quote:<HR>Originally posted by Detroit:
yeah it does...low body fat is a result of consistent intelligent training. .<HR>

and intelligent eating. What you eat is as important as how much.

Bf is around 14-15%. It has not fallen significantly since I switched from lifting to running a year ago.

Prior to this I dropped from 22% to 15% bf in a year by dieting and lifting weights.

I'll be increasing my mileage from 20-30 mpw to 40-60 mpw this year. I'll be interested to see what impact it has.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Detroit:
Flynn,

Body fat is kind of like resting heart rate in the world of distance runners. Its cool to brag about, but in the end doesnt really make much of a difference. I had mine measured hydrostatically this past fall when I was pretty fit and it was like 6.8%. My training buddy measured around 10% the same day. We raced the following weekend and he wacked me by 45 seconds in a 5k. So there you go.<HR>

So, if your buddy took it seriously and dropped a few more pounds he would be even faster than you by more than 45 seconds. My guess is that it would be over a minute.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Detroit:
Notey,

If the training is there, so is your weight.<HR>

I disagree with this. For some it may be true. It also depends on what type of diet you eat. If you run 80-100 mpw w/ great workouts (speed/tempo) and races and yet you have never cared to take a look at what (how much) you're really eating and you are a person who tends to eat a lot of food a change in diet followed by a very gradual loss of weight/fat (because it is done very conservately and healthily) can result in huge gains. HUGE.

I had a coach who said I could eat whatever I wanted at 100mpw. It worked for him, but not for me. Sure I was very lean, but still not as lean as I could be. Really I was eating way more than I needed. Also, through diet (we're talking eating whole healthy foods and JUST enough--nothing insane!!) some athletes (maybe all) can slowly change their body composition over time so that they may weigh the same but have less fat and more muscle=more power.


It's not easy (neither is training itself), but those who have tendencies to snack on a couple of bowls of ceral at night, or eat cookies and ice cream more than very occasionally can find remarkable improvement by small changes in diet (it may be as simple as eliminating that scone with your coffee that you didn't even realize was 600 calories of nothing good).

Obviously, few want to go down this path. Many run to eat. Also, for the mid-packer the rewards may not be worth the effort.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Detroit:
Born,

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think for the recreational runner, or someone simply wishing to lose weight, diet is EVERYTHING. That being said, I, and all the guys I train with, pay no attention to diet at all, aside from hitting the food groups. I'm as lean as I can get right now - the only improvement that will come from here on out is in the running. The thing is....where do you draw the line? If El Guerrouj lost 5 pounds and got "leaner" could he run 3:42 for the mile??? Nope. There definitely comes a point where the only way you are getting faster is by training harder, and your body fat and composition will be a reflection of this. Simply dieting to lose weight isnt a guarantee to make you faster. It just isnt. Running harder and smarter is that guarantee.

That being said, I completely agree with you that what works for one person wont work for another. I know guys who weigh and measure everything they eat and drink down to the last ounce. Its what works for them. So I guess I'm saying, don't take someone's word on a message board, just go out there and find out for yourself.<HR>

I'm definetely not speaking of recreatioal runners

I do acknowledge that there is a limit and I think El G has reached that in terms of how low he go and how healthy he can eat.

I'm speaking of the athlete who is at the regional class-national class level. This athlete has been progressing excellently with their training, but has not really before examined their diet(although they may be eating very healthy foods). I think that if this athlete is as I described above (having a tendency to eat too much) and that if that athlete chooses to put the effort into their diet that they do their training that the results can be significant. We see quite a few athletes try to take the short cut to this improvement (ie anorexia, bulemia) and we see the results, but these are short- lived because the process has been so devastatingly unhealthy.

Bhearn,

I agree with a lot of what you've said. A couple things.

I think that my body just kind of naturally regulates food intake. I dont really think about it. Some people have to make a point to regulate their nutrition. Thats completely fine. Do what you need to.

My take on weight and running is this. To pick an arbitrary number and decided that this is your best weight to run fast is foolish. I think the only way to find out is through experience and trial and error. You also make an interesting point about a few pounds of body fat and slower performances. Ironically, this has never had any bearing on how fast I run. I know because Ive run races at heavier weights. For me training is the be-all and end-all. Weight is the side effect. This may not be the case for other runners. my half marathon PR from a few years ago was run at 144, I'm 15 pounds lighter than that now and have raced 13.1 numerous times since then. No Dice. I was just in better shape at that point, plain and simple.

And finally, about my buddy. I think body type comes into play. I'm pretty ripped for a distance runner, and you'd probably think I weigh more than I do if you saw me. My friend is a "fat skinny guy". You know what I mean? He looks soft. He doesnt weigh a lot, he just doesnt have that mean hungry look. He can still haul. Its another reason why judging based on body fat is a tough call.

Anyway, good thoughts all around.