Ultra Discussion Thread

Enduro

ford2600 wrote: »

@Endura whenever you get to write up a race report would you mind an outline of how you dealt with nutrition during race and also the cold? Did you practice at cold adaptation?

Well done, signing up for that event takes some balls winning it is off the charts

Thanks!

I'm writing a fairly detailed race report, which is broken into installments. It's taking longer than the race itself I'll probably write seperate follow-on reports on nutrition and gear (Having the right gear is my cold-adaptation!).

The first part is here, and the rest follow or will follow!

And in case anyone is interested, I'll be giving a talk on my Spine race experiences at the Great Outdoors (one of my gear sponsors) this Tuesday at 7pm. There's a 5 euro charge to attend, 100% of which will be donated to the Dublin/Wicklow Mountain Rescue Team. Places can be booked here.

opus

Enduro wrote: »

Thanks!

I'm writing a fairly detailed race report, which is broken into installments. It's taking longer than the race itself I'll probably write seperate follow-on reports on nutrition and gear (Having the right gear is my cold-adaptation!).

The first part is here, and the rest follow or will follow!

Great read thanks & congratulations on a fantastic performance in the race! Don't leave us hanging too long for part II

Enduro

opus wrote: »

Great read thanks & congratulations on a fantastic performance in the race! Don't leave us hanging too long for part II

Thanks!

I've published all the way to part 5 , with the final part 6 to be finished tomorrow at the latest.

Djoucer

Art O’Neill is on Nationwide tonight at 7pm on RTE One. Think they’re devoting the whole half hour to the race. Should be good, the camera crew were all over the course through the night

Ososlo

Belfast to Host 24 Hour World Championships in 2017

http://corkrunning.blogspot.ie/2016/02/belfast-to-host-24-hour-world.html

tang1

Few words from Enduro in the latest edition of Men's Running regarding his victory in the Spine Race.

kit3

I have a question about nutrition if ye don't mind. A friend of mine (not on Boards, hence me asking the question) is doing 100k in June. He's done a few 50K and two/three 39.3 races before but is looking a bit more closely at nutrition with the step up to 100k. Up to now in terms of fat burning his approach would be to do some long runs on 'empty' and that seems to work well for him. He's been reading, however, about an approach whereby you fast for 24/48 regularly during training to teach the body to burn fat. Anyone have any experience of this approach as opposed to training on empty ? Is there any merit in it ? Thanks

sideswipe

kit3 wrote: »

I have a question about nutrition if ye don't mind. A friend of mine (not on Boards, hence me asking the question) is doing 100k in June. He's done a few 50K and two/three 39.3 races before but is looking a bit more closely at nutrition with the step up to 100k. Up to now in terms of fat burning his approach would be to do some long runs on 'empty' and that seems to work well for him. He's been reading, however, about an approach whereby you fast for 24/48 regularly during training to teach the body to burn fat. Anyone have any experience of this approach as opposed to training on empty ? Is there any merit in it ? Thanks

I know runners can be mad, none more so than the ultra variety- But starving your body for 2 days on a regular basis sounds like a step way to far for what is essentially a hobby.

Just my 2 cent anyway- I'm sure somebody will be along in a minute to say why this is a great idea and has he considered not eating for a week;)

kit3

sideswipe wrote: »

I know runners can be mad, none more so than the ultra variety- But starving your body for 2 days on a regular basis sounds like a step way to far for what is essentially a hobby.

Just my 2 cent anyway- I'm sure somebody will be along in a minute to say why this is a great idea and has he considered not eating for a week;)

My thoughts exactly but I'm curious to see if this is an approach used by seasoned ultra runners or if it's madness - you can't really trust everything you read on the net, can you I'd reckon it can't be good with that sort of training load both in terms of fuelling & recovery.

Enduro

Some recent research has found that intermittent fasting (5-2 diet and similar) has some health benifits, including but not limited to weight loss. IMHO it wouldn't have any negative effects on fat burning for ultra racing, and possibly could have positive effects. But it wouldn't be the first thing I'd recommend someone to focus on, nutrtion-wise.

What I would recommend someone to focus on would be:

(1) Eat healthily. Take control of your diet. Eat food from primary ingrediants as far as possible. Eliminate processed foods. Eliminate added sugars.
(2) Do your training on empty. Like all training adaptations fat burning will take a certain amount of suffering, and plenty of time. No pain no gain, no instant results.
(3) Err towards HFLC (but if you're eliminating sugars you'll be on the way towards this anyway)

Myles Splitz

kit3 wrote: »

I have a question about nutrition if ye don't mind. A friend of mine (not on Boards, hence me asking the question) is doing 100k in June. He's done a few 50K and two/three 39.3 races before but is looking a bit more closely at nutrition with the step up to 100k. Up to now in terms of fat burning his approach would be to do some long runs on 'empty' and that seems to work well for him. He's been reading, however, about an approach whereby you fast for 24/48 regularly during training to teach the body to burn fat. Anyone have any experience of this approach as opposed to training on empty ? Is there any merit in it ? Thanks

If he is making the step up in distance more than likely his training volume will increase and as such recovery will be a factor as well as the fueling.

My advice would be to weigh up the pro's and cons of changes to diet with regards to whether the fueling or his aerobic capacity and training volume will hold him back more. By changing the diet too much he may actually be hampering his recovery due to elevated cortisol levels which could be a recipe for disaster it is being combined with increase in training volume.

Here are a few articles which may help in terms of helping your friend make informed decisions

http://firstendurance.com/how-cortisol-effects-performance/

http://chriskresser.com/intermittent-fasting-cortisol-and-blood-sugar/

Much like I wouldn't advocate increasing intensity and volume concurrently for shorter distance races, similarly here I would say that training volume and fueling shouldn't be manipulated concurrently here.

TFBubendorfer

I very much concur with Myles here.

Intermittent fasting may well be beneficial and cause some positive adaptations, but if given the choice between doing more training and therefore eating more food on the one side and fasting for fat adaption on the other side, I'd go for the first approach as it's the less risky choice.

I definitely would not increase training and start fasting at the same time!

Once he is a more experienced runner and has a better understanding on what amount of training and subsequent recovery his body can handle, he can then start introducing intermittent fasting if he still wishes to do so.

My own approach is to run in the morning without a breakfast, which is a (very mild in comparison) form of intermittent fasting all by itself (basically just as Enduro has suggested), but to ensure plenty of good quality food afterwards.

Cabaal

Connemara 100 is now open for registrations for anyone interested www.connemara100.com

Clearlier

Am seeing on strava that Steve Way ran 3:54:55 for a 40 mile track race. He ran it progressively moving from 5:50's at the start to 5:30's at the finish. Apparently it's a V40 world best although I can't imagine that it's a very popular distance.

kit3

kit3 wrote: »

I have a question about nutrition if ye don't mind. A friend of mine (not on Boards, hence me asking the question) is doing 100k in June. He's done a few 50K and two/three 39.3 races before but is looking a bit more closely at nutrition with the step up to 100k. Up to now in terms of fat burning his approach would be to do some long runs on 'empty' and that seems to work well for him. He's been reading, however, about an approach whereby you fast for 24/48 regularly during training to teach the body to burn fat. Anyone have any experience of this approach as opposed to training on empty ? Is there any merit in it ? Thanks

Just a quick response on this - thanks a million for all the responses which were very useful. Having read the responses from experienced people here my mate has decided to concentrate on building mileage and to be sensible about diet. Agrees with the views that it would be silly to mess with diet while increasing the workload. Turns out that the articles/discussion he was reading were about Intermittent Fasting and something called Optimized Fat Metabolism - something about avocados and butter ?? (presume this means something to regulars on this thread). Think he finally made up his mind when the person advocating this announced that he was going to win the world championships in 2017 (not sure what distance :rolleyes:) and he could find no record of the person even completing races. Just shows how you have to be careful what you read online. Anyway, thanks again guys - will let ye know how it goes for him

RacoonQueen

I do pretty much all my long runs on empty. Fueling before a run simply doesn't work for me. I did a 'long' run the weekend before last about 3 or 4 hours after breakfast and I felt awful during it. I've always done the running on empty thing for long or early morning runs, before the paleo/IF thing became cool it was something I adopted anyway through chopping and changing and it just worked better for me. Even if I wait till 11am for a run, I prefer to do it without breakfast, anytime I do run, even long and slow while fueled up I feel rotten during it - this is partly due to other physiological issues I have I'd say.
Not sure how this would equate to longer distances though, it is different for everyone but it's not something I'd try to mess around with if running while fueled already worked well for me, especially while building distance or doing more intense short fast sessions. Diet and performance go hand in hand, but unless I had a terrible diet I wouldn't be too concerned about changing things around.

Diet and running is not something I'd really mess around with too much unless I needed to lose weight or if I'd exhausted all other avenues to get faster and had plateaued with improving through training alone (in which case it would probably be weight/fat loss anyway) or if it was medically required (IBS etc)

I'd done numerous interval sessions etc on empty too if I've done them in the morning, an evening session I'd be doing 5/6 hours after lunch with maybe a couple of pieces of fruit/tea/water in between but I'd never fuel up within the couple of hours beforehand - though coaches would recommend it, it doesn't work for me.

Enduro

Clearlier wrote: »

Am seeing on strava that Steve Way ran 3:54:55 for a 40 mile track race. He ran it progressively moving from 5:50's at the start to 5:30's at the finish..

Just properly processing that info in my head. That progression is true class. Outstanding pacing and control.

davedanon

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I do pretty much all my long runs on empty. Fueling before a run simply doesn't work for me. I did a 'long' run the weekend before last about 3 or 4 hours after breakfast and I felt awful during it. I've always done the running on empty thing for long or early morning runs, before the paleo/IF thing became cool it was something I adopted anyway through chopping and changing and it just worked better for me. Even if I wait till 11am for a run, I prefer to do it without breakfast, anytime I do run, even long and slow while fueled up I feel rotten during it - this is partly due to other physiological issues I have I'd say.
Not sure how this would equate to longer distances though, it is different for everyone but it's not something I'd try to mess around with if running while fueled already worked well for me, especially while building distance or doing more intense short fast sessions. Diet and performance go hand in hand, but unless I had a terrible diet I wouldn't be too concerned about changing things around.

Diet and running is not something I'd really mess around with too much unless I needed to lose weight or if I'd exhausted all other avenues to get faster and had plateaued with improving through training alone (in which case it would probably be weight/fat loss anyway) or if it was medically required (IBS etc)

I'd done numerous interval sessions etc on empty too if I've done them in the morning, an evening session I'd be doing 5/6 hours after lunch with maybe a couple of pieces of fruit/tea/water in between but I'd never fuel up within the couple of hours beforehand - though coaches would recommend it, it doesn't work for me.

I'm exactly the same. If I eat within about 2 hours of a run I typically feel restricted in my breathing. I think what's happening is that a full stomach pushes up on the diaphragm, which limits expansion for the lungs. Of late I have been eating less and less before long runs as well. The ideal state for running, as far as I'm concerned, is with nothing inside. No feeling of 'fullness', no other issues such as heartburn, or wind etc. On the other hand, there are people in my club who physically can't run without having eaten. One guy has to have some sort of a dinner after work, typically within an hour or running, or he will actually feel faint and be unable to perform.

Really amazing, how many different strokes there are.

kit3

davedanon wrote: »

I'm exactly the same. If I eat within about 2 hours of a run I typically feel restricted in my breathing. I think what's happening is that a full stomach pushes up on the diaphragm, which limits expansion for the lungs. Of late I have been eating less and less before long runs as well. The ideal state for running, as far as I'm concerned, is with nothing inside. No feeling of 'fullness', no other issues such as heartburn, or wind etc. On the other hand, there are people in my club who physically can't run without having eaten. One guy has to have some sort of a dinner after work, typically within an hour or running, or he will actually feel faint and be unable to perform.

Really amazing, how many different strokes there are.

I'd be the same as you - never eat in the mornings if going out early & often might not have eaten before my lunchtime runs although I'd be up at about 6.30.

Wild Garlic

kit3 wrote: »

I'd be the same as you - never eat in the mornings if going out early & often might not have eaten before my lunchtime runs although I'd be up at about 6.30.

In other words, intermittent fasting.

kit3

Wild Garlic wrote: »

In other words, intermittent fasting.

Not at all - I just eat at various different times of the day depending on what other pressures are on my time. From what I see, Intermittent Fasting is structured & deliberate. Anytime I find myself running at lunchtime without eating I'm generally annoyed with myself that I let it happen. It's certainly not an approach I would advocate for myself (if that makes any sense).

davedanon

Just to clarify. I would never deliberately go without food for any extended period. If it's 12 noon, and I'm running at 6pm, and I'm not hungry, I will make sure to eat something by 2pm, or thereabouts. I never find myself running while actually hungry. I don't think I would perform well.

Enduro

davedanon wrote: »

I never find myself running while actually hungry. I don't think I would perform well.

One defeinite advantage of being reasonably fat adapted is that even in fairly extreme race conditions you (Well, to be more acccurate, in my experience) don't ever get to a point where hunger impedes performance. Sleep deprivation or thirst are much more likely to get you long before hunger is likely to become an issue.

Myles Splitz

davedanon wrote: »

. I never find myself running while actually hungry. I don't think I would perform well.

Given that you are training for shorter distances (i.e sub marathon distance) there is some decent research to back up your reservations

http://jap.physiology.org/content/100/1/7.long

Meanwhile, it is important to consider the potential for side effects arising from ‘‘train low’’ strategies. There is already evidence that ‘‘training low’’ reduces the ability to train – increasing the perception of effort and reducing power outputs. […] Indeed, in our extensive work on another dietary periodization strategy for athletes – adaptation to high-fat diets before carbohydrate loading for endurance and ultra-endurance events – we found evidence that the adaptations that we had considered glycogen ‘‘sparing’’ during exercise were, in fact, glycogen ‘‘impairing’’ (for review, see Burke & Kiens, 2006). These fat adaptation protocols enhanced the pathways for fat utilization, at the expense of the activity of pyruvate dehydrogenase, a rate-limiting enzyme in carbohydrate utilization (Stellingwerff et al., 2006). Here again, we could find no evidence of an expected improvement in exercise performance, but instead, a reduction in the ability to perform high-intensity exercise (Havermann et al., 2006). This is an important consideration because the outcome-defining activities in most sports are conducted at high intensity. Finally, the effect of repeated training with low carbohydrate status on the risk of illness (Gleeson et al., 2004), injury (Brouns et al., 1986) and overtraining (Petibois et al., 2003) need to be considered.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20840562

davedanon

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Given that you are training for shorter distances (i.e sub marathon distance) there is some decent research to back up your reservations

http://jap.physiology.org/content/100/1/7.long



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20840562

Interesting research, even more so that it dates from 2006. All this was known back then? Or has the research pushed on since then? I'm sure it must have in some respect.

Myles Splitz

davedanon wrote: »

Interesting research, even more so that it dates from 2006. All this was known back then? Or has the research pushed on since then? I'm sure it must have in some respect.

Plenty of research on the matter.

Phiney 1983 is usually the starting point for most pro LCHF advocates (however the results from this were severely misleading due to sample size and he has come out and referenced this limitation since regarding sprint capability in cyclists from his study)

This paper actually weighs up ketogenic vs non ketogenic diets from a weight loss standpoint however given the implications ketones can have on mood one could argue that despite both being similar non ketogenic diets would be more favourable for general wellbeing beyond simple metabolism

There was actually a great meta analysis done on Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets here

Most recently was the Volek paper released at the end of last year (Actually posted here a while back)

As mentioned personally I have my reservations on this (and many of his studies to be honest. From a metabolic stand point there is some research coming out that lends itself to the idea that fat adaptation could from a metabolic standpoint be of some benefit but the problem is that most of this research is done in isolation of other factors (mood, sleep even terrain) as factors of performance.

I think that this sort of science is in such early stages for ultra runners that it is very hard to draw any conclusion from the research to be honest. Similar to training of ultra marathoners in general it seems to be an experiment of one that works best.

PaulieC

Wild Garlic wrote: »

In other words, intermittent fasting.

I'm intermittent fasting at the moment - I've not eaten since lunchtime :rolleyes:

Wild Garlic

PaulieC wrote: »

I'm intermittent fasting at the moment - I've not eaten since lunchtime :rolleyes:

What did you have?

PaulieC

Wild Garlic wrote: »

What did you have?

Alan Shearer special - chicken and beans.

Wild Garlic

PaulieC wrote: »

Alan Shearer special - chicken and beans.

Nice. Not much carbs though. Was that intentional?