This is not he whole study, but it is an interesting, quick read.
This is not he whole study, but it is an interesting, quick read.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050711/full/050711-14.html
Great. At 6’, 169lbs, the distance at which I’m most suitable for running is 0m. Where do I sign up?
Yeah, according to the graph, for women, for anything over 6k you should have a BMI of 18. No wonder why so many runners have eating disorders.
P
I’d have to loose 32 lbs…then I’d only be qualified to run a 10K.
I’ll admit I’m a bit overweight right now but 10lbs ago I was at 10%BF…32 lbs would put me at around -4.5% BF. IOW I’d have to lose all my body fat and around 6-7 lbs of muscle, organs, bones or something else to “make weight”
~Matt
And yet, ya gotta admit that elite distance runners do look like they have BMI’s < 18 and have minimal muscle mass.
And let’s not even start in on climbers aka Michael Rasmussen
Pat
what does it mean when you are below all the distance points??? I can ideally run indefinitely??
That does not sound like a very fun race- No winner!!!
Male BMI 19
I’m assuming that the “chart” is based on BMI to be an elite and simply doesn’t apply to the rest of us.
As I’m in no fear of ever being an “Elite” runner, at least partially do to my running physique, the chart is probably correct.
I’ll also never be an NBA basketball player, Only 5’ 7" and can’t jump.
~Matt
that is rediculous, i tried mine at 6-1 165 and have a BMI of 22 and can run like 400m, I input the last stats I saw on Hunter Kemper 6-3 165 and that gives him a bmi of 21 and so Hunter can idealy run 2000m but is one of the best runners in the sport.
That study isn’t going to help anyone it is only going to cause problems, leading people to try and loose weight and get disgustingly skinny (yes there really is such a thing). I know a girl that runs better when she is heavier and when ever she lightens up she gets injured.
Here is a little other info on BMI:
- Body Mass Index (BMI)
BMI is a reliable indicator of total body fat, which is related to the risk of disease and death. The score is valid for both men and women but it does have some limits. The limits are: It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build. It may underestimate body fat in older persons and others who have lost muscle mass.
Use the BMI calculator or tables to estimate your total body fat. The BMI score means the following: BMI Underweight Below 18.5 Normal 18.5 - 24.9 Overweight 25.0 - 29.9 Obesity 30.0 and Above
Damn, I should just give up. I am 5’10" and weight 180lbs. What they never take into consideration is genetics. My family all have big legs. 17" calves and 25" thighs do not make for a light weight guy. Even at my lightest ever I was 165lbs. for Ironman Canada at 8% bodyfat. That 15lbs weight difference was mostly upper body. Just imagine a pair of legs with a head on a stick.
BMI is just a guide but not a good one at that. Look up with I am right now. FAT according to that damn thing. lol
This is not he whole study, but it is an interesting, quick read.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050711/full/050711-14.html
Some fairly innane conclusions here. For instance, they seemed to assume that everyones running form was ideal even though they were not using elite runners. From this it seems but they found out that running faster increased the forces on the joints. All this says to me is these runners were planting more forward than they should have as simply overcoming the effects of gravity should be the same at all speeds. If these runners could change their running style then they would reduce these forces, and run more efficiently.
I plugged in the numbers for when I was at my running peak and determined my best distance was the 100 meter dash or there abouts. I don’t own a single fast twitch fiber I think. Laughable.
In the early 70’s, when I was a serious runner and hadn’t got into cycling or triathlons, there was one thing I noticed about runners. The top runners (over 5km) had very thin legs and it didn’t matter the size of their upper body. At a 10km race in Houston, the guy that finished 3rd overall was a weight lifter and extremely large in the upper body, but his legs were very small. (a lot of weight lifters cannot develop their legs due to heredity factors). Everyone watching the race said, wouldn’t it be nice if top runners could look like this guy and not so emaciated as they do! I’m certain that 3rd place finisher probably had a BMI=24 or 25, yet he did very well and had a very fast time. BMI doesn’t take into consideration many other factors that contribute to a top athletes performance.
“Just imagine a pair of legs with a head on a stick.”
Ok that was funny! I’m not really “large” anywhere just “stout” all over and short.
I’m also “Fat” or nearly so. My current BMI is “Marginally” overweight. I’ll admit I’m carring a few extra pounds But I’d still guess I’m around the 15-17 BF%. However even at 2% BF, I’d still have a BMI of around 22, which is “normal”, even average normal not skinny normal.
~Matt
I’m 6’5". In high school I weighed 165-175 and could consistently run 10K’s in the 32:30 range and 5K’s in the 15:45 range. I could also win bike races that had mountains in them. In college I gained 20 lbs yet had the same body fat as in high school. I became a much better cycling sprinter and flat road time trialer but guess what— my running speeds slowed way down. Now I weigh 200 with a little higher body fat than in college yet am riding faster than ever but my running is even slower— I’m almost two minutes slower in a 5K now.
I think the article points out the harsh truth— You do have to be very light to run at world-class levels. Excess muscle and fat does slow you down.
World class runners and road cyclists don’t look healthy and probably aren’t healthy. They refer to Thor Hushovd as a “massive” rider in the tour coverage— He is 6’, 180 LBS. That’s massive by pro cyclist standards.
-Marc
Great. It looks like I need to lose another 30 lbs to run my 3.5k workout this afternoon. An to think that I was just starting to feel good about my fitness and looks. I guess the Skeletor look in in in the running scene.
oh yeah about that, none of the 45 (nice large sample right?) that they looked at can swim in water over their heads…
I’m 6’5". In high school I weighed 165-175 and could consistently run 10K’s in the 32:30 range and 5K’s in the 15:45 range. I could also win bike races that had mountains in them. In college I gained 20 lbs yet had the same body fat as in high school. I became a much better cycling sprinter and flat road time trialer but guess what— my running speeds slowed way down. Now I weigh 200 with a little higher body fat than in college yet am riding faster than ever but my running is even slower— I’m almost two minutes slower in a 5K now.
I think the article points out the harsh truth— You do have to be very light to run at world-class levels. Excess muscle and fat does slow you down.
World class runners and road cyclists don’t look healthy and probably aren’t healthy. They refer to Thor Hushovd as a “massive” rider in the tour coverage— He is 6’, 180 LBS. That’s massive by pro cyclist standards.
-Marc
Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see them stating they were examining the ideal weight for elite runners of various disciplines but were trying to let YOU know what the ideal distance was for your weight and build. There is no doubt that weight plays a big role in running. But so does a lot of other things. I am sure we can all find a bunch of underweight people who can’t run 100 yards, let alone run run 100 yards or a marathon fast, even if they have “trained” for it.
They minimized the effect of the weight of the legs, presuming that this was taken care of by the spring in the tendons and required no energy. If this were the case why do sprinters have such massive legs?
Running, as with every sport, has a lot to do with technique. They ignored this component instead examining only one component, weight. Everything else being equal, lighter is better I suspect, as your own experience shows. It is the everything else being equal part that is the fly in the ointment. Your times at your higher weight are way better than anything I ever did even when I was 6-3 and 160-170. I couldn’t break 6 minutes in the mile. I suspect that most athletes would improve more working on improving technique than losing 10 lbs, although losing the weight is easier to do.
Frank