Distance running and skinny fat

Options
2»

Replies

  • mburgess458
    mburgess458 Posts: 480 Member
    Options
    The weight you look good at will depend on what exercises you do (and don't do). If your body fat isn't too high you won't be "skinny fat" even if you do no exercise at all. The less muscle you have the lower weight you need to be in order to look good.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    edited December 2018
    Options
    FitAndLean_5738 wrote: »
    My question is if I can still run (as in running is my only form of exercise) lose weight, and NOT end up skinny fat?

    I know plenty of runners that are very muscular, but I do also know some scrawny ones. Running does not equal "skinny fat". ONLY running might though (but not because of the running, but rather the stuff you don't do)(ETA: well not skinny fat - just skinny actually, which I'm guessing is what you mean). You get some leg and arm work from running, but as a runner myself, the visible muscle differences from a few months of weight training for less than 1.5 hrs per week versus years of only running/cycling/hiking was huge. It also improved my running a lot.. in particular: stronger quads = faster and much less fatigue with distance (I was shocked by how much noticeably stronger my quads got with weight training considering my cardio activities use them so much); stronger hamstrings (worked much less in running unless you do LOTS of uphills) = much, much faster and less fatigued uphill running (this is where I often blow past seasoned but scrawny-ish marathon runners who are otherwise much faster than me); stronger arms = faster running (better able to maintain a faster cadence if arms aren't tired).

    For strength training, you'd get more out of less time using equipment-- so I'd personally go with the gym and equipment (unless it requires a significant time driving), especially if you want to save more time for the endurance running.
  • runbreatherelax
    runbreatherelax Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    runbreatherelax wrote: »
    According to my InBody assessment, I am MONW and I run about 15-20 miles a week : (
    I have really really low lean mass for my height sadly, so my BFP is 30%, but my BMI is 21.5.
    Anyway, I’m hitting the weights to try to reverse this!

    I feel so badly for you! You are NOT MONW! Bioelectrical impedance methods of measuring body fat are really, really not reliable. In fact, most methods have error rates that are enough to cause women in particular, who can fret over a percentage or two, angst.

    https://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-bodyfat-measurement-part-4-bioelectrical-impedance-bia/

    Oh that’s kind of you, thanks, appreciate that article.
    You’re right, I might not be clinically MOWN but my body fat is high and lean muscle mass low — I’ve had two kids and I lost a ton of weight shortly after delivering each one so I end up pretty flabby and skeletal and now I’m in my mid-40s. I’ve done calipers and the dunking method in years past and corroborate the high BFP. Anyway, more strength training for me!

    Sorry to hijack the thread OP : )
  • frankiesgirlie
    frankiesgirlie Posts: 667 Member
    Options
    I’ve seen the term skinny fat used on these forums to describe very physically attractive women who did not fit some peoples interpretation of what fit looks like. As in, they weren’t “muscled” enough. So, I do have a problem with that term because it is grossly overused, IMO.
    And yes, yes to body weight routines. Especially when incorporated with HIIT. Whether or not you stay with body weight or move on to free weight training is individual choice or preference and depends on your goals.
    But body weight training has been good to me. I consider myself fit, and I don’t lift “weights”, unless you count my body weight. LOL.

  • mleonards
    mleonards Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    I’m a runner. Just did a 3:48 marathon and going for a BQ this year. I lift weights 2 days a week and go to yoga and Pilates. I hava lot of muscle
  • FitAndLean_5738
    FitAndLean_5738 Posts: 90 Member
    Options
    mleonards wrote: »
    I’m a runner. Just did a 3:48 marathon and going for a BQ this year. I lift weights 2 days a week and go to yoga and Pilates. I hava lot of muscle

    When you lift weights, do you do 2 days of total body or do you do one day of lower body and one day of upper body? How many days a week do you do yoga? Pilates?
  • HollyPFlax
    HollyPFlax Posts: 79 Member
    Options
    To me, the term "skinny fat" means "people who are skinny, but live completely sedantary lifestyles". So they are in the healthy weight range according to BMI, but are not healthy. They often have some fat in the midsection because of their lack of activity and little muscle tone elsewhere. You can't be skinny fat as a runner because being a runner by definition means that you are not sedantary. Can runners have excess body fat? Yes. But you can experiment with your TDEE to figure out how much you need to eat on a daily basis when running X miles per week vs Y miles per week, etc. By regularly performing strenuous cardio exercise, you are literally miles ahead of anyone considered "skinny fat"!
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    mburgess458 wrote: »
    The weight you look good at will depend on what exercises you do (and don't do). If your body fat isn't too high you won't be "skinny fat" even if you do no exercise at all. [b}The less muscle you have the lower weight you need to be in order to look good.[/b]

    I'd respectfully suggest that the less muscle you have, the harder it is to "look good" at any weight. The skin and bones look is not attractive. Some modicum of muscle mass is important both for health and looking good.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    mburgess458 wrote: »
    The weight you look good at will depend on what exercises you do (and don't do). If your body fat isn't too high you won't be "skinny fat" even if you do no exercise at all. [b}The less muscle you have the lower weight you need to be in order to look good.[/b]

    I'd respectfully suggest that the less muscle you have, the harder it is to "look good" at any weight. The skin and bones look is not attractive. Some modicum of muscle mass is important both for health and looking good.

    While I agree with the sentiment... personal pet peeves prevent me from letting this go.

    Different looks/builds/body compositions are attractive to different people. What you do or don't like has no bearing on what someone else likes or doesn't like which has no bearing on what is or isn't *right* for someone else.

    Never mind the very subject nature of most of the terms we are using to describe a body/look/type.

    No disagreement that different looks will appeal to different people. Thus why I used the term "some modicum". There can be great variation. But very little muscle mass will not typically be a good look nor will it be optimum for health.

Categories