wedgy!

Elflord said:

You're what, 5kg heavier than yourself as a kid

10kg heavier than when I was my leanest as a working adult, 12kg heaver
than when I was a starving student. It's not all fat though :-P

D Stumpus said:

I say, eat, drink, and be merry, you lucky dog...

noooooo! Don't tempt me :->

D Stumpus said:

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I know you didn't ask me but

The rule around here is "don't ask, tell anyway"...

Quoted message said:

2002 69kg 155lb 2:55
2005 73kg 164lb 2:59
2007 76kg 170lb 2:59

Amazing, you have proven in your last two races that weight makes *no*
difference whatsoever. And age has no effect, either.

I'm not so sure... for all we know, if Steve had maintained 73 kg, he
might have gone even faster in 2007. No?

Anyway, I've always thought that your body weight drops naturally as
your fitness improves. Which is not *necessarily* the same as your
body weight dropping the more mileage you run... although more mileage
obviously doesn't hurt.

All I know is, when watching the Boston marathon go by, it's always
fascinated me how the elites are seriously skinny, mid-packers less
so, and as the day goes by, the runners get fatter and fatter. This
was particularly noticeable at the 100th when they waived the
requirements and had 100,000 runners.

But I am not so sure if weight is correlated to the amount of miles
one runs, as I have to imagine many of these runners were averaging
the same sorts of mileage to train for the marathon. I think a better
correlation is the faster you go (i.e., the fitter you are), the
smaller you shrink.

I know, I know... I've heard that you run faster if you weigh less,
but I've never found that correlation for myself. I ran my fastest
when I was actually at my heaviest... but my weight then was
attributable to a high level of muscle mass, not fat.

jen

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not for me. Get back to me when you turn 50...

how much do you weigh at age 55 anyway ? Despite all the whining, based on
your times, I suspect you are in much better shape than the average 55
year
old. Do you think the running may have something to do with that ?

Why the sarcasm?

I was not making a point related to my relative fitness, but providing some
data about my mileage and caloric balance. Yes, I'm in better shape than
average because I run, but isn't that pretty obvious? And I'm grateful for
that blessing and many others. What point are you trying to make?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At age 55, I eat about 2200
calories/day running 70 mpw with 7-8000' of climbing (more like 78
flat-equivalent miles/week, I reckon). Not much is it? What do the
tables
say, 100 cals/mile? So I'm functioning at a bit over 1k calories/day
after
deducting running...it's ridiculous.

yeah, it is ridiculous. Getting numbers wrong is much more common than
functioning on 1000cal/day, so I don't believe your numbers.

Another snide remark. Let me put it this way: it's more likely that you
don't know much about caloric restriction research, that one can be quite
healthy (with a 3-7% likely increase in average lifespan) eating 25% fewer
calories than the commonly established requirements.

It will not take your considerable Mathematical talents to connect the dots
from there.

Here's a decent overview article (with some intriguing implications for
running):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070305202936.htm

Quoted message said:

But calculations aside, I bet that if you quite running, you would gain
weight
on "1200 calories".

Well, I can tell you from the difficulty I have lowering it to 1500 a day,
that I'm not about to try that one!

And hey, you don't lose any credibility or respect by being civil.

-- Dan

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

D Stumpus said:

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not for me. Get back to me when you turn 50...

how much do you weigh at age 55 anyway ? Despite all the whining, based on
your times, I suspect you are in much better shape than the average 55
year
old. Do you think the running may have something to do with that ?

Why the sarcasm?

I was not making a point related to my relative fitness, but providing some
data about my mileage and caloric balance. Yes, I'm in better shape than
average because I run, but isn't that pretty obvious? And I'm grateful for
that blessing and many others. What point are you trying to make?

My point as stated a few posts up in this thread, is that if you run a lot of
miles and are somewhat attentive to nutrition, you will end up pretty lean.

I don't think that changes a whole lot with age. Sure you won't be that lean
relative to a teenager, but relative to your own age group you will be.

Likewise, I think your caloric requirements are higher than those of a 55 year
old couch potato. I don't believe that they are completely unaffected by your
training regimen.

Quoted message said:

Another snide remark. Let me put it this way: it's more likely that you

You're reading too much into it. I really didn't mean that personally, and I don't
think I or many others here would be any better than you are at counting
calories. I just think it's very difficult to do. It requires not just solid
knowledge, but considerable effort/commitment to do it comprehensively, and if
you don't do it carefully and comprehensively, you will *always* get it wrong,
and in particular, you will always underestimate it.

Quoted message said:

don't know much about caloric restriction research, that one can be quite

I do know about this. It's not terribly relevant to this discussion except
that it implies that the body can adapt to differences in caloric intake.

My understanding is that the claims on it increasing life span are based on
rat studies where they force the animal to limit their intake over the entire
lifespan. Whether or not *unsupervised* *attempts* at caloric restriction
on the part of humans who *start late in life* have similar effects is a
completely open question.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Dan said:

Here's a decent overview article (with some intriguing implications
for running):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070305202936.htm

I'm not a calorie restriction expert (I've encountered articles like
this but not delved too deep), nor unbiased (I like to eat!).

OK, so it looks to me like this says that one's metabolism reacts to
consistent starvation (calorie restriction, if you prefer) over weeks
and months, which is why you only burn X per day, and why people who
yo-yo diet eventually have less and less success losing weight.

So that, if I want to continue enjoying eating as much as possible
without gaining weight, I'd better not subject myself to a consistent,
significant calorie deficit. Right?

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You're reading too much into it. I really didn't mean that personally, and
I don't
think I or many others here would be any better than you are at counting
calories. I just think it's very difficult to do. It requires not just
solid
knowledge, but considerable effort/commitment to do it comprehensively,
and if
you don't do it carefully and comprehensively, you will *always* get it
wrong,
and in particular, you will always underestimate it.

It is tough, but not impossible to be within 10-15%.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

don't know much about caloric restriction research, that one can be quite

Quoted message said:

I do know about this. It's not terribly relevant to this discussion except
that it implies that the body can adapt to differences in caloric intake.

Let me expand a bit. I suspect that if you're very lean (some charts say
I'm in the 5% range -- I have pop-out veins on arms and legs), that any more
than a reduced calorie diet will cause weight gain. I think that we at our
optimal running weight are really in the unnaturally skinny range, and it
takes a reduced cal diet to maintain that. And that may increase the
efficiency of our muscle fibers due to various genes being expressed.

Quoted message said:

My understanding is that the claims on it increasing life span are based
on
rat studies where they force the animal to limit their intake over the
entire
lifespan. Whether or not *unsupervised* *attempts* at caloric restriction
on the part of humans who *start late in life* have similar effects is a
completely open question.

Agreed. One article said that the difference in lifespan for humans is
probably minimal, a year or two. But the point is that one can eat a lot
less and remain healthy, and presumably be leaner than the average bear.

-- Dan

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"h squared" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

(pondering my (mostly ugly) knees:
http://home.comcast.net/~pomeroyq/legs.jpg)

I dunno, H, they look great to me... :-)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

OK, so it looks to me like this says that one's metabolism reacts to
consistent starvation (calorie restriction, if you prefer) over weeks
and months, which is why you only burn X per day, and why people who
yo-yo diet eventually have less and less success losing weight.

So that, if I want to continue enjoying eating as much as possible
without gaining weight, I'd better not subject myself to a consistent,
significant calorie deficit. Right?

Yeah, that sounds like a logical conclusion. But...can one maintain optimal
racing weight (whippet thin) without cal restriction?

Folks I know who are struggling with weight loss often fast, then binge.
Your observation implies that they could eat more cals with the same result
if they evened it out.

I thought the most interesting observation in the article was the hint at
higher muscle efficiency -- this would give weight loss a double boost:
metabolic and mechanical efficiency.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

D Stumpus said:

Let me expand a bit. I suspect that if you're very lean (some charts say
I'm in the 5% range -- I have pop-out veins on arms and legs), that any more
than a reduced calorie diet will cause weight gain. I think that we at our
optimal running weight are really in the unnaturally skinny range, and it
takes a reduced cal diet to maintain that. And that may increase the
efficiency of our muscle fibers due to various genes being expressed.

Yeah, I basically agree with this -- if you want to maintain a very low percentage
body fat, you will need to not only eat less calories, you need to stay at that
lower intake.

Doubly true if you want to maintain a *running* weight: you could probably eat
a more "normal" intake and still look pretty fit to a naive observer, but
that's maybe a good 10lb or so from being "running fit".

I'd predict that if you ate more "normally", you'd gain maybe 10-20lb and still
look OK, but not run very well.

Generally, I'm hesitant to advise anyone, especially open class women, to play
the caloric reduction game though -- potential source of problems unless you're
very careful.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Dan said:

Pendejo said:

So that, if I want to continue enjoying eating as much as possible
without gaining weight, I'd better not subject myself to a consistent,
significant calorie deficit. Right?

Yeah, that sounds like a logical conclusion. But...can one maintain
optimal racing weight (whippet thin) without cal restriction?

Yeah, it's kind of an interesting question, isn't it.

You and Mark H clearly need to exert quite a lot (it seems to me, but
I'm sure it's all relative) of control over your diets to achieve your
goal weights at your ages (which are pretty close, no?) and running
volumes (fifty-ish, I think, and seventy-ish).

But how about a world class 30 year old marathoner running 120-140
mile weeks? Does his body also want him to eat a little more than the
stopwatch does? I'd enjoy reading some accounts. From Fixx's
observations of Bill Rodgers and others, I was left with the
impression that young truly high mileage guys had to work diligently
just to shovel in enough calories to keep the energy up. But I think
this was based on a comment or two in passing.

For myself, even at the 140 lb I consider my racing weight, I'm not
whippet thin. Pretty well "cut" in terms of how much yucky
subcutaneous anatomy stuff, muscle contours, tendons, ribs, and so
forth show; but visibly not in the same leanness class as you, Dan -
if you're in first class, I'm in business - even though I measure
lighter at I believe the same height. You've got more muscle, denser
bones, or maybe a three-holed kidney stone with a Brunswick label.

I've gotten to 140, and expect to again this year, on moderate to
moderately high mileage (~45 to low 80s), spring summer fall weather,
and a mostly heeded intention to mostly eat mostly reasonably with
relatively few licentious pig-outs. Could be that more rigor and
restraint and hunger and forsaking of deserts would lose me more
tonnage but that's not an overall balance I'm seeking - and the notion
that doing so might (semi-?) permanently adjust my thermostat so I had
little choice but to stay on that path or get fat frankly freaks me
out a bit.

Quoted message said:

I thought the most interesting observation in the article was the hint at
higher muscle efficiency -- this would give weight loss a double boost:
metabolic and mechanical efficiency.

Yeah, that *is* interesting.

Still I imagine it might be a fine line to walk. It's my impression -
though again, I haven't actively pursued this stuff - that
insufficient calorie intake can compromise immune function and general
recovery. What's "insufficient", how universal is this, blah blah
blah - I don't know. But googling e.g. "undereating overtraining"
returns plenty of hits. One thing I notice in the short term when I
don't get enough calories in the hours before and after a decent run
is that I'll get really tired and listless in the afternoon.

Any of this a concern? How do you know you're not eating too little -
do you get feedback from your body, as hunger or some other form? Or
is it pretty much, the less you're willing and able to eat, the better
the results?

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You and Mark H clearly need to exert quite a lot (it seems to me, but
I'm sure it's all relative) of control over your diets to achieve your
goal weights at your ages.

Let's just say I give it some thought...

Quoted message said:

But how about a world class 30 year old marathoner running 120-140
mile weeks? Does his body also want him to eat a little more than the
stopwatch does? I'd enjoy reading some accounts. From Fixx's
observations of Bill Rodgers and others, I was left with the
impression that young truly high mileage guys had to work diligently
just to shovel in enough calories to keep the energy up. But I think
this was based on a comment or two in passing.

I ran 95 ish for 2 or 3 years, and I noticed that strangely enough, the more
I ran, the less I wanted to eat. I may have eaten a bit more overall, but I
felt full about half way through a restaurant meal. Even now, on the day of
a long 18-20 miler I'm not as hungry. That for me may be the reason I had
no problem getting down to 140 back then.

Quoted message said:

For myself, even at the 140 lb I consider my racing weight, I'm not
whippet thin. Pretty well "cut" in terms of how much yucky
subcutaneous anatomy stuff, muscle contours, tendons, ribs, and so
forth show; but visibly not in the same leanness class as you, Dan -
if you're in first class, I'm in business - even though I measure
lighter at I believe the same height.

That's because I'm Free Range fed...

Quoted message said:

You've got more muscle, denser
bones, or maybe a three-holed kidney stone with a Brunswick label.

I'm a bit bigger boned, and have super-low body fat for some reason.

Quoted message said:

I've gotten to 140, and expect to again this year, on moderate to
moderately high mileage (~45 to low 80s), spring summer fall weather,
and a mostly heeded intention to mostly eat mostly reasonably with
relatively few licentious pig-outs.

If I can keep the foot bone connected to the ankle bone, I'm gonna try for
140 and sub 3 this year. How's that for a goal?

Quoted message said:

Still I imagine it might be a fine line to walk. It's my impression -
though again, I haven't actively pursued this stuff - that
insufficient calorie intake can compromise immune function and general
recovery. What's "insufficient", how universal is this, blah blah
blah - I don't know. But googling e.g. "undereating overtraining"
returns plenty of hits. One thing I notice in the short term when I
don't get enough calories in the hours before and after a decent run
is that I'll get really tired and listless in the afternoon.

I've always alternated hard and easy days. The evening before the hard days
I eat a bit extra. The evening of the hard day (before the next day's easy
run) I'd eat light. But I always eat right after a run -- 40-80 grams of
carbs. With that rhythm I lose weight pretty easily at my mileage.

Quoted message said:

Any of this a concern? How do you know you're not eating too little -
do you get feedback from your body, as hunger or some other form? Or
is it pretty much, the less you're willing and able to eat, the better
the results?

If you try to lose too fast, you feel crappy, no zip at all. It's hard to
lose gradually -- seems easier to really cut back for a couple of days than
just slightly for a longer time. The latter strategy is probably healthier.

I also eat what I crave. Fortunately, I don't crave cheetos and ice cream
:-)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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

Quoted message said:

My point as stated a few posts up in this thread, is that if you run a
lot of
miles and are somewhat attentive to nutrition, you will end up pretty
lean.

I don't think that changes a whole lot with age.

Tell me that when YOU get older. 😉 There are changes to one's
metabolism that seems to defy calories in, calories out.

Quoted message said:

I do know about this. It's not terribly relevant to this discussion
except
that it implies that the body can adapt to differences in caloric
intake.

And I think the aging process is a variable in this puzzle. When I talk
to fellow antiques, I know anecdotal, but they conclude the same and
I'm talking about very experienced runners(15+ years) with nutrition
knowledge.

-Doug

"D Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| I ran 95 ish for 2 or 3 years, and I noticed that strangely enough, the
more
| I ran, the less I wanted to eat. I may have eaten a bit more overall, but
I
| felt full about half way through a restaurant meal. Even now, on the day
of
| a long 18-20 miler I'm not as hungry. That for me may be the reason I had
| no problem getting down to 140 back then.
|

I have the same problem after long runs two weeks in a row, 20 mi last
sat and 21.2 mi yesterday. Only difference is, I was still hungry, but just
couldn't eat a full meal. It takes several hours for me to eat normally
again.

"I2Run" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have the same problem after long runs two weeks in a row, 20 mi last
sat and 21.2 mi yesterday. Only difference is, I was still hungry, but
just
couldn't eat a full meal. It takes several hours for me to eat
normally
again.

Don't worry, as long as your not abusing yourself with B2B's, the
hungries will come back. I try to strap on an restaurant oat bag within
5-10 minutes after a long run. I get fed during my races so I'm not
famished at the end except for a brew.

-Doug

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freese said:

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

Quoted message said:

My point as stated a few posts up in this thread, is that if you run a
lot of
miles and are somewhat attentive to nutrition, you will end up pretty
lean.

I don't think that changes a whole lot with age.

Tell me that when YOU get older. 😉 There are changes to one's
metabolism that seems to defy calories in, calories out.

Not really -- they just change the calories out side of the
equation. The miles you used to run (and basal metabolism
you _used_ to have) don't burn off the calories they used to.
How the body manages this sneaky trick is a question, but
it does do so, and it is (as you continue below) a part of
the aging process.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I do know about this. It's not terribly relevant to this discussion
except
that it implies that the body can adapt to differences in caloric
intake.

And I think the aging process is a variable in this puzzle. When I talk
to fellow antiques, I know anecdotal, but they conclude the same and
I'm talking about very experienced runners(15+ years) with nutrition
knowledge.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

(Robert Grumbine) said:

Not really -- they just change the calories out side of the
equation. The miles you used to run (and basal metabolism
you _used_ to have) don't burn off the calories they used to.
How the body manages this sneaky trick is a question, but
it does do so, and it is (as you continue below) a part of
the aging process.

I think it's three things:

1) Loss of muscle mass as we age

2) Changing hormones (men experience this too - not just women... for
menstruating women, hormones in the later half of the cycle do
increase BMR - menopausal women lose this effect)

3) Sleeping less (which increases cortisol which makes us hungrier)

Muscle mass, hormones, and sleep all impact weight loss/gain. When you
age, you get hit with a triple whammy effect.

While you might not be able to do much to affect #2, IMO, the loss of
muscle mass isn't necessarily as inevitable as they'd like us to
think. However, I imagine those who continue running large amounts,
without incorporating any weight training, and particularly if on
restrictive calorie diet, probably do loose muscle mass.

I think as we age, when it comes to exercise, quality becomes more
important than quantity.

jen

(not sure I got my "affect" vs "effect" right there... but heck it's
still too early in the morning!)

Doug Freese said:

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

Quoted message said:

My point as stated a few posts up in this thread, is that if you run a
lot of
miles and are somewhat attentive to nutrition, you will end up pretty
lean.

I don't think that changes a whole lot with age.

Tell me that when YOU get older. 😉 There are changes to one's
metabolism that seems to defy calories in, calories out.

The equations are all the same. But change some numbers in those equations, and
they can go from Dr. Jeckyl to Mr Hyde faster than you can blink.

The body fights like hell when you try to push body fat levels very low. It
does this among other things by dragging metabolism to a screeching halt. The
point at which it starts this fighting depends on various hormone levels among
other things, and these are age dependent.

It's precisely the top masters runners who try to maintain low levels of BF%
(e.g. I was on a train recently, and my bet is that Dan probably looks better
at 55 than most of the "open class" people on that train ... ) are likely to
find that they need to be really careful to do that.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Dan said:

If I can keep the foot bone connected to the ankle bone, I'm gonna try
for 140 and sub 3 this year. How's that for a goal?

There's a goal that befits some guys a decade and a half your junior!

Good luck with those lower leg skeletal structures. I understand it's
hard to get much toe-off when foot and ankle are completely
disconnected.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
|
| Don't worry, as long as your not abusing yourself with B2B's, the
| hungries will come back. I try to strap on an restaurant oat bag within
| 5-10 minutes after a long run. I get fed during my races so I'm not
| famished at the end except for a brew.
|
| -Doug
|
Thanks for the words, I was careful to not abuse myself.
It was almost 'comfortable' as I maintained 70% HR on both occasions,
with very little fluctuations. I did pop a few gels, but lucky you to be
able to strap and enjoy the restaurant on the runs.