423,000 lbs. That is the amount of weight you must lift in a 4 hour marathon for every 10 lbs of additional body weight you carry. How did I get there?Simple:
My hopeful marathon time: 4 hours (240 minutes)
Hopeful cadence: 90 (180 steps per minute)
240 minutes x 180 steps x 10 lbs = 432,000
So the human body actually lifts almost a half-million pounds of weight per 10 lbs of body mass over a 4 hour marathon at a typical race pace. That is a freaking LOT of weight! Now it makes PERFECT sense why fast people are so skinny! That is also an awful lot of stress on your bones and knees.
So the way I look at it, I have a couple of options:
a. Run faster (which will reduce my total minutes on the road and fewer pounds)
b. Lose more weight (which will probably result in the above)
Option B seems to make the most sense, since the more weight I lose, the less stress on my body and the faster I will be able to run, which exponentially decreases stress on my body since I'm on the road for less time... Ow. I think I hurt my brain. Kind of like thinking about the butterfly effect with time travel.
In any case, I'm down from 218 to 186. Considering I'm currently a slow runner (10+ minute miles for distance) that puts me down over 1.5 MILLION LBS I won't be carrying through the marathon part of Lake Placid.
Pretty amazing when you consider the numbers. So the way I look at it, I only have another half million pounds to go!
I understand your point, a little extra weight is a lot of extra work.
ReplyDeleteCheck that math. 180 steps per minute? Yes, I regularly do 90 rpm on the bike, which I get it, x 2 is 180 steps (one for each foot). But I'm not sure my average cadence is that high for whole marathon. Maybe more like 120 to 140.
Nonetheless, still a little extra weight would be a lot of extra work.
It's fuzzy math :). I've worked on my cadence quite a bit and average around 83 (and I'm a slow runner). So I'm at 166... I watch the IM recaps and those guys are closer to 180. It is just stupid math play that certainly may not have the profound effect on running the numbers would suggest, but I sure as hell am having an easier time doing it at 185 versus 220 :). Thanks for the input!
ReplyDelete