Mark Wetmore is OBSESSED with weight.

consider this wrote:

I read that book plenty of times and it was definitely not a joke. There were multiple instances where Wetmore mentioned that being underweight was underrated.

What's wrong with that advice. It is true. It is just simple physics.

I am Sam wrote:

consider this wrote:

I read that book plenty of times and it was definitely not a joke. There were multiple instances where Wetmore mentioned that being underweight was underrated.

What's wrong with that advice. It is true. It is just simple physics.

It's called Relative-Energy Deficiency Syndrome(RED-S). The program is by saying stuff like this, runners may be provoked to enage in unhealthy diatary practices in an effort to hit "race weight". This in turn often leads to injuries, a compromised immune system and impaired overall health. In this state, athetes certainly cannot run at their fastest as the ability to train and recover becomes greatly compromised.

Weight is more important than training for a lot of runners.

jazzytherunner wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

What's wrong with that advice. It is true. It is just simple physics.

It's called Relative-Energy Deficiency Syndrome(RED-S). The program is by saying stuff like this, runners may be provoked to enage in unhealthy diatary practices in an effort to hit "race weight". This in turn often leads to injuries, a compromised immune system and impaired overall health. In this state, athetes certainly cannot run at their fastest as the ability to train and recover becomes greatly compromised.

It's called most All Runners Are Obsessed With Weight. (ARAOW-W).

That is a bit concerning.

I am Sam wrote:

consider this wrote:

I read that book plenty of times and it was definitely not a joke. There were multiple instances where Wetmore mentioned that being underweight was underrated.

What's wrong with that advice. It is true. It is just simple physics.

I mostly agree. Way more runners (let alone the general population) are overweight than underweight, and holds true at the college level, too. Of course there's limit to how low your weight can go and below that is bad, but relatively few people get there.

I got fat in college and never ran well. Yes weight matters, you have to be at a good "training weight" and your peak racing weight for a few months out of the year. Lose too much weight and you ruin yourself.

Les wrote:

Creepy old man wrote:

This book hasn't aged well. Gouch hurt his back busting up rocks on Wetmore's farm and was never the same. Ponce turned into a pedophile. Wetmore married one of his runners. Just a real creepshow that book is. Yuck.

Yeah, the dark side of track & field that nobody talks about is just how many (male) coaches get involved with their (female) athletes. In many cases, marrying them. If you were a college professor getting involved with one of your students you would be canned immediately.

Sadly, there are also too many instances of college professors having inappropriate relationships with their students and no punishment happening due to a variety of reasons, including tenure and despite the obvious power and influence a professor has over a student.

Al Sal might have a career in fashion after his SafeSport ban:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KndO-dKr5YA

Era dude. If I told you some of the things my college coach said when I was there a decade ago, or things I was told he said years earlier by the prior generation it would blow your mind if you think what Wetmore said in Running with The Buffalos is bad. Kids were not as big of snowflakes back then, and parents were far less likely to rush to their adult child's defense rather than tell them to be an adult and handle their issues themselves.

The second point is Wetmore is kind of right. While Anorexia is not a good thing being very skinny is an a huge benefit if still of healthy weight and eating properly. Most runners in college are on the side of too heavy. Some of my biggest improvements came after dropping to a weight where I was leaner. The weight energy usage correlation is pretty sounds science. And what Wetmore said is so over the top absurd, and funny, no one is going to think he is encouraging anorexia. Have a sense of humor.

Nike $$ wrote:

You realize those comments were made in 1998. He may have changed his views just a little. Stop trying to stir up crap that's not there. Alberto got in trouble for a lot more then "weight comments" and his were a hell of a lot more recent. Alberto is also a lot more higher profile then Wetmore. Get a life.

^ This

It is incorrect to use the present tense to refer to a comment made over 20 years ago.

But I will add this to the general conversation about body types.

Watching a big indoor meet at BU (one of those with like 50 heats of some races) you could see the stark changes in body types as the races got faster from relatively slow D3 to fast D1 and in some cases world class.

The whole “snowflake” moniker is what assh*les use as an excuse to be as big of a jerk as they want to be to anyone they want

No, it's what people who understand that the world doesn't care about your feelings say to those that need to learn the lesson. Rather than forcing kids to grow up we now keep them in this sensitive cacoon sheltering them from all of the things they don't want to be exposed to. It is not helpful or healthy. Sometimes you need to be exposed to a little bit of assh*le or a little bit of tough love. Especially in sports which is the ultimate meritocracy, there is very limited role for sheltering.

yeah dbb G h wrote:

People are just soft nowadays. Here’s a passage from John McDonnell’s book, one of the greatest coaches of all time.

https://pasteboard.co/KhAbkRo.jpghttps://pasteboard.co/KhAcmR2.jpg

The second paragraph mentions how you can go to far and become to light. That needs to be considered too when finding an ideal racing weight.

quickishguy wrote:

I felt uneasy with the weight passages in RWTB, I recall a bit where he was holding Adam G up as an example for been so skinny and only having a granola bar for lunch.

While I agree 100% that weight matters, what I don't understand about the push for weight loss is how these coaches expect their athletes to train well and perform well if they don't eat? For example, you do your morning run and then have a hard track workout in the afternoon - how can you do that workout if you only eat a granola bar for lunch? Maybe once, but consistently, day in, day out? How are these athletes expected to be able to perform if they are glycogen depleted etc.?

Do these coaches, who push for extreme thinness, ever talk about nutrition and fueling for performance? The two seem to be at odds with each other. Unless, do they separate nutrition for a weight loss base period from nutrition for peaking and racing?

They have a nutritionist. Of course they want them fueled. Eliminate sweets and sugar drinks and alcohol while training and you will get thin.

There is a difference between telling the athlete who has a poor diet of burgers fries and beer that losing a few pounds can help. Of course go about in a healthy way switching to a better overall diet.

However getting on an athlete who is already doing the good diet/nutrition to lose weight to run faster. That can be dangerous and possibly lead to injury, burn out, disordered eating.

Wetmore and Al Sal weren't the only ones concerned with weight. Ernst Van Aaken wrote extensively on reduced calorie intake 70 years ago. Have you seen pictures of Harold Norpoth.

Weight is a factor in distance running performance. To think otherwise is silly.

From reading the book Wetmore seemed to have a good relationship with his runners. You can use sarcasm and ridicule if you know it will be interpreted that way. Plus Goucher was all in that season willing to do everything he could to win NCAAs. I honestly feel like his injuries during his pro career stem from what he put his body through that year. The high mileage high intensity training. The calorie deficit.