[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
But 5 miles is hardly anything. I used to do that distance for my morning “fun run” back when I was 145lbs. [/quote]
That was exactly my point.
How much muscle did you have at 145?
[quote]forlife wrote:
How much muscle did you have at 145?[/quote]
Less than you’d think. At 6’2" 145, I still had no visible abs. I was bony as hell, though I seemed to carry more fat than other sub 150ers.
[quote]forlife wrote:
How much muscle did you have at 145?[/quote]
This is a joke, right?
[quote]:
But 5 miles is hardly anything. I used to do that distance for my morning “fun run” back when I was 145lbs. [/quote]
Exactly. I used to run between 3 and 5 miles every morning when I was 200lbs.
However, that might seem like a lot to someone who doesn’t run or do much cardio.
Granted it won’t help you to gain any mass, but not everyone wants to just gain as much mass as possible.
[quote]Scott aka Rice wrote:
mithious wrote:
WRONG. I’m constantly impressed at the out of shape bodybuilders out there… They look good, but they can barely climb a flight of stairs. Which in my mind, should a a sin.
Most bodybuilders do some kind of cardio, even if it’s walking or the stair climber machine. I’d like to know where you got this information that they can barely climb a flight of stairs. You make it sound as if they walk to the gym from their car and are out of breath. God forbid the free-weights are on the second floor.[/quote]
Aw come on! I’m not saying bodybuilders in general are out of shape, but yes, I’ve seen guys huff and puff just to get to second floor. Anyway, that’s what I’m referring to. It should be a SIN to be an out of shape bodybuilder.
My favorite is the big smelly bastard that goes outside for a smoke halfway through his workout.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
forlife wrote:
How much muscle did you have at 145?
This is a joke, right?[/quote]
I was asking the question to make a point: at his height, he was skeletal running marathons at 145. That is what I’m trying to avoid!
As long as you guys don’t think I’ll lose muscle by training 5 miles a few times each week, I’ll go ahead and do it.
To the original poster: Do the run. I have a very similar body type to yours (5’ 10’, 190lbs) I just ran the Boston Marathon after doing a military pentathlon two days before and have lost very little of my mass.
I trained by running upwards of 60 miles a week, lifting 3 times, swimming twice or so, and doing pushups/pullups military type workouts 5 days a week.
This summer I got into running and ran roughly 40 miles a week, lifting 3 times a week, and managed to still make big muscle gains.
Now I’m training for a 50 mile run and have no problem maintaining muscle. You will feel better than you ever have once you get into running shape. And running does not force you to retain all your body fat.
If you do long runs that is exactly what your body uses for energy after about 20 minutes. So do the run, it will benefit you and you will love it.
Good to hear, bigquig. Maybe it was because I was cutting at the time, but I tried increasing my cardio 1Q this year and didn’t like the results. I leaned out which was great, but I also noticed a loss of muscle mass despite continuing to pump iron. I guess you have to find the right balance between eating and working out in order to retain muscle mass with higher cardio levels.
[quote]Nothingface wrote:
HJLau75 wrote:
Nothingface wrote:
On a side note, running athletics should be divided into weight classes just the same as strength athletics are.
In running it is the opposite. The smaller guy is generally going to be a better runner. Having less mass is an advantage.
Not a good idea.
Having weight classes for running is like having weight classes for swimming.
Completely useless and stupid. It’s either you are the fastest or not, who cares how much you weigh.
Also, runners have told me that some races do have a heavier weight class. They class it “Clydesdales” or something lame like that. So even runners recognize the difference.
Is there a difference between a 165 pounder squatting 500 lbs. and a 265 pounder squatting 500 lbs.? Of course. It is more impressive that the smaller guy could lift the same weight as the bigger guy. Is there a difference between a 165 pounder running a 3 hour marathon and a 265 pounder running a 3 hour marathon? Of course. It is more impressive that the bigger guy could run the marathon in the same time as the smaller guy.
It’s no coincidence that the top marathoners are under 150 pounds. That endeavor lends itself to light bodyweight, and does not require any significant muscle mass.
It’s also no coincidence that the guys who lift the most are over 250 pounds. Those endeavors lend themselves to heavy bodyweight and requires a very high level of muscle mass.
[/quote]
It is all based on BMI in running. That is why there are no weight classes. And if you are talking about fat people running. Let the fatties run in a different class. They are not runners.
cardiovascular activity is known to increase the number of capilaries per given area in a muscle. capilaries are small blood vessels which supply oxygen and nutrients to our muscles.
more of them means quicker recover rates. quicker recovery means training more. training more equals bigger.
im an ex runner(Knee injury). just take in more calories, and dont do blind miles. your a weight guy, if u can run less and make the same gains it means less calories wasted on something ur not gonna need to do outside of this one race. do your homework and train smart.
running 45 mins three times a weak well not yeild the same gains as speed work, intervals and hill training once session each a week.
Do the run.
Five miles is not a huge amount and does not have to get in the way of your training. What, an hour tops on your non-lifting days, perhaps?
Obviously, it is easy to burn up surplus calories needed to get larger. But you sound like you want to do it, and athletic events - even the often derided distance run - is good for your inner sportsman.
Oh, and many big guys do avoid distance running because of the problems of stress on joints. That wouldn’t seem to be a deterrent in your case, so run and eat away.
Paralysis by analysis… Jesus.
Just run the thing, it’s only 5 miles and it is a fun thing to do with your mates. Stop being so fucking precious about it. Just up your calories a bit if you’re that worried.
There are shitloads of fairly big dudes out there (a lot bigger than you) who run quite a bit further than 5 miles - special forces anyone?
You’ll likely improve your general fitness, feel great, lean out a bit and have fun.
5 miles really isn’t that far, you could probably do it within a couple of weeks training if you put your mind to it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve been lifting weights for 4 years, but haven’t done much aerobic exercise (maybe 10 mins after my regular workout). I’m happy with the goals I’ve achieved so far.
I have some friends that want to do a relay marathon at the end of the year, where we each run 5 miles. Our target is to do the 5 miles in 40 minutes.
My question is: would participating in this sabotage my goals? I don’t want to cut back on my weight lifting, so if I start running 30-45 mins 3x week on top of my regular workouts, will my muscles catabolize?[/quote]
of course you could. I run 5 times a week, 2 miles in 16 minutes followed by 14 minutes of incline walking (20 degrees, 2.5 mph). On the weekend I run 3-4 miles at a 8 min mile pace. I deadlift 405 lbs at 194 lbs, and bp 325. If I really put some work on the bp I could do more, but I don’t as I consider myself a bodybuilder, not a powerlifter. I don’t squat. Yeah, yeah, good for me.
Why do I run? I am in the Air Force Reserve, which requires me to pass a pt test and I want to do the best I can on the 1.5 mile run. I can only run an 11 flat now, but I want to eventually run a 9 something. I want to be the best I can and I want to protect the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.
Just make sure you account for the extra activity in your diet, and you should do fine.
[quote]HJLau75 wrote:
Nothingface wrote:
On a side note, running athletics should be divided into weight classes just the same as strength athletics are.
In running it is the opposite. The smaller guy is generally going to be a better runner. Having less mass is an advantage.
Not a good idea.
Having weight classes for running is like having weight classes for swimming.
Completely useless and stupid. It’s either you are the fastest or not, who cares how much you weigh.[/quote]
Already here, and most triathlons have them. Men over 200 race as “Clydesdales” and women over 150 race as “Athenas.”
Neither useless nor stupid as it gets more people to participate. Unless you’re over 6’6", you’ll eventually lose weight and move into the regular age groups.
Check this guy out:
http://www.nvo.com/sportquestdir/gogginstestimonial/
6’1", 190. I’m sure that 190 may seem “small” to many people here, considering this guy raced in an Ultraman, which is like a double Ironman distance triathlon, and managed to finish 3rd, I’d say that he was able to maintain a good amount of his muscle mass.
I agree with Zap - again. This whole “cardio causes muscle loss” is, for the majority of people, an excuse not to do cardio.
[quote]MikeTheBear said:
“6’1”, 190. I’m sure that 190 may seem “small” to many people here, considering this guy raced in an Ultraman, which is like a double Ironman distance triathlon, and managed to finish 3rd, I’d say that he was able to maintain a good amount of his muscle mass."
[/quote]
I met David Goggins in Boston after the marathon last year. Before ultramarathon became his thing, he actually was a 285 lb. powerlifter, he cut 95 lbs in about a year to get ready for Badwater. You should see the stretch marks all over him.
Still though, I see your point. He has managed to maintain a lot of muscle mass, but he has to to be able to do his job. (Navy SEAL). He said he used to think runners were pussies, then he ran his first 100 miler.
[quote]bigquig wrote:
MikeTheBear said:
“6’1”, 190. I’m sure that 190 may seem “small” to many people here, considering this guy raced in an Ultraman, which is like a double Ironman distance triathlon, and managed to finish 3rd, I’d say that he was able to maintain a good amount of his muscle mass."
I met David Goggins in Boston after the marathon last year. Before ultramarathon became his thing, he actually was a 285 lb. powerlifter, he cut 95 lbs in about a year to get ready for Badwater. You should see the stretch marks all over him.
Still though, I see your point. He has managed to maintain a lot of muscle mass, but he has to to be able to do his job. (Navy SEAL). He said he used to think runners were pussies, then he ran his first 100 miler. [/quote]
Did you ask him if he still lifted and what were his strength levels?
Endurance athletes are most certainly not pussies.
[quote]bigquig wrote:
I met David Goggins in Boston after the marathon last year. Before ultramarathon became his thing, he actually was a 285 lb. powerlifter, he cut 95 lbs in about a year to get ready for Badwater. You should see the stretch marks all over him.
Still though, I see your point. He has managed to maintain a lot of muscle mass, but he has to to be able to do his job. (Navy SEAL). He said he used to think runners were pussies, then he ran his first 100 miler. [/quote]
Powerlifter to ultramarathoner! Wow!
Don’t see that everyday.
MikeTheBear said:
“Did you ask him if he still lifted and what were his strength levels?”
He does still lift and likes that more than endurance sports. He actually claims to not enjoy endurance running, cycling etc. and he does it because he likes pushing himself. I know his bench dropped from 435 to 285 or so, aside from that, I’m not sure.
I’m sure his pushup and pullup numbers went up but its hard to tell. He said he’ll do 1000 pullups in one workout. With that much running, strength and size gains are tough to make but I’ve found that my pushups have gone up because of it and recovery time has gone down.