Is it physiologically possible to run 80+ miles per week and be fat?

[Jennifer Schmidt]

I found this topic to be very interesting.  I am not up to 80 miles, but I have increased my mileage from about 25 mpw to between 40-50 mpw over the past couple of months.  I haven't really lost any weight. I do average about a 10 minute mile on my regular runs.  I am close to an 8 minute mile when I run a 5K.  I have never been one that could eat anything that I want, not even when I was younger.  I try to eat fairly healthy during the week and then allow myself to enjoy what I want over the weekend.  Maybe my weekend eating is the reason, although it is not like I am shoving food in my face all weekend.  I have always thought that I was one of those people that had a slow metabolism.  I will say that I am probably in the best shape that I have ever been in right now.  I am still working on getting that mileage to the 60 mile marker.  Who knows, maybe I will see a difference then.

[bencrozier]

The intensity of the mileage (heart rate) definitely is going to be a major factor here.  If I jog through 80 miles a week vs. do the bulk of this mileage with a reasonable high heart rate (70% of max or greater) this is going to play a major factor.  The other thing is that I maintain the belief that doing higher mileage will lead you to a better diet.  My cravings change when I'm doing higher mileage.  My body WANTS to be eating more fruits and vegetables and is more turned off by greasy food, etc.  I think that running can lead you to a better diet, but the mileage is going to have to be significant for this to start to happen.  I'm slowly increasing my mileage at this point to see at where the tipping point may be.  I'm not really putting myself on any sort of diet per say because I want to see what happens to me as my mileage increases.  I'll be sure to let everyone know what I observe over the coming months!

[Sasha Pachev]

70% of max HR is still jogging. For me - Max HR 172, 70% of that is 120, that's around 8:00 pace. I could probably get an OK metabolism running 8:00 pace all the time (although not great, if I want a decent metabolism stimulus I need to go sub-7:00), but that is because my aerobic fitness permits the adequate muscular effort at only 70% of the max HR. Somebody less fit aerobically fit would use less muscle power at 70% Max HR and would not gain the same metabolic benefits.

Which leads to a thought. Metabolic stimulus is primarily a function of the muscular effort. So in other words, pretty much regardless of your fitness it is all about the pace you are going. If you are overweight or have biomechanical problems you will get the benefits  at a slower pace. But more likely than not, weight or biomechanics will not affect you by more than a minute per mile. Plus, you also have the need for a higher metabolic stimulus if you have the extra weight. So it pretty much boils down to pace. Which is not fair, in a way. When you are aerobically fit, your weight control pace is conversational. If you are not, your weight control pace is a sprint.

I do wonder as well if the aerobic stimulus has nothing to do with the HR percentage as well, but is also a function of the muscular effort. It would make sense because most of the aerobic development happens not in the heart but in the muscle. Except once you reach a certain threshold the development does not happen any better with the increase in intenisty, but responds to volume instead. While the metabolic stimulus is a matter of intensity first and then duration.

So contrary to some popular notions if you want to lose weight shorter and faster can often be better than longer and slower.

[Bob]

You can't outrun your appetite.  There is plenty of junk food and concentrated caloric sources out there that will cause weight gain regardless of miles ran.  That's part of the obesity problem in this country.  Double whoppers with cheese, french fries, soda pop, ice cream, fried chicken, that "special" coffee drink from Starbucks, hard liquor, etc.  Replace your veggies, fruits, and water with that stuff and you'll pack it on.  Granted, you might not be able to run as far because of the garbage nutrition, but that's not the debate here.

[Sasha Pachev]

For the record - reading Bob's list of junk foods just made me lose my appetite. Perhaps it is a good thing - tomorrow is a Fast Sunday in our church. For clarification, it does not mean we run fast, it means we go without food or drink for 2 meals and then contribute at least the amount of money we saved as a fast offering.

[Bonnie]

The list made me sick as well -- it reminded me of some places in the South that we would stop at when we were traveling.  There were so many seriously obese people  (not fat, but seriously obese) there it wasn't hard not to eat much.  Good reminders.

That is an awsome practice Sasha - I got that as a "penance" (although a few more than 2 meals - I will spare you from the details ) once after confession.  I thought it was the most useful spiritual activity I have ever engaged in. 

[ChromeDome Steve]

This is an interesting discussion.  I have a couple of comments to add:

Over the course of several years I dropped from 205(ish) at my heaviest, to 190, to 180, and now I am bouncing around in the 170's trying to find my way to the 160's (where I was at college age & at my fittest). In the course of those years, my weight has tracked gradually downward with occasional up-spikes. There are "sticking points" on the scale that my body seems particularly resistant to cross. The 180 "sticking point" is particularly nasty for me.

I recently read about recent research in "set-point theory" (sorry I can't find the link right now) -- which is the notion that sometime in childhood or adolescence, your bodyweight becomes "set" according to a complex set of genetic and environmental factors that are only now starting to be understood.  These particular researchers, thought not ready to publish yet, revealed that their data is pointing to a 7-year "clock" of sorts, that allows people to re-set or re-program, if you will, the body's metabolic set point. So for example in my case, if I over-indulge in food and stay sedentary for a week, my bodyweight will bounce from 170 to 180 almost instantly, whereas it will take months of work and discipline to go from 180 to 170.  *HOWEVER* if I STAY at 170 lbs for a period of 7 years, the set-point theory research seems to suggest that a week's worth of indulgence will NOT have the same result. Instead of rebounding to 180 lbs., my body will just burn up the calories and not attempt to store them as fat.

The set point theory is often used to explain why some people can "eat whatever they want" and not gain weight, while others simply "look at food" and gain weight. It has to do with each individual's set point and where they are currently in relation to it. Such as recent dieters who are below their set point for a short time, vs. people who are already at their set point -- you can imagine that a little bit of "indulgent behavior" would have drastically different effects for these groups.

The set point theory also provides a rational explanation for why so many people who lose weight fail in the long term. They simply do not understand that they need to keep their body weight at a certain point and NEVER let it rise, for as much as 7 years, before their body will be permanently reprogrammed.

No "slim down in 8 weeks" plan is going to work, period, when 364 weeks of behavior change is needed!

[Jennifer Schmidt]

I can honestly say that at least half of the items on Bob's list made me a bit ill. 

I also agree Sasha's practice is a neat thing. In my faith, we get to fast for a good 24-25 hours(essentially sundown to sundown) at the end of the month, to atone for our sins from the previous year.  As tired and hungry as I am by the end, the last thing that I want are any of the foods on Bob's list, not even the french fries or the ice cream.

[April G]

I am a girl who loves(loved) junk food and sweets, and the thought of Bob's list about made me throw up in my mouth too.  This whole thread is really interesting to me.  My current mileage hovers around 60mpw, and I cannot even stomach the thought of fast food, while before, even at 40-50mpw I could.  I do, however, seem to be eating more calories.  I think you could be overweight running 80mpw if you kept eating junk and a lot of it.  It takes a lot more of that stuff to make you feel satisfied and it packs a lot more caloric punch.  Even 80mpw is not enough calories burnt to make up for it.  Weight loss experts say weight loss is more about diet then exercise, and I think they are right.  When I first started running a year ago I was losing very little weight at first but I had not modified my diet.  After a fairly serious overhaul on diet the pounds finally started coming off, albeit slowly.  I totally agree with Chromedome steve's post about "sticking points". Getting past these sticking points is hard, and once you get under them, you must not go over again or it will be that much harder to get back under again!  Interesting that 7 years is the magic number for your body to reprogram itself.  Another thing that seemed to help me finally break some plateaus was trading in the big eat-whatever-I-want weekend indulgence into a small daily indulgence instead.  Every day I have a little treat--usually one scoop of ice cream(okay it's frozen yogurt made with splenda but it's good and it involves chocolate).  When the weekend comes I am not interested in big freedom eating I am just happy to have my one small indulgence for the day as usual.  I had an overweight friend who didn't run, just walked briskly for exercise, and lost 60 pounds in a year.  Her weight loss was clearly more due to diet overhaul rather than calories burned by exercise.

[Steve P]

Interesting thoughts. I've been running 60 miles a week for the past few weeks, and it hasn't lessened my appetite for junk food. I think I've just been more disciplined in trying to get ready for my upcoming marathon. Maybe those cravings will go away if I hit 100 miles a week. I doubt it, and I'll probably never find out for sure.