LOL, in triathlon Mass is not your friend. I’ve mentioned this same things to guys I’ve met at races who I can tell are also body builders, usually as we are trudging through the last miles. I’m pure mesomorph, a member of the 1000lb club, and a sprinter. I stop lifting during race season, and have switched over the years to lighter weight, more reps, and more sets. A lifters heart is different from an endurance athletes heart, there’s not a lot of research on the benefits/detriments of the combination, hoping it’s good. If you want to take endurance racing seriously you’ll have to back off on heavy lifting. Did I mention my grade 2 calf tear that happened during an afternoon run, did calf raises that morning, probably just coincidence.
I was in bodybuilding prior to triathlon and entering the sport I was 84kg at 177cm at 10% bf. For reference at entering the sport I had a 43" chest, 24" thighs and 16.5" arms. I wasn’t that strong with a max bench around 275, squat 315 and deadlift around 365.
Not to go into too much detail but as I got more into triathlon I stopped lifting. I barely went to the gym in 2018 and in 2019 I only went with my gf doing frou frou exercises. Despite this I lost minimal muscle and was 77kg at 8%bf with 42" chest, 15" arms 24" thighs.
84kg @10% BF => 75.6kg lean + 8.4kg fat
77kg @ 8% BF => 70.8kg lean + 6.2kg fat
Looks to me like you lost 4.8kg lean (muscle) mass and 2.2kg fat. Is that your definition of “minimal muscle”?
Considering that when you lose body fat it’s impossible naturally to not lose muscle as well as your body eats muscle and fat together, along with the fact that there would be some level of water weight involved those numbers are pretty minimal considering that is 4 years of training 20hrs/week for endurance sport. Further to emphasize the minimal effect along the water weight I am now 80kg at 8% after only 8 weeks of lifting again after 1 year of actively trying to lose muscle. I even cut down my protein to try and shed muscle up to my last 2019 race and nope! Still looked like Thor lol
Oh, if you are an indoor rower then weight is not a negative factor. If you are in a boat, you will sit lower in the water and you will be pushing a heavier boat. That is a factor. Trust me on that one.
If your goals are reasonable you can do fine without losing weight. I’m 191cm and when I did my first IM in 12:45 (3:45 marathon) I was a hair over 100kg and lifting similar weight (less on squat than you but more on bench). 4 years later I did a 9:45 IM (3:12 run) on the same course, around 85kg I think. Most of my gains were from improved fitness but no doubt 15kg made a significant difference. Weight will slow you down. You wont be on an IM podium looking like a big dude, but you can still finish in respectable time.
If you’re muscular and want to run fast over long distances, the first question to ask is - can my quads take the beatings?
If yes, then it is just a matter of time to build volume to adjust the smaller muscles and tendons in the knees and feet to the pounding and cadence.
But, having the muscle with all the pounding may make the athlete more injury prone for the knees and below. So add volume slowly.
not sure what any of that means, but i competed in bodybuilding for years, mens physique and classic physique. im still 6’3 215lbs i lift every morning like im still training for a show, but in the evenings i do my swim bike run, does it suck to not be 130lbs and flying by everyone. yes, but it doesnt suck to cross the finish line with glistening biceps and a defined 6 pack lol
ill never win first and ill never qual, so im doing both things i love lifting heavy and challenging myself
If your goals are reasonable you can do fine without losing weight. I’m 191cm and when I did my first IM in 12:45 (3:45 marathon) I was a hair over 100kg and lifting similar weight (less on squat than you but more on bench). 4 years later I did a 9:45 IM (3:12 run) on the same course, around 85kg I think. Most of my gains were from improved fitness but no doubt 15kg made a significant difference. Weight will slow you down. You wont be on an IM podium looking like a big dude, but you can still finish in respectable time.
Based on the rule of thumb I mentioned above (2â€/mile per pound of weight loss) I’d say that about 80% of your 33-minute time gain came from weight loss, leaving the other 20% to come from improved fitness…
If you’re muscular and want to run fast over long distances, the first question to ask is - can my quads take the beatings?
If yes, then it is just a matter of time to build volume to adjust the smaller muscles and tendons in the knees and feet to the pounding and cadence.
But, having the muscle with all the pounding may make the athlete more injury prone for the knees and below. So add volume slowly.
This is very true. I was listening to a Macca podcast and he would race at 75kg+ and he said he would never do more than a 2 hour run and if he needed more volume he would never go above 2hr and do a double or triple run day.
Based on the rule of thumb I mentioned above (2â€/mile per pound of weight loss) I’d say that about 80% of your 33-minute time gain came from weight loss, leaving the other 20% to come from improved fitness…
Rules of thumb are just that, and even then only apply when all other things are equal and within a certain range. Going from 12:45 to 9:45 requires more than just a 33 minute reduction in run time. I go significantly harder in all 3 disciplines to make up the other 2.5 hours, and the other two disciplines dont benefit from weight reduction as much as running.
Or maybe I’m wrong and just need to get to Jan’s weight to do a 7 hour IM?
Hey Jon,
Totally been there as I bet a lot of people posting have been as well. When your a “bigger†triathlete/runner/ whatever we’re always comparing and thinking smaller/lighter is always best. I think lighter can definitely yield some solid results but I think we all have a limit to what that is. I for one never think I can get under 175 lbs. Normally race around 185-190 range. I’m 5’11. Decently fast but nothing crazy. 1:19 HM 2:53 FM 4:30 HIM 9:33 IM. Former collegiate baseball player so we did a bunch of squats and benches. I believe maxed out 575 squat but it’s been a while. I think with running specifically get some speed work/some tempo/ and a long run in each week and you’ll start seeing numbers fly down. Anyhow, I’m blabbering too much lol. Hope this helps.
Based on the rule of thumb I mentioned above (2â€/mile per pound of weight loss) I’d say that about 80% of your 33-minute time gain came from weight loss, leaving the other 20% to come from improved fitness…
Rules of thumb are just that, and even then only apply when all other things are equal and within a certain range. Going from 12:45 to 9:45 requires more than just a 33 minute reduction in run time. I go significantly harder in all 3 disciplines to make up the other 2.5 hours, and the other two disciplines dont benefit from weight reduction as much as running.
Or maybe I’m wrong and just need to get to Jan’s weight to do a 7 hour IM?
Apologies if I was a bit dismissive/blithe - I was thinking in a run-standalone sense.
You’re of course right about that other impressive 2.5 hours of time gain coming much much more from fitness improvements than weight loss. And doing even an equal-time marathon after a 6-hour swim+bike vs a 9-hour swim+bike is indicative of much better run fitness too.
Speaking from my own experience, it’s been sobering to look back at strong run training cycles and see that maybe only half my gains came from improved fitness, with the other half from weight loss. For me, it’s useful to quantify this and make clear how much time can be gained with relatively modest weight losses, especially when you are time-crunched and trying to balance other tradeoffs in multisport training. I don’t intend to be fat-shaming, and understand that everyone has their own priorities about what body type they prefer, how much weight they can lose with ease vs extreme difficulty, and that talking about losing weight can be fraught.
But when someone with a lot of muscle is coming into the sport asking how they can expect to do, and on a site as numbers-loving as slowtwitch, it seems silly not to put the numbers out there: 2â€/mile slower running per extra pound.
Hi Grantbot21, thanks for chipping in- although I do have to disagree with the statement that mass location doesn’t matter.
I assure you it does!
I do running events carrying heavy bags; for anybody outside the UK our elite military are the Special Forces.
SAS/SBS/SRR
Selection includes runs/TABs with a 35lb pack plus rations, so approx 42lbs at race start.
I can comfortably run with 42lbs on my back. If I wore shoes which weighed 21lbs each i wouldn’t get far…
Mass location matters a huge amount.
Mass close to your CofG is easier to control, turn and accelerate. Plus you’re just carrying it like a weight vest.
If you have heavy legs and run at 160spm you have to accelerate your legs and change their angle of velocity after every stride.
Taking it a step further, at elite level running the circumference of the lower leg is actually a better predictor of marathon performance than VO2 max.
**If you use ridiculous examples sure it matters. But I don’t think you’re running with 21lb shoes so who cares. **
**Do you have any data to backup a realistic example of 5 extra lbs per leg of muscle vs 10lbs upper body or Vs 10lbs of fat on your belly, or similar. It’s these situations for a normal runner where I doubt you’ll see much statistical difference. **
I understand what you’re saying, but correlation doesn’t equal causation. Most fast long distance runners are going to have smaller legs girth, because that self selects for itself. If you have bigger legs you probably never went into distance because you would have been better at shorter distance.
I’d like to see the journal article on vo2 max vs lower leg circumference. I tried searching but can’t find any article on it. The only thing I saw was something in sports gene book.
Mass distribution will absolutely have an impact on performance for running. What is it about his example that you find ridiculous? You have accepted that mass distribution would matter in his intentionally extreme example, but claim it doesn’t matter at a more conservative scale. However, I see no explanation as to why. He is correct and his example is somewhat appropriate. It’s not really a question of opinion. Newtonian mechanics are rather universally accepted for non Superman level performances so I think plenty people here understand pretty well how mass, force, acceleration and time are related. Are you suggesting that the additional energy required to accelerate more massive extremities is conserved? If so, how, and why does the same not apply in his example?
Running is relentless in punishing excess weight – a rule of thumb is that you’ll run about 2" slower per mile per pound of weight above your optimal running weight (which most of us - including myself at 180cm/73 kg - are). In metric units I guess that’s about 3"/km slower per kg excess mass.
This is a terrible rule of thumb. I am 183cm and 83kg or 6´0" 180-185lbs depending on how hydrated I am and I ran a 2:22:07 marathon last year. At the same weight now and feel pretty confident I can go under 2:20 this year without loosing any weight. If I apply this rule Kipchoge better watch out. If I loose some weight I´m way better than him.
That being said, at risk of of being attacked like Alberto Salazar, yeah you need to stop lifting and loose weight immediately if you want to be fast. Light is fast. Some guys can go fast when they are heavy, like me, probably you, or Chris McCormick (the heaviest Ironman winner at 177lbs). You might try looking up his opinion on the topic. Even if you stop lifting all together and get a little faster I think you will still be able to enjoy your strength sports because it sounds like you have a pretty solid background. With any changes you want to make just go slow and try to find what exactly is right for you. I would say the following things about your points though.
- Size of your heart and cardiac output is normally related to height (I’m 5’10") Sounds like bullshit. your heart, like any muscle, can get stronger when you exercise it
- Running is about lifting/pushing your body through space and mass matters Yeah mass definitely matters
- Mass distribution is more important than total mass (i.e. heavy legs need to be driven back + forth, whereas a heavy waist line just sits there Total mass is what you should be concerned with
- Fast twitch fibres are less efficient and tire quicker what´s a fast twitch fiber? I don´t think i have any of those.
After my college running I took a year off and lifted a bunch of weight. I got to just over 200 pounds and my goal was to be able to back squat 500 and run a sub 5 minute mile the same day. Once I got to 425 on squat I realized that I could no longer run a sub 5 minute mile when only a year earlier it was no problem to knock out 6 mile repeats under 4:40. I went back to running because I realized I would never be a good power athlete but I was a decent runner. I say all this just to say, from my experience, your weight will play a significant roll in how fast you can run. but don´t go too crazy with it. play around and try to find exactly what you want for a speed power combo.
Mass location will matter from a physics perspective. I’m not disagreeing with that, however, if you have more muscular quads does that actually cause a performance difference vs having that weight in your upper body vs just having a belly? No one is disagreeing that weight is a detriment to running, but it’s not that simple Aka does stronger quads override the mass to a point, and to certain distances. If it’s absolute there should be data that is easy to find on this that you can share, I can’t find it.
I don’t think it’s as absolute as saying 10lbs of muscle on your legs will be worse than 10 lbs of fat on your stomach or 10lbs in your upper body, just because it’s on your legs.I never said energy is conserved, but if your legs are stronger you should be able to output more energy. The question is the deflection point where the extra strength is irrelevant because the weight is too much or in addition there may be a point in race distances where this matters more than others
The reason why his example is ridiculous is no one is swinging around 20 lb shoes. That example doesn’t actually exist. He’s basically saying having bigger legs is going to be worse than having a bigger upper body.
Further to the point if we are talking triathlons specific, like he is asking, stronger legs normally mean a stronger bike, so you do receive some benefit from having stronger legs even if it did cost you time on the run.
I’m the same way. Only I’m 5’4†and currently weigh in the mid 160’s. Down from 180 which was my heaviest and competing in bodybuilding and powerlifting. I am willing to drop another 10 pounds but that’s it. Being super short I prefer to carry a lot of muscle and fear looking like a tiny, scrawny human! I’m willing to sacrifice my run time to look good ‘nekid!!’
Mass location will matter from a physics perspective. I’m not disagreeing with that, however, if you have more muscular quads does that actually cause a performance difference vs having that weight in your upper body vs just having a belly? No one is disagreeing that weight is a detriment to running, but it’s not that simple Aka does stronger quads override the mass to a point, and to certain distances. If it’s absolute there should be data that is easy to find on this that you can share, I can’t find it.
I don’t think it’s as absolute as saying 10lbs of muscle on your legs will be worse than 10 lbs of fat on your stomach or 10lbs in your upper body, just because it’s on your legs.I never said energy is conserved, but if your legs are stronger you should be able to output more energy. The question is the deflection point where the extra strength is irrelevant because the weight is too much or in addition there may be a point in race distances where this matters more than others
The reason why his example is ridiculous is no one is swinging around 20 lb shoes. That example doesn’t actually exist. He’s basically saying having bigger legs is going to be worse than having a bigger upper body.
Further to the point if we are talking triathlons specific, like he is asking, stronger legs normally mean a stronger bike, so you do receive some benefit from having stronger legs even if it did cost you time on the run.
His point was regarding the effect of distribution of mass with respect to it’s physical disadvantage to motion. I believe it was implied, if not stated, that this was assuming all else being equal. Otherwise the whole discussion is pointless. Even if we were to work with your suggestion that we offset mass location against muscle mass (which I consider absurd from a any quantitative analysis point of view), it’s not reasonable to expect muscle mass to compensate. Endurance sport is overwhelmingly about endurance, not maximum force. It’s in the name. Thus ability to get oxygen to the muscles and achieve efficient movement is what counts. Neither heart size, lung capacity, blood chemistry, or other factors are specifically linked to muscle mass in the limbs so muscle there does not compensate. Your argument only makes any sense for sprinters or other primarily anerobic activities IMO.
Thank you for all for the helpful input.
There are lots of examples of bigger, stronger guys performing much better than I ever hope to…
…plus bigger guys who have successfully changed their shape in and out of race season.
I won’t name check everyone but some really helpful & encouraging stuff- thank you.
I’m sorry if my mass example was misleading; I was using an example I thought would be easy.
Perhaps comparing running with ankle weights vs a running vest with drinks bladder? Or citing some of the data suggested from research around shoe weight?
Regarding the heart size/cardiac output thing, it’s not bullshit but it isn’t an unbreakable law either.
(I understand the training effect on cardiac muscle and that cardiac output increases as the left ventricle pumps more… albeit have also read how the walls of the left ventricle can thicken as a reaction to the high BP encountered in heavy weight lifting, diminishing stroke volume.)
Find a 5’1" man who can produce 400w for an hour… there are relatively few.
Now look for a 6’+ man who can do the same and you’ll find a lot more.
Bigger people tend to have bigger hearts, so absolute power output potential usually increases (as does their weight and energy need).
(There are exceptions, of course, but it is generally so).
I was also putting up similar lifting numbers when I got into tri - 6’0 200lbs/90kg bodyweight
200kg squat, 250kg deadlift, 145kg bench, 125kg clean/press etc
Over 1.5 years I’ve cut down around 12lb/6kg and am doing decent at tri… 11:30 IM time and 3:10 marathon time with 85% of the strength numbers above. I feel I’m pretty close to bottomed out on strength and excited to finally stop getting weaker soon. Also expecting to go around 10:30 and 3:00 in IM and open marathons this year.
Haven’t changed anything about my weightlifting except reduced overall volume from 8 hrs per week to 5. Same breakdown, same exercises, same rep schemes, same effort. I don’t get fancy with how I structure it combined with tri training, I just do the work and continually rotate through lower body vs upper body lifting and all sbr work.
I expect that getting below around 10:30 in the IM distance will require another body weight reduction at which point strength would drop another 10-15% and I don’t want to do that so for now I’m happy keeping bw/strength where they are as I’m still progressing in tri pretty rapidly.
Here you go, weight on limbs versus midsection had a significantly greater energy cost while running. https://jeb.biologists.org/content/116/1/363.long
It seems to me that asking whether that cost differs if it is extra muscle presents a pretty difficult study-design question.
No pics of muscular tri chicks yet…disappointing
.