Globe & Mail article- ideal body type for marathons

[richie-rich]

I think so....if I was standing at a bar, you'd guess about 180-185....if I walked away from said bar, you'd question if there was any chicken in my family lineage, given stick-esque legs.

no chicken in your lineage - my family cornered the market on chicken legs.

[MichaelMc]

Far from "ideal" racing weight. There is so much loaded on to weight, body image etc that we can't have a factual article for fear of inspiring self loathing and/or bulimia.

Here is a more realistic article on "ideal racing weight" for an Elite runner: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/if-you- ... weight-550

Bear in mind 1) this is ideal RACING weight, not ideal HEALTH (or even fitness).

2) Elites have a build suited to their sport. While "big boned" is massively over stated, some people do have more muscle naturally, and/or a muscle distribution which is not well suited to distance running

3) having the height and weight doesn't make you a potential Elite. It is "required, but not sufficient": there are many other factors.

In brief, Ideal for an Elite 5'7 woman would be ~115 lbs and for a 5'7 man would be ~126 lbs.

The article also overlooks one of the main reasons Elite distance runners tend to be short: heat dissipation. Running extremely fast generates a huge amount of heat which you have toget rid of: when equally slim, shorter people have more surface area per pound. Hot races favor smaller runners (like Wanjiru).

[QuickChick]

Good article (Michael's I mean... the G&M one was, I thought, pretty much just stating the obvious). I will never be 115 pounds, but I know I would be a lot faster if I was. I don't think it's impossible or anything... I just enjoy food and wine (and life in general, not just running) too much to be 115!

I would like to drop 5 though... that I think I could do without having to totally deprive myself... and who knows maybe my 5K pb will improve.

[HCcD]

Bear in mind 1) this is ideal RACING weight, not ideal HEALTH (or even fitness).

I tend to resemble this comment, this year ...

I didn't read the original research article, but it's Interesting that the Canadian Running report on the article said "5'7" and 130 pounds or much less". That sounds more like it.

Just like Andy?

I am currently around 5'6" and 130-132lbs .. the lowest I've been in my 10 year running life ... and, what I have always perceived as my ideal racing/performance level .. as, historically, I tend to get sick, if I stay at this level for a period of time, as my immune system tends to be affected ...

For whatever reason, I am about 5-10 pounds lighter this year, the the past few years, on average, and I would suspect that my current PB's that have been set from 5K to the Marathon distance, may have an (in)direct correlation to my weight, for ideal racing ...

And, yes, Smarter Training, Specificity and Periodization may also have something to do with it, as well as, trying to find that balance between the "training effect" and minimalization of overuse / injury prevention, as well ...

[The Donald]

I guess I need to drop a bit more height, as apparently I have begun to shrink. And about 50 more lbs.

[PinkLady]

In brief, Ideal for an Elite 5'7 woman would be ~115 lbs and for a 5'7 man would be ~126 lbs.

The article also overlooks one of the main reasons Elite distance runners tend to be short: heat dissipation. Running extremely fast generates a huge amount of heat which you have toget rid of: when equally slim, shorter people have more surface area per pound. Hot races favor smaller runners (like Wanjiru).

Yah but.....5'6-5'7, for a woman, is *not* short. Short for a man, yes, but not for a lady. It does make sense that a shorter frame would have an easier time finding efficient running form - less vertical mass to manage and balance.

Maybe it's because I'm obviously on the very petite end of the scale (5 feet even on a good day ).....but I always want to know the lower limit of said 'ideal' height.

Good point, Michael, about ideal 'racing' weight and ideal 'healthy' weight aren't even remotely close to the same thing. I tell people that at this point, to lose any more weight I'd have to lose muscle mass - which is, clearly, NOT healthy. However, as excess cardio will cannibalize muscle, the more I run the more I tend to slim down even more as I never seem to have time to fit in weights/musclebuilding work like I probably should. Heh.

Funnily enough, ever since my mileage got back up to 40km+/week, my dad keeps asking if I've lost weight again. Actually I haven't lost an ounce, but the running *is* making me more compact and slimmer.

I'd love to see a study with parameters of body measurements - ie. ideal femur/leg length, muscle measurements (ie. slim thighs good? bad?), waist/hip ratios (obviously men/women would differ), etc.....BMI alone is kinda broad and not very useful to depict body composition. After all, you could be 100lbs of solid muscle, or 100lbs of skinny but jiggly fat.

[Joe Dwarf]

BMI alone is kinda broad and not very useful to depict body composition.

BMI is meant for statistics on populations, not individuals. It's simply not applicable for athletes. Mike Tyson in fighting trim had a BMI of 31 - anyone care to call him "obese"?

[MichaelMc]

Yah but.....5'6-5'7, for a woman, is *not* short. Short for a man, yes, but not for a lady. It does make sense that a shorter frame would have an easier time finding efficient running form - less vertical mass to manage and balance.

Maybe it's because I'm obviously on the very petite end of the scale (5 feet even on a good day ).....but I always want to know the lower limit of said 'ideal' height.

The height bit has been studied quite a bit too, but there is far more variation in that. There have been pretty tall world record holders (Derek Clayton was 6'2) and pretty short ones (Tegla Loroupe was 4'11). Statistically there is a tendency toward 5'7 for BOTH genders, but there really doesn't seem to be any one height that dominates as long as the temperatures are moderate to cool. People tend to think long legs make for fast runners, but I think skinny lower legs tend to LOOK long especially in short shorts.

BMI alone is kinda broad and not very useful to depict body composition.

BMI is meant for statistics on populations, not individuals. It's simply not applicable for athletes. Mike Tyson in fighting trim had a BMI of 31 - anyone care to call him "obese"?

Only with a really solid running start.

[HCcD]

Mike Tyson in fighting trim had a BMI of 31 - anyone care to call him "obese"?

From this side of the border and in front of my screen ... okidokee ... he was morbidly "obese" !!!! j/k though, he was probably like 1-2% body fat on that frame of his ..

[PinkLady]

BMI alone is kinda broad and not very useful to depict body composition.

BMI is meant for statistics on populations, not individuals. It's simply not applicable for athletes. Mike Tyson in fighting trim had a BMI of 31 - anyone care to call him "obese"?

Only with a really solid running start.

Best answer ever!!

Seriously, though, that much weight - even though it's muscle, not fat - would still bog someone down enough that they wouldn't make a good distance runner. Too much muscle's just not very useful for the endurance running.

[turd ferguson]

Fwiw, in Lance armstrongs first book, he gives some credit to cancer for stripping his body of his triathlon muscle which he thought was weighing him down as a pure cyclist.

[Jwolf]

Fwiw, in Lance armstrongs first book, he gives some credit to cancer for stripping his body of his triathlon muscle which he thought was weighing him down as a pure cyclist.

I don't understand what "triathlon muscles" are different from cycling muscles- upper body I guess?

[BJH]

Fwiw, in Lance armstrongs first book, he gives some credit to cancer for stripping his body of his triathlon muscle which he thought was weighing him down as a pure cyclist.

I don't understand what "triathlon muscles" are different from cycling muscles- upper body I guess?

Yes, for swimming.

[erinmcd]

Fwiw, in Lance armstrongs first book, he gives some credit to cancer for stripping his body of his triathlon muscle which he thought was weighing him down as a pure cyclist.

I don't understand what "triathlon muscles" are different from cycling muscles- upper body I guess?

I think the way he describes in the book is that he went from being built like a bull to being quite lean, and he felt that made him a better cyclist- less weight to pull up hills. If I recall correctly, he said cancer changed his whole body shape- didn't just cause him to lose muscle bulk.

[Mark.AU]

6'2" and 205lbs, a pretty big frame... No wonder I suck at running marathons

[turd ferguson]

Jwolf wrote:

I don't understand what "triathlon muscles" are different from cycling muscles- upper body I guess?

I think the way he describes in the book is that he went from being built like a bull to being quite lean, and he felt that made him a better cyclist- less weight to pull up hills. If I recall correctly, he said cancer changed his whole body shape- didn't just cause him to lose muscle bulk.

Thanks - I was going off memory from a book I read 10 years ago.

[Joe Dwarf]

Seriously, though, that much weight - even though it's muscle, not fat - would still bog someone down enough that they wouldn't make a good distance runner. Too much muscle's just not very useful for the endurance running.

Oh, absolutely. I'm just pointing out the silliness of the whole BMI thing. Catch me on some days when I'm water-logged due to carbs or whatever and my BMI will be over 25, which means I'm supposedly overweight. I think not. And I find it just ridiculous that my doctor, who is about 40 lbs overweight himself, would even bother to do a BMI calculation to inform me that I am or am not overweight. A few years ago I was running probably 5 or more lbs heavier than I am now and he told me I was a little overweight with a BMI of over 26. What a load of hooey - I was weight training a lot back then and frankly probably had less bodyfat than I do now! Just a pet peeve of mine.

OTOH BMI at the low end... I would have to be 136 lbs to have a BMI of 18.5. I can't imagine how being that light could possibly be healthy for a 6 footer.

[PinkLady]

Oh, absolutely. I'm just pointing out the silliness of the whole BMI thing. Catch me on some days when I'm water-logged due to carbs or whatever and my BMI will be over 25, which means I'm supposedly overweight. I think not.

I couldn't agree more. My weight will swing 2-3 lbs easily from salt/water retention, and on the flip side underhydration. And, muscles will hold onto water as a healing reaction - so, a hard workout will cause weight *gain* sometimes.

I've read that the waist/hip ratio is a much better indicator of whether you are overweight.....I believe it's around 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men as the 'ideal' (higher is worse). Though, I question even this parameter since if you're built kinda like a pencil (hipless, like me) then this calculation would seem to indicate that I needed to get thinner to get a better ratio. When in actual fact it would be nigh impossible for me to get any thinner around the waist without removing some ribs!!

[Jwolf]

What I find frustrating is people with normal build who still deny being "overweight" by BMI calculators and somehow think they are exempt.

[turd ferguson]

What I find frustrating is people with normal build who still deny being "overweight" by BMI calculators and somehow think they are exempt.

Sentence sense it makes none.

[Spirit Unleashed]

Oh, absolutely. I'm just pointing out the silliness of the whole BMI thing. Catch me on some days when I'm water-logged due to carbs or whatever and my BMI will be over 25, which means I'm supposedly overweight. I think not.

I couldn't agree more. My weight will swing 2-3 lbs easily from salt/water retention, and on the flip side underhydration. And, muscles will hold onto water as a healing reaction - so, a hard workout will cause weight *gain* sometimes.

I've read that the waist/hip ratio is a much better indicator of whether you are overweight.....I believe it's around 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men as the 'ideal' (higher is worse). Though, I question even this parameter since if you're built kinda like a pencil (hipless, like me) then this calculation would seem to indicate that I needed to get thinner to get a better ratio. When in actual fact it would be nigh impossible for me to get any thinner around the waist without removing some ribs!!

Waist to hip ratios doesn't work for me as I've got too much muscle, and hipless. According to the ratio, I'm 26% fat (and thats not true, watch my trainer laugh out loud. She thinks I'm 16%, WW scale thinks I'm 19%).

[Joe Dwarf]

What I find frustrating is people with normal build who still deny being "overweight" by BMI calculators and somehow think they are exempt.

The Wiki entry is interesting, particularly the "limitations and shortcomings" section. I note that author(s) disagree with you on the frame size thing, specifying that not taking frame size into account as a limitation.

[PinkLady]

Waist to hip ratios doesn't work for me as I've got too much muscle, and hipless. According to the ratio, I'm 26% fat (and thats not true, watch my trainer laugh out loud. She thinks I'm 16%, WW scale thinks I'm 19%).

I would dearly LOVE an easy at-home way to measure body fat. It really is the most useful figure, but so darned difficult to measure! I have one of those Tanita scales - according to that thing, I'm around 13-16% on any given day. Erm, I doubt that, but 16-18% is probably about right. I'm sooooo curious what the actual figure is! It used to read 27%, so it certainly is going in the right direction. I've got one of those caliper things too, but it's too dependent on the technique of the person using it, so also not accurate for me.

[Ken B]

I am happy with my height/weight ratio. 5'11.5" and 205 lbs. I suppose that weighing 15-20 lbs less would make me a mean, lean , running machine but at my tender age ( 68) I am not about to forego one of my basic pleasures in life - food!

[Jo-Jo]

According to the UK article I should be an elite and going to the Olympics given my height and body weight.
WTF happened