how is cardiovascular condition affected by weight?

[Stewart14]

Is it possible to be in great cardiovascular shape and health and still be a bit overweight? Not obese and not eating bad food, just if you do your cardio but love to eat, is this a bad situation? Or does being lean and in great cardio shape go hand in hand?

 

[ceazur]

No sir, You can be "overweight" and still be in great cardiovascular health. I know big healthy linemen ,who can run at good paces for several miles ,but yet they're fat as shit and eat like champions. Cardio can be used to burn calories, tone ones body, a hobby, or even just overall fitness. I don't care if your overweight, and eat 5k calories a day, everyone who is allowed by doctors to do cardio, should...

 

[Stewart14]

thanks man. Never thought of the linemen example, however, I have to believe that they are extreme cases and can't be healthy long term. I guess I was asking because I really want to incorporate a lot more cardio into my training, and I just have an eating disorder where I love to eat , and I don't want my efforts to go to waste.

I feel weird after doing an intense cardio session then pigging out for dinner!

 

[gtbmed]

Ever watched a marathon?

 

[stepaukas]

ceazur
whats a good pace, and how many miles to these gigantic linemen that you know run?

just curious on the good pace you say they run.
thanks

 

[ceazur]

About 11 - 12 Minute miles.. And they were running laps around the football field on the track. I don't know how much that ran ,but I'm sure it was 8 laps or more, with 4 laps being a mile.

You ask that like I would lie sir?

 

[Stewart14]

Ever watched a marathon?

sure, what do scrawny, emaciated runners have to do with this?

 

[gtbmed]

sure, what do scrawny, emaciated runners have to do with this?

Ever seen how many fat people run marathons? Or seen them biking on the weekends in the summer?

 

[sassy69]

How about all the chunky chicks teaching aerobics classes or hauling ass in spin classes? Its friggen amazing what they can and I get anxiety attacks just thinking about spin classes.

I think you can be cardiovascularly conditioned for anything, but w/ the excess weight, I think we know its not optimal for the body running efficiently (i.e. lean muscle mass promotes better fat burning).

 

[Kathybird]

I'm heavy and I can run a 5K no problem. 5 miles wears me out for a day after though.

 

[Built]

I was a fat jogger for almost ten years. I stopped when I got up to 170 lbs; 40% bodyfat and on Metformin for the metabolic syndrome.

I don't run anymore. Fattest I get up to now is 20-22%, and that's end-of-bulk.

 

[jmorrison]

There is a 55 year old safety rep on my rig right now that is probably 25%+ BF and the other morning he ran on the treadmill like the terminator for the entire hour I was in the gym. He was running when I got there, and running when I left.

I for one welcome our new fat alien overlords.

 

[Triple Threat]

About 11 - 12 Minute miles.. And they were running laps around the football field on the track. I don't know how much that ran ,but I'm sure it was 8 laps or more, with 4 laps being a mile.

You call 11-12 minute miles running? I call it a fast walk. 9-10 is a slow jog. You need to be under 9 min miles before you can even think about calling it running.

 

[ceazur]

You call 11-12 minute miles running? I call it a fast walk. 9-10 is a slow jog. You need to be under 9 min miles before you can even think about calling it running.

I'm talking about 250lb 5'10'' Linemen sometimes in pads running after practice.

I on the other hand run a 1 - 1/2 miles in 9 Minutes...

 

[Stewart14]

I'm talking about 250lb 5'10'' Linemen sometimes in pads running after practice.

I on the other hand run a 1 - 1/2 miles in 9 Minutes...

That doesn't seem all that impressive to me. I am 5'10" and about 215 and I can probably jog a mile in 8-9 minutes and I don't consider myself in good shape by any means. This is a football player you're talking about here, I'd expect a lot more.

Now, if you were talking about a 6'3" 350 pound lineman, then maybe I would be more impressed.

 

[ceazur]

That doesn't seem all that impressive to me. I am 5'10" and about 215 and I can probably jog a mile in 8-9 minutes and I don't consider myself in good shape by any means. This is a football player you're talking about here, I'd expect a lot more.

Now, if you were talking about a 6'3" 350 pound lineman, then maybe I would be more impressed.

i wasn't speaking good about these people lmao.. These are lazy fat boys at a mississippi community college. I was giving you some inspiration that if these obeice cigarette smoking cupcake eating college kids can do it then you should be able to top them..

 

[Phineas]

Weight doesn't necessarily correlate to cardio condition -- nor does body fat.

I use to be a long distance runner. To show my point, my 10k race times in my best years was in the lower 41 minutes, which is really good (I did hit 39:17 once in 2008 when I was running less and working out with machines (before I was BB'ing) more and a bit heavier and stronger). When I was doing the 41 minutes, which was also at the time I was training for marathons and half marathons (even running a time in a 2007 marathon that qualified me for the world's most prestigous marathon besides the Olympics) I was about 140-145 lbs @ approx 8% BF.

Now, I've been BB'ing for over a year and a half. I'm 195 lbs @ about 15% BF. I have a great deal more weight, most of which is muscle, but my BF is also nearly twice what it was as a runner.

I just competed in a 10km race last weekend. It's the only one I do anymore. This year I ran a 44:40. Not as great as my previous times, but pretty fucking amazing considering how heavier I am and how little I run relative to the old days.

Running was my excluse sport. I did some minor weight lifting with machines, but was always in a calorie deficit. Even though I was exercising so much, I'm now in much better balance. The intense, varied strength training/power lifting, proper diet, and lower volume/higher intensity cardio has resulted in me being better balanced and almost just as good of a runner as when I was doing hardcore mileage.

Also, I did most of my training for the race in about 5 weeks. Up until then I was running only once a week to allow me more healing time for my squats.

What does this tell you about the relationship between weight/fat and cardio condition?

Everyone at my work is so shocked at how well I ran in the race. They all know me as the guy in the kitchen every 30 minutes eating the tuna spinach salads and baked potatoes and eggs all day, and now that I've showed them I can still push it hard in running they just don't get it.

 

[stepaukas]

phineas
not one at all to bash anyone, but please dont say you were a great runner because you ran a 39:xx 10k.
excluding the world class runners,
29:00-31:00 is great.
31:00-33:00 is very good.
33:00-35:00 good
35:00 37:00 average
37:00-39:00 below average
39:00+ at least you're trying..
got to admire the guys running 40-50-60 minutes. i do..at least they are trying.
but please dont say that running a 39:00 10k qualifies you as a great runner..

not everyone is a great runner

 

[jmorrison]

You have lost your fucking mind. A 30 would be a little less than 5 minute miles. You are saying that the AVERAGE runner takes a little over 6 miles in 35 minutes? What the fuck are you smoking?

Even in the military when I was SO our good runners were running 6 minute miles. And thats 2 miles, and these guys were fucking FAST. Not olympic class, but fast as shit, and certainly not average.

 

[Phineas]

phineas
not one at all to bash anyone, but please dont say you were a great runner because you ran a 39:xx 10k.
excluding the world class runners,
29:00-31:00 is great.
31:00-33:00 is very good.
33:00-35:00 good
35:00 37:00 average
37:00-39:00 below average
39:00+ at least you're trying..
got to admire the guys running 40-50-60 minutes. i do..at least they are trying.
but please dont say that running a 39:00 10k qualifies you as a great runner..

not everyone is a great runner

Fuck you man, that's a great time. You show me how many people can do that. Or, how about a 3:08:50 marathon? Less than 10% of marathon runners ever qualify for Boston.

Of course elites are better. They're elites, for fucks sake! I was just a guy in my late-teens who loved running.

Also, I wasn't necessarily "braggging". The thread is asking for a connection between BF/body weight and cardio health. I used the example of my years as a runner to show that, even though my bodyfat was less and my weight drastically less and I ran ridiculous volume, I can run almost as fast over short distances now. So, I'm saying this isn't necessarily a connection.

Body fat can be deceiving. I'm around 15%, but I'm a hell of a lot healthier than a lot of guys at 3%. It's all how you've trained your body and manipulated diet. In my case, the only reason I'm not lean is because I purposely take in more calories than my body needs so that I can build new muscle tissue. However, the calories that have made that fat weren't deep fried this and chocolate that. A typical day in my diet is eggs, whole wheat bagels, spinach salads, tuna, avocado, pumpkin seeds, broccoli, baked potatoes, whole wheat pasta, omega oil, chicken, oats, organic yogurt, cottage cheese, whey isolate, skim milk, and lots of water.

I eat quite a bit, but I eat damn healthy and ALL real, whole foods. No granola bar and cereal shit.

And once again, 39 minutes is fucking impressive, so fuck off. You have a terrible idea of what "good running" is. I think if a person can even finish it that's impressive. That's a long way to run! But seriously, 35-37 is average. You're a fucking retatd.

Take a look at the results for a typical 10 k race. In a race of 10,000 people maybe the top 100 will be sub-39.

 

[NeilPearson]

phineas
not one at all to bash anyone, but please dont say you were a great runner because you ran a 39:xx 10k.
excluding the world class runners,
29:00-31:00 is great.
31:00-33:00 is very good.
33:00-35:00 good
35:00 37:00 average
37:00-39:00 below average
39:00+ at least you're trying..
got to admire the guys running 40-50-60 minutes. i do..at least they are trying.
but please dont say that running a 39:00 10k qualifies you as a great runner..

not everyone is a great runner

This seems a little out of whack. I'm not a runner so I don't really know what are good times but this site has race results.

Online Race Results | Home

The Two Harbors, MN May Day 10k was won with a time of 40:46
Cince De Mayo 10k was won with 35:10 but 3rd place was 38:57. 4th was 39:54 and 5th 41:25

Most of these races have people taking longer than 39:00 placing in the top 5 or at least top 10.

For the average runner, what's the average time for a 10km finish?
What is the average time for a 10k run for an intermediate runner? | Answerbag
What are the average times to finish a 5K or 10K race? - Yahoo! Answers
What are some average 10k times? - Yahoo! Answers

It looks like 39:00 is a lot better than what an average runner can do

 

[Kathybird]

You call 11-12 minute miles running? I call it a fast walk. 9-10 is a slow jog. You need to be under 9 min miles before you can even think about calling it running.

Hey! Bite me. I'm 5'1. My legs are short.

 

[obb4d]

I know plenty of smaller people who struggle to run times around the 40's and some those who are on the larger side are storming it easily!

It obviously not the best physical shape to be in for a pro runner - but the great thing is.... you dont want to be a pro runner do you? (please say no). lol.

so its fine have those extra pounds... and my god yes food - never say no to food. haha.

 

[Phineas]

You call 11-12 minute miles running? I call it a fast walk. 9-10 is a slow jog. You need to be under 9 min miles before you can even think about calling it running.

You can't generalize what is "running" versus "jogging". It's relative to everyone's abilities.

Just like with lifting and the term "heavy". I hate it when guys give a newb a program and say what weight to lift. Who are you to determine what is heavy? Just because to the lifter with 10 years experience a 600 lb deadlift for 5 reps is heavy doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. What about the total beginner? To him a 100 lb deadlift for 1 rep might be heavy.

It's all about relative effort. It goes for running. What is fast running to one person might be jogging to another, but so what? That "slower" person is exerting a great deal more relative effort, and are thus running relatively faster.

 

[stepaukas]

phineas
dont be so angry...
calm down bro..

when i was running a 15:03 5k, getting eaten alive by tons of guys , where did that rank me?
average in my book.
when i was running a 4:19 indoor mile, at age 35, getting eaten alive by guys running 4:08-4:18, where does that rank me?
average in my book.
when i was 1.4 seconds off the age division american record in the indoor 1000, and the top guys were 5-6-7 seconds faster, where does that rank me?
average in my book.
what you say, the masses in a local 10k are all in the 39-40minute range, with lots even farther back, whats that saying?
it says everybodys trying, but arnt fast runners.
world record
26:xx
star college runners 28-29
me 37 years ago 31:54
you and the masses 39:xx
the guys trying(weekend warrior) 50 minutes
nothing wrong with your 39. rank yourself ..

 

[Phineas]

phineas
dont be so angry...
calm down bro..

when i was running a 15:03 5k, getting eaten alive by tons of guys , where did that rank me?
average in my book.
when i was running a 4:19 indoor mile, at age 35, getting eaten alive by guys running 4:08-4:18, where does that rank me?
average in my book.
when i was 1.4 seconds off the age division american record in the indoor 1000, and the top guys were 5-6-7 seconds faster, where does that rank me?
average in my book.
what you say, the masses in a local 10k are all in the 39-40minute range, with lots even farther back, whats that saying?
it says everybodys trying, but arnt fast runners.
world record
26:xx
star college runners 28-29
me 37 years ago 31:54
you and the masses 39:xx
the guys trying(weekend warrior) 50 minutes
nothing wrong with your 39. rank yourself ..

Your logic is some of the most ass-backwards retarded I've ever seen....

The way you see it, when there's an Olympic running event, and there's let's say 15 competitors...obviously one will win, one will come second, one will come in 15th, and everyone in between. Does that mean the guy in 15th is a bad runner? Hell no, he's one of the best in the world, that's why he's in the Olympics for christ sake.

The same goes for regular road races. It's not like there's going to be one elite or excellent runner. There's usually a large competitive class as well as all sorts of other levels. Just because some are more elite than others doesn't mean the guy running 33 as opposed to 29 is "average".

Whether you agree or not, sub-40 is impressive. Times around 25 are the best in the world. Running sub-30 would get you sponsored and elite seeding in major events. Running low-30s is a transition into elite. It's fucking amazing. Anything in the 30s is extremely impressive.

I don't give a flying fuck if you ran whatever time. Maybe you have some insecurities and think your times were "average" because guys were passing you (I can't believe how stupid your argument is) but they're not. Those are amazing times.

I think you're just riteous. Take a look at some race results from a typical road race and tell me 35 is "average".

 

[stepaukas]

dont want to argue with you bro.
i'm just saying that your original post said "great" next to 39:00. thats not great.

as far as the olympic final in the 10k, first thru 15 are elite.
i have no idea what you're saying that the last place is average?

your original post was re:your great times..
last place in the olympic 10k is still running a world class time.
39:00, your time, is not great.
i admire guys like you, lifting and doing your best running, but the times arnt great like your original post said.
i just come on these boards like you do getting tips and pointers on lifting, but giving pointers to non runners on how to improve.
who cares anyway.. i havent ran since 1990. i was just an ok runner when i did run.

 

[Phineas]

dont want to argue with you bro.
i'm just saying that your original post said "great" next to 39:00. thats not great.

as far as the olympic final in the 10k, first thru 15 are elite.
i have no idea what you're saying that the last place is average?

your original post was re:your great times..
last place in the olympic 10k is still running a world class time.
39:00, your time, is not great.
i admire guys like you, lifting and doing your best running, but the times arnt great like your original post said.
i just come on these boards like you do getting tips and pointers on lifting, but giving pointers to non runners on how to improve.
who cares anyway.. i havent ran since 1990. i was just an ok runner when i did run.

Just because a very small percentage of runners can run the mid- to low-30s doesn't make 39 an average time. I don't give a fuck what you think it IS an excellent time.

You're clearly not objective in this discussion. Despite what you think, an "average" 10k time is more around 50-55 minutes. And, I don't care if you ran whatever time and were passed by people, that doesn't make your time average. Tell that to the 95% of the race's participants finishing way behind you.

I think you're just a douch who searches this forum for any instance where you can drop your running opinions and mention how you were so great, but you hide it with fake modesty. We have that type on here all the time. "Ohh, my bench is terrible, I can only do 200 lbs for 3 reps." Get over yourself, most people on the planet can't fucking do that.

Same with running. Someone in the low-30s for a 10k who says "oh I'm just average" pisses me off. That's not average. You would place in the top few percent of the race. Does that mean that about 1% of the runners are great, 5% is average, and the other 94% are terrible? No. Because the average would fall somewhere around where 50% of the runners have finished, which is usually in the mid-50s.

I wasn't trying to stroke my own cock when I mentioned my time, but I AM proud of it, and rightfully so. And, it really pisses me off when assholes like you come on here and try and piss on my pride by implying you're way better and that my accomplishment was nothing special.

By the way, this thread was SUPPOSED to be about discussing the connection between bodyweight and cardio condition. All I did was use an example of how little my performance changed in cardio despite a drastic change in muscle mass and training programs. You came in and turned this into an ego show for yourself so you could tell everyone "ooo ya no that's nothing I ran faster, but like whatever big deal...I don't think I'm hot shit". I read through your bullshit.

39 minutes is not world class, you're right. 26 minutes is about the world record. By your logic there's only 13 minutes between WORLD'S ABSOLUTE BEST and "AT LEAST YOU'RE TRYING".

Congratulations, you are officially the most retarded member on this board.

 

[stepaukas]

wasnt making fun of your running time at all.

 

[Built]

Just because a very small percentage of runners can run the mid- to low-30s doesn't make 39 an average time. I don't give a fuck what you think it IS an excellent time.

You're clearly not objective in this discussion. Despite what you think, an "average" 10k time is more around 50-55 minutes. And, I don't care if you ran whatever time and were passed by people, that doesn't make your time average. Tell that to the 95% of the race's participants finishing way behind you.

I think you're just a douch who searches this forum for any instance where you can drop your running opinions and mention how you were so great, but you hide it with fake modesty. We have that type on here all the time. "Ohh, my bench is terrible, I can only do 200 lbs for 3 reps." Get over yourself, most people on the planet can't fucking do that.

Same with running. Someone in the low-30s for a 10k who says "oh I'm just average" pisses me off. That's not average. You would place in the top few percent of the race. Does that mean that about 1% of the runners are great, 5% is average, and the other 94% are terrible? No. Because the average would fall somewhere around where 50% of the runners have finished,

Nope. That's the median.

The average is what happens when you add 'em all up, and divide by how many there are.

If the distribution of running times is symmetric, then yes, they're the same. I have no reason to suspect that running times are distributed symmetrically.

For one, this is not a random selection of all people who run 10K; rather, it is a self-selected group of people who elect to participate in 10K races. For another, the rules change if a prize is involved. Large prizes draw competitors, where "fun-runs" draw crowds.
http://centerspace.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CDF-of-running-data.png

Another problem with competitive racing is the application of cutoff times, which eliminate the long tail which would otherwise occur in the distribution
M O B J E C T I V I S T: Marathon Dispersion

Furthermore, simply looking at some actual figures, we see the following distribution of times from a 10K in Ottawa last year, with over 8000 participants: Ottawa Race Weekend

minutes count proportion
30 13 0.2%
40 166 2.0%
50 1039 12.4%
60 2754 33.0%
70 2441 29.2%
80 1079 12.9%
90 386 4.6%
100 229 2.7%
110 165 2.0%
120 60 0.7%
130 14 0.2%

The average finish time was 63 minutes. The median finish time was 61 minutes. This means half finished in under 61 minutes, and half finished in over 61 minutes, but there were some stragglers who brought up the mean.

Note that of the 8,346 finishers, fewer than 15% finished in under 50 minutes.

[/geek]

39 minutes is not world class, you're right. 26 minutes is about the world record. By your logic there's only 13 minutes between WORLD'S ABSOLUTE BEST and "AT LEAST YOU'RE TRYING".

As a former 70-minute 10k gal, trust me, I was trying. 39 minutes for a 10k is faster than most folks could manage, no matter how hard they tried.