> wasn't gonna say anything

One of the things on my do-list is to find the do-list.
However, since I can't find the do-list to see that on
the do-list is finding the do-list, then my do-list is
not do-able.

Phil M.

--
"Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be
everlasting." -fortune cookie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back