BF% and Long Distances ...

Support | Event Directors & Organizers

Search Cool Running Community

Browse Cool Running

CoolRunning.com > Cool Running Community > Carbo Canteen >

Up to Threads in Carbo Canteen

54 Replies Last post: Mar 29, 2006 11:13 AM by brianmcg123 Go to original post 1 2 3 4 Previous Next

this place is so lame035

92 posts since
Feb 21, 2006

30. Mar 23, 2006 4:23 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Detroit:

Thats nice in theory, but when youve already been running 80-90 week for years, your body composition is where its gonna stay. Dropping a couple percentage points in the body fat department wont necessarily drop time, especially when you are running low 14s for 5k. This kid just doesnt have anything extra to lose. You hear the old...."try carrying around a 15 pound back-pack when you run". Again, a nice theory. Dropping weight may help your times, but it also can slow you down. If the training is there, so is your weight.<HR>

If you're already at 5-6% BF, I agree that dropping more weight probably won't make you faster.

I'm 6'1" and I recently dropped 10-lb, going from 183 to 173. My times dropped substantially too.

Also, just because the training is there doesn't mean you'll lose the weight. I had to cut calories to get down to 173.

Detroit094

133 posts since
Mar 14, 2005

31. Mar 23, 2006 5:18 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

I agree with everything that has been posted.

I think one thing thats sticks out thats interesting is that some people can run tons and gain weight, or not lose, while others just by increasing activity shed pounds. I think that with distance runners this runs the spectrum. Obviously, as indicated by a lot of these posts, people have had great success by watching their diet closely an improving times. Cool. I also think that if I didnt run as much/hard consistently, I would definitely be more careful. In college we all trained and ate together everyday. Everyone ate a ton, about the same amount, and everyone was about the same size. I think at that point, the training was enough to take care of everything. The kids that came in a little out of shape or with a few extra pounds always ended up the season looking like skeletons. I'm rambling.

Anyway, weve done a good job at hijacking this thread. For the original poster, I stay stick with the nutrition/training plans that youve established for yourself. Don't compare yourself to other runners. If you stay consistent, eat well, and take care of yourself, you will undoubtedly succeed. I don't think anyone here will argue with that.

Swampy13

58 posts since
Oct 31, 2005

32. Mar 23, 2006 6:28 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

Sorry to continue the hijacking, but another issue that seems to always arise from this is that a lot of people trying to drop weight are being very meticulous. I for one tried to get to 150. I ran 60 mpw, never less. I ate 2000 calories a day. At 24 years old, 5'10", 157-160 lbs. and less than 12% bodyfat, I should be eating 2000 calories a day just to get up and do my daily routine, maybe a bit more. I know I was eating 2000 because I measured and weighed everything exactly. The people on this forum could also give you their renditions of stalled weight loss. For some, they might need to watch it more carefully , but I trust a lot of the people on these boards that have trouble are trying really hard, yet they can never seem to get that "runner's look" or weigh in at the "performance weight" levels.

The point is I lost exactly 1 lb. I tried for 2 freaking months!!! And nothing. I could barely get up in the morning, much less run. And while I'm certain I could run faster if I weighed a good 20-30 lbs. less, I shudder at what I might have to go through to achieve that.

bhearn

430 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

33. Mar 23, 2006 7:24 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Swampy13:
Sorry to continue the hijacking, but another issue that seems to always arise from this is that a lot of people trying to drop weight are being very meticulous. I for one tried to get to 150. I ran 60 mpw, never less. I ate 2000 calories a day. At 24 years old, 5'10", 157-160 lbs. and less than 12% bodyfat, I should be eating 2000 calories a day just to get up and do my daily routine, maybe a bit more. I know I was eating 2000 because I measured and weighed everything exactly. The people on this forum could also give you their renditions of stalled weight loss. For some, they might need to watch it more carefully , but I trust a lot of the people on these boards that have trouble are trying really hard, yet they can never seem to get that "runner's look" or weigh in at the "performance weight" levels.

The point is I lost exactly 1 lb. I tried for 2 freaking months!!! And nothing. I could barely get up in the morning, much less run. And while I'm certain I could run faster if I weighed a good 20-30 lbs. less, I shudder at what I might have to go through to achieve that. <HR>

Losing weight while training is a complicated business. There are two problems. One, you burn calories at a very irregular rate. One way to deal with this is to start at a given calorie budget, then add 130 cal. or so to your daily budget for each mile you run.

Two, as you ramp up miles, you are building muscle. The normal rule of thumb is that if you burn 3500 calories more than you consume, you will lose a pound of fat. But this goes out the window if you are also building muscle - a pound of muscle is only worth 600 calories. You can be eating the right amount to lose a pound a week, and still gain weight!

The only solution is to be patient. That, and to already have a good handle on what you normally burn without running. If you eat 500 calories / day less than that, plus extra calories for the miles, and you wait for your body to adjust to whatever mileage increase you have imposed on it, eventually you will start losing a pound / week.

For example: I'm currently losing a few for Boston. I know that without running, I burn about 2200 cal. / day. So I set my base calorie budget at 1700, then add 120 for each mile I run. I don't worry too much if I have an excess or a deficit on any given day; I carry it over to the next day. On 60-70 mpw, it's easy to rapidly correct for all but the most excessive overindulgences.

It took a couple of months for me to see any progress, because I was ramping back up from a lazy 20-30 to 60 mpw, and building muscle. But the progress was there. It just took a while before it started to be reflected on the scale. But when it did, sure enough, I started tracking at a pound / week.

Bob[/URL" target="_blank">

Detroit094

133 posts since
Mar 14, 2005

34. Mar 23, 2006 8:25 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

More hijacking.

Bob's post pretty much hit the nail on the head. I've lost 5 pounds in a week tapering for a race with absolutely no change in diet. Its like my body just decided to shed weight. I wish the whole thing was an exact science, but its not. You just gotta go with the flow.

There were always women on my college team in the same situation. Like a lot of the 5'4" 120 types. They always wanted to be thinner. In the end, I think, my coach just discouraged them from trying really hard to get to "ideal" weight. You gotta enjoy running and have some peace of mind too.

bhearn

430 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

35. Mar 23, 2006 8:57 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Detroit:
Bob's post pretty much hit the nail on the head. I've lost 5 pounds in a week tapering for a race with absolutely no change in diet. Its like my body just decided to shed weight. I wish the whole thing was an exact science, but its not. You just gotta go with the flow.
<HR>

Ah, well, I think it is more or less an exact science. The problem is that there are hidden variables (changing body composition) and lots of noise (water weight). On a day-to-day basis, or even for an extended period, if there's some change in diet or activity, water noise can easily drown out the signal when you step on the scale. Normal daily variation is a few pounds. If you want to take control of your weight, you have to weigh yourself every day and plot a moving average to get a handle on your actual weight.

For example, no offense, but if you lose 5 pounds in one week, that has to be mostly water.

I hate to be one of those "try this; it worked for me" types, but there's a lot of useful information in this book, "The Hacker's Diet":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html[/URL" target="_blank">

As a weight-loss technique, it boils down to counting calories, but clearly understanding what you are doing, and using the right diagnostic tools to track your progress, makes all the difference. Even if you're not looking to lose pounds, it makes a good read.

Bob[/URL" target="_blank">

Detroit094

133 posts since
Mar 14, 2005

36. Mar 23, 2006 9:34 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

Bob,

Cool.

Of course losing 5 pounds in a week is mostly water, but still its functional weight and part of your body composition. That 5 pounds never came back.

By exact science I mean that sometimes the number crunching doesn't quite workout right. Swampy's post about his attempts to lose weight illustrate that. For another example, I went to Tufts for undergrad and studied nutrition pretty extensively. I took part in a whole in depth nutritional whoop-dee-doo analysis (which I believe was published later) as part of a nutrition 101 course. Everything we consumed was measure to the ounce. All calories were recorded, as well as activities, BMR, etc. Hydration was monitored, in addition to weight over the course of the study. There were no hidden variables here - everything was precise. Tufts Nutrition doesn't mess around

Anyway, I forget the exact numbers, but over a two week period of time I averaged somewhere around 4300 calories a day. My mileage was in the 70 mpw range. Aside from running and walking to class on occasion, I was completely sedentary. I lost a bit over a pound in that time period. Every calculator and equation in the book would tell you this is impossible. But its not - it happened.

Yet another example is someone with anorexia maintaining weight on 200 calories a day. Its just calories in vs calories out right? Obviously not, or these real life examples just wouldn't happen.

But like you said, weight loss while training is tricky. Proceed with caution.

flynnmcmahon

29 posts since
Dec 8, 2004

37. Mar 23, 2006 9:36 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

Hi everyone, just wanted to check in to let you guys know that I do NOT have a problem with the hijacking. I love (for the most part) following the pathway some of these threads take. Its all good. Its all very interesting to me. I believe people are very different from one another with regards to weightloss. Alot are unrealistic. I will never be a stick thin, speedy racer. I am a "naturally" muscular woman with "soccer" legs. I love long slow distances. I can eat alot and stay within a range numbers wise but if I try and severely cut calories and raise activity, inevitably I get sick and the scale doesn't budge. I am grateful that I can eat a ton and not gain too much, its just a mystery to me on the other side. For the most part ever since I've had kids, I realize my running is all about the journey. I have good runs and bad runs, I'll have a year that I feel unstoppable with regards to my distances and than other years where I can't seem to work my way above 25 mpw. Weird! anyway, my orginial curiosity was just about my own experience with long distances and higher bodyfats vs. many many distance runners that seem ripped. Not so much that I want to be that runner, more like, hmmm.
Now talk amongst yourselves;D

bhearn

430 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

38. Mar 24, 2006 4:42 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

quote:<HR>Originally posted by flynnmcmahon:
Hi everyone, just wanted to check in to let you guys know that I do NOT have a problem with the hijacking. I love (for the most part) following the pathway some of these threads take. Its all good. Its all very interesting to me. <HR>

Hi Flynn,

Oops, sorry - personally I thought all this discussion was very relevant to your original question; I didn't really see it as a hijack!

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Detroit:
By exact science I mean that sometimes the number crunching doesn't quite workout right. Swampy's post about his attempts to lose weight illustrate that.
<HR>

My point is that yeah, it can be tricky, but if you are aware of the complications, and you are careful and patient, then generally you can achieve the control you are after. You shouldn't get discouraged just because you thought you were eating less and not losing weight. If you do that, it's all too easy to throw your hands up, decide it's not solvable, and go on not weighing what you want - or worse, start gaining even more.

In the case of Swampy, the point of my response was to explain why he might have experienced what he did, and to point out that had he been just a bit more patient, and tried a different strategy for couting calories in vs. out, he might have started to see the expected results.

quote:<HR>For another example, I went to Tufts for undergrad and studied nutrition pretty extensively. I took part in a whole in depth nutritional whoop-dee-doo analysis (which I believe was published later) as part of a nutrition 101 course. Everything we consumed was measure to the ounce. All calories were recorded, as well as activities, BMR, etc. Hydration was monitored, in addition to weight over the course of the study. There were no hidden variables here - everything was precise. Tufts Nutrition doesn't mess around Anyway, I forget the exact numbers, but over a two week period of time I averaged somewhere around 4300 calories a day. My mileage was in the 70 mpw range. Aside from running and walking to class on occasion, I was completely sedentary. I lost a bit over a pound in that time period. Every calculator and equation in the book would tell you this is impossible. But its not - it happened.
<HR>

But there are any number of ways that can have happened. First, two weeks is not enough time to get a solid weight signal; there's too much daily noise. Second, your body composition might have been changing. All those equations assume accurate measurements and steady-state body composition, apart from fat loss.

quote:<HR>Yet another example is someone with anorexia maintaining weight on 200 calories a day. Its just calories in vs calories out right? Obviously not, or these real life examples just wouldn't happen.
<HR>

Well, I'd have to say I'm skeptical of examples like that. In the end, it is just calories in vs. calories out. The problem is they have lots of places to hide, and the accounting is sometimes tricky. I don't think I believe that anyone can live on 200 calories / day indefinitely. The energy has to come from somewhere. Likewise, if you eat too much, the energy has to go somewhere.

Bob[/URL" target="_blank">

Swampy13

58 posts since
Oct 31, 2005

39. Mar 24, 2006 6:51 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

quote:<HR>Originally posted by bhearn:
[b] Well, I'd have to say I'm skeptical of examples like that. In the end, it is just calories in vs. calories out. The problem is they have lots of places to hide, and the accounting is sometimes tricky. I don't think I believe that anyone can live on 200 calories / day indefinitely. The energy has to come from somewhere. Likewise, if you eat too much, the energy has to go somewhere. [/B]<HR>

Careful here. To say that an anorexic is lying about their intake, quite honestly, can sound somewhat ignorant. I have met and dealt with several people who have had severe anorexia. They were so committed, it was unbelievable. If you told them that running backwards holding an egg in your right hand was the way to lose weight, they'd be at it non-stop. Many are often extremely committed, and they do in fact live on 200-300 calories a day. Not forever, but a lot longer than 2-3 months. In the end, they either end up dying, seek help, or living the dreaded binging and purging cycle that many succumb to. It was sad, I knew one person that ate 5 stalks of asparagus a day, and that was it. The person was so small it was unbelievable. At one point, they had gained 2 real lbs. over a month. They were mortified.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it's calories in vs. calories out. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. But metabolism can be extremely adaptive for some people.

mayfield017

75 posts since
Oct 12, 2005

40. Mar 24, 2006 7:04 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

Can someone please explain the "losing weight while training is tricky" statement? For instance, I'm 5'8, 145 lbs and I'd like to lose maybe 5 - 7 lbs. I currently run about 40 mpw and am about to start training for my first marathon...is it not possible to achieve both goals (lose the weight/train well)? The training well is my first priority (hey, those lbs aren't going anywhere!), but I thought the increased mileage that I will be doing would help me lose those lbs if I don't increase my caloric intake.

Detroit094

133 posts since
Mar 14, 2005

41. Mar 24, 2006 10:32 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

Bob,

Can you explain "daily noise"? I'm just not exactly sure what you mean by this.

In the example I presented, there weren't any other variables. There just weren't. We were weighed every morning for 2 weeks. The trends were plotted. Like I said, our hydration was monitored. There was no hidden food. There was no missing anything. My body composition could have been changing - I buy that. But the point is this, after the end of that time period, despite consuming more calories than any formula could possibly justify me being able to eat - I weighed less. Fact. If it is just "calories in versus calories out", then 2 weeks is more than enough time to see results. In fact, one day would be enough time if you had an accurate enough scale. This is why weight loss is not just number crunching.

Also, I strongly agree with Swampy in regards to people with disordered eating. They aren't "underestimating" the amount they eat. We are talking about individuals that are literally starving to death. 200 calories a day may be a high number. They should be losing insane amounts of weight, but they don't. The body adapts.

To the poster that asked why losing weight while training is "tricky", it just comes down to a matter of underfueling. You can definitely train hard and shed poundage, but your workouts probably won't be 100 percent. I would say that training all out for a race while trying to drop weight probably isnt the greatest plan. It would probably be best to lose the weight first, then focus on training. Still, both can be done at once. You'll just have to get used to the fact that running around in a calorie debt isnt the greatest thing for your training. Yes, increased training will definitely help you lose the pounds. For some people, simply increasing running is enough to get to ideal weight. Others need to really watch what they eat. You just need to find out which end of the spectrum you fall in to.

Ariann092

681 posts since
Jan 4, 2005

42. Mar 24, 2006 11:12 PM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Detroit:
Bob,

Can you explain "daily noise"? I'm just not exactly sure what you mean by this.
<HR>

I don't know if this really applies to men, but women will gain weight (water generally) and then lose it over the course of a month, so two weeks would not be enough time at all. You'd need at least a month and to start and stop at the same point in the cycle.

For both men and women, unless they were measuring your output, it's hard to say if you were retaining water for some reason at the beginning and let go of it near the end or if you were constipated at the beginning and then not at the end, etc.. That's why I'd agree that two weeks is perhaps not sufficient, also.

bhearn

430 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

43. Mar 25, 2006 11:02 AM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Swampy13:

Careful here. To say that an anorexic is lying about their intake, quite honestly, can sound somewhat ignorant. ... they do in fact live on 200-300 calories a day. Not forever, but a lot longer than 2-3 months. In the end, they either end up dying, seek help, or living the dreaded binging and purging cycle that many succumb to. ...
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's calories in vs. calories out. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. But metabolism can be extremely adaptive for some people. <HR>

OK, I confess to being ignorant about anorexia. I wasn't suggesting anorectics are lying about their intake; merely that they couldn't live on 200 calories indefinitely. But I can't say that I actually know what the body's minimal metabolic needs are, when everything possible is minimized or shut down. Fortunately that situation does not apply to those of us here training for marathons!

merigayle

1,586 posts since
Aug 15, 2007

44. Mar 25, 2006 11:09 AM

in response to: flynnmcmahon

Re: BF% and Long Distances

quote:<HR>Originally posted by mayfield:
Can someone please explain the "losing weight while training is tricky" statement? For instance, I'm 5'8, 145 lbs and I'd like to lose maybe 5 - 7 lbs. I currently run about 40 mpw and am about to start training for my first marathon...is it not possible to achieve both goals (lose the weight/train well)? The training well is my first priority (hey, those lbs aren't going anywhere!), but I thought the increased mileage that I will be doing would help me lose those lbs if I don't increase my caloric intake. <HR>

Mayfield- losing weight while training is not hard, you just have to pay attention to your food intake- a lot of people who start training gain weight because they are eating a lot more than they used to, but justify it becuase they are running higher mileage. Then there is the problem of not eating enough while training and and causing fatigue and possible injury. A lot of people here, including myself, track their caloric intake while training to make sure they eat enough, but not too much. www.fitday.com[/URL" target="_blank"> is most popular but there are many websites. Fitday overestimates basic metabolic needs nad needs to be set at sedentary for most accurate caloric readings.

Hopefully this answered your question. Just be careful not to cut back your calories too much, as you will sacrifice your training.

Go to original post 1 2 3 4 Previous Next

Go to original post

Actions

More Like This

New Runners

Training

Competition

Age Groups

Fitness

The Lighter Side

Feedback

Related Links