Forums >General Running>Will losing weight make me faster?
Interesting...and one guy said pretty much what I suspected to be true--the more one has to lose, the bigger the effect losing weight will have on times. I found this chart interesting, too: Performance Weight Chart For Female Runners Height, Target Weight, Range. 5’1”, 105, 95-116 5’2”, 108, 97-119 5’3”, 111, 100-122 5’4”, 114, 102-125 5’5”, 117, 105-129 5’6”, 120, 108-132 5’7”, 123, 111-135 5’8”, 126, 113-138 5’9”, 129, 116-142 5’10”, 132, 119-145 At 5'3.5" 120#s would be a very healthy weight for me, which is what I am shooting for. Heck, I'd be thrilled with 115, but I probably am a bit curvier than most "performance" runners and I have a feeling if I got much below that I would look bony (my lowest weight in recent years was 124 and I looked and felt about perfect). I think I was around 120 when I graduated HS almost 16 years ago and I haven't grown in height since then. k
rectumdamnnearkilledem
I think in general this chart has numbers that are way too low for most of us. Maybe for the very elite, but I think trying to achieve those targets is pretty unhealthy for us mortals. Please set your goals realistically and be healthy achieving them. Eating more fruits and veggies and watching calories and running is great. Becoming obsessed with a number, especially one which is pretty low, is not.
Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to
remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.
~ Sarah Kay
Now that was a bath...
All other things being equal, losing weight will absolutely make you faster. You can even use the following calculator to predict how a weight loss (or gain) might affect your running performance: http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/we.php Its only an estimator, but very interesting nonetheless.
All other things being equal, losing weight will absolutely make you faster. You can even use the following calculator to predict how a weight loss (or gain) might affect your running performance: http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/we.php
Important note: this calculation is based on the (unrealistic) assumption that the change in weight is not accompanied by any other change. In reality, losing weight may take you to below your healthy weight, in which case it will not result in an improvement in performance, and may result in illness. See the FAQ for more details.
In real life, however, everything else would not be constant. A reduction in weight might be accompanied by: - a higher background level of training; - lower muscle mass; - reduced immunity; - reduced glycogen stores; - lower levels of hydration All but the first of these would be expected to lead to a deterioration in athletic performance. These changes would have to be offset against the direct benefits of the weight loss.
E-mail: eric.fuller.mail@gmail.com -----------------------------
In order to get some real good data, with all things being equal, we need somebody, say between 160-180 lbs to place between 30 and 50 lbs in a backpack, and run their best 5K time. Then we can compare their normal 5K time with their weighted 5K time. Any volunteers?
Still, I suspect that it's better to be 5 pounds over than 5 pounds under. In the unlikely event that I'm ever UNDERweight, I'll check that theory.
If I could find a way to carry the weight that mimics your body fat better, without all the bouncing and chafing on the straps, this would be interesting to try ...
Now we’re talking. Yes, zoom-zoom has the answer. It’s 30 pounds (perfect), most of the weight is in the belly (perfect), and it has breasts (perfect). Do you want to donate $745 to science?