Dumb question

[kentcounty]

I think everybody is aware that starving is a bad idea. Without the necessary protien, carbs and fat your recovery will be impacted upon. If your not recovered well enough, then injury might be just around the corner.


Fat is different to muscle, like the 100m is different to the marathon.

[twhite03]

I think the key here is finding the athletes optimal mass. Unfortunately, there is no definite way to determine this. I would say that in this situation less is not always more. This reminds me of the Barry Ross situation. Personally I don't think Ben, Mo, Dwain, or whoever would have run any faster if they weighed less and I find it woefully irresponsible to make vast generalizations without looking at their training process as a whole. We all know that John Smith would argue that the shorter the dash, the more muscle mass required. Charlie also seems to believe in at least a minimum level (probably more like optimum) of necessary muscle mass, remember "looks right, flies right."

If we are making generalizations here, current anecdotal evidence would seem to show us that a sprinter who is 5'9-5'11 would weigh ,optimally, somewhere in the 165-185 range and a sprinter above 6 ft would be in the 185-205 range.

[mreoyn09]

I think the key here is finding the athletes optimal mass. Unfortunately, there is no definite way to determine this. I would say that in this situation less is not always more. This reminds me of the Barry Ross situation. Personally I don't think Ben, Mo, Dwain, or whoever would have run any faster if they weighed less and I find it woefully irresponsible to make vast generalizations without looking at their training process as a whole. We all know that John Smith would argue that the shorter the dash, the more muscle mass required. Charlie also seems to believe in at least a minimum level (probably more like optimum) of necessary muscle mass, remember "looks right, flies right."

If we are making generalizations here, current anecdotal evidence would seem to show us that a sprinter who is 5'9-5'11 would weigh ,optimally, somewhere in the 165-185 range and a sprinter above 6 ft would be in the 185-205 range.

I agree. Also important to note is that most of these guys are at 5% bf or whatever. So if you're fatter (like me ) than its not likely that you have more than an optimal amount of muscle mass unless you far exceed the general weight ranges you gave.

[kentcounty]

We are a little off the topic. Fat seems to be the central tenet to the discussion.

The more suplus weight you carry the less optimal ability you have to travel over any given distance.

It doesn't matter whether you run 9.9 or 11.9, if your BF isn't as low as it could be you will go faster. There is noway Mo, Dwain, Ben et al could have been leaner when they ran their fastest. Yet running 9.9 when your fat (chunky, high BF, etc) means your guna go quicker when it gets lower!



eg. take the cement filled drums out of the trunk of your car and see how much faster it goes!

[popequique]

I think the key here is finding the athletes optimal mass. Unfortunately, there is no definite way to determine this. I would say that in this situation less is not always more.

Exactly what I have been trying to explain.

[kentcounty]

True, I think it might have been Charlie I have heard say that you need to be as strong as possible. Obviously as light as possible also, but a result of strength and heavy resistance training is muscle mass and thus weight gain.


How much is too much or is enough?


It has also been suggested that the shorter you run the more you can have, and it makes sense that the longer you run the less you need.


At the end of the day, its not about the size of your guns, its the pace of your runs that matters! Who cares what you weight so long as you get down the other end as fast you YOUR body will allow you.

[Senri]

1kg = 0.10 for the 100m



Starvation is the key, yet a very dangerous ingredient!

hahah i gainedmore then 1kg last week and PB'd in the 100m. This theory is bogus

[Davan]

True, I think it might have been Charlie I have heard say that you need to be as strong as possible. Obviously as light as possible also, but a result of strength and heavy resistance training is muscle mass and thus weight gain.


How much is too much or is enough?


It has also been suggested that the shorter you run the more you can have, and it makes sense that the longer you run the less you need.


At the end of the day, its not about the size of your guns, its the pace of your runs that matters! Who cares what you weight so long as you get down the other end as fast you YOUR body will allow you.

Well the shorter the race the more important acceleration is and the more muscle would help (from a general standpoint).

I'd say look at the most successful athletes. Ben, at an extremely low bodyfat, weighed 173lbs in seoul and Mo was probably close to about 180lbs and slightly shorter than Ben. Then you have TMont who had slightly longer relative legs than either and I think slightly taller and he weighed 165lbs. I don't understand where else you are going to minimize size as those are not huge bodyweights.

If all we are saying is get the lowest bf you can without harming performance, then that is a pretty obvious conclusion.

[Davan]

This seems pretty appropriate:

Yup, Barry Ross is right and bloated competitors, Ben and Maurice (by extention, me and John) are wrong. They would have been faster if only they'd had the fortune to be coached by him!
While we were wasting time on trivial matters such as stimulus and distribution of high intensity work over the whole body, he would have restricted training to MSF work and the importance of minimizing mass. (The second point will be proved just as soon as the Olsen twins take over women's sprinting.)
It's the general vs specific arguement and this site has tons of discussion on this topic. The Forum review and Vanc DVDs present the graph with exercises and the percentages of motor units involved in them.
Male vs female strengthening opportunities must be considered as well, where upper body strength potentials vary more widely than lower body potentials. Women have up to 95% of male potential in the lower body vs only 65% to 70% potential in the upper body.

[tamfb]

had bf tested today came in at high 8's, once i start training again i shall drop a couple %'s.