running->weight loss-> increased pace

Options
astronomicals
astronomicals Posts: 1,537 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I 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?

I run an 8:10 mile right now at 188#. I'll probably lose 20 pounds before I'm done cutting. Theoretically I should be able to run a 6:10 mile when I'm done.

Heres on of the articles I was looking at

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/whats-your-ideal-weight?page=single
«134

Replies

  • CarsonRuns
    CarsonRuns Posts: 3,039 Member
    Options
    It's impossible to know in a real world scenario if your faster pace is the result of decreased weight, increased fitness or both. Too many uncontrolled variables.
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    Options
    2 seconds times 20 lb is 40 seconds faster not 120. I've gotten slightly faster but not a lot.
  • PeteWhoLikesToRunAlot
    PeteWhoLikesToRunAlot Posts: 596 Member
    Options
    As the Carson the Wise said, you've got multiple moving variables so you can't know for sure. I'm sure it'd be a mix of less body weight to carry around, increased strength, and aerobic capacity.
  • kristy6ward
    kristy6ward Posts: 332 Member
    Options
    I've gotten a lot faster since I started running last October, but I'm going to contribute that to my training and increased fitness rather than weight loss.
  • sevsmom
    sevsmom Posts: 1,172 Member
    Options
    I ran my last half (9/28/13) 3 lbs heavier than my first (5/6/12) and I finished this race with a significantly better time/pace. 1st half marathon I weighed in at 134....ran a 1:55:27 or an 8:48 pace. 3 days ago, I weighed in at 137 and ran a 1:43:56 or a 7:56 pace. Weight is just one variable as many other, much smarter runners have already pointed out.

    Train hard. You'll get results.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    It's impossible to know in a real world scenario if your faster pace is the result of decreased weight, increased fitness or both. Too many uncontrolled variables.

    This.

    I lost 30 lbs, but I was also working out a ton. I dropped at least 2 minutes per mile off my pace.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    I did a google search on increased pace from weight loss.... I got the figure of 2 seconds faster per mile per pound lost.

    For the same V02max, a lighter person is delivering more oxygen to the muscles then a heavier person. That part of it is a linear relationship - lose half the weight, double the amount of oxygen. 300 pounds and 16 minute mile to 150 pounds and 8 minute mile wouid mean 480 seconds faster for 150 pounds lost, or roughly 3 seconds per pound.

    Yeah, I suppose their number is probably in the right ballpark, although I'm not sure that in practice it'll be quite that linear.
  • davemunger
    davemunger Posts: 1,139 Member
    Options
    Everything else being equal you should be able to directly convert fat loss to speed -- that is assuming you don't lose muscle as well.

    I've found that my 5K PRs have been matching my weight as it goes down. So when I weighed 190 I could do a 19-minute 5K and when I weighed 180 I could do an 18-minute 5K. I'm trying to get down to 175 by the end of the month, when I'm running another flat, fast, 5K, so we'll see if I can lay down a 17:30.

    Of course, as Carson says, there are a million other variables. But I do think losing fat is a key component to building speed. For a LOT more info check out this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Rules-Marathon-Half-Marathon-Nutrition/dp/0738216453/
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    So I should have gone slower when I went from 165lbs to 174lbs?
  • astronomicals
    astronomicals Posts: 1,537 Member
    Options
    Thx for not slamming me for messing up that simple math and keeping on the topic... I do a pretty serious strength training program and I don't plan on losing much muscle. Should be interesting to see what my final numbers are. My conditioning isn't at its best yet as I just got off recovery from an injury a month ago. Im thinking I'll be around 7:30 in 2 months. Ill check out that book Dave.
  • astronomicals
    astronomicals Posts: 1,537 Member
    Options
    So I should have gone slower when I went from 165lbs to 174lbs?

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that and I feel like you're putting words in my mouth. Id expect you to do better if there was muscle gained. I'd also expect you to do better if you were not an experienced runner at 165 and have more experience now.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    So I should have gone slower when I went from 165lbs to 174lbs?

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that and I feel like you're putting words in my mouth. Id expect you to do better if there was muscle gained. I'd also expect you to do better if you were not an experienced runner at 165 and have more experience now.

    What I'm saying is, your weight has little to do with how fast you run (extreme outliers of course..). It's your cardiovascular endurance that determines this, not your weight.
  • davemunger
    davemunger Posts: 1,139 Member
    Options

    What I'm saying is, your weight has little to do with how fast you run (extreme outliers of course..). It's your cardiovascular endurance that determines this, not your weight.

    I have to disagree with this. Weight has a lot to do with it -- especially if it's fat. Try putting on a 25-pound backpack and going for a run. I guarantee you can run faster without it. If you add 10 pounds of muscle then it might be a different story, but not if you don't simultaneously improve your cardio. This, of course, is where it gets complicated, because it would be difficult to put on 10 pounds of muscle without making some gains in cardio as well.
  • lmissinsanity
    lmissinsanity Posts: 19
    Options
    If you want to get fast... Hill sprints, they've worked nicely for me.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options

    What I'm saying is, your weight has little to do with how fast you run (extreme outliers of course..). It's your cardiovascular endurance that determines this, not your weight.

    I have to disagree with this. Weight has a lot to do with it -- especially if it's fat. Try putting on a 25-pound backpack and going for a run. I guarantee you can run faster without it. If you add 10 pounds of muscle then it might be a different story, but not if you don't simultaneously improve your cardio. This, of course, is where it gets complicated, because it would be difficult to put on 10 pounds of muscle without making some gains in cardio as well.

    If I trained with that same 25 extra lbs for 6 months, I gurantee I'd be faster at the end of the 6 months, still carrying that same 25lbs than I was the first time.

    Russell-Brand-Mind-Blown.gif
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    What I'm saying is, your weight has little to do with how fast you run (extreme outliers of course..). It's your cardiovascular endurance that determines this, not your weight.

    Calorie burn is primarily a function of two factors - distance, and weight. Weight absolutely, positively plays a role, because it affects power to weight ratio which affects peak speed and endurance.

    All else being equal, the heavier runner/cyclist will be slower.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    If I trained with that same 25 extra lbs for 6 months, I gurantee I'd be faster at the end of the 6 months, still carrying that same 25lbs than I was the first time.

    And you'd be even faster the moment they took the 25 pound pack off.
  • 0somuchbetter0
    0somuchbetter0 Posts: 1,335 Member
    Options
    What about short legs? They definitely slow me down. Any way to make my legs longer so I can keep up with my tall friends?
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    What I'm saying is, your weight has little to do with how fast you run (extreme outliers of course..). It's your cardiovascular endurance that determines this, not your weight.

    Calorie burn is primarily a function of two factors - distance, and weight. Weight absolutely, positively plays a role, because it affects power to weight ratio which affects peak speed and endurance.

    All else being equal, the heavier runner/cyclist will be slower.

    You're completely missing what I'm saying, but ok....

    Yes if you're 250lbs and suddenly drop 65 lbs, yes it will be easier to move faster, but compare that same person now magically at 185 with a person at 195 with even an ounce of cardiovascular endurance/training....who's going to move faster? I'll take 195.

    Weird how I was faster in college at 174 than I was at 165...
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    What I'm saying is, your weight has little to do with how fast you run (extreme outliers of course..). It's your cardiovascular endurance that determines this, not your weight.

    Calorie burn is primarily a function of two factors - distance, and weight. Weight absolutely, positively plays a role, because it affects power to weight ratio which affects peak speed and endurance.

    All else being equal, the heavier runner/cyclist will be slower.

    Not true....

    How can an NFL running back carrying all that extra weight outrun a defensive back?

    2013-09-2911_00_16.gif

Categories