Running and Weight Loss (Read 4287 times)

Trent (or anyone else), what's your take on the recent studies associating long-term low caloric intake with longer life?

I've been reading that recent tests done on primates show amazing results in animals not only leaving longer but also much healthier lives. There have been some suggestions that a body on very low (2/3 of what we consider 'required') calorie diet 'cannibalizes' its own diseased cells. These findings have been reported in some respectable science magazines but of course there haven't been any conclusive studies done on humans. I for one would not be a good study subject - l like my food too much. Ewa

Trent (or anyone else), what's your take on the recent studies associating long-term low caloric intake with longer life?

Less than 800 calories and most of us will live longer and maintain weight, but it is very hard to maintain.

I am female-- have a higher body fat % than you, which means automatically that I should eat less than you do. Further, I am 5'5'' and 1/2 and you are taller. I run pretty darn close to the same amount of miles you run. Yet we eat identically. On the one hand you are telling people to eat enough, on the other than you are a MAN eating as much as me! I am trying to lose .5 pounds of LARD a week. Are you trying to lose weight?

Got it. My current weight fluctuates between 158 and 161. My diet maintains that weight. A year ago, I wanted to drop weight. Then I weighed 168 or so and I was targeting 155. I did this by dropping my cals to about 1200/day + those needed for running. While most estimates have me burn about 125 calories per mile run, based on my weight, I only refueled with 80-100 calories per mile. The combination of the low calories per day and the low calories per mile and I dropped that weight in about 2 months, actually getting as low as 153. My weight has crept back up about 5 pounds in the year since, in part due to substantially increased leg muscle mass and in part due to a loosening of my food intake. About a year ago, my body fat was 6%, measured by an experienced person using calipers. You, by weighing less, burn fewer calories per mile run and have a lower daily calorie requirement. If you are eating as much as I eat, you will actually be taking in more calories relative to your needs than I am (since I weigh more and therefore need more per day and burn more per mile). Also, you (likely ) have more estrogen than I do; estrogen is a potent maintainer of fat stores. You may find that during certain times of the month it is easier to drop weight than at others.

I have NEVER known a man before to drop their calories to 1200 to lose weight. WOW! Like you Muse for me it's all about how I look, not how much I weigh. I know I look a hell of alot better now at 126 then I did when I weighed 115 or even 120. Crap I looked better at 130 then I did at 115-120 (I was skinny fat). I think your dietician was right on the money with her diet plan! OH and I LOVE MY FOOD TOO!!!!

Trent, I've been eating at maintenance this week 'cause of my 10k coming up. That puts me at 2,000 cals a day. Guess what dude? Breakthrough running beacuse of it. I just ran a tempo run faster than my 10k from last November. Guess what else? I wasn't even breathing hard. THAT is the difference between continual dieting and eating for health. No idea what my body fat % is Omron says 16-18%. yes I do eat something like 1550-1600 cals a day when I'm *really* trying to be purposeful about losing weight, but what I can tell you honestly is that it makes my running HURT and SUCK. The longer I eat that low the worse I feel. Variations in diet (ie, periodizing diet) are good too! On the other hand, today was splendid. I'm all for awesome feel-good performance. I hope I PR this weekend~! Rocken Mam-- you are my hero!!!!!! bottoms up to breakthrough running for me!

Hi guys thanks for your advice support and trying to help me learn about the things that are important. I dont intentionally eat low amounts of food or calories but I do have a small appetite and in an attempt to cut down to help me lose those few extra lbs, I appear to be inadvertanly missing out on valuable energy. I got a shock at how low my colories were although Monday was lower than most days. I have written down what I eat for years, part of doing WW, but have not converted to calories until the last few days. I was also shocked at just how many cals you need (following checking my BMR) as well as the extras you need for running. I obviously havent learnt much in the past few years, when I first joined a WW class unlike most people there I had to eat more (and more of the right things) to enable me to lose weight. I think its the thought of eating more to lose weight I had/have a problem with. I am no where near running as much as most of people on this site, I have only been doing this somewhat seriously for the last 3-4 weeks so at least I have picked up on this sooner rather than later. I think I also need to work on how I look rather than what the scales say. Thank you again.

I need a spell check!!

Training certainly helps, primarily by increasing the amount of fat you burn as a proportion of your energy source while running at high exertion. This takes many miles and years.

You can see this if you use a heart rate monitor. Running at an "aerobic" heart rate (generally no higher than 75-80% of your maximal heart rate) will make the body more efficient at burning fat and your speed at that level of exertion will gradually increase with a lot of training. As an extreme example, Dean Karnazes (a well known ultramarathoner) recently stated in an interview that when he ran 50 marathons in 50 states in 50 days that his heart rate averaged 118 bpm while running about a 9 minute/mile pace! That's how he can run 100 milers, by not using much muscle glycogen he doesn't bonk.