Fast Running Blog

Is it physiologically possible to run 10, 12, 15 or 20 miles per day and stay over-weight if you eat whatever you want, when you want?  I know that for people who do minimal exercise, their body weight and physical condition is probably 90% based on diet.  However, high-mileage runners don't have to worry much about counting calories because they burn 2 to 3 times the calories as the average human.  At what point can you start to run so many miles that you can't keep weight on no matter how much you eat?  An interesting thing to consider is the fact that at some point you would never dream of eating junky, greasy food because you will feel horrible in your runs and wouldn't even be tempted to eat such things.

Several years ago, I trained as much as 120 miles per week and I started to become gaunt looking and was rail thin.  I started to get that "emaciated look" with sunken, hollow cheeks and probably would have kept putting on the mileage if an injury hadn't have slowed me down.  At the time, I ate whatever I wanted and was downing large pizzas in one sitting, and was still too thin.  My metabolism has slowed quite a bit since then due to age, but I'm wondering if I up my mileage considerably more if I could get away with eating whatever I want to again (within reason).

Any thoughts?

It actually is. You need to have a metabolism disorder and you need to run those miles pretty slow - slower than 10:00. Usually the metabolism disorder and the inability to run sub-10:00 comfortably without a whole lot of training come in a package. Thus people who are overweight get a double hit, possibly even triple hit, the third strike coming from the psychological aspect of food addiction. It is very hard for them to get out of that hole when they have three things working against them.

However, even without a metabolism disorder eating "whatever you want" will get you in other ways when running high mileage. Day after day your body will find itself in a nutritional deficit which in time will produce injuries and overtraining.

Sasha,

What you say makes sense.  However, don't you think that if a person just runs a lot of miles the body will crave the foods that are needed to keep it healthy?  I mean, I'm not going to want to run 100 miles per week while living off of cheeseburgers because they will seem disgusting to me.  My body starts to really crave fruits and vegetables more when I train hard.  It just seems like by laying a foundation of high mileage a lot of things sort of "iron themselves out" such as sleep, hydration, nutritional cravings, etc.  Maybe I'm just living in the land of wishful thinking, but as I've started increasing my mileage (gradually of course) I've noticed an automatic improvement of my overall health because I'm forced to be more healthy.

Am I crazy in my line of thinking?

By the way.... do you really think that someone who runs 100 miles per week at a 10:00 minute/mile pace could really exist?  Doesn't the body automatically adapt and allow this overweight person to run these miles faster?  Has anyone in history ever run that much mileage that slow I wonder?

I have run in the 80+ range and have to watch what I eat -- even when I was training for the marathon last year and hitting 85 mpw I still had to be careful and watch what I ate to stay within a good racing weight.  For me I think has a lot to do with age (slowing metabolism).  When I was younger I was not a runner, but still pretty active, I could eat anything I wanted and I was pretty skinny.  I hit about 35 and I still could eat whatever I wanted but I had to actually exercise (rather than just do outdoorsy things), and once I hit about 43 or so I have to watch what I eat and exercise and do outdoorsy things ;-).  It is not fair really ... I am slower and fatter at the same time as I feel pretty old! 

I do know people who run around 90 mpw and run most of those at 10 min pace ... they don't seem to get faster, and they don't always "look" like runners, but they are pretty fit compared to the general population (which these days doesn't really say that much).

Bonnie,

Thanks for your input, although you definitely aren't saying what I want to hear!  :( Perhaps the real difference may be in what Sasha said about pace?  Do you think that perhaps those who do high mileage and still have to watch what they eat are running their miles too slow? 

I am 32 years old and I'm watching my metabolism already slow down quite a bit.  I used to be rail thin.  Right now I weight in the upper 170's, and I'm quite a bit heavier than I used to be.  There is an enormous difference in my running performance as a result.   Unfortunately, I love food too much and it's tough to stay away from the foods that I like and I start feeling like a "martyr" for not eating them.  I'm going to really have to work on the diet side of the equation, I can tell. :(

I've been at 80mpw, and still been about 10lbs over "racing weight". Mind you, "racing weight" and "overweight" are too very different things, and I was still trim by most peoples' standards, just not mine. Indeed, I was racing half marathons with love handles. And racing pretty poorly too  :P

So for me, increased mileage does not especially equal weight loss or even weight maintenance, especially as I get older. I need good diet too. I am only 30, but I can't eat how I did when I was 18, that's for sure. Since I removed grains and processed food from my diet, it is MUCH easier to maintain my racing weight, even when I am running low mileage or not running at all.

Ben:

I think you were on to something when you used the word "martyr".  Americans are born with a lot of blessings, but unfortunately due to the poor management of the blessings those blessings often become a curse. One of those curses is that 80% if not more of the US population suffer from some form of food addiction. I've been in the country for almost 16 years now, and I still continue to be amazed at the relationship most people here have with food. I do not understand it.

But I do believe it can be fixed with a change of perspective. The "carnal me first" mindset has to go and be replaced with "spiritual above carnal". The word "sacrifice" must be eliminated from the vocabulary in the sense it is used by the "carnal me first" individual. When you see through an eye of faith that giving up something that appears to be of great value can certainly bring you something truly better, is that really a sacrifice? It is the true meaning of the word, but it is not understood in the mainstream culture, and it is not the meaning that is put into the word. Sacrifice is viewed as more of an unnecessary discomfort for the sake of proving a rather vain point. One must learn what "sacrifice" really means first to overcome things like a food addiction.

A good way to learn it is learn to play chess and then study some examples of sacrifice from some great players. To an undereducated observer it might appear that the sacrificial move was foolish. But not to the player making the move. He had the insight all along. He had a very clear purpose in mind. He might not have seen the details of how everything would play out, but he had a feel that he has developed through years of practice, and he knew that giving up his queen in this particular position would win the game. And sure enough he does win!

Good points Paul, I agree that "racing weight" and "overweight" are different (I have been both ;-) ).  

I hear you Ben, whenever I go to work "birthday" parties and the like, it is not easy for me to pass on the cake, ice cream, cookies, etc.  I usually stand around and sort of feel sorry for myself ;-), but the truth is, I would rather be a fast runner (it is a relative term here) than enjoy a few moments of indulgence.  For the most part though, it isn't that hard to just not snack and eat sensibly (I am lucky that I don't think I have any celiac disease or allergies).  I often make conscience choices - I will look at the dietary make-up of foods and decide if the calories/fat are worth it ... many times it isn't.  I have, however, allowed myself a treat (I love root-beer floats) after 20 milers ... just not every day/week.  And I do go out to dinner and indulge every-once-and-a-while.

I have read (Lore of Running) that the number of miles rather than the pace determines the number of calories burned. I don't know off hand the reasoning behind that. I believe the same source says that the # of calories we eat has a stronger influence on weight loss than the exercise. Of course, you need both (controlling calories and exercise) to be most effective.

As an anecdote, earlier this year I was averaging about 5 miles a day and was baffled as to why I wasn't losing weight. I believe part of the reason was that I felt that since I was running that I needed to increase my calorie intake dramatically to compensate. Turned out I didn't need to. Now I eat about the same # of calories as when I wasn't running and am feeling good. I've slowly lost about 17-18 pounds over the past 6 months or so.

I suspect the number of calories burned during the run is only a part of the story, and not necessarily the most important part. From the mathematical point of view we have, of course, the number of calories consumed and the number of calories consumed when not running. We also have the interplay of how those calories are consumed with how they are going to be consumed the next day. In other words, what happens to your metabolism overtime. And that is when things get complicated enough for simple or even the most advanced math to stop working. You just have to observe and learn.

I do believe there is a threshold of intensity that shifts the metabolic gears. Some intuitive evidence. Can you imagine a fat person that walks a lot, several hours a day? It happens quite often, you might think of somebody you know. Now we up the intensity to very slow running. Bonnie mentioned some people who jog a lot of miles that still retain the extra weight. If you look at the back of the pack in a race, you will find a few runners, usually women, that run a fair amount somewhere in the 12:00 range, but still have some serious padding on them. Now, think of how many people with padding you know that train at 8:00 pace regularly. They might be packing 10-15 lb above their ideal race weight, but not much more than that.

This is one reason I believe an extremely overweight person should start by riding a bike as hard as he can reasonably handle for a significant time period (15-30 minutes) with the goal of producing as much sweat as possible. In that situation any motion with the feet on the ground will not provide the adequate intensity and fitness gains will come much slower.

This topic results in Google showing adds for eating disorder clinics on my browser.  At least it's a change from the normal "Meet running singles" that normally show up.

That should be good for ad revenues. Eating disorders topic generates a whole lot more revenue than running. In fact, just about anything generates more revenue than running. I suppose because runners have above average intelligence and do a better job at avoiding compulsive shopping than the rest of the population.

Makes sense about the increased metabolism after running being a factor.

Not sure if Adsense lets you control it, but maybe ads completely unrelated to running would be good since there would be more variety. Though i do see some of those at times.

AdSense allows you to control what is excluded but not what is included. Ads are matched based on content. So when we talk about running it matches ads about running, and when we talk about other things it matches accordingly.

Ben, if anyone can be fat off of 80 MPW it's you.

Seriously, if you can get back to your old 80 MPW I bet that the weight thing will take care of itself. Mostly.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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!

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.

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.

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.  :o