How much do you weigh? (Page 3)

I love this thread and the topic has been in the forefront of my mind.  In fact, I made a $500 bet with my wife last night for the first to lose 10 pounds.  Either way, I think I win.  I've really had a hard time dropping the last pounds that I want to and maybe this will help really motivate me.

I'm 5'9'' and 170 pounds.  I was 176 at Thankgiving and have been as low as 165 last summer during HIM/IM training.  My problem is my diet.  Specifically, nightly grazing and I don't like most fruits and veggies.

I know I can run faster if I lose the weight (as well as reduce injury risk) and I work so hard with my training that I just need to adjust my diet.  I've done a few things already but things are going to have to change pretty dramatically to get to 160.  My body fat is about 15% with most excess around my waist.  Any specific recommendations would be appreciated.

5'8 and 147 lbs. I weigh about the same as I did before I got off the couch and start exercising several years but my 147 now looks a whole lot better than my 147 then.

I wouldn't mind losing the 7 and getting down to 140.

5'10" 135 lb female that I seem to maintain pretty consistently. My speeds have increased as I've dropped in weight from a high of 175 lb but not due to weight loss and instead just due to training. I've gone from 12:03 min/mile to 8:41 min/mile for 5k distances over 2 years. 

My husband on the other hand has dropped from a high of 245 lbs to now about 180-185 lbs for a 5'10" male. He's found that he does feel much lighter while running and believes a big part in him getting faster is dropping more weight/excess muscle. He currently runs right under an 18 min 5k. 

I think losing weight definitely helps increase speed for most but on the other hand some of us are slow regardless it seems. 

I have no doubt that loosing a few pounds will help with running.

I borrowed a friends jogger stroller so I could get some extra run time in outside. (I totally hate treadmills).

The stroller + my 2yr old was about +40lbs.

Pushing that thing for 3.5 miles was SO HARD. I was hoping to do a longer 5mi run but wow, my legs burned and my arms killed from keeping the stroller centered. I had to walk up a few hills too :P

@ 5' 118lbs, I hope to be in the ranks of weight loss at some point.

Keep up the good work folks!

I'm between 5'8" and 5'9" and about 140lbs. 

Race weight is about 135 - though it doesn't really matter, I'm still going to be slow... running and I will always have a mutual hate going on. 

Currently at 6'6" and ~ 200lbs (between 198lbs and 204lbs from day to day).

The "Lore of Running" talks about that body mass is the main hindrance for heat dissipation. Excess body heat causes the body to slow down in order to avoid overheating.

The body losses heat through surface area, hence the slimmer you are the better the ratio of mass to surface area.

Considering 80% of energy is lost in heat and only 20% used for movement (when running) puts the need for low weight into perspective, if you want to be fast.

This all sounds too familiar.  I hit 180 at Christmas (summer at 173).  I want to be at 165, but no doubt diet is holding me back.  I sat down with an excel file the other night and figured out that taking 25lbs off myself+my bike gets me to crushing my training partners on Strava climbs.   I'm sure my running pace would also drop like a rock, but right now it is all about W/kg on the bike.

From an old post on ST:

It's really quite easy to do the math yourself.
The metabolic cost of running has been posted here many times before:

Assume you are 200 lbs and run 8 min/mile
200 lbs => 90.9 kg
210 lbs => 95.4 kg
8 min/mile => 7.5 mph -- interpolate 1.67 cals/kg mile

If you assume that your rate of energy expenditure stays constant...
In 1 hour...
(7.5 miles)(90.9 kg)*1.67 = 1138 cals are burned.

Rearrange and solve for distance with the extra weight...
(1138 cals) / (95.4 kg)*1.67 = 7.15 miles

8 min miles become 8:24.

Looking at about 2.5 seconds per mile per pound.

6'1 and 160lbs. 

Spent 3 months concentrating on core strength and some crossfit type muscle, which has been good for running, pretty sure my swim would improve with about 10lbs of twinkies.

<sarcasm><being a dick>

So all I need to do to make the US ITU team is starve myself and stop working out! Ballin'. Who knew that fitness had nothing to do with it!?

</being a dick></sarcasm>

More than I want to but less than I used to!  for me it's more about how I 'feel' rather than the scale - when I tell people my weight they are horrified, I'm heavy, my family are all heavy - we look like we'll be 140lbs but we're nearer 155lbs. 

I'm two dress sizes down from two years ago when I started masters swim squad.  My eating habits have hardly changed - I'm a little more conscious of what I'm eating and aim for more 'real' food.  I don't really deny myself much at all if i want it I'll eat it!

No offence, but I recently read a study of perceived normal weight:

http://christakis.med.harvard.edu/pdf/publications/articles/058.pdf

They BMI as reference for classifying people as normal/over/underweight or obese, but more interesting is how this correlates with the individual perception. I recall also reading somewhere about the evolution of perceived normal weight concluding that it had increased with the increased average weight, but can't find the link now.

Sure BMI has some shortcomings, it's simplified but a good guide for the general population, and the simplicity means that it's easy to deploy on a wide scale.

Obviously such a simplified model will fail in a number of cases, most importantly it fails to identify the "normal weight obese", and the extremes of short/dense frame and high/thin frame people where results does not match that of other methods. 

But most of us are normal I think it's a good reference. I think it's naïve simply to discard the result with reference to some of these know limitations, because the result doesn't fit your own perception. Typical example of denial. Do you know you fall in those exceptions? Rather, check against some other method before drawing conclusions.

ETA: The problem with "normal weight obese" is that since the BMI shows normal people usually just accept the result, whereas in the other two cases, the result comes against what you expect and you should check again using some other method.

I've always been scrawny for my size (5'7"1/2) and usually weigh around 115-117--very small frame, lean.  This is the weight I've done my best races at but I think it's just that with my body type and metabolism, the amount of training I need to do to run well causes me to be that weight. Don't think it's true that lighter is always better--everyone's body has a different baseline. I definitely have raced women who are considerably bigger, and faster, than me!

I'm nowhere near the speed I was when I was younger, not due to weight gain but injuries and job demands that keep me from doing much run training. I've never been able to gain or lose weight thru diet--it just seems to come as a result of what I do training-wise. If very little, then 125-130; if some training, say 5 or 6 hours a week, then 120-125; if pretty intense, 10+ hours a week, then I weigh 115-117. The most I ever weighed was 135--I had mono at the time and the fatigue was causing me to crave sweets, which I normally hate.

Actually hoped that tri training would help me put on some muscle and gain a little weight, but it hasn't. Just as when I swam in HS, I've gained a lot of strength but not much muscle mass.  I'm very strong for my size and a good swimmer. I just try to accept my body and its advantages and disadvantages for endurance sports. But still envy women with bigger curves who look better in sleeveless tops!

Right now some 35% of Americans are obese according to BMI.  A study not too long ago used simply body fat and found the number is more like 60%. 

That isn't just missing the extremes.  That is pretty much completely missing the target.  IMO, these determinations should be made on body fat % alone.  Kinda like a power meter - it gets to the nitty gritty pretty quick.