Random Running Questions

davedanon

menoscemo wrote: »

That'd be great.
I had always though it was closer to 80/20 Glycogen to fat.

My hazy notion is that fat-burning only gets close to 50% at very slow paces, if not actual walking-pace.

ultraman1

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Is their a certain mileage 1 could run to allow them to eat whatever they wanted and to still lose weight?

Was walking behind a couple of burds a while ago,one was eating a bag of chips,the other one was givin out to her for eatin chips,,"sure im walking while i eat them so ill be burning the calories from them"....

George Chinaglia

davedanon wrote: »

My hazy notion is that fat-burning only gets close to 50% at very slow paces, if not actual walking-pace.

It's explained quite well here: www - mysportscience.com/#!What-is-Fatmax/cjds/550751840cf2031a7644ded0

Sorry, can't post links.

The most pertinent part (in relation to the discussion here):
"So if we use this technique during a FatMax test we can plot carbohydrate and fat oxidation against exercise intensity. Carbohydrate oxidation increases linearly with exercise intensity. Fat oxidation shows a different pattern, the so called FatMax. In this figure you can see that on average (the data displayed is averaged from a larger group of athletes), fat oxidation increases as the exercise intensity increases from walking to jogging or running at a moderate pace. Then, when the intensity increases from running at a moderate pace to running fast, fat oxidation actually drops. Fat burning peaks at a moderate intensity. This intensity is what we call FatMax."


And:
"We will learn more about this in future articles but these are some key takeaway messages already:

Fat burning is highly individual. These findings cannot be applied to every athlete.
There is no one fat burning zone for all athletes
Fat oxidation is lower at higher intensities in ALL athletes, independent of their diets or other factors that may influence fat burning"

George Chinaglia

davedanon wrote: »

My hazy notion is that fat-burning only gets close to 50% at very slow paces, if not actual walking-pace.

It's explained quite well here: www - mysportscience.com/#!What-is-Fatmax/cjds/550751840cf2031a7644ded0

Sorry, can't post links.

The most pertinent part (in relation to the discussion here):
"So if we use this technique during a FatMax test we can plot carbohydrate and fat oxidation against exercise intensity. Carbohydrate oxidation increases linearly with exercise intensity. Fat oxidation shows a different pattern, the so called FatMax. In this figure you can see that on average (the data displayed is averaged from a larger group of athletes), fat oxidation increases as the exercise intensity increases from walking to jogging or running at a moderate pace. Then, when the intensity increases from running at a moderate pace to running fast, fat oxidation actually drops. Fat burning peaks at a moderate intensity. This intensity is what we call FatMax."


And:
"We will learn more about this in future articles but these are some key takeaway messages already:

Fat burning is highly individual. These findings cannot be applied to every athlete.
There is no one fat burning zone for all athletes
Fat oxidation is lower at higher intensities in ALL athletes, independent of their diets or other factors that may influence fat burning"

And regarding Demfad's quoting of 50:50, I do remember reading a study on a previous Kona (Ironman) elite athlete where they tested him running at 4mins/km (his IM marathon pace) and he was burning 50:50 carbs:fat at that pace.

menoscemo

I have no doubt that 50:50 sounds right for an ironman marathon but not for a standalone marathon surely, much less a WR paced one.

demfad

menoscemo wrote: »

I assume you mean world record Marathon pace? Can you show me where you got this?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=308092

Canova's post indicates levels of 2 mmol of lactate as corresponding to marathon race pace.

So, you can suppose that, at that time, the speed for producing 2 mmol (good for running full marathon) can be about 3:20 (a difference of 11% from HM speed), and this athlete, also with long run, cannot run a marathon under 2:20.....

This post indicates 2 mmol as corresponding to Max Lipid power. (cycling but I cant find another now, and I believe that value to be correct)

If, instead of the percentage of utilized fats, we consider the absolute quantity of fats consumed per minute (the lipid power), we find that the higher value corresponds to intensities equal to 80-90% of the anaerobic threshold (within the range of Medio pace).
Such intensities generally correspond to lactic acid concentrations close to 2 mM/L.

That doesn't indicate a 50:50 ratio but in view of the fact that NO fat is burned at 4 mmol (HM race pace roughly) then it might indicate a significantly higher ratio than the 80/20 you quoted.

All marathoners use all of their glycogen reserves during the race. Using these reserves economically can be greatly helped by increasing the max lipid power, or FatMax etc. Towards the closing period of the race this is especially crucial when the fat ratio is highest and pace most in danger of dropping.

The slower the race time the more relevant the fat system is.

Enduro said that dependence on external food sources during long races is a disadvantage. He's absolutely right. You need to depend on muscle glycogen and fat. The slower the race time the more that dependence is on Fat.
Energy drinks are just the icing on the cake with regards training and racing.

If runners here are being advised to use gels in most of their long runs then they are training themselves to run off a cliff in the marathon.

TRR_the_turd

demfad wrote: »

Enduro said that dependence on external food sources during long races is a disadvantage. He's absolutely right. You need to depend on muscle glycogen and fat. The slower the race time the more that dependence is on Fat.
Energy drinks are just the icing on the cake with regards training and racing.

If runners here are being advised to use gels in most of their long runs then they are training themselves to run off a cliff in the marathon.

But are we confusing longer adventure races and marathons here? I'm actually confused full stop

And to get back to my original point. Becoming better at burning fat makes 100% sense to me. However if you have an innate ability to burn carbohydrates and they are available on a marathon course would it not be a good idea to take them? I take the odd gel on my long runs when I need them. Everything in moderation lads!

demfad

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

But are we confusing longer adventure races and marathons here? I'm actually confused full stop

And to get back to my original point. Becoming better at burning fat makes 100% sense to me. However if you have an innate ability to burn carbohydrates and they are available on a marathon course would it not be a good idea to take them? I take the odd gel on my long runs when I need them. Everything in moderation lads!

It depends on what you mean by "needing" a gel.

If the intention of a long run is to learn how to burn fat or even to deplete your glycogen supplies then taking a gel defeats the purpose.

Gels have their places on some long runs sure (e.g some long maintenance runs, race simulation) and obviously during the race itself. Their place is as the icing on the cake though. You depend on well developed energy systems to get your ballpark time. Taking gels during on some long runs by feel may be counterproductive.

If your training makes you overly dependent on gels thn you will need them (and be able to absorb them). Your marathon pace might be slower than it could be though. Either you'll run it hard and die a bit in the latter stages. Or you run it steadier at lower blood lactate to conserve glycogen. You may even have enough to finish fast because you have glycogen left to throw into the fire at the end.

I have been there and bought the cigar with that one.

menoscemo

demfad wrote: »

That doesn't indicate a 50:50 ratio but in view of the fact that NO fat is burned at 4 mmol (HM race pace roughly) then it might indicate a significantly higher ratio than the 80/20 you quoted.

All marathoners use all of their glycogen reserves during the race. Using these reserves economically can be greatly helped by increasing the max lipid power, or FatMax etc. Towards the closing period of the race this is especially crucial when the fat ratio is highest and pace most in danger of dropping.

The slower the race time the more relevant the fat system is.

I can't follow all the formulas etc but my takeaways:

1. You say no fat is burned at HM pace. I have seen Enduro and another poster (Raighne I think) saying that fat burning is optimal for 10k pace. Which is it?

2. If all Marathoners use all their glycogen during the race surely it's not a bad idea to make sure they are fully topped up in advance of the race and take on glycogen (gels, sports drinks) if available and palatable?

3. Agree that the the slower the Marathon time the more fat burned as a %. This absolutely makes sense because slower marathoners will generally hold a much lower % max HR for a marathon than compared to elites. So they spending most time in a higher 'fat burning zone'.

I don't use any gels at all in training, in fact I hadn't touched my gels for over a year before London last week. But I will definitely take them as regularly as possible when racing a marathon and so far I haven't bonked. I wouldn't take any gels if jogging (e.g pacing) a Marathon.

demfad

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't use any gels at all in training, in fact I hadn't touched my gels for over a year before London last week. But I will definitely take them as regularly as possible when racing a marathon and so far I haven't bonked. I wouldn't take any gels if jogging (e.g pacing) a Marathon.

Id agree with that. Youre not dependent on gels. Id even suggest taking them in some race simulation type runs to help with the absorption at race pace.

Enduros point (and mine) is that a runner who is not dependent on taking on food (learned through training) will have an advantage in the race all other things being equal. i.e dont use gels during long runs, let the body develop the energy systems that will provide the vast bulk of the energy on race day.

Id agree marathon runners should have as much glycogen in their stores as possible. Not a good idea to have too much in the blood initially though to avoid a mini bonk after 10 minutes or so.

If fat burning is significant for us then diet also becomes significant. I believe that a sugar rich diet can greatly hinder the fat burning metabolism. Its do as I say not as I do in this case for me unfortunately.

I believe the max fat power occurs at 2 mmol of lactate.
Below that it is used less, above it it is used less as the process is too slow at that intensity. At 4 mmol, HM pace it is virtually non-existant. (so I read)

I know for sure that running at very slow fat burning intensities can help with 10k pace. I think a 32/33 minute runner would be better to focus on 8 minute mile easy pace and higher mileage initially (with strides to counter balance) rather than 7 minute pace. I dont know why, but my guess is that the full range of fibres are strenghetened, like HADD's toothpaste analogy. I don't think they burn fat at 10k pace at all.

Ok. 6 peppas and 5 doras later its time to make the dinner. I put running above the kids sometimes (its a good example after all ) but boards.ie im not so sure.

adrian522

Surely if you are going to gel during a race it makes sense to practice this during training?

Good article here I think.

A recent study conducted in New Zealand showed that cyclists who completed exercise early in the morning without eating breakfast (fasted state) improved muscle glycogen stores by as much as 50% over the group that ate breakfast before their exercise.

However, other studies have gone further and tested the effects of training with low glycogen levels for more than one run or for extended periods of time. The research concludes that extended carbohydrate depletion impairs performance and does not enhance fat utilization.

General conclusion is that

occasional long runs in a fasted state will improve glycogen storage and fat utilization, but extended training or multiple long runs in the fasted state will impair performance and does not provide further benefits to fat utilization.

I think it's an interesting area of discussion, but the conflicting views and studies do confuse me.

Another study here, this one a little less scientific I think (small sample size, don't know what the other group consumed, target times etc).

The study worked with 28 runners in Denmark who were training for the Copenhagen Marathon. One group of runners relied on their own nutritional practices during the race, while the other group followed guidelines set by the researchers: Consume two gels and 1-2 glasses of water shortly before the race, take another gel 40 minutes into the race and another one every 20 minutes thereafter. Hydration-wise, the researchers had those runners drink 1-2 cups of water at each of the 10 aid stations along the course.

After the race, researchers concluded the runners who followed the more strict guidelines consumed more carbohydrate during the race and beat their time-matched partner in the other group by an average of 10 minutes. Most of them also ran faster than their goal times.

demfad

adrian522 wrote: »

....

I think it's an interesting area of discussion, but the conflicting views and studies do confuse me.

...

I saw other research (ill try and find again) which was on a few elite athletes using 2 strategies: one was morning fasted steady runs and the other was afternoon runs taken after a morning glycogen depleting run.

Anyway, the results were positive if I remember but some of the runners were able to perform more of thEse special runs than others because they had practised them before.

That would indicate that glycogen store enhancement and fat usage is something that can be adapted to increasingly over many marathon cycles.

Incidendently, if a novice runner was struggling with the distance, gels might be a useful tool to succeed in "time on feet" training runs and help with muscular endurance.

Tom Joad

adrian522 wrote: »

Saucony Fastwitch have a little bit of support, may be worth a go. Brooks T7 are supposed to be good too. Definitely go to a shop where you can try a few pairs on before deciding.

Thanks all for the advice. Ended up having to go to Dublin today so popped into the Run Hub and ended up with the fastwitch after testing a few different ones. Very impressed with the Run Hub.

menoscemo

Tom Joad wrote: »

Thanks all for the advice. Ended up having to go to Dublin today so popped into the Run Hub and ended up with the fastwitch after testing a few different ones. Very impressed with the Run Hub.

Who served you?

adrian522

Tom Joad wrote: »

Thanks all for the advice. Ended up having to go to Dublin today so popped into the Run Hub and ended up with the fastwitch after testing a few different ones. Very impressed with the Run Hub.

Hope they work out for you. I know Ecoli likes those so you are in good company !

Tom Joad

menoscemo wrote: »

Who served you?

Kevin. Really knowledgeable and sound guy.

menoscemo

Tom Joad wrote: »

Kevin. Really knowledgeable and sound guy.

Mr Thirstywork2!!

libelula

I met my old running buddy, and she was telling me her coach now has her running for time rather than distance.
(marathon base building)

What's that about? Is there any more to it that getting used to spending 3/4 hrs on your feet and hitting time targets later in the programme?

DocQismyJesus

libelula wrote: »

I met my old running buddy, and she was telling me her coach now has her running for time rather than distance.
(marathon base building)

What's that about? Is there any more to it that getting used to spending 3/4 hrs on your feet and hitting time targets later in the programme?

Running to time instead of distance is in many ways a better way of training. The obsession with training to exact distances is a function of Garmins influence. Plenty of top class old school coaches would have you do " an hour easy" or 30 min tempo " some of the best runners in history have trained like that

libelula

DocQismyJesus wrote: »

Running to time instead of distance is in many ways a better way of training. The obsession with training to exact distances is a function of Garmins influence. Plenty of top class old school coaches would have you do " an hour easy" or 30 min tempo " some of the best runners in history have trained like that

What happens in your head that gives you a better workout when it's time over distance?
Is it more like you'll be training to 'feel' or hr because you lose the preconceived notions that "an easy 5k for me is 30 mins" and you'll do that regardless of what your body wants to do on the day?

Tom Joad

menoscemo wrote: »

Mr Thirstywork2!!

Good to know! At least I said something nice about him - could have been embarrassing otherwise!

DocQismyJesus

libelula wrote: »

What happens in your head that gives you a better workout when it's time over distance?
Is it more like you'll be training to 'feel' or hr because you lose the preconceived notions that "an easy 5k for me is 30 mins" and you'll do that regardless of what your body wants to do on the day?

Yup. Too much data a bad thing much of the time

Ososlo

Tom Joad wrote: »

Good to know! At least I said something nice about him - could have been embarrassing otherwise!

Did you not ask for your Boards discount?

DocQismyJesus

Ososlo wrote: »

Did you not ask for your Boards discount?

I believe there is also an #RSP discount as well?

rom

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Is their a certain mileage 1 could run to allow them to eat whatever they wanted and to still lose weight?

Probably not
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/guess-weight-famous-boston-marathoner-gained-10-days/story?id=30707421

Tom Joad

Ososlo wrote: »

Did you not ask for your Boards discount?

No but funny that you mention it - I cleaned the boot of the car out this evening and found a flyer I got at a race for 15% off in Run Hub- guess I'll have to go back and buy something else

TFBubendorfer

libelula wrote: »

What happens in your head that gives you a better workout when it's time over distance?

Some people have a tendency of running too fast if they are training by distance - trying to get the run over and done with. If you're training by time, that isn't an issue.

annapr

libelula wrote: »

What happens in your head that gives you a better workout when it's time over distance?
Is it more like you'll be training to 'feel' or hr because you lose the preconceived notions that "an easy 5k for me is 30 mins" and you'll do that regardless of what your body wants to do on the day?

The 2014 graduates plan, also known as the Clearlier plan, uses running by time. It works really well for base building -- the difference (for me anyway) is that you're not sweating about hitting a particular distance or pace on the easy runs... I think it has helped me keep my easy runs easier. You do end up covering just as much ground anyway.

The downside is that it takes more time ... i.e., 55 mins easy vs. 5k... but that's probably an upside too!

HelenAnne

libelula wrote: »

What happens in your head that gives you a better workout when it's time over distance?
Is it more like you'll be training to 'feel' or hr because you lose the preconceived notions that "an easy 5k for me is 30 mins" and you'll do that regardless of what your body wants to do on the day?

When I started running, I didn't have a Garmin (just got one last summer), so I used to run 'ish' distances -- there were routes that people in the club knew that were ABOUT such and such a distance. Like 'out to the church', we called 8-ish miles (it's actually 7.78), and we had a 'four-mile-ish' loop that was just under four. Or I thought my route home from work was 6, but it's actually a bit more.

I never knew exactly what times I did my training in, it was just easy pace or harder pace, depending on who I was running with. (I did wear a watch, so I'd know if it was an hour, or an hour and a half(ish!), but I didn't use a stopwatch or Garmin.

It wasn't completely ad hoc, like I knew I would do my hard ten-mile (or ten-ish mile) on a Thursday with a group of faster people, and my LSR on Sundays at an easy pace with my own running group, but I didn't really know exact times and distances. I do now, because I have my Garmin, and I do find it good to check my pace in races etc, but I've never got into the habit of rounding up to ten miles on my Garmin at the end of a run or anything. I think once your estimated distance isn't miles out, it's probably much of a muchness.

If you've run 9.9 miles instead of ten in training by mistake, you're not going to stop short of the line in a ten-mile race, you'll still make it to the finish.

I know you do need to know your pace for speed sessions or tempo runs or whatever, but I think for a beginner, not being too tied to exact paces and distances suited me -- I didn't feel under too much pressure to hit specific paces etc.

Blue Steel

Hi guys,

Once my base building cycle is finished (hopefully end of June) I need to start a program in preperation for racing later on in September and October.

I was looking into the "Faster Road Racing" book programs which are all based on a 7 days cycle. They look robust and tested plans.

Then I recently read about another approach: 9 days cycle (2 recovery days after 1 hard session). This method has been used by Meb K. and is appealing to me in theory but I don't see any detailed plans.

What do expert runners and boardsies think of this?