I am 5'11" and I am currently weighing at 194 pounds. I would love to get down to 185 but I suck at watching my diet. According to my wifes weight watcher thing I should be coming in at about 172.
Loading...
I am cracking up at the fact that there's only one single brave female posting here...could it be the "weight" topic?
I can admit, I'm far from what my ideal race weight is, but from a clinical POV, ignore the numbers and listen to your body. Runners are very prone to eating issues and trying to get down to your "ideal", or I should say, someone else's ideal of what your ideal is supposed to be, is just asking for trouble. Take it from one who did that for years.
If I weighed what some of the charts I've seen say is my ideal (and I have, believe it or not) I would look like a skeleton and would not have the energy to run far or fast. X, I don't know what Glover's chart says (I am 5'5") that my weight should be, but I'm most comfortable anywhere from 125, if I'm not lifting a lot to 135 if I am (I tend to pack on a lot of muscle weight pretty quickly) but considering I've been as high as 140 and still wore a size 6-8, that was good enough for me.
Stop worrying about numbers and listen to how your body feels and performs. Those weights are ridiculously low for men, especially some of you who are around the 6' range.
I can admit, I'm far from what my ideal race weight is, but from a clinical POV, ignore the numbers and listen to your body. Runners are very prone to eating issues and trying to get down to your "ideal", or I should say, someone else's ideal of what your ideal is supposed to be, is just asking for trouble. Take it from one who did that for years.
If I weighed what some of the charts I've seen say is my ideal (and I have, believe it or not) I would look like a skeleton and would not have the energy to run far or fast. X, I don't know what Glover's chart says (I am 5'5") that my weight should be, but I'm most comfortable anywhere from 125, if I'm not lifting a lot to 135 if I am (I tend to pack on a lot of muscle weight pretty quickly) but considering I've been as high as 140 and still wore a size 6-8, that was good enough for me.
Stop worrying about numbers and listen to how your body feels and performs. Those weights are ridiculously low for men, especially some of you who are around the 6' range.
Loading...
Those numbers are not made up.
They were taken from a statistical survey done by Bob Glover on 10,000+ runners from the NYC Running Club over several years.
He broke out the times into 5 categories - from Newbie to Super Elite.
His charts match up historical data for height/weight/speed/gender. He is trying to say that a 6'0 tall guy that runs between 17:30 and 19:30 for a 5k typically weighs X pounds.
He has done the same kind of guidelines for weekly mileage and interval times for speed workouts and how those data points translate into a race time.
For me, everything in his book matches up closely for what I have experienced. I can look at my CR log over the past 3 years and my weekly mileage, weight, track times, etc all match up exactly to the 5 and 10k times he predicts I would run.
There are 6'0 males that are well under the weight he lists that are much slower than you would expect and there are probably several more people that weigh more that are much faster.
The thing to keep in mind is that his data comes from a data set of 1000s of runners over a long period of time. He isn't making up medical theories or pulling those numbers out of his butt like some running book authors have done.
They were taken from a statistical survey done by Bob Glover on 10,000+ runners from the NYC Running Club over several years.
He broke out the times into 5 categories - from Newbie to Super Elite.
His charts match up historical data for height/weight/speed/gender. He is trying to say that a 6'0 tall guy that runs between 17:30 and 19:30 for a 5k typically weighs X pounds.
He has done the same kind of guidelines for weekly mileage and interval times for speed workouts and how those data points translate into a race time.
For me, everything in his book matches up closely for what I have experienced. I can look at my CR log over the past 3 years and my weekly mileage, weight, track times, etc all match up exactly to the 5 and 10k times he predicts I would run.
There are 6'0 males that are well under the weight he lists that are much slower than you would expect and there are probably several more people that weigh more that are much faster.
The thing to keep in mind is that his data comes from a data set of 1000s of runners over a long period of time. He isn't making up medical theories or pulling those numbers out of his butt like some running book authors have done.
Loading...
When I drop below 119, I noticed my running really going downhill..., so I try to maintain a healthy weight and I think it's reflected in my training and, hopefully, better racing.
Loading...
I think right around 160-165 which is right around where I am now. Not too thin and do not feel the actual weight of extra
Loading...
Less then I am now :?
According to the chart I would have to loose about 20 pounds for elite. 8O
According to the chart I would have to loose about 20 pounds for elite. 8O
Loading...
How tall are you? 8O In those recent photos of you, you look really healthy and strong. I can't imagine 2 lbs makes that much of a visual difference?
El--I'm 5'3 and a big 1/2. I know it sounds weird....but I think it has to do with fat%...every pound under 120 seems to show in my face....under 116 and my face is hollow. Recent photos of me would show me at 119-122 (My summer weight)...so I should look "healthy"
sue
El--I'm 5'3 and a big 1/2. I know it sounds weird....but I think it has to do with fat%...every pound under 120 seems to show in my face....under 116 and my face is hollow. Recent photos of me would show me at 119-122 (My summer weight)...so I should look "healthy"
sue
Loading...
Actually this is the first time I saw this thread--I don't have much time to post in other threads besides RR hangout these days.
My ideal race weight was when I weighed 118-120--I'm just under 5'7.
All my pr's were run at that weight. If I dipped below that weight, like Sue said even 2lbs made a huge difference in how I looked and how I felt. Right now I weigh 130, and I know I could never run a 19 minute 5k at this weight, I've have WAY too much "jiggle" now to run fast.
My ideal race weight was when I weighed 118-120--I'm just under 5'7.
All my pr's were run at that weight. If I dipped below that weight, like Sue said even 2lbs made a huge difference in how I looked and how I felt. Right now I weigh 130, and I know I could never run a 19 minute 5k at this weight, I've have WAY too much "jiggle" now to run fast.
Loading...
Oh, I'm not saying he made them up, I meant ridiculously unhealthy for people that tall.
Loading...
I have that book but the only weight chart I see targets weight based only on height. Where do you see this >>His charts match up historical data for height/weight/speed/gender<< or are you just compiling them all together yourself?
Loading...
I'm was originally talking about the height/weight at the back of the book.
Where you have me quoted, I was trying to express that all of the data in his book is supposed to be based on historical data. He has race prediction charts, speed workout charts, etc. Sometimes you have to grab data from one chart and plug it into another.
I wasn't trying to say there was 1 chart with all of that info.
I was trying to explain that all of his info is based on historical data from a large population sample of runners. The argument against the data was that the weights were "too low for the listed heights". I was trying to help answer a question about what the "ideal racing weight for a runner" was and I got the inevitable static about the weights not being heavy enough.
If someone runs less than 15 mpw and never races, then yes, those weights are probably too low.
If a runner is looking for their ideal racing weight, then I think Glover has collected some good data that would allow a serious runner/racer to at least get a reference point. If the weight says 148 and you weigh 195, you probably aren't close to your ideal racing weight. Even if that person can't imagine being any lighter.
Where you have me quoted, I was trying to express that all of the data in his book is supposed to be based on historical data. He has race prediction charts, speed workout charts, etc. Sometimes you have to grab data from one chart and plug it into another.
I wasn't trying to say there was 1 chart with all of that info.
I was trying to explain that all of his info is based on historical data from a large population sample of runners. The argument against the data was that the weights were "too low for the listed heights". I was trying to help answer a question about what the "ideal racing weight for a runner" was and I got the inevitable static about the weights not being heavy enough.
If someone runs less than 15 mpw and never races, then yes, those weights are probably too low.
If a runner is looking for their ideal racing weight, then I think Glover has collected some good data that would allow a serious runner/racer to at least get a reference point. If the weight says 148 and you weigh 195, you probably aren't close to your ideal racing weight. Even if that person can't imagine being any lighter.
Loading...