The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Shugart's Hammer
 
Running Makes You Fat
 

Velvet Elvis
Level

Join date: Jul 2013
Posts: 231

NikH wrote:
Dean Karnazes - completed 50 Marathons in 50 Consecutive Days, is doing it wrong.


I don't think picking out the one genetic outlier who actually trains that way, and has a little bit of muscle, is a good example of what ├╝ber long cardio sessions can accomplish.

He's in great shape, and actually has a build for a long distance runner (kind of) ..... But I don't think 99% of the population would see the same results trying to emulate his training

There is always the exception to the rule .....

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

theBeth
Level

Join date: May 2013
Posts: 1159

NikH wrote:
theBeth wrote:
The human body was designed to sprint ( hunting prey, or running from predators), or walk long distances (foraging/farming). My motto is "Sprinting builds muscle, walking conserves muscle, and running eats muscle."


Actually the human body was designed to run long distances.

Comparing to leopards: they dash faster than we do, but also run on four legs which uses more energy, they can only exhale each time they bring their legs together when running.

We run on two legs, have a ventilation system that is independent to movement, no fur, and a lot of sweat glands, that is very good for heat management. African tribes have succeeded in hunting antilopes by merely exhausting them in the day heat, by running after them, without using weapons. Leopards succeed in this by outrunning the slow ones.

If we would be designed to be muscular, our natural diet would be bigger, and our muscle gains would be easier. Compare to a zoo gorilla that maintains its muscle by sitting in a cage eating 18kg (40lbs) vegetation per day, not doing a single weighted squat...



maybe I should have separated those two statements so as not to confuse. I think the primal development of the human body is up for debate but in relevance to training my motto is pretty solid.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

infinite_shore
Level

Join date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1518

The data does not warrant such a conclusion. I also think the often used marathon runner vs sprinter body comparison doesn't make much sense in this context.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Typhoon
Level 1

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 392

infinite_shore wrote:
The data does not warrant such a conclusion. I also think the often used marathon runner vs sprinter body comparison doesn't make much sense in this context.


This never made sense to me either. It's akin to saying playing Basketball will make you taller or gymnastics shorter, no it's that the higher you go in the sport the more you'll see certain body types more and more often. For sprinters that's a lean individual with a lot of fast twitch muscle, for endurance athletes it's people with ridiculous VO2 and oxygen carrying capacities.

I like Beth's motto for training though.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

midnitelamp
Level

Join date: May 2013
Posts: 10

don't boxers do a lot of roadwork? I "heard" that Joe Louis carried knucle pins from rail road cars that weighed 8 lbs a piece. also decathalon competitors seem well balanced.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

WhiteSturgeon
Level

Join date: Jul 2013
Posts: 187

Interesting article! Why would running cause increased anxiety and cortisol levels? I was actually just reading an article in AJP where research is showing a correlation between increased physical exercise (they referenced walking and jogging) and decreased symptoms of anxiety and depression.

I do mostly circuit training with a little cardio thrown in the mix. Personally, I've found that any form of physical activity significantly diminishes my level of stress.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BrokenBad
Level 100

Join date: Nov 2004
Posts: 211

Couldn't agree more. Good article.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Fletch1986
Level 3

Join date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4872

So if you have to run for distance, what's the best way to mitigate the negative effects? I need to work up to a sub 16 minute 2 miles. An 8 minute single mile would leave me huffing and puffing and about to puke at the moment.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

magick
Level

Join date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1703

Fletch1986 wrote:
So if you have to run for distance, what's the best way to mitigate the negative effects? I need to work up to a sub 16 minute 2 miles. An 8 minute single mile would leave me huffing and puffing and about to puke at the moment.


Don't think 2 miles counts as long distance.

Like others have said, boxers do road work. They run for miles.

But the key appears to be that boxers didn't just jog passively; they ran. Or they alternated between running and jogging and doing a whole bunch of other stuff.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

midnitelamp
Level

Join date: May 2013
Posts: 10

fletch,these are just some observations offered in loose association style.

running and lunges are related. hills are hidden speedwork, but be careful as overuse injuries are easy to do.

many large football players have ran sub six minute miles many decathalon runners have broke five and a former world record holder weighed 175 lbs. in other words lose any flab but you don't have to be anorexic to run two in 16 minutes.

there are loads of books,but The Self Coached Runner by Allan Lawrence and Mark Scheid has been described to me as too hard by some very successful runners so it is probably just right.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

NickJ83improve
Level

Join date: Sep 2013
Posts: 17

I run regularly and need to training for ironman. This is I guess my chosen sport, something about pushing my limits makes me tick I guess. I also am aware of my body composition and keep a check. I know after my ironman and ultramarathon which I completed within 4 weeks of each other had left me higher in body fat although my weight pretty much stayed unchanged baring the last few weeks after picking up some bad habits. For me this means I just need to do more strength training, build some more lean mass and drop some fat.

I think for the general guy/girl in the gym an ironman athlete is someone to look up to if say bodybuilding and magazine front cover models aren't your look. The top athletes train with weights regularly and it counteracts the damage done by long steady state cardio and keeps them looking athletic. I know some people would settle for that as a look they desire.

I use weight training with all my clients even if their goal is to run their first or fastest 10k. One of my clients ran her fastest 10k on minimal running and plenty of heavy lifting. When they ask me what the weight training is for I explain it's injury prevention and prevents muscle deterioration. It also makes you stronger as a bonus.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

timoth1
Level

Join date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1

I'm not sure what study you read Chris. For anyone interested in actual data the article is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...les/PMC2864590/

Smallmike's quote from the study's conclusion contradicts your interpretation, as does the first figure in the study which clearly shows that waist circumference decreases with increased weekly mileage.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Quinnrose
Level

Join date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3

I too am both a runner and a lifter. I have had a pretty low bodyfat for years and a decent squat (385lbs @ 175bw) I have done 50 mile ultras and half a dozen marathons (PR 3:40). I also hate the argument Crossfitters make which is that some top level marathoners can't box jump on a 12 inch box. I can do a 51 inch box jump just fine.

I think the higher weekly mileage makes it hard to keep on tons of muscle, but it is mostly from calories in calories out. If you have a high weekly mileage and big muscles, then it is easy to get injured from the weight you are bearing and you have to eat tons and tons just to keep weight. Also, running makes you hungry for carbs and overeating carbs can help your performance, but also leads to holding water weight and midsection fat. I don't have serious competition lift numbers or competition marathon times, but damn I love to do both.

My physique is nothing like a bodybuilder's, but I have had sub 10% bf for years. I rarely have high mileage weeks and I almost never do grinding junk miles. I do 800 repeats at the track, a weekly long run, and mix it up with a lot of hills during tempo runs. Most of all, the thrilling exhaustion and sense of accomplishment of finishing an ultra is, to me, so much better than any PR in weightlifting, but I like being strong too, so I make that a priority as well.

I think people did running for conditioning for years until a few articles got them scared of it. Sure, doing hundred mile weeks for months on end is dangerous and wearing down of the body, but that doesn't mean lacing up and putting in an afternoon here and there will bloat you and atrophy your legs... it really won't.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

AliveAgain36
Level

Join date: Apr 2013
Posts: 531

But sometimes you find babies when you run...

http://www.cnn.com/....html?hpt=hp_t2

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

JRT6
Level 1

Join date: Apr 2007
Posts: 409

crowbar46 wrote:
@Smallmike, I think you guys are kind of talking around each other.

1) Numerous studies have confirmed that sarcopenia (age related muscle loss) is the main factor in body weight (body fat) gain through the aging process.
2) Studies have conclusively shown that otherwise healthy individuals--even individuals in their 90's--can gain LBM from weight training.
3) Running--especially long distance running--is a very catabolic activity that, unlike weight training, has little or no major anabolic compensatory mechanisms to off set this.

Thus, the study DOES show, indirectly, that running does not help off set sarcopenia (whereas many studies have confirmed that weight training does exactly that)--in fact, I suspect that running increases sarcopenia. Therefore, only when you pass a "tipping point" in terms of volume (by continually having to increase running distance), does the energy expenditure of running exceed the continuing--or accelerating--sarcopenia brought about through aging and the catabolic activity of running.

Crowbar


I don't think running makes someone anymore fat than owning a spoon does but this post is good insight.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

susani
Level

Join date: Jul 2014
Posts: 188

I think what's happening here is a case of the fitness professionals trying to encourage people to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

In my experience running doesn't make you fat. As part of a comprehensive training program it's a wonderful way to loose excess fat fast and keep it off. As well as getting incredibly fit for whatever life throws at you in the process! I'm talking a mix of high intensity and high volume running.

High intensity training apparently (this surprised me) DOESN'T burn many calories. There isn't a big 'afterburn' effect as we're led to believe. Nor does having greater muscle mass do anything significant to increase resting metabolism.

What will happen is that when you build your body it takes a lot of calories. So just as the skinny teenager gets through stacks of calories during a growth spurt so does the mature adult that's in the process of building more muscle.

Lets assume Sandra cuts out running and switches to weight training and perhaps some short intervals. Whilst she's actually building muscle she will find that she can eat more without gaining fat. It takes 7000 calories to build 1lb of muscle. But if Sandra is a typical woman she won't build very much muscle. And she'll probably find that her ability to build muscle will be limited if she tries to loose fat at the same time.

So say over the period of a year Sandra does well and builds 5lbs of muscle. IF she hasn't lost any fat her daily calorie requirement will be 40 calories higher. If she lost fat (which burns 2 calories per pound per day) that increase in daily calorie requirement will be somewhat negated.

Lets assume priorities change or she simply find that she's not gaining muscle mass any more. Now that she's not building muscle then if she was previously gaining muscle at half a lb a month (requiring 3500 extra calories a month) she's now needing to eat 3500 calories per month less than she's used to just to maintain weight. If she wants to loose just 1lb of fat a month she needs to cut calories by 7,000 per month in order to achieve this.

That extra 5lb of muscle is doing next to nothing to increase her metabolism. As she's now stronger and fitter she will recover from her short intense training sessions more quickly so now there's even less calorie after burn than there was during the days when she was building muscle. The short 10 minute sled pushes and so on are burning next to no calories. She's no longer building muscle at any significant rate. She's going to need to seriously cut back on food intake just to maintain bodyweight, let alone to loose fat.

The sensible alternative (that works like a dream for me), is to do some strength training and high intensity training to either build muscle or stop your body from using muscle as fuel. The amount you need depends upon individual goals. Then add in some higher calorific burn exercise to ensure that you're burning enough calories to allow yourself a decent intake of food. This keeps fat levels down and maintains or increases muscle mass at a slow, steady, maintainable rate. The exact mix will depend upon training and body composition goals - as well as starting point and genetics.

A couple of other factors:

1. The type of exercise you do can impact appetite levels. Make the wrong choices and you could end up eating more calories after training than you burned. Some research shows that high intensity training suppresses appetite and causes you to eat less. But it doesn't work this way for everyone. There is also research to show that running regularly for a period of months causes people to better self-regulate their eating. So without even being aware of it they stop eating to excess. This study also included walkers and it was found that the walkers ate more as a result of their exercise. So unless you have perfect will power this is an important consideration.

2. Some people argue that there are no cardiovascular benefits from steady state running that you can't get from high intensity training. This isn't true either. High intensity training causes the left ventricle of the heart to get thicker and pump blood more quickly. High intensity training lets you keep going for longer at a high effort level. Volume training causes the left ventricle of the heart to stretch as it allows more blood to enter the heart with each beat. This results in your body being able to do much more without an increase in heart rate. The latter is apparently what leads to a low resting heart rate which is considered very healthy, but also (I think - still trying to get my head around it) this low resting heart rate DOES lead to an increased resting metabolism??

In all respects it pays to include a mix of training methods. The exact mix that's going to work best will be specific to the individual.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Magnetic88
Level 1

Join date: Sep 2014
Posts: 8

A few things to consider:

1: When you run (not sprinting), your body composition shifts toward slow-twitch muscle. How that effects performance isn't debatable but how that effects your look is.

2: Our bodies didn't evolve to run long distances, they ADAPTED well to run long distances to exploit that niche. Our primate bodies were designed for climbing. We have become worse and worse climbers over the years as a result of adaptation. It is even up for debate that we even ran when we hunted long distance game. We simply could've kept walking like the terminator over many miles toward our prey, which would run in bursts as we got close. This would eventually tire it out faster than it would tire us out. Our ability to store fat well fed our slow-twitch muscles and our large brains which helped us to track prey.

3: We know that slow-twitch fibers use fat for fuel and fast-twitch use carbs. So does this mean that if you engage in a slow-twitch exercise such as slow running you burn more fat? OR does this mean that you are now signaling your body that it must hold onto as much fat as possible because you will need it for future running? Keep in mind how excellent our bodies are at adapting and maintaining balance. If you are chronically short on fats, your body will most likely attempt to fix this. If you are almost always burning off your carbs as fuel before they get stored as fat by using fast-twitch fibers AND your body thinks that it has no real need to store fat for feeding your slow-twitchers, what is the logical conclusion?

4: It is possible that diet has such a huge impact on fat composition that it drowns out any differences between running and weight training.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

JRT6
Level 1

Join date: Apr 2007
Posts: 409

Also what about someone who has adjusted to their running volume? I have settled on one long day a week (if you can call it that) and one long interval and one short interval days. I've been basically on this for a few months and my squat has started to move again.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report