posted Apr-30-2007 03:20 PM            

I found if I run a certain amount of time/miles per week I gain weight due to not exercising enough.

If I increase time/miles to what I call the "sweat spot," I lose weight.

Maybe surprisingly, but others have commented about the same thing, if I increase miles/time above a certain level, my appetite becomes uncontrollable. I eat too much, and gain weight.

Is weight gain something to be concerned about when your goal is improving race times by increasing miles/time running per week?

Some personal comments:

I have been running six years.

November 2002 I weighed 173 pounds. I was (and am) 5' 11." May 2003 I weighed 161 pounds. The weight melted off with little effort on my part. I averaged ~30 miles per week during that time.

I ran a marathon in October 2003. Starting in May 2003, I increased miles preparing for the marathon. I averaged ~40 miles per week between May and the October marathon, peaking at 50 miles per weak. However, I gained three pounds. It was not much weight, but it took great effort to ONLY gain that much. I was HUNGRY ALL THE TIME.

I currently run 35 miles per week (between five and six hours per week). My weight is trending down, even though I fight hunger pains. The first week of April I ran 40 miles. That extra five miles seemed to kick-start my appetite, making me reluctant to increase time/miles running.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 03:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:

Jim, I do a lot of work with Trevor Ogilvie who won the WAVA 10k and 1/2 marathon for 55-59 year olds in 2004 and was fastest Steeplechaser in the world last year for same age group.He will be 60 later this year.
Basically, He keeps quite a large volume of mileage up. A problem in itself as we sometimes have to hold him back !!.
At present he is comng off a rather nasty dose of food poisonng so is gradually cranking up the miles. But it will soon be cross country season here so he will run a similar schedule to Arthur's Race week/non race week schedule then
later he will hit maybe 8 to 10 weeks of miles, then a mixture of hills and long intervals (aka Tinmans CV reps).
I don't Coach him (A very close mate does) but monitor what he does and occasionally have a run with him (slow stuff !!)
He was a late starter (49 years old) and it took about 3 to 4 years to work out what suited him. I would not put just anyone on his training.
The key to his success (He runs 7 days a week)is a long run on Sunday (2 to 21/2 hours and 2 long runs (11/2 hrs) during the week. Nearer track season those Midweek long runs become "Strong Aerobic runs". He does those on his own as very few (other than the young guys) can keep up.
BTW: Those Sunday runs are Year round !.

Cheers

---

Thanks! I know the importance of those mid week longs, I do best when I have one firmly anchored in my weekly schedule, but it's the most difficult run for me to fit in. It'll be easier now with longer days and brighter mornings. I run 6 days a week and 2+ hours most Sundays. I think a reasonable schedule is achievable for me.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 04:07 PM            

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 04:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MaineRunner2001:
There have been many great questions posted, and this probably is not one of them: Would folks comment about weight?

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 04:21 PM            

Thanks Kim for all your help. I hope you don't mind us picking your brain before this great thread dies!

Cathy

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 05:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Actually, the marathon was just under 3:20...

---

If you've run the marathon in 3:20 and 10k in 42, I'd say you're a bit short on the speed department. Depending on what you want to do and when (for example, if you want to have a good crack at another marathon in, say, September, then the schedule may need to be altered...), I'd say get on the track or a park and do some drills; do some 3k, 2 miles, 3 miles time trials/tempo runs; enter some races, even as short as a mile or 800m; and see what happens. I think you should be running 36~38 minutes for 10k.

I called Greg M to ask him about his chart but I think he's out of town (if not country???).

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 05:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MaineRunner2001:
I ran a marathon in October 2003. Starting in May 2003, I increased miles preparing for the marathon. I averaged ~40 miles per week between May and the October marathon, peaking at 50 miles per weak. However, I gained three pounds. It was not much weight, but it took great effort to ONLY gain that much. I was HUNGRY ALL THE TIME.

I currently run 35 miles per week (between five and six hours per week). My weight is trending down, even though I fight hunger pains. The first week of April I ran 40 miles. That extra five miles seemed to kick-start my appetite, making me reluctant to increase time/miles running.

---

On the contrary, I think weight is a very important subject, particularly some young female runners. My take on this is what Rengle said about the training pace at one of the letsrun threads: "Let the pace come to you..." Same thing. "Let the ideal weight come to you..." Unless you're running solely to lose weight, you shouldn't worry about a couple of pounds fluctuation. As you train more regularly, your ideal weight will eventually emerge. If you're training to improve upon your own personal performace, definitely do not be concnered with your weight gain and sacrifice your training gain (time/miles, that is).

I have a picture of Naoko Takahashi, running in full suits (as most Japanese do) in the early part of the year (January or February, I believe...). She just finished Asian Games where she ran 2:21 in 90 degree temperature! She looks fat! She's well-known to eat a lot after a major marathon and his coach let her. "Eat a lot and run a lot" is his philosophy. It's like hibernation. After a major race, she would take some time off, eat like a pig, gain some weight, then start working out again and gradually take extra pounds (or kilograms) off her body... Your training should come first, not losing weight.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 06:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
Ok, I finished my second marathon yesterday. My peak mileage was 92 mpw with 10 runs that week. When the spring temps came, I received my first exposure to hills (no choice in this new neighborhood, if I run outside I have to deal with some large hills). I have been running this time around since February of '06. I should hit 100 mile weeks before my next goal race in October, (a local marathon). Besides running more, what can I do to keep my pace up for the final 10k of the marathon?

---

Congrats on your marathon! Just my opinion here. This is going to sound contrary to everything being said here. You mentioned that you are running most of your miles at a 10 m/m pace correct? If you are running 93 mile weeks that means you are running for 15 hours per week. You may be seeing the point of diminishing returns. Remember your body adapts to stress over time not mileage. Even elite's do not run 15 hours per week! I'm willing to bet you are dieing in the last 10k because you lack stamina from all that easy running you do. For your next marathon(Steamtown, see ya their)consider cutting your volume to 10-12 hours of running per week. Instead of 95% of your miles being Maffetone miles like you were doing try pushing the effort up a little. Use the heart rate monitor if you wish just let it go higher. Volume is only one component of training and I think you are making it the only component. Some marathon paced runs, tempo runs, or even just target a slightly faster pace than usuall for a few runs per week will help to develope stamina.

Good Luck

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 06:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:

Congrats on your marathon! Just my opinion here. This is going to sound contrary to everything being said here. You mentioned that you are running most of your miles at a 10 m/m pace correct? If you are running 93 mile weeks that means you are running for 15 hours per week. You may be seeing the point of diminishing returns. Remember your body adapts to stress over time not mileage. Even elite's do not run 15 hours per week! I'm willing to bet you are dieing in the last 10k because you lack stamina from all that easy running you do. For your next marathon(Steamtown, see ya their)consider cutting your volume to 10-12 hours of running per week. Instead of 95% of your miles being Maffetone miles like you were doing try pushing the effort up a little. Use the heart rate monitor if you wish just let it go higher. Volume is only one component of training and I think you are making it the only component. Some marathon paced runs, tempo runs, or even just target a slightly faster pace than usuall for a few runs per week will help to develope stamina.

Good Luck

---

I think I agree w/ your overall assessment, BUT is it really true elites don't put in 15 run hours during their peak volume? Not all the time mind you, but just during hi intensity points?

I suspect the Japanese marathoners do...I tempted to think Sell may venture into this territory...anyone have the definitive knowledge on this point?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 07:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runawayjesse:

Congrats on your marathon! Just my opinion here. This is going to sound contrary to everything being said here. You mentioned that you are running most of your miles at a 10 m/m pace correct? If you are running 93 mile weeks that means you are running for 15 hours per week. You may be seeing the point of diminishing returns. Remember your body adapts to stress over time not mileage. Even elite's do not run 15 hours per week! I'm willing to bet you are dieing in the last 10k because you lack stamina from all that easy running you do. For your next marathon(Steamtown, see ya their)consider cutting your volume to 10-12 hours of running per week. Instead of 95% of your miles being Maffetone miles like you were doing try pushing the effort up a little. Use the heart rate monitor if you wish just let it go higher. Volume is only one component of training and I think you are making it the only component. Some marathon paced runs, tempo runs, or even just target a slightly faster pace than usuall for a few runs per week will help to develope stamina.

Good Luck

---

I do want to run about 15 hours a week during base phase. I have the time so I might as well do it. I can see doing less with intensity, but my base phase is going to be about 13-15 hour weeks.

Now usually base phase meant no intensity. I am toying with a weekly or bi-weekly tempo or MP run during base. I did do the things you mentioned in the last weeks of the plan. I used Pfitz. I cannot do all of those workouts year round. I also tend to peak in 8 weeks.

Let's face, the problem could also be due to having only one year of running under my belt.

I do get to add 5 bpm this time around, so my pace training should become faster from that alone.

I PR'ed by about an hour, so I skipped right over the 4 hour mark. LOL It would be nice to get another huge PR, but let's face it, it gets much harder to do each time. This time, I felt pretty good through the race, parts of Steamtown hurt badly last year. I might have been in less pain due to the flat course also.

I don't know. I am just an average Jane looking to improve and it seems we have some great minds here. It doesn't hurt to ask, right?

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 07:35 PM            

I was just describing what I took on long bike races - clearly there are some practical differences with running e.g. more difficult to carry water, and you're right, nuts are only really useful over a longer-haul. But I thought it would be useful just to compare the intake of food and drink.

The water one is interesting. On a hot day, over seven hours, I will finish a bike race seriously dehydrated even after drinking 5 litres of water on the way round (without wanting to get too graphic, I won't urinate at all during the race until drinking a further 3/4 litres after the finish). So if you're running and only making the odd stop at water stations over a similar length of time (what about a 50 mile race?), surely the risk of dangerous dehydration is very high?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 07:37 PM               

Thanks for any help

Gary

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 07:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
I do want to run about 15 hours a week during base phase. I have the time so I might as well do it. I can see doing less with intensity, but my base phase is going to be about 13-15 hour weeks.

Now usually base phase meant no intensity. I am toying with a weekly or bi-weekly tempo or MP run during base. I did do the things you mentioned in the last weeks of the plan. I used Pfitz. I cannot do all of those workouts year round. I also tend to peak in 8 weeks.

Let's face, the problem could also be due to having only one year of running under my belt.

I do get to add 5 bpm this time around, so my pace training should become faster from that alone.

I PR'ed by about an hour, so I skipped right over the 4 hour mark. LOL It would be nice to get another huge PR, but let's face it, it gets much harder to do each time. This time, I felt pretty good through the race, parts of Steamtown hurt badly last year. I might have been in less pain due to the flat course also.

I don't know. I am just an average Jane looking to improve and it seems we have some great minds here. It doesn't hurt to ask, right?

---

So long as 15 hours of running doesn't break you down. I'm just mentioning something along the lines like Nobby says above about the "3 hour long run" being long enough. Many coaches tend to agree with him also, in that anything longer can actually become counterproductive. Same concept goes for total weekly volume. I would just try to do some of your miles at a stronger aerobic effort. I'm not talking intervals just not 100 maffetone miles. Jog as much as you want on top of that but the real training comes from the strong aerobic running not the jogging. 15 hours! You must have a really good job and no kids huh(LOL)?

I recommend purchasing a book by Lydiard. Running to the top is a good one. Very good stuff that I know you will enjoy.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 08:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by nmcmurdo:
Nobby,

I was just describing what I took on long bike races - clearly there are some practical differences with running e.g. more difficult to carry water, and you're right, nuts are only really useful over a longer-haul. But I thought it would be useful just to compare the intake of food and drink.

The water one is interesting. On a hot day, over seven hours, I will finish a bike race seriously dehydrated even after drinking 5 litres of water on the way round (without wanting to get too graphic, I won't urinate at all during the race until drinking a further 3/4 litres after the finish). So if you're running and only making the odd stop at water stations over a similar length of time (what about a 50 mile race?), surely the risk of dangerous dehydration is very high?

---

Ah, sorry! I wasn't aware you were talking about cycling. It is an interesting comparison; running being weight-bearing exercise and definitely cycling most likely go way beyond the running "time". Yes, dehydration would be a danger in a long races like marathon and beyond. However, when you realize the mechanism of dehydration-sweating; you sweat to cool your body. If you sweat a lot, you need to hydrate to replace that water loss. Now, some people, I believe Jack Foster was one of them and Kim can correct me if I'm wrong, say that they would prefer just dumping water over their body to cool. Mostly likely it shouldn't be an issue but it could be an issue of efficient absorption of liquid/nutrient from your stomach to your system. When all (most of) blood is drawn into your working muscles (no wonder we're dumb!), it could be actually a "work" to get that extra blood to the stomach to carry water/nutrients... Now, I'm sure reality is not that much of a big deal but something to think about; why not just dump water on your body instead of drinking?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 09:13 PM               

I believe that is you are doing a long or very long run to teach your body to "deal with the pounding," it doesn't matter if you do or don't consume gels. What matters is that you run far! For sure, in such a case, it it wise to consume fluids, but you could even eat a banana if the pace is not too hard. I am talking about long EZ distance runs which are slower than marathon race pace, by the way!

In the early stages of conditioning, it is probably best NOT to consume carbs during your distance runs because you simply need to teach your body to burn fat. Period! Later, when you are in top shape, it is ok to consume carbohydrates because now you really want to focus on pushing a strong pace for a long time. The idea, then, is to teach your legs to deal with extended power output and coordination needs of long distance racing.

Just my two cents worth!

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 10:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
I think I agree w/ your overall assessment, BUT is it really true elites don't put in 15 run hours during their peak volume? Not all the time mind you, but just during hi intensity points?

---

Yes they do. At 6 min per mile, 15 hours is 150mpw, which is not unusual. As one example, I have seen the training log of Alberto Chaica ( 8th in the Athens Olympic marathon and 4th in the European Championships a few years ago ) and leading up to Athens he ran as much as 17.5 hours a week ( 169 miles ) during his peak mileage buildup.

But, not to lose runawayjesse's original point, 15 hours a week of running is a hell of a lot for a recreational runner and I'd agree that a little less overall volume and higher overall intensity would be the way to go.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 10:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by runfastcoach:
One can fine rationale for both depriving oneself of carbs during a training run and consuming them to enhance performance. My opinion is there is no perfect answer.

I believe that is you are doing a long or very long run to teach your body to "deal with the pounding," it doesn't matter if you do or don't consume gels. What matters is that you run far! For sure, in such a case, it it wise to consume fluids, but you could even eat a banana if the pace is not too hard. I am talking about long EZ distance runs which are slower than marathon race pace, by the way!

In the early stages of conditioning, it is probably best NOT to consume carbs during your distance runs because you simply need to teach your body to burn fat. Period! Later, when you are in top shape, it is ok to consume carbohydrates because now you really want to focus on pushing a strong pace for a long time. The idea, then, is to teach your legs to deal with extended power output and coordination needs of long distance racing.

Just my two cents worth!

Tinman

---

Personally, I like Greg McMillan's ideas on the subject. He recommends not using any extra carbs on the regular slow long runs that his runners carry out most weeks year 'round, but he recommends using carb supplements for the fast finish long runs that his runners use about every other week in a specific marathon build up. The idea for using them on the fast finish runs is to i) get used to using them in training before using them in a race and ii) to be able to finish at the best possible intensity to maximize the effect of the workout.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-30-2007 11:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
Difficult question for Nobby;
If you have time to answer.

Have exercise physiologists 'hi-jacked' middle/long distance running?

---

IP: Logged

posted May-01-2007 12:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
[b]Difficult question for Nobby;
If you have time to answer.

Have exercise physiologists 'hi-jacked' middle/long distance running?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
Possibly. Running and racing are complex activities. They're wholistic activities. They involve your VO2 max, all of those thresholds that we hear about now, your cardiovascular system, your neuromuscular system and all sorts of other stuff.
But they also involve your intelligence, your determination, your passion, your fantasies, your desires, your stupidity and intelligence and all sorts of other other stuff.
Physiologists deal with the things mentioned in the first paragraph because those things are quantifiable. They can't deal with the things in the second paragraph because those things aren't quantifiable. I recall that while getting ready for the 1972 Olympics, Shorter had some trouble with one of his hips. He taped an ice bag to the hip before every run and kept up his 150 plus mile weeks. Physiologically, that might have been stupid. He might have been better off just resting until the hip got better. But sometimes doing the logical thing isn't the best thing for your running.
Gerry Lindgren is convinced that science is somewhat harmful to modern runners because science is all about learning your limitations and serious running is all about exceeding your limitations.
The physiologists are trying to tell us that we're all machines and the way to run faster is to look at all of the complex parts of the machine and then find a way to transform that machine into a better machine. That's like trying to explain school performance by studying student IQs. The IQ has some conenction to school performance but not all that much.

[/B]

---

Beautifully written.
Thanks for posting that.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited May-01-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-01-2007 04:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Ah, sorry! I wasn't aware you were talking about cycling. It is an interesting comparison; running being weight-bearing exercise and definitely cycling most likely go way beyond the running "time". Yes, dehydration would be a danger in a long races like marathon and beyond. However, when you realize the mechanism of dehydration-sweating; you sweat to cool your body. If you sweat a lot, you need to hydrate to replace that water loss. Now, some people, I believe Jack Foster was one of them and Kim can correct me if I'm wrong, say that they would prefer just dumping water over their body to cool. Mostly likely it shouldn't be an issue but it could be an issue of efficient absorption of liquid/nutrient from your stomach to your system. When all (most of) blood is drawn into your working muscles (no wonder we're dumb!), it could be actually a "work" to get that extra blood to the stomach to carry water/nutrients... Now, I'm sure reality is not that much of a big deal but something to think about; why not just dump water on your body instead of drinking?

---

Funny this issue should pop up. As I said in a previous post I was in charge of a Drink station at our local marathon this last weekend. How I judged the "old hands" in the race was by the fact that they were the ones who poured water over their heads rather than drink it !!
Yes ! It was something that Jack Foster (and many others did).
In addition : outside our local club rooms is a water fountain plus a tap with a hose attached. Whenever, I return from a run and see that hose I think of Jack. He always hosed his legs after a run. "Good enough for race horses, must be good enough for me" he would say.

------------------
Run easy, Run long

IP: Logged

posted May-01-2007 05:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:

---

[/QUOTE]

I hope Richard99 is still reading this. This is the type of knowledge he could really learn from, rather than reading the latest and greatest 'scientific' studies.

I wish Kemibe would chime in as well, his knowledge and experience would be put to better use in this type of discussion rather than hammering away at Richard in another endless circular argument.

IP: Logged

posted May-01-2007 06:14 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:

Gerry Lindgren is convinced that science is somewhat harmful to modern runners because science is all about learning your limitations and serious running is all about exceeding your limitations.
The physiologists are trying to tell us that we're all machines and the way to run faster is to look at all of the complex parts of the machine and then find a way to transform that machine into a better machine. That's like trying to explain school performance by studying student IQs. The IQ has some conenction to school performance but not all that much.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-01-2007 07:31 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-01-2007 08:33 AM            

What changes have you made to your running in deference to age? What aspects of training require more attention? More recovery? Less intensity? I am curious.

IP: Logged

posted May-01-2007 10:39 AM               

The needs for 5 hour runners are different from top flight elite runners, yes. However, their physiological fundamental and their physiological needs are exactly the same--it's just NOT during the same race en route to 2:10 marathon vs. 5:10 marathon. They both need to develop their body's ability to utilize fat efficiently if they want to go through the wall as smoothly as possible. This is why time-based training works well, isn't it? It's not 22 miles that works best to develop this ability. 10 hours a week, 15 hours a week... It doesn't matter. They still need to develop their aerobic capacity to maximum the best they can and if 15 works best, so be it. If 8 works best for you, why not? You need to cool your body and if dumping water on your head works best while running at 4:55 mile pace, great. But if you're out there for 5 hours and you are most likely to deplete all your body fluid to sweat to cool youself, yes, you'll need to put it back in your system. Some sweat more than others, some don't sweat at all; the rate of water need during the run varies from individual to individual.

Now having said all that, even if you're old (like me!), physiological and mechanical fundamentals stay the same. You need to develop aerobic capacity AND you need recovery. If it takes 3 days of easy runs before you recover enough to move on, that's what you need. You need good mechanics and hill running will help you immensely. If anything, as you get older and your body gets stiffer, it becomes more necessary to maintain your suppleness by running over hilly courses or cross country courses. Kim can tell you (and he has) what kind of terrain Jack Foster trained on! That's why he was able to run 2:11 at the age of 42. Too many people only look at the numbers and say, "Foster only trained 80 miles a week and look what he did! 80 is better than 100." When you take that into consideration, all of a sudden, you'd realize pure number game for mileage wouldn't mean much at all.

I believe a lot of what's written and promoted through some media are driven by commercialism. Energy supplement companies want to sell their product; they never come out and say, "water is good enough" or "1 pack through the marathon would be enough"; they want to say, "take 5 of them during the 5k race"! Same thing with minimalist shoes. They'll never say "buy the cheapest shoes." I was actually thinking about that Japanese product, Vaam (for supplement during the race). I've tried it once and I was out of shape (wasn't running a marathon) and have no idea if it helps or not. But its concept being to help your body's metabolism to burn fat more efficiently actually makes sense to me.

Science definitely helps. I think I said this on this thread somewhere but Lydiard would be the first to say to learn as much science on running and physiology as possible. You need to know whys of exercises. But that was in the 80s. I think we are just bombarded with information today. It would take 3 days just to sort out and find "useful" information out of garbage! Someone mentioned Salazar and that is fitting because, yes, Salazar was a by-product of this science reinforced era. But look what happened. He was lost in too much information. I talked to his old coach, Bill Squires, about it. He said, "Poor Albarto, I love him to death but he just took a bite here and took a bite there and he was completely lost before LA Olympics..." We have a saying in Japan; "Sit on a rock for 3 years..." The effect of something will not be seen in 3 weeks; it takes 3 years. One of the most popular "research" out there on training mileage, as with this very thread (at least the beginning) is "so-and-so ran 100 miles a week for 6 months and ran such-and-such time; then he cut down the mileage down to 60 and in 2 months time, he ran such-and-such (faster time); therefore, less mileage is better." Well, issn't this picture similar to things like Lydiard program? I believe even Great Ron Hill said something similar. He ran so much one year and didn't perform well so next year he cut down the mileage and ran 2:09. Why no one sees that improved performace remotely POSSIBLLY could be the result of those high mileage period? On a bright note; I spoke with Dick Brown last week, before Cardinal Invitational, and we both agreed that we are quite impressed with the way Salazar had been coaching his runners (Dick lives in Oregon and he knows Salazar personally well). Then, bang, Rupp ran 27:33. I think Salazar was one of the most exciting runners in the 80s and have a great respect for him as a great runner. But I still see him as a failure when it comes to performance. He literally killed himself! But now actually I have more respect for him as a coach. I think he's doing a fairly good job!

[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-01-2007).]

IP: Logged