running->weight loss-> increased pace
Replies
-
Too many variables to figure out the relationship, but yeah, I'm definitely getting faster on my bicycle. I really notice the difference on the hills. 10% less weight to carry up does make a difference.0
-
Who said it had to be far? How isn't it equal? They went the same distance, bigger guy won.
They started in different places, at different times, going different directions, at different speeds, and they're different people. How isn't it equal? I dunno, what is how to uh durrrrr.I'll ask again, how was my 40 time better at 174 vs 165 if I'm supposed to be slower?
I was a much stronger 5Ker, 10Ker, 1/2 maration, etc at 174 vs 165....I guess I'm a special snowflake.
Seriously? Some sort of weird thought process going on here. When I was 2 I weighed less than when I was 10 and I went slower when I was 2 so totally I get your point.0 -
I think some of you are forgetting a few things. First it depends on how you are training, how long you have been running, weight does have a factor but its not everything. I weigh anywhere from 197 - 201 and I am 51 years old. 2 weeks ago I ran a 5k with a 6:53 pace and I beat both smaller and bigger people, I finshed 16th out of 478 so even though I am bigger I can still out run smaller people because of how I train. This past weekend I did a duathlon and finished 3rd overall again beating smaller athletes, ran the first mile in 5:49 and had the 2nd fastest bike speed in the race.
My point is there are a whole lot of factors that go into it not just weight, training , technique and a whole lot of heart goes a long way as well
I can't match that yet but I hear you on the speed/weight. I weigh about 205 and I did my last 5k at a 7:30 pace. There were a lot of people smaller than me that finished after me. I would say however that it seemed that the fastest people were the smaller ones. Reduced weight is part of the picture but like you're saying here your endurance and training play a big role in your pace as well.0 -
How can an NFL running back carrying all that extra weight outrun a defensive back?
Because over a very short distance, he's faster.
What I/we are saying is that running back in our clip will be even faster if he takes off his equipment. What you are effectively arguing for is that the weight of his gear doesn't slow him down at all.0 -
I would say however that it seemed that the fastest people were the smaller ones.
Take a look at the size of Tour de France winners...less weight is a tremendous advantage in endurance events.0 -
How can an NFL running back carrying all that extra weight outrun a defensive back?
Because over a very short distance, he's faster.
What I/we are saying is that running back in our clip will be even faster if he takes off his equipment. What you are effectively arguing for is that the weight of his gear doesn't slow him down at all.
No, actually I'm making the point that he's faster than the smaller guy that can't catch him even though he has the angle to do so. The point I'm seeing be made is the smaller guy should catch him because he's carrying less weight...angle or not.0 -
OP, I think you can expect to be a little faster with some weight loss for sure! I've lost 35 lbs and by my rough approximations run a mile more than a minute faster, roughly from 10+ minute miles to 9 minute miles (I am a BURNER, I know.) Definitely has training effects in there confounding things, yes, but who cares. We can celebrate being faster! I wouldn't be this fit/strong if I were heavier, as much because I'm a heck of a lot more motivated to run when I feel more energy, and part of that is just liking how I look.
I hope RGv2 realizes that he doesn't understand logic. Just because losing weight makes you faster doesn't mean that everyone who is heavier will run slower. Or that gaining weight will ALWAYS make you slower. But, you know, let's argue. I definitely don't understand something about what you're saying. Just like you don't understand the little phrase, 'all else being equal'. And I am grossly overgeneralizing your lack of logic skills from one argument.
Actually, RGv2, I think football is the quintessential spot to look at how added weight impairs speed, despite stronger muscles being able to generate more power. If being bigger and stronger helped with speed, then desean jackson would be unstoppable if he gained 50 lbs to be more in the average weight of NFL players. Of course, speed isn't the only important thing in the NFL either. AP takes a nice angle running away from the DB, who while not taking the best angle in the first place, also has to turn and chase. In a straight foot race, it's not so clear AP would win against that DB. Not that such straight speed matters that much in the NFL, (see how much Oakland has sucked for one thing despite some of the fastest speedsters in the league). Cheers!0 -
First if I went down to 180 I would be too weak to run faster because of my build, but to your point if I use your logic then I shouldnt be running faster than anybody that weigh less than me so while losing weight may help some get faster it is not the only factor not even closeI think some of you are forgetting a few things. First it depends on how you are training, how long you have been running, weight does have a factor but its not everything. I weigh anywhere from 197 - 201 and I am 51 years old. 2 weeks ago I ran a 5k with a 6:53 pace and I beat both smaller and bigger people, I finshed 16th out of 478 so even though I am bigger I can still out run smaller people because of how I train. This past weekend I did a duathlon and finished 3rd overall again beating smaller athletes, ran the first mile in 5:49 and had the 2nd fastest bike speed in the race.
My point is there are a whole lot of factors that go into it not just weight, training , technique and a whole lot of heart goes a long way as well
^^The point i'm making, but hey, I guess you should cut down to like 180-185...you'll be faster.0 -
I also note OP was just looking for others to share their weight loss:speed gains. Let's stick to OP's topic!0
-
Who said it had to be far? How isn't it equal? They went the same distance, bigger guy won.
They started in different places, at different times, going different directions, at different speeds, and they're different people. How isn't it equal? I dunno, what is how to uh durrrrr.I'll ask again, how was my 40 time better at 174 vs 165 if I'm supposed to be slower?
I was a much stronger 5Ker, 10Ker, 1/2 maration, etc at 174 vs 165....I guess I'm a special snowflake.
Seriously? Some sort of weird thought process going on here. When I was 2 I weighed less than when I was 10 and I went slower when I was 2 so totally I get your point.
They started in different places going different directions, but the smaller guy, who had the angle, and was even at one point should have caught him because he's smaller, you know...carrying less weight.
My change in weight was within a year post college. Good job at trying to make my point invalid by going to the extreme of comparing a 2 year old to a 10 year old.
0 -
Straight-up mass-to-mass comparisons won't do here. Nobody is disputing the idea that adding more muscle mass can make a person faster. The question at hand is whether losing *fat* will directly translate into speed. I say yes, assuming everything else stays equal. Does anyone dispute that?
Obviously it's a different question when muscle mass is added to the equation. Then cardiovascular fitness, the distance being run, running mechanics, and a host of other factors play into it. Typically sprinters are larger (and heavier) than distance runners.
Usain Bolt weighs 207 and is 6'5". He is faster than Mo Farah (5'9", 143 pounds) at the 100-meter dash, but Farah would crush Bolt at any distance over 1500 meters. But neither runner has much fat. If Bolt gained weight in the form of fat, he would slow down, and so would Farah.0 -
We went from an intelligent discussion about the main topic to just assuming a ton of things and making wild statements.
The original post has nothing to do with comparing different people of different weights. NOTHING. It is about one person losing weight while training and making an increase in speed due to less resistance.
I know that if i sit around a drink beer every day I may gain weight but my cycling could improve greatly. Thats not the topic. Way to derail things and get into a ridiculous argument about nothing. Those fast football players would be faster if they lost weight. Period!
So long as you don't cripple your strength with a poor diet and poor strength training, a loss of 20 pounds will definitely have a noticeable positive reflection in your cardiovascular training.0 -
Who said it had to be far? How isn't it equal? They went the same distance, bigger guy won.
They started in different places, at different times, going different directions, at different speeds, and they're different people. How isn't it equal? I dunno, what is how to uh durrrrr.I'll ask again, how was my 40 time better at 174 vs 165 if I'm supposed to be slower?
I was a much stronger 5Ker, 10Ker, 1/2 maration, etc at 174 vs 165....I guess I'm a special snowflake.
Seriously? Some sort of weird thought process going on here. When I was 2 I weighed less than when I was 10 and I went slower when I was 2 so totally I get your point.
They started in different places going different directions, but the smaller guy, who had the angle, and was even at one point should have caught him because he's smaller, you know...carrying less weight.
My change in weight was within a year post college. Good job at trying to make my point invalid by going to the extreme of comparing a 2 year old to a 10 year old.
Thats not whats being said here and that isn't an "all things being equal" comparison.0 -
I hope RGv2 realizes that he doesn't understand logic. Just because losing weight makes you faster doesn't mean that everyone who is heavier will run slower. Or that gaining weight will ALWAYS make you slower. But, you know, let's argue. I definitely don't understand something about what you're saying. Just like you don't understand the little phrase, 'all else being equal'. And I am grossly overgeneralizing your lack of logic skills from one argument.
Dude said that the smaller guy would win due to less weight to carr and that with less weight you're always faster, I'm saying it's not always the case.Actually, RGv2, I think football is the quintessential spot to look at how added weight impairs speed, despite stronger muscles being able to generate more power. If being bigger and stronger helped with speed, then desean jackson would be unstoppable if he gained 50 lbs to be more in the average weight of NFL players. Of course, speed isn't the only important thing in the NFL either. AP takes a nice angle running away from the DB, who while not taking the best angle in the first place, also has to turn and chase. In a straight foot race, it's not so clear AP would win against that DB. Not that such straight speed matters that much in the NFL, (see how much Oakland has sucked for one thing despite some of the fastest speedsters in the league). Cheers!
That's the first GIF that popped up. Should I find one where AP runs away from DB's that have a head start or have the angle?0 -
RGv2, youre completely ignoring body composition just to fit your opinion. Obviously lean mass will add weight but can make you considerably faster.0
-
RGv2, youre completely ignoring body composition just to fit your opinion. Obviously lean mass will add weight but can make you considerably faster.
Fine, if you put up people of equal height but one person weighs 185, is 16% BF, but has no cardiovascular training against a person of same height, 195, 20% BF, but has cardiovascular training, I know which person I'm betting on in an endurance race, and it isn't the lightest person.0 -
RGv2, youre completely ignoring body composition just to fit your opinion. Obviously lean mass will add weight but can make you considerably faster.
Fine, if you put up people of equal height but one person weighs 185, is 16% BF, but has no cardiovascular training against a person of same height, 195, 20% BF, but has cardiovascular training, I know which person I'm betting on in an endurance race, and it isn't the lightest person.
Dude, the topic was never a comparison of people. Your silly hypotheticals are just annoying. I agree, but, you're arguing with a wall.. You keep throiwing out assumptions and arguing with them. You're arguing with yourself.0 -
195, 20% BF, but has cardiovascular training,
The topic is what can that 195 20%BF person expect to see as an improvement in pace if they drop to 10% BF while maintaining their muscle mass and strangth. That the topic. I dunno what planet you're on right now0 -
RGv2, youre completely ignoring body composition just to fit your opinion. Obviously lean mass will add weight but can make you considerably faster.
Fine, if you put up people of equal height but one person weighs 185, is 16% BF, but has no cardiovascular training against a person of same height, 195, 20% BF, but has cardiovascular training, I know which person I'm betting on in an endurance race, and it isn't the lightest person.
Dude, the topic was never a comparison of people. Your silly hypotheticals are just annoying. I agree, but, you're arguing with a wall.. You keep throiwing out assumptions and arguing with them. You're arguing with yourself.
I did state that I had better pace through training and actually raising my weight from 165-174. That's weight gain....right?did a google search on increased pace from weight loss.... I got the figure of 2 seconds faster per mile per pound lost. Anyone care to share their pace times in relation to their weight loss?
Pretty sure that's what I shared, how my pace got better with weight gain then this all went kittywompus.0 -
Personally I have a difficult time correlating weight loss to performance since I'm so new to all of this running. I don't know what's weight and what is just endurance improvement. This is my dilemma in reporting back to you on the specifics. I will note that at about 210 a year ago I was pushing 170 bpm to do a 10:00 mile and Now I need to get under 8:00 before my pulse will approach that rate. That's with just about a 5 pound drop in weight so you can see my issue with reporting back to you as you're suggesting.0
-
Regarding the original topic, which is kinda fascinating (e.g. watch what Goucher and Flanagan are doing to their bodies, with mixed results), you probably only want to try to chart out potential gains from fat loss when you're nearing a peak level. It's more of a fine tune than an application for people with a whole lot going on (losing significant weight and training up).0
-
Regarding the original topic, which is kinda fascinating (e.g. watch what Goucher and Flanagan are doing to their bodies, with mixed results), you probably only want to try to chart out potential gains from fat loss when you're nearing a peak level. It's more of a fine tune than an application for people with a whole lot going on (losing significant weight and training up).
I agree with that. I have been training hard for 3 years and seen good performance gains, but at some point, it will become harder to improve my speed just by training hard.
Then the question becomes, is it worth it to try to lose weight in an effort to get faster? If you're already running 50-70 miles a week and doing strength training but you have 15 percent body fat, then losing some weight will probably help. If you are doing all that but you're already at 8 percent body fat, then maybe losing weight is not a good idea.0 -
you probably only want to try to chart out potential gains from fat loss when you're nearing a peak level.
My guess is you're saying this because there will be less variables in an experienced runner that will lead to dramatic speed changes and at that point weight would be a larger portion in the equation?
As a novice my weight will be just one of many things so its only a fraction of the picture.
Is that what you're getting at?0 -
you probably only want to try to chart out potential gains from fat loss when you're nearing a peak level.
My guess is you're saying this because there will be less variables in an experienced runner that will lead to dramatic speed changes and at that point weight would be a larger portion in the equation?
As a novice my weight will be just one of many things so its only a fraction of the picture.
Is that what you're getting at?
Yep. Post #2 this thread was right on. The advanced application of fat loss and fine tuning for distance running is really interesting imo, especially for the women, but it's worlds away from starting out. Obviously dropping down to an athletic fat % will be helpful for running performance no matter what you're doing (exception iditarod?), but it's crazy to try to nail down a specific time gain expectation purely on that.0 -
That is impossible to calculate. Too many variables. I've lost 16 lbs (180 to 164) and the entire summer my pace stayed above 8 min. Part of the reason was that as I got fit, I was able run longer distances but did it with running groups who happened to be slower. I stuck with them for camaraderie and encouragement. It was worth giving up the 20 to 30 seconds a mile to go a lot further than I would have on my own. Now running more on my own, my pace has dropped to 7:45-7:50 and sometimes less. Is it the weight loss, better fitness or because the weather has dropped from 79 in the morning to 72? Probably a little of all of them. Never discount the impact of weather conditions. I definitely run faster when the weather gets cooler. Clearly I live in a tropical climate and can't wait to see something below 70.
It also matters when you run. I run early, but if I run in the dark I just run slower. I prefer waiting until you have a hint of daylight where I can see where my feet land and what the fancy Polar is telling me (even if the GPS stuff is all a guestimate)
The bottom line is the leaner you get , you will have a shot at getting faster, but it only happens if you work at it. There just isn't a direct correlation that applies across the board.0 -
Yep. Post #2 this thread was right on. The advanced application of fat loss and fine tuning for distance running is really interesting imo, especially for the women, but it's worlds away from starting out. Obviously dropping down to an athletic fat % will be helpful for running performance no matter what you're doing (exception iditarod?), but it's crazy to try to nail down a specific time gain expectation purely on that.
But, if you can usually expect 2 seconds per mile per pound than wouldn't most beginners be able to expect that at a bare minimum? And then improvements in gait and other things would factor in to cut even more time off?
I'll do a serious 1 mile run on friday with a HRM on and I'll do the same run in 5 weeks (or when I reach 10# lost) and try and keep the same heart rate and see how my time has improved. I'll report back. I'll guesstimate that I'll improve my time by 35 seconds.0 -
Quoted from here: http://www.livestrong.com/article/224566-how-much-will-my-running-pace-improve-if-i-lose-weight/
Joe Henderson, the author of various books on running, has this to offer: "The loss of a single pound doesn't mean much for a single mile, but the effect multiplies nicely. Ten pounds equals 20 seconds per mile, which grows to a minute-plus in a 5K, more than two minutes in a 10K, nearly 4.5 minutes in a half-marathon and almost nine minutes in a marathon."
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/224566-how-much-will-my-running-pace-improve-if-i-lose-weight/#ixzz2gV5Bf0nZ0 -
Im am getting a head ache think im gonna go for a run. Anyone wanna join?0
-
I'm going to agree with the folks that are saying that there are too many variables to make a linear relationship. Still, an individual with the same level of fitness will be able to run faster with fat loss because there's less of them to move.
That said, I set PRs at every distance this year while gaining 20 pounds (of fat), so developing aerobic fitness seems to be a larger factor than losing (or gaining) body fat (at least for me).
Next year, I'm going to see what I can do with even more training and losing the extra weight.0 -
I've read this thread with interest. I'm currently at the very top of my weight range and really am happy there in terms of how I look and how my clothes fit. I did my first official 5k on August 10th and ran it in 32 min 08 seconds. I've since ran several 5ks and my PR is 27 min 40 seconds. This weekend, I had the thought that if I lose 10 lbs(that would put my smack dab in the middle of my weight range) I could probably better my time even more. When I look at the runners in my age group that finish in front of me and who finish soon after me, I realize they are not at the top of their weight range. I know there are a lot of other factors involved but I think I'll give it a shot:) I will continue strength training so my plan is not to lose muscle but to learn those last few lbs of fat.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions