Marathon fuel

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

overcome that hurdle. Someone suggested taking Gu and Donovan says that
isn't necessary. I disagreed and still believe that fueling during runs
at one's limit will speed recovery as opposed to relying on fat burning
for fuel.

You went further and suggested that it's "stupid" to do a long run without
taking GU. So for example, you are suggesting that Dan's 2:33 marathon
friend
is stupid.

He was a very smart guy (lost touch with him). Ignorant and stubborn (as
many of us were), but not stupid.

I'm going to make up some bumper stickers: "GU is not the answer!"

GU is perfectly designed to unsettle the stomach, imo. Much better to eat
something that has some protein and fat in it. It all gets into the
bloodstream. If you drink lots of sports drink, you're getting plenty of
carbs. Per the experienced folks on the ultra list, 300 cals/hour is all
most people can consume without impairing performance when doing ultras
(typically at 60-75% of max hr)

-- Dan

Dan Stumpus said:

Quoted message said:

GU is perfectly designed to unsettle the stomach, imo. Much better to eat
something that has some protein and fat in it.

i'm still a fan of liquid meal replacements, especially the one's
marketed for endurance events, opposed to slim fast, for example. they
have carbs/fat/protein and digest easier for me than solid food. and you
can vary the strength of them to your liking.

when i'm not injured i run for 2 (slow) hours on nothing but salty
orange juice, but anything over that i would want liquid food. not
because of any science, but because i get hungry.

h

Dan Stumpus said:

He was a very smart guy (lost touch with him). Ignorant and stubborn (as
many of us were), but not stupid.

I'm going to make up some bumper stickers: "GU is not the answer!"

I should clarify -- I think Trailrunner meant not eating anything on the long
run is stupid, don't think he specifically meant GU. I still disagree and
think an easy 2hr run in cool conditions doesn't necessarily require any food.

Quoted message said:

GU is perfectly designed to unsettle the stomach, imo. Much better to eat
something that has some protein and fat in it. It all gets into the
bloodstream. If you drink lots of sports drink, you're getting plenty of
carbs. Per the experienced folks on the ultra list, 300 cals/hour is all
most people can consume without impairing performance when doing ultras
(typically at 60-75% of max hr)

Beyond this point (in fact before it I think) you run into limitations in how
quickly you can absorb the nutrients.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

i'm still a fan of liquid meal replacements, especially the one's

marketed for endurance events,
___

care to name names? i know doug f. drinks slimfast or some other old
grandma type of drink. could be ensure. all i know is he drinks the
same stuff as the oprah crowd. he probably watches oprah too.

i prefer liquids as well. my favorite carb creation is ABB's Carbo
force as the base (instead of water) for a Cytomax mix. My protein
shake is Myoplex, the 17 Oz. paper container size. In race it's
strictly E-gel.

post race that afternoon? i replenish on jackaroo chardonnay (se
australia) and or wombat hill cabernet merlot (se australia as well).

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-05-08, Dan Stumpus <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

I should clarify -- I think Trailrunner meant not eating anything on the long
run is stupid, don't think he specifically meant GU. I still disagree and
think an easy 2hr run in cool conditions doesn't necessarily require any food.

And that's where the disagreement comes in. To you, a 16M run in 2 hours
may be an "easy" run. I got the distinct impression that for the
original poster, 16M wasn't easy and he wasn't doing it in only 2 hours.

I think you apply your own standards to every situation when in reality
most folks who ask these kind of questions on this forum are nowhere
near the level of performance as you. You need to take a step back and
consider that we aren't all blessed with natural/developed talent.

- The Trailrunner

Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*

Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/

Dan Stumpus said:

I think that the problem with this runner is that he was running so hard for
him that he dug too deep into his glycogen stores. If he'd run slower,
snack during, and take a couple of breaks, it will be much easier, and he'll
get more benefit.

I agree 100%. My whole point was that he probably was digging too deep
into his glycogen stores and that ONE way to address that was to fuel
during the run. But my experience is that the faster I deplete my
glycogen stores, the deeper I dig into my fat stores so I want to keep
the glycogen up as long as possible because once I begin to rely too
much on fat I slow down. Even as trained as we are, burning fat is a
slower process than burning carbs and, I believe, likewise replacing fat
is also slower.

--
- The Trailrunner

Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*

Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

If that's true, then there are many "stupid" runners

There are. Some of them are also staggeringly arrogant.

Quoted message said:

who also happen to be
very fast, and don't find 2hr-2:30 training runs all that stressful.

Bollocks (1)

(1) Peer reviewed opinion

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I still disagree and
think an easy 2hr run in cool conditions doesn't necessarily require any food.

Why is the temperature important?

Donovan Rebbechi said:

You went further and suggested that it's "stupid" to do a long run without
taking GU. So for example, you are suggesting that Dan's 2:33 marathon friend
is stupid.

Donovan, again you're so literal that you miss the point. It's stupid in
the sense that not to take it as you suggested "because it costs money"
when the original poster was struggling with 16M runs. It's stupid not
to do something that's relatively easy and cheap by comparison to race
fees/shoes/etc that might possibly help you in order to save a buck.

--
- The Trailrunner

Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*

Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/

Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Just had to join in this food fight... Trailrunner (who clings to his
anonymity)

-------------------

CHEAP SHOT ALERT!!!

"TheTBR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Just had to join in this food fight... Trailrunner (who clings to his
anonymity)

-------------------

CHEAP SHOT ALERT!!!

You should talk!

The Trailrunner said:

And that's where the disagreement comes in. To you, a 16M run in 2 hours
may be an "easy" run. I got the distinct impression that for the
original poster, 16M wasn't easy and he wasn't doing it in only 2 hours.

Now you're conveniently trying to reframe the debate (to the point of
misrepresenting my position) having lost it.

I said precisely this:
<quote from Donovan, initial response to OP>
Taking GU on the run will help.

But you shouldn't need it just to complete a long training run. I'd suggest
slowing down.
</quote>

I never said that he shouldn't take GU or some other carb source on the run.
I said that he should learn to pace himself. Not an either-or proposition.

Quoted message said:

I think you apply your own standards to every situation when in reality

You on the other hand said precisely this ...

"While it's certainly possible to complete a 16M training run without any
fuel, it's a pretty stupid thing to do."

So who's making absolutist, one-size-fits-all remarks now ?

You went further, implying that everyone should do it. And then you went
further still, arguing that relying on fat as an energy source increases
recovery time (a position you've hopefully backed away from)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

steve common said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I still disagree and
think an easy 2hr run in cool conditions doesn't necessarily require any
food.

Why is the temperature important?

I was thinking more in terms of drink. I usually take some sort of drink if
it's warm, maybe water or maybe "gatorbarf" or similar. I'm more concerned
about hydration, but if I can get some nutrients as part of the package deal,
with zero inconvenience, I may choose to do so. I haven't taken GU or gel of
any kind since the marathon last year, and only had gatorade during one run
(a small amount during a HM)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-05-08, The Trailrunner <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

I said precisely this:
<quote from Donovan, initial response to OP>
Taking GU on the run will help.

But you shouldn't need it just to complete a long training run. I'd suggest
slowing down.
</quote>

I never said that he shouldn't take GU or some other carb source on the run.
I said that he should learn to pace himself. Not an either-or proposition.

Wrong. Here's the complete text of my original message on this topic
which was in response to your response to Mike C:

Donovan: "Why would you want to what ? Complete a training run without
GU ? Because it costs money, and you don't (or shouldn't) need it."

My response: "While it's certainly possible to complete a 16M training
run without any fuel, it's a pretty stupid thing to do. A major point of
"training" is to be able to do it again as soon as possible. By taking
in some fuel during long training runs, one is better able to recover
and thus train more. For maximum training efficiency, I recommend some
form of fuel for anything much over an hour."

This conversation is over.
--
- The Trailrunner

Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*

Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/

The Trailrunner wrote:

(I´ll reply even though you may find it quite redundant or consider
that this conversation is over; I find the issue(s) interesting and
believe it´s till too early to conclude that this thread is dead or at
a dead-end.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What about the purposeful depletion run before the carboloading? Is

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

physiological state different from that reached by a long run where

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

end up depleted by accident?

Quoted message said:

The basic concept of depletion is that you burn everything and

replace

Quoted message said:

over a period of 2 days. That means 2 days off of running. To me,

taking

Quoted message said:

2 days off after every long run doesn't seem like the most optimal

way

Quoted message said:

of training. Not to mention that as you say, being depleted doesn't

feel

Quoted message said:

too good so one is much less likely to want to run the next day or

two.

Quoted message said:

But hey, maybe that's just me.

The basic concept of depletion is that you burn everything and then go
out for a run in order to achieve a very specific overcompensation or a
certain amount of super-replacement. This is something entirely
different from normal glycogen replacement and recovery, which´ll take
place within 24 hours or sooner. Should you just need to run a normal
run the next day, you´d be fine - the days off (or with very little)
running are there only to achieve the percentage above 100%.

Bonking doesn´t feel good, but I don´t think it should scare anyone
who knows what happened off any runs, not even on the following day.

OTOH the subjective sensation of doing the (second)
depletion/pre-carboloading run is quite different from bonking on a
long run even though the physiological state of total depletion should
be the same in both cases.
Hence my sincere question.

Quoted message said:

I probably do. But that doesn't mean that I want to. That's why I

want

Quoted message said:

to take in some carbs during the run, so I don't get into fat burning

Quoted message said:

mode. I train at much more than 16M sometimes and those are the runs

I

Quoted message said:

want to burn fat. Carbs are more easily replaceable but fat takes

time

Quoted message said:

to replace so I don't want to rely on fat for fuel during every run.

If

Quoted message said:

I did, then recovery really would become an issue. Recovery involves
much more than just how the legs feel.

As has been pointed out, the only way to avoid using fuel during a run
is to run quite fast (or to run only for a very short time).

I, too, must confess my absolute ignorance of any literature that
suggests fat (for energy use of, by endurance athletes) is slower to
replace than glycogen - and my common sense is boggled by how this
could be so (unless one is an anorectic on a complete fat-free diet)
even on a(n entirely theoretical) cumulative basis.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

FWIW the literature I'm familiar with says that to optimize

recovery

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one should begin to fill up the tank about fifteen minutes before

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

end of the run and follow up with the 3/1 carbs/protein mix ASAP,

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a full meal within an hour.

Quoted message said:

I think the key here is "begin to fill the tank." I'm not saying that

Quoted message said:

one should eat every 15 minutes during a long run but rather that one

Quoted message said:

should take in something so they don't get into fat burning (at least

on

Quoted message said:

every long run). Even you say at 15 minutes from the end, but my
experience is sooner provides a more optimal recovery and training
performance. And I agree, protein/carbs as soon as one is finished

and a

Quoted message said:

full meal shortly completes the picture.

FWIW I believe (entirely subjectively) that the difference between the
scientifically state-of-the-art and the "I´ll wait till I´ve finished
the run" recovery is that between 100% and 95%, i.e. one isn´t stupid
to settle for the latter.

While I won´t argue with your experience, it could be that there were
other, more important factors which slowed down your recovery and hurt
your performance when you had none, later or less during the run.

But back to the marathon long runs: the whole, or at least the main,
reason why they are there - especially for the novice - is to improve
the ability to use fat for energy at one´s marathon pace, right?

Therefore the run must be sufficiently slow for the fat-burning system
to be a significant source of energy and sufficiently long for it to be
the critical source of energy, right?

And if one begins to suffer and slow down, it´s because the run has
been too fast for the fat-burning system to deliver the desired
percentage of energy - and therefore that run has been far from optimal
trainingwise, right?

Now, would maintaining that pace with the help of an energy drink or
snack help to achieve the desired physiological adaptions - or would it
be better to slow down?

(I understand that my knowledge here can be somewhat hazy, but my
curiosity is honest and entirely testosterone-free...)

Anders

The Trailrunner said:

I agree 100%. My whole point was that he probably was digging too

deep

Quoted message said:

into his glycogen stores and that ONE way to address that was to fuel

Quoted message said:

during the run.

But perhaps not the best or the most advisable in his situation.

Quoted message said:

(...) Even as trained as we are, burning fat is

a

Quoted message said:

slower process than burning carbs and, I believe, likewise replacing

fat

Quoted message said:

is also slower.

Aren´t you making a leap from an accepted truth onto an unsupported
assumption?

Anders

anders wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

The Trailrunner said:

snip<
I, too, must confess my absolute ignorance of any literature that
suggests fat (for energy use of, by endurance athletes) is slower to
replace than glycogen - and my common sense is boggled by how this
could be so (unless one is an anorectic on a complete fat-free diet)
even on a(n entirely theoretical) cumulative basis.

I don't think fat replacement is normally an issue. Fat is just slower to
digest. I remember reading two things about fats with regard to endurance
exercise:

1) that fatty deposits within the muscles are more readily utilized than
body fat for endurance sports. These may be the fatty deposits that take
longer than glycogen to replace. (Can't find an online reference on this).

2) that medium chain fatty acids are far better for endurance metabolism
than other kinds of fats. http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0372.htm

Succeed clip II sports drink also has medium chain fats, but their
description talks more about digestion:

"Drinks which contain only carbohydrates tend to acidify in the digestive
tract after many hours of use. The Medium Chain Triglyceride in CLIP reduces
that tendency because digestion of fat prompts the addition of acid
neutralizing bicarbonate to the digestive tract, counteracting excess
stomach acid. The MCT also supplies energy from fat, sparing the runners
supply of muscle of glycogen. Studies show that athletes who ingest MCT with
carbohydrate can work longer than if they had consumed only carbohydrate".
http://www.ultrafit-endurance.com/succlipspor.html

-Tony

The Trailrunner said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-05-08, The Trailrunner <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

I said precisely this:
<quote from Donovan, initial response to OP>
Taking GU on the run will help.

But you shouldn't need it just to complete a long training run. I'd suggest
slowing down.
</quote>

I never said that he shouldn't take GU or some other carb source on the run.
I said that he should learn to pace himself. Not an either-or proposition.

Wrong.

Not wrong at all. The above is a verbatim quote from my first response to OP.

Quoted message said:

Here's the complete text of my original message on this topic
which was in response to your response to Mike C:

Donovan: "Why would you want to what ? Complete a training run without
GU ? Because it costs money, and you don't (or shouldn't) need it."

Yes, the point is that I'm explaining to Mike C why *I* don't take GU on long
runs.

Quoted message said:

My response: "While it's certainly possible to complete a 16M training
run without any fuel, it's a pretty stupid thing to do. A major point of

I don't see how the above context changes anything. You clearly think that
anyone who doesn't fuel on the run is an idiot.

Quoted message said:

"training" is to be able to do it again as soon as possible. By taking
in some fuel during long training runs, one is better able to recover
and thus train more. For maximum training efficiency, I recommend some
form of fuel for anything much over an hour."

This conversation is over.

Well yes, you're running out of arguments to lose.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony said:

anders wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

The Trailrunner said:

snip<
I, too, must confess my absolute ignorance of any literature that
suggests fat (for energy use of, by endurance athletes) is slower to
replace than glycogen - and my common sense is boggled by how this
could be so (unless one is an anorectic on a complete fat-free diet)
even on a(n entirely theoretical) cumulative basis.

I don't think fat replacement is normally an issue. Fat is just slower to
digest. I remember reading two things about fats with regard to endurance
exercise:

1) that fatty deposits within the muscles are more readily utilized than
body fat for endurance sports. These may be the fatty deposits that take
longer than glycogen to replace. (Can't find an online reference on this).

The physiology text I have shows a 50/50 split at 85% VO2. The number does
trend upwards in favor of intramuscular deposits as intensity increases. So
you'd be looking at no more than ~50gm or so for a 2hr run.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

anders wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

The Trailrunner said:

snip<
I, too, must confess my absolute ignorance of any literature that
suggests fat (for energy use of, by endurance athletes) is slower to
replace than glycogen - and my common sense is boggled by how this
could be so (unless one is an anorectic on a complete fat-free diet)
even on a(n entirely theoretical) cumulative basis.

I don't think fat replacement is normally an issue. Fat is just slower to
digest. I remember reading two things about fats with regard to endurance
exercise:

1) that fatty deposits within the muscles are more readily utilized than
body fat for endurance sports. These may be the fatty deposits that take
longer than glycogen to replace. (Can't find an online reference on

this).

Quoted message said:

The physiology text I have shows a 50/50 split at 85% VO2. The number does
trend upwards in favor of intramuscular deposits as intensity increases. So
you'd be looking at no more than ~50gm or so for a 2hr run.

Thanks, just to be clear, that's 50% bodyfat and 50% intramuscular fat at
85% VO2? And with that a percentage of glucose is also being consumed of
course, that percentage also going higher as intensity increases.

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, fat is being burned as a
primary fuel all the time by most parts of the body, while the brain alone
burns only glucose or ketones. As I understand it, when one begins to run,
the increased metabolism necessary for running kicks in and the fat burning
system becomes warmed up to suppy more fat to the legs after 10-15 mins.
Before this glycogen is burned by the running muscles more than fat.

Thus at an easy pace, the body will attempt to preserve glycogen by ramping
up the metabolism of body fat. Your physiology text indicates that
intramuscular fat is also preserved at lower intensites. So if the muscles
and metabolism are well trained for endurance, one can train at a low
intensity for many hours while utilizing mostly body fat and then come back
the next day and do the same thing.

At higher intensities, both muscle glycogen and intramuscular fat are
utilized in higher percentages than at lower intensities, while the burning
of body fat drops in percentage. At what intensity does this start to become
significant? It must vary to some extent with each individual.

For longer endurance workouts the intramuscular fat could indeed become
depleted, and might take longer than glycogen to replenish. I've read that
this can take a few days (trying to remember where).

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/