High mileage runners: are you always hungry?

agip wrote:

Any high caloric healthy foods?

-all nuts are great

-olive oil with cooking

-if you eat oatmeal for breaky (you should..) mix in cream of buckwheat or corn grits. they fill in the cracks and add more calories.

-a plate of rice loaded with lentils and beans probs has more calories and is way healthier and filling than burgers and ice cream

runner39 wrote:

I have been doing 70+/week for the last few years and cannot lose weight, in the last month gained 5lbs, went to nutritionist and said I should be losing weight based on my daily food intake, but gain weight, no idea why?

having sleep problems, always tired, on iron supplement from Dr. because ferritin a little low (in last year ferritin has been - 29,61,47)

training and racing recently has been terrible, no idea why

Are you gaining fat or muscle?

If you're gaining fat, just eat less fat. I don't know what you eat, but there are good types of fat to eat after a run (olive oil, nuts, plant based fats) and not so great types (ice cream, animal based fats).

Also, maybe you just need to spread your eating around the day. If you don't eat enough or eat only at certain set seperated times, your body will store most of what you eat as fat.

140 mile a week runner wrote:

...The problem is, I try to eat healthy and healthy food is expensive.

Ravenous is a good way to describe it. Eat a lot, but do not overdo it. Bad food will catch up to you eventually.

Saying healthy foods are expensive is something a fatty who is too lazy to make their own food says. Off the top of my head here are some inexpensive healthy foods:

- Rice

- Chicken (whole chickens are < 99c per pound on sale)

- Edamame

- Beans (dried are dirt cheap)

- Chickpeas (dried are dirt cheap)

- Yogurt

- Quinoa

- Canned whole tomatoes (for pasta sauce, combining with beans, or just about anything)

- Whole wheat pasta

Also, given it is summer you should be able to get some fresh fruit and veggies for free. Buy your protein on sale and freeze it until you need it.

Im between 6'1-6'2, 150-155 lbs and Run about 90 mpw right now and I don't eat too much. I found the trick is to keep drinking a good bit of water throughout the day. I've found two pieces of peanut butter and banana toast on whole grain wheat bread with milk will hold me from breakfast around 9:30am after my morning run to about 3pm. Again, for lunch a sandwich with whole grain bread, some fruit and a balance bar will hold me till dinner.

To answer the initial question: If you're eating a ton of carbohydrate, you're going to be hungry all day. Cut the carbs and get sated by eating a lot of fat.

On another note, exercise does not lead to weight loss. So, people of the letsrun forum, please do not equate running a lot with losing weight; it's just not the case.

People run because they're thin, they're not thin because they run. I know, it sounds weird, but it's the truth. It's all about fuel partitioning and that is largely genetically determined. The same mechanism that makes people store fat limits their bodies' fuel partitioned for energy. The mechanism that gives you energy to run is your body's partitioning of fuel for energy and not for storage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE

How quickly did you bump your mileage to 140mpw? If you're starving (not just hungry) all the time, it may be due to you increasing your mileage too quickly versus increasing your calorie intake.

I assume you have some lofty goals in mind if you are doing such high mileage. In that case, it would be in your best interest to lower your mileage a bit to something where you can eat enough to sustain your energy output. Then you can work your way towards increasing to 140 again (along with increasing your food intake).

If you continue to not eat enough while training a lot, you won't reap the benefits of the time and energy you're putting in. Instead your metabolism will slow down and you will actually gain fat (as you've aluded to) rather than get faster and leaner.

As others have mentioned, it's important to eat healthful foods, not empty calories. It's also important to make sure you're eating often enough. However, there's no trick to eating right in terms of timing your meals (we all know that recovery is important and to take advantage of the 30 min to 2 hour window).

The most important thing is to simply eat enough and consume healthful foods. It's easier said than done, but if you don't focus on it now, you're going to frustrate yourself, possibly for a long time. I've been there. It's no fun. Good luck!

quinoa is freaking awesome. I will have a bed of it under black beans and some sliced avocado with lemon juice and habanero. Damn that is good.

I run about 60 a week now and lift weights 3 times a week. I am super hungry and eat more than most people I know. I eat more or less healthy and make a point of having large breakfasts and large salads at dinner. I have been known to eat a cookie or two after my runs.

I am also a lacto ovo vegetarian but I am positive I am not short on protein. This morning's breakfast was 3 eggs over black beans, quinoa, and spinach on 4 whole wheat tortillas. I have done yard work all morning (my run will be in the afternoon) and I am about to decide on lunch. I am thinking tofurky turkey slices, whole wheat bread, olive oil, and oranges..... Lots of water all the time.

crap runner wrote:

I run about 60 a week now and lift weights 3 times a week. I am super hungry and eat more than most people I know. I eat more or less healthy and make a point of having large breakfasts and large salads at dinner. I have been known to eat a cookie or two after my runs.

I am also a lacto ovo vegetarian but I am positive I am not short on protein.

If you're giving us an option, I would vote for "less healthy."

I had 3/4lbs of cheesy bacon for breakfast.

In the know... wrote:

On another note, exercise does not lead to weight loss. So, people of the letsrun forum, please do not equate running a lot with losing weight; it's just not the case.

People run because they're thin, they're not thin because they run. I know, it sounds weird, but it's the truth. It's all about fuel partitioning and that is largely genetically determined. The same mechanism that makes people store fat limits their bodies' fuel partitioned for energy. The mechanism that gives you energy to run is your body's partitioning of fuel for energy and not for storage.

This is some Grade A bullsh*t- the type of crap I hear overweight people spouting off. I grew up in a rather unhealthy family where I ate sugary cereals for breakfast, chips and cookies for lunch, chips and cookies for afternoon snack, and pizza/burgers/fries for dinner. Needless to say by middle school I was a chunky 13yr old with man boobs. Went out for the cross country team on a whim- had some talent, kept at it. In HS I upped my mileage and saw myself losing weight. I began reading training books (Daniels) and books on healthy eating nutrition- educated myself and started implementing what I learned. By senior year of HS I was no longer the fat slob I was during childhood- running 60-75mpw and getting a scholarship to run in college.

Don't give me this BS that you have to be thin to run or that running doesn't help to lose weight.

To be fair to you, I would have had the same response less than a year ago.

I appreciate your enthusiasm (I'm actually being serious, I do appreciate it), however, I want to clarify that I'm not saying that exercise does nothing to help with weight loss, I'm saying that it is not the cause of weight loss. It also may have correlated with your weight loss, but what else did you do? Stopped eating crap. What's in crap? Sugar. What causes people to store fat? Sugar. Without sugar, especially the refined sugars which you probably cut out, your body cannot store fat. I am not overweight. I'm very thin. I have absolutely no problem eating whatever I choose. That's the point. I can eat whatever I want and I will never gain any weight. I will most likely always be thin. I am 26 and I have a degree in HPER, I ran in college/post collegiately as well. I didn't always think this way, but then I really started researching and I found that "Grade A BS" is probably a fitting term because it's coming from the USDA. I just ask that you don't confuse correlation with causation of weight loss. A lot of people exercise with the intention to lose weight. However, they also start eating better. They stop drinking pop, eating sweets, etc... There is actually not one study that shows exercise is the cause of weight loss.

“It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling.”

-Part of the Joint Guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American College of Sports Medicine

The wool is being pulled over the eyes of America and I am guilty as charged. I taught PE and Health and "Fat is bad. Calories in v. out, etc..." It's just not the case. Insulin drives fat storage. Sugar consumption drives insulin production. Without sugar you cannot store fat. Cut the sugar=cut the weight.

I think it's very important to look where the money is coming from... if people weren't dying because of the rampant misinformation, the situation would be laughable.

Example:

The American Diabetes Association is funded by:

Abbott Pharmaceuticals

Amylin Pharmaceuticals

AstraZeneca

Eli Lilly and Company

GlaxoSmithKline

Merck & Co.

Pfizer Inc.

Cadbury Schweppes (candy/soda maker)

Kraft Foods

J.D. Smucker Company

General Mills

Example:

The Biggest Loser... it wouldn't be that exciting if people just completely cut out carbohydrate and sat around all day to lose weight. The show is just torturing people who, due to the energy balance of being so big, need to eat more than the rest of us. They desire to eat more. The same thing that makes them want to eat more is what makes their body store fat and not put calories to energy.

Check out these videos (I've cued them to the pertinent parts):

Jillian Michael's Livelihood under attack here:

The truth after the fact here:

Also good here:

I decided to go back to school... and THEN I had these revelations (or uncovered these revelations of far-more educated people). It is easy, especially when your livelihood depends on calories in v. out (like mine used to), to believe that people are skinny because they exercise and people are fat because they don't. It is simply not the case. I invite you to watch these videos and respond. Also, if you have evidence you would like to share, please respond with it.

Thanks!

In the know... wrote:

Without sugar you cannot store fat. Cut the sugar=cut the weight.

What about refined flour? Doesn't that also contribute to increase insulin secretion?

J.O. wrote:

In the know... wrote:

Without sugar you cannot store fat. Cut the sugar=cut the weight.

What about refined flour? Doesn't that also contribute to increase insulin secretion?

Yes, you are correct. Allow me to correct myself... carbohydrate in general (sans fiber which is structurally a carbohydrate, but cannot be digested). Refined sugars just seem to be the MAJOR culprit... although starches, grains, glucogenic amino acids (certain proteins) can all affect insulin levels. There is a lot of MONEY out there telling people that they need carbohydrate in their diet, but this is not the case. Carbohydrates are essentially toxic to our bodies. This is why blood sugar is regulated by insulin. There is little more than a few teaspoons of sugar in your blood at any one time. There is a reason for this. Your body works very hard to eliminate sugars in your blood. Very few processes are glucodependent.

I would like to qualify my statements by saying the following:

I AM NOT A DOCTOR. I INVITE ANYONE READING ANY OF THIS TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THE MATTER AND LOOK AT THE ACTUAL FACTS.

Also, earlier I typed, "...their body," when it should have been, "their bodies."

Honestly, "In the know..." from an objective standpoint you have not done any real research either.

I see you saying alot of scientific-sounding things but instead of picking them apart one-by-one I think I am just going to point out that the scientific community has a standard for "good science" called: peer-review.

Until you can produce peer-reviewed scientific literature instead of pop-pseudo-scientific youtube videos I recommend everyone take what you say with a grain of salt...at best...

Euge wrote:

Honestly, "In the know..." from an objective standpoint you have not done any real research either.

I see you saying alot of scientific-sounding things but instead of picking them apart one-by-one I think I am just going to point out that the scientific community has a standard for "good science" called: peer-review.

Until you can produce peer-reviewed scientific literature instead of pop-pseudo-scientific youtube videos I recommend everyone take what you say with a grain of salt...at best...

Yes, I urge everyone to take what I have to say with a grain of salt as well. And you're right; I am saying a lot of scientific-sounding things. (I'm always hesitant to post because my words sound contentious, but I'm seriously being geniune.) I would argue that Ancel Keys' studies upon which the USDA has based its nutrition guidelines is pseudo-science. The only reason I posted those videos is because they are in layman's terms and easy for people to understand. I can find plenty of studies that display these findings in scientific terms. However, I personally do not have time to do an in-depth metaanalysis of the literature (which Taubes and others have done), or the time or funding to do my own study at this point.

Here are some examples of the type of science that seems to get ignored:

"On the basis of the meta-analysis of several studies, it is clear

that compared with high-carbohydrate diets, high-monounsaturated-fat diets improve lipoprotein profiles as well as the

glycemic profile. Overall, high-monounsaturated-fat diets

reduce fasting plasma triacylglycerol and VLDL-cholesterol

concentrations by 19% and 22%, respectively, and cause modest

increases in HDL-cholesterol concentrations without adversely

affecting LDL-cholesterol concentrations. The improvement in

the glycemic profile with high-monounsaturated-fat diets may

not be related to changes in insulin sensitivity but to a reduction

in the carbohydrate load, which patients with type 2 diabetes

may not be able to handle readily because of severe insulin resistance and b cell defects. High-monounsaturated-fat diets may

also reduce the susceptibility of LDL particles to oxidation and

thereby reduce their atherogenic potential. Whether highmonounsaturated-fat diets can improve blood pressure needs to

be investigated further. Furthermore, a high-monounsaturated-fat

diet should not induce weight gain in patients provided that

energy intake is controlled. Therefore, this dietary approach can

be recommended to type 2 diabetes patients who are trying to

maintain or lose weight. In conclusion, diets rich in cis-monounsaturated fats may be advantageous for improving lipoprotein

and glycemic profiles in patients with diabetes mellitus."

"Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."

I could cite more if you'd like. Basically, I agree. You're right. I have not done the research... maybe I should have named myself "Curious" instead of "In the know..." I do however feel very passionately about this issue, so at times, it is very easy for me to put on blinders. That's why I invite all contrary evidence. However, I have yet to find "good science" that refutes these findings. The reason I cite these findings is because it is the same science that stops people from embarking on a low-carb/high-fat diet that will help them lose weight even if they know this to be true from experience. These studies show the hang up, which people cannot get past.

Thanks for your comments.

Also...

The validity of "peer-reviewed," I'm finding, may depend on the preconceptions of your peers.

(I changed the name to "CuriousC.")

If you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight, end of story.

Damn guy. Layman's terms = Watch diet, cut bad fats and sugars + exercise (healthy heart and lungs) = Maintain a healthy weight.

Food is fuel (energy). There are 4 calories per gram of carb. If that energy doesn't get used it gets stored as fat (9 calories per gram).

haha YO wrote:

If you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight, end of story.

Actually, what I'm trying to tell you... is that it's not the end of the story. It's what your body decides to do with those calories. Without carbohydrate, you cannot store fat. People can be starving and still gain fat weight, they may lose overall body weight because they're losing in other areas (muscle tissue, etc...), but fat accumulation is a hormonally controlled issue. It's not calories in v. out. The science is just not there to show that. If you have some, please share.

"Let's just pretend for a moment that this is a science."-Gary Taubes

THIS! Weight loss really isn't that complicated.

haha YO wrote:

If you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight, end of story.