Except...

Pretty much anyone who is still setting PRs has no reason to think they are at optimum anything, including weight. And I look around and the guys that finish near me are almost all lighter by comparison.

Excess body fat (or muscle, for that matter) does very little for you in a race. You wouldn't try to set a PR wearing a 5 pound weight vest, now would you? Or even a fuel belt, for that matter. It takes more energy to lug around a heavier object that a lighter one, so logically, removing anything "extra" will allow you to race better.

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

There has to be some kind of formula to figure out appropriate race weights given my height. Or is it more to do with muscle mass or fat proportions?

I'm a 5'8" male who was at one point 130 lbs at the end of last fall. Having less weight didn't exactly help me, as I was stuck at 1:47 for the 1/2 for both of my fall 1/2 races.

------------------
Got Marathon? We Sure Do - Show Off Your Running Passion!
Beyond Running Shoes - Gifts For All Marathon Runners[/URL" target="_blank">

This is part of what I recently posted in Newbie Cafe. It's long but answers your question pretty well.

I lost 10 pounds for my last marathon and became an entirely different runner--turbocharged.

The approach is a no-nonsense one that really works and is based upon pure common sense and math. Give it a try. It will do the job.

I'd like to start out by saying that while I am neither certified as a trainer nor am I doctor, I have over 25 years' experience in the area of health and fitness, am an accomplished runner, and have a high degree of knowledge about nutrition, exercise physiology, and the human body . . .

. . . Most of our fat rides below the skin and over the muscles and, in fact actually covers up the muscles so that we can't see them too well. A really good indicator of how much fat you carry is how much definition you can see in your muscles. In someone with very low body fat (perhaps 5%), you can see every little crease and striation. Their abodminal feature what many affectionately call a "six-pack", which is where you can see the individual segments of the rectus abdonminus. The more fat you add, the more doughy and rolly the body appears. Fat can account for many extra inches around hips, middles, arms, and thighs, so losing it is the best way to change your body shape.

There are alot of so-called experts out there who advocate all sorts of fancy diets, pills, and the like for doing this. I can guarantee you these will fail every time.

Losing fat is really very simple, though it takes some work. All you have to do is burn up more calories than you take in. Nothing else will do it, and despite what people tell you, it doesn't matter whether the calories your dealing with come from carrot sticks or french fries; they're all the same to your body. What's needed is used, and any extra is stored as fat. If you don't take in enough, the body goes to the fat and takes some out, and you lose weight. Now some foods are obviously healthier for you in other regards, and some make it easier to take in alot of calories quickly, so what you eat DOES matter.

Now we're going to answer your question. First off, strength training is a good adjunct to any weight loss plan because the more muscle you carry on your body, the more calories it needs to fuel itself. You essentially run a more fuel-hungry engine all day long when you carry around more muscle, so you can eat more calories without gaining weight. Note that strength training itself doesn't actually burn up nearly the calroies that cardio workouts do but, again, the extra muscles that it creates helps rev up metabolism.

Adding a good cardio workout really lets you burn some extra calories each day, and running burns calories better than almost any exercise out there--about 100 calories per mile (this varies a bit according to weight).

So if you run 5 miles, there's an extra 500 calories you can eat in a day. One pound equals about 3,500 calories, so if you ate just enough calories to provide for your normal daily activities then ran five miles a day, in a week, you'd lose a pound.

The other important thing to know is that running faster barely burns any additional calories, but it's very hard on the body and it's hard to do for any length of time, so slow and steady gets the job done. For instance, a 140 lb. athlete running 10:40 mile burns about 87 calories per mile while the same athlete running twice as fast (5:20) only burns 97 calories. Most reasonably fit athletes can run a 10:40 mile for a real long time--anywhere from 5 to 20 miles, thus burning from 435 to 1,740 calories. Except for the most elite runners, few people can run more than a few miles at the 5:20 pace. So while you might burn a few more calories over the mile, overall, you burn far less.

Keep in mind, however, even slow running is harder on the body than low-impact exercises like biking. So if you are carrying alot of extra weight or have joint problems, you might want to start with something else or ease into it in a careful manner. The general rule is never increase speed and distance together and never increase either more than 10% per week.

Of course, the last and most important part of the puzzle is figuring out a weight loss plan.

First, despite what alot of people will tell you, I can say from experience that if you are able to lose 0.1 lbs. per day, which is 0.7 lbs. per week or 3.4 lbs. per month, you are doing really well. This entails eating 350 calories per day less than you burn.

To monitor your weight, weigh yourself daily and take an average at the end of each week. Don't worry about daily fluctuations. You can go up or down several pounds depending upon hormonal changes, the amount of salt in a meal, the fullness of your digestive tract, and so forth. But watch those averages over several weeks. They should be trending down. It's kind of like the stock market, alot of ups and downs day to day but an overall drift in a certain direction. (For the market, we like up, for weight, we like down.) Many will tell you not to check daily. I disagree. When you check once a week you may get a reading influenced by the aforementioned factors. Check daily, but only put stock in the weekly average. Recent studies also show that people who check daily do a better job of losing weight and keeping it off. Use the same scale at the same time of day.

Also, simply look at your muscular definition. Increased definition is the surest sign of weight loss. Lifting helps a little, because bigger muscles will be more visible under the skin, but the change won't be that dramatic. Weight loss gives a dramatic change in appearnce.

Lastly, you have to figure out your target calories. I have found the long-used Harris-Benedict formula to be quite good.

This formula allows you to calculate what's known as your BMR or basal metabolic rate. This is the number of calories your body needs just to keep itself alive--breath, run the brain, digest food, and so forth. It doesn't take into account any activity but lying perfectly still. It is as follows:

BMR = 88.362 + (4.799 x your height in centimeters) + (13.397 x your weight in kilograms) - (5.677 x your age)

Note that 1 inch = 2.54 centimeters, 1 pound = 0.45 kilograms, and I assume you would want to base your weight on your IDEAL body weight, not your current body weight, unless you are already at your ideal body weight; that's because having extra fat doesn't really contribute to the caloric needs of your body.

Once you have this number, you have to add in the calories for going about your daily business. One way to do this to multiply by 1.3 if you are sedentary, 1.5 if you are moderately active, and 1.7 if you are very active. What I have found works quite well is to pretend that I am sedentary, so multiply by 1.3, then add in the extra calories for my exercise (There are a number of books and table out there that can provide this information. The one I have shows 130 lb. athlete running an 10:00 mile to be burning 82 calories per mile. For a 150 lb. athlete, the number rises to 94, and for a 170 lb. athlete, it rises to 106).

Lastly, subtract the calories need for weight loss, and you've got a target.

So say you want to lose 0.1 lbs. per day, that you weigh 130 lbs. and are running 3 miles a day at a 10:00 min. mile, and that your BMR works out to 1,500 Calories.

Your calories for going about a sedentary day are 1,500 x 1.3 = 1,950.

Your calories are running for 82 x 3 = 246.

The defecit required for the desired weight loss is 0.1 lbs. x 3,500 Cal./lb. = 350.

So your target intake should be the 1,950 required to run your body at a sedentary level, plus the 246 for your exercise, minus the 350 for weight loss, or 1,846.

You may have to tweak the formula a bit until you find the exact number that's right for you, since this is really an estimate, but this should get you pretty darn close. Also, you probably need to keep a journal of the calories you eat each day, because when you're only trying to restrict your intake by such a small amount, an extra piece of toast and a yougurt, and their goes your loss for the day.

But hopefully this helps you to see that it's no the running per se that will help you reshape your body; it's careful attention paid to diet.

Sorry this is so long. Hope it helps. It worked for me. I lost 10 lbs. for my last marathon and as a result was able to break a record that had eluded me for 5 years!

Good luck with your goals.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by sea biscuit:

As to ideal race weight, again, you don't want to carry around any extra fat or muscle on race day. To do otherwise is to waste energy carrying around baggage that isn't contributing to your speed. For men, I think this means having your percent body fat at about 5% and for women at about 8%. There are people who are the exception, but for most of us, it's a bit unhealthy to go any lower.

Still, many accomplished athletes are not at these levels and could benefit from being so.<HR>

While having extra bodyfat is certainly undesirable, these numbers are at the very low end of the spectrum.

From this article: [/URL" target="_blank"> "To function properly, our bodies need to store at least 5% fat for men and 8% to 12% for women. Average body-fat levels observed in elite runners range from 5% to 12% in men and 8% to 15% in women. A body-fat level below these recommended amounts can signal overtraining or the possibility of an eating disorder. The acceptable levels for the general population are 15% to 22% for men and 20% to 32% for women."

Not saying it's canon, but anything lower than 5% in men is almost impossible. Professional bodybuilders are usually lucky to achieve that.

Many elite runners including Frank Shorter, Pat Porter, Tony Sandoval, Kyle Heffner and Jeff Wells had bodyfat of 2% or less. Jeff Wells was measured at The Aerobics Center by Dr. Ken Cooper at .8 % bodyfat which was the lowest recorded.

Five percent is far from a minimum level for males.

Go here and scroll down to the 25th picture (Frank Shorter) and see what 2% bodyfat looks like.

http://www.wtv-zone.com/whales/running.html[/URL" target="_blank">

oh as for the body fat thing, I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. I'm gonna need to see some proof that any healthy athlete, or human being for that matter, has been measured at 2 percent or even .8. I mean I'm sure you are right Rip, I just gotta see it in print somewhere. Body fat calipers are also not normally accepted as accurate and can have quite a variance. I'm half the size of shorter in that pic and I'm like 6.2% measured under water.

Hmm. We're getting a little esoteric here, and I don't want to hijack this thread.

That said, first off, I'm not saying that there aren't healthy people out there with body-fat levels below 5%--just that they are the exception rather than the rule, and I would bet that this has more to do with their genetic makeup than it does any pre-meditated efforts to reach these levels. Elites are called elite for a reason after all. (I'm not going to debate what the lowest observed level of body fat has been because I just don't know, and it's also worth noting that there is another aspect to this which we are ignoring--specifically percent body fat can also be influenced by the amount of intramuscular fat, that is fat that is contained within the muscle itself. I've seen pictures of people who look incredibly lean but actually have very high levels because their muscle is marbled with fat.)

For MOST people, 5% is a pretty safe minimum to which they can aspire, and that seems to be the number that most docs hold out as a minimum for the AVERAGE male.

Detroit, I do think you're kind of missing the points I'm trying to make. First off, I never said that there was any specific weight that a person of a particular size should be nor did I say that an athlete with a higher percentage of body fat couldn't be faster than one with a lower percentage (numerous factors influence speed, and weight is just one of them.) Lastly, I also never said that an athlete couldn't do "just fine," as you put it carrying more fat. I was doing a great job at 149 lbs., it's just that I'm doing better at 138. And that's really what I'm saying: so long as you utilize a healthy approach so that you lose fat, not muscle or water, and all other things being equal, the athlete that gets rid of extra weight is going to get faster to the tune of one to two seconds per mile for every pound lost. So if you're the sort that likes to maximize all aspects of performance, this is an area where you get alot of bang for your buck.

Again, if you doubt this, try putting ten or fifteen pounds in a backpack and heading out for a few miles, then put the backpack down and see what happens. It's pretty undeniable.

As for the fact that your weight has failed to rise despite high levels of caloric consumption, I'd be more likely to think you're missing something in the equation than that the laws of thermodynamics have ceased to function. (As far as I know, they've yet to be overturned.)

For instance, perhaps you are overeating but underdrinking and your fluid loss is masking weight gains. Perhaps you don't have enough data points or are examining the data over too short a time frame. Perhaps you're not eating as much as you think or have improperly calculated your BMR. Or maybe the BMR formula you're using doesn't adequately predict your caloric needs; you could be one of those engines that just runs much hotter than normal. I can't say for sure, but the simple fact is that if you're eating alot and not gaining weight, you're burning as many calories as you take in. I don't see any way around it, but if there is one, somebody please let me know; not only is there good money to be made, but I'd love to eat like that.

No worries about the rantage . . . back at 'ya.

Best to all.

swampy, my point exactly. if anything, shorter looks heavy.

sea biscuit - i agree 100 percent with what you have said. your posts are quite informative. My comment about the laws of thermodynamics wasnt at all serious (hard conveying sarcasm on a message board). The point that I was trying to make is that I maintain weight on a quite a good deal of food - much more than any calculations would estimate - so of course I'm in some kind of balance. Finding this point is different for every runner, as the OP will find out.

I also agree with your view on weight. Being at your ideal is paramount to excelling in running. But with everything, there is a point of diminishing returns. Don't try to lose it if ain't there to lose. Ironically, I've set PRs at 130 and at 140, so I guess this "ideal weight" is a bit hazy. Again, for the thread starter, I think you'll just have to find by experimentation where you feel strongest and fastest.

good luck!