Well, when I look at your profile, you are losing and it shows up in inches not pounds. I spent an entire year at the same weight (190 pounds), but I lost 4 inches each off my chest, waist, and hips. So, even though I was hauling around the same mass, the proportion of muscle and fat completely changed.

It is hard to train for distance and lose a significant amount of weight at the same time. It can be done, it is just downright difficult because you have too many competing priorities. If you read any of the advice provided by Matt Fitzgerald it would tell you it to lose weight first, and then train.

I took a quick look at your food and exercise diary. It is a personal choice of how you log your exercise and there are people who do log their calories as one or two calories. But when you begin a volume of running, not eating back calories or at least a portion of them can be detrimental. You have to fuel the running machine and if you starve it, it doesn't necessarily respond to lose weight. If you don't eat anything, it will force your body to respond by weight loss. But there are too many downsides to that.

Yes, losing weight will be help make you faster if all the loss was fat (which is our ideal goal) but the reality can be a mixture of muscle and fat loss and not an ideal one, at that.

Your comment of being slow, particularly compared to your friends, suggests that you are having to work so hard that you are quickly coming out of the fat burning zone where you burn a higher percentage of fat compared to carbohydrates and going into zones where so much more is burned from carbohydrates (glycogen). Experience says that as you build endurance to the half marathon and marathon distance, you will see some increases in speed in the shorter distances.

I got pretty close to the weight I wanted to be at when I took up training for a marathon. In fact my weight got even more stable when I took up running (less day to day weight variation).
When I first started running again (May 2013), I could run a single mile in 11:40 (on a track). I could run a 5K in about 34:30. I could run a 10K in about 1:20. Since I was already capable of running six miles, I aligned my training schedule to a November marathon. In the training plan I was following to train for a marathon, the distance of the long run increased by 2 miles every two weeks. Once I reached the 14-mile distance on the long run (the hardest run I had in the entire training), the distance jumped by 3-miles but there were also three weeks between the step increases.

By September, I had reached the 20-mile distance (my training plan included a 23 and a 26-mile run before the marathon before tapering back) and I went out to run a 5K as one of my shorter weekend runs. By that time, my mile time had dropped to 7:45, nearly 4 minutes per mile faster than when I started and I wasn't working on "speed." I ran that 5K in 28:03.

I completed that first marathon in November in 5:10. The second one was 5:12, and the third was 4:57. In the summer of 2014, I wanted to start working on "speed." Without a substantial change in calorie intake, my weight increased by eight pounds pretty quickly. I eventually lost a few pounds coming into the next marathon and ran that a 4:41. In the ensuing months I have come back down to my "original" marathon weight.

My last marathon I did in 4:34. And I could have gone faster.

It is unlikely that I will ever have that sub 6-minute mile speed that I had in my 20's. But my mile time has dropped below 7 minutes per mile. Its been six months since I ran a half-marathon (as a training run, not as a flat out race) and my time was 2:01.

All that being said, you might not have to run slower to get faster (to really build the endurance) and you might have to eat more. Not a lot more, And finally, you might also need to do some strengthening which I know from personal experience is easy to give a lower priority over running.

I was 295, now weigh 197. Technically still overweight and I'm training for a half and I don't find it difficult to lose and train, in fact the running allows me to eat more.

Run easy miles, lots of them, at 77% max HR and below. At that level you are burning mostly fat so its easy to do the miles at a pretty big calorie deficit and not be out of control hungry. Plus, you recover quickly and can run more without a huge injury risk. That will build your aerobic capacity so that you will eventually be as fast as before.

I believe that have it in you to get back or close to your younger speed and agree with runforun that the little amount that you believe you are overweight is slowing you down. Ditto on the speed work and hills to get your muscles stronger.

If you've been running with your friends for a while and they still go out with you then they are aware of your speed and are probably there for you. They can get their own workout in their own time, so they want to be there to encourage you in your workout.

After losing almost 100 lbs, I am sure I can lose a another 10-15 lbs, but alot of runners feel that way, but I realize that at this point, further weight loss is done in the kitchen rather on the track. Good luck.

Robbnva wrote: »

Congrats on your loss congvo, I'm having a hell of a time reaching that 100lb mark myself. 2.4 more to go to hit 100, hopefully I'll get there soon

Thanks. I was down 105 at one point but that was after a crash achieving some PR in 5K and 10K's. When I started marathon training I meander around at 95lb loss. You've got this Robbnva. Once you hit the 100lbs loss, it's a great achievement.

I'm working on cutting back on the weight now that I'm not doing any type of marathon training. I currently weigh about 225. I'm tall but still that's a lot of weight to haul around long distance. I need to get back to 205 - 210. That's the weight that had every vein standing out in my arm and my girlfriend telling me to stop losing weight. It was perfect!

I'm actually logging food now. *cries*.

_Waffle_ wrote: »

Robbnva wrote: »

I was 295, now weigh 197. Technically still overweight and I'm training for a half and I don't find it difficult to lose and train, in fact the running allows me to eat more.

No doubt. I added 2 miles on the end of my run today because it was cloudy and cool. Also I wanted an egg biscuit from McDonalds. :laugh:

Exactly a running group near me celebrates their long runs with chipotle burritos

lishie_rebooted wrote: »

Robbnva wrote: »

_Waffle_ wrote: »

Robbnva wrote: »

I was 295, now weigh 197. Technically still overweight and I'm training for a half and I don't find it difficult to lose and train, in fact the running allows me to eat more.

No doubt. I added 2 miles on the end of my run today because it was cloudy and cool. Also I wanted an egg biscuit from McDonalds. :laugh:

Exactly a running group near me celebrates their long runs with chipotle burritos

Robbnva wrote: »

_Waffle_ wrote: »

Robbnva wrote: »

I was 295, now weigh 197. Technically still overweight and I'm training for a half and I don't find it difficult to lose and train, in fact the running allows me to eat more.

No doubt. I added 2 miles on the end of my run today because it was cloudy and cool. Also I wanted an egg biscuit from McDonalds. :laugh:

Exactly a running group near me celebrates their long runs with chipotle burritos

Besides the fact that Moes is better, there's nothing wrong with that

I used to think so but the last time I had Moe's, I wasn't impressed.

I haven't had an actual burrito in almost a year, I can't wait to go on a long run and eat one. I run in the mornings though

CarsonRuns wrote: »

nicolejo143 wrote: »

CarsonRuns wrote: »

6 pounds is not overweight. 22 pounds is really not that significant at this stage of your running.

6lbs overweight is still overweight, not by much, but it still is what it is. I was 116 and now I'm 138, "only 22lbs" heavier but for me thats almost a 20% increase in body weight, which I think is significant. I'm pretty petite so the pounds really show up on me.

In the context of your question, it is not that significant. The general rule is 1 to 2 seconds faster per mile for every pound lost. 6 pounds isn't going to get you from 36 to 22 in the 5K. 22 pounds would likely only get you a minute faster per mile. Still not back to 22.

What will get you there is running more easy miles over a period of time.

I'm small too, so I get it. At 5'4", I range between 120 and 140. At the high end, I'm only slightly slower than at the low end, like a couple minutes in 5K (low 19s vs 21s).

Another thing to consider is that (especially when you're short), "overweight" per BMI might not be what you think it is. According to BMI I am still overweight but have an athletic BF% according to Hydrostatic testing because I carry quite a bit of muscle mass on my little frame. I agree that speed has less to do with weight than experience.