I'm fairly new to running, been training on and off for just over 6 months. Every runner I know is 3-4 stone lighter than me so it's hard to compare times - I'm 6'3", 16st7 and am curious as to what times people heavier than say 15st are getting??
My average times for 5k, 10k and 10m are 25min, 55min and 95min respectively..
How does this compare with your average heavy runner? (with a few months running under their belt) Anyone else out there?
id say they are perfectly respectable times whatever your size mate, i know some very small people who would love those times.
At 6'3 your not that large @ 16st 7 and you dont say if thats all muscle or Fat, plenty of Rugby players are bigger
I am 5'9 and 10 weeks ago I was 15st 3!!. currently 14st 2 after training for Chester and Liverpool Marathons. my Current times in training are 5k 21 mins 10k 47 mins 10 miles 1hr 22.
Your times particularly the 5k are fine but It appears that there is a tail off on the longer tuns and endurance is your issue not speed and I would suggest that you probably need to do more of your longer runs to build the endurance which will then reduce the times (and weight)
It's really interesting that you ask the muscle/fat question because I've always been told that where you carry you upper body wieght (muscle/fat) makes little difference when it comes to long distance running. I'd be interested to know how much of a part it plays and why if that's not the case? For me, it's a bit of both - I do wieght train but also like to overindulge!
Thanks for sharing those times, very interesting and much closer to my times than my 12 stone colleagues!!
The plan is to start upping the pace over the longer distances but I don't train enough to improve. I'm running more recently though as doing the GSR in a few weeks so I'll use this time to up my game - once I've done it I may go back to my lazy ways
Steve, that's a fair bit of weight you've lost! I don't lose a pound when training, especially when I'm doing longer distances, so it surprises me that so many people do.
No that I'm trying to lose wieght, would just be an added bonus!!
Very decent 5k time given your height/weight, I'd be pleased too!
Managed 1.35 for the GSR yesterday and following a recent holiday I now weigh 17st so very pleased that I managed to equal my PB regardless. I have to say, although the support was great in Portsmouth, it really didn't come close to Brighton (marathon) - immense in comparison.
AlexR, I'm not especially heavy- 89 kg and 184 centimetres and quite lean. But I look more like a javelin thrower or a rower than an endurance runner and am much bigger than most people in my club. It's of absolutely no use to me in terms of running to have a relatively powerful upper body, and I haven't done anything (like used a gym) to gain this.
It obviously does matter to some extent if the mass is lean or fat, but either way, your heart and lungs aren't proportionally much larger with weight. So it's always going to be a struggle to be a fast endurance runner if you are on the heavy side! Your energy output per mile is going to need to be higher, and the longer the event, the more that 's going to be a factor. Look at the build of fast (elite) endurance runners and there are no exceptions whatever to the ideal build archetype.
It most definitely is worth running, whatever your weight, but do be realistic about what is possible in terms of pace over the longer distances. Does that make sense? I've just done an off-road marathon and loved it.
Best of luck with that, I'm sure it will be a breeze for you! When I started running, I found that my 5k time tumbled from 30 min to 25 min very quickly. Turning 25 min into 20 min is proving to be a much hard challenge though.
Look forward to hearing of your success.
I wouldn't take too much stock from your BMI.
My step-father has a BMI of 25 - if he was a couple of pounds heavier he would be classed as overweight even though to look at him, he's thin and toned.
When I say heavy, I purely refer to how much weight you have to carry with you. If you do the maths, I weigh around 35kg more than you which is quite a lot (go to the gym and pick up the 34/36kg dumbell) Based on that logic, I think I'm fairly safe to assume that you'll propably exert less energy than me when completing a long distance run at an equal pace. Obviously there are loads of other factors to consider though - I think if research was undertaken to measure the effects of height, weight, age, BMI, etc, the results would be fascinating.
"I wouldn't take too much stock from your BMI."
"When I say heavy, I purely refer to how much weight you have to carry with you. If you do the maths, I weigh around 35kg more than you which is quite a lot (go to the gym and pick up the 34/36kg dumbell) Based on that logic, I think I'm fairly safe to assume that you'll propably exert less energy than me when completing a long distance run at an equal pace. "
BMI is an equation based on your height and weight, at 6" 3' a 34kg dumbell is going to feel comparatively light to you compared to someone who's 5" 6'. That's why BMI is good leveller. What's more at 28.8 BMI you're not really a very heavy runner, it's all relative.
The reason I don't think BMI is always a great indicator of how your body type affects athletic performance, is because I personally know people who have a BMI of 25 or above (overweight) but win races and look to be prime phisical specimens (no fat or excess muscle). I wasn't saying ignore your BMI, that would be nonsensical, by saying don't take "too much" stock from it, I was simply suggesting that a high number may not necessarily mean that you're not built for running (although it often does).
I only mentioned picking up a weight because it can better put things into perspective. You seem to think I'm suggesting that me running = Millsy running + 35kg which is not the case. The only message I was tyring to relay was that more weight generally equals more energy expended, and although height defititely comes into it to some extent, there seems to be no scienfic research to suggest by how much?
If you can direct me to any such article, or answer on a scientific or evidential basis then please do?
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |