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

[bencrozier]

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?

[Sasha Pachev]

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.

[bencrozier]

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?

[Bonnie]

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).

[bencrozier]

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.

[Paul Petersen]

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  

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.

[Sasha Pachev]

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!

[Bonnie]

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.

[Steve P]

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.

[Sasha Pachev]

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.

[Jon Allen]

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.

[Sasha Pachev]

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.

[Steve P]

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.

[Sasha Pachev]

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.

[Dallen]

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.