U Glass House BOPer wrote:
what gives? wrote:
A friend and I were discussing this weekend the amount of middle aged men marathon training with a gut in our training groups We are both around 40 years of age and been in marathon training group for quite a few years observing this.
Why are you and your "friend" still in a freaking training group??
+1
Why are you in a training group with fat hobbyjoggers?
Hello. I am part of a whole family of runners and my father is totally the guy you are describing!
Now, you cannot be sure that they are at a caloric deficit at the end of the day. These guys may not be eating the healthiest.
Your metabolism gets much more efficient as you get older! Remember folks, the more you run, the better your body gets at it. That being said someone who has been running for 15+years wont burn as many calories running as they did when they first started running.
Just some thoughts. Also my father would not over-eat, but he has the same build as everyone in his family.
Genetics plays a big role as well.
fatoldbald wrote:
Well in an effort to lose some inches, for a while I tried supplementing my running (~45mpw currently) with additional cardio at the gym. Some young punk kept running by the window while I was using the elliptical and making funny faces at me. It got to the point where every single time I'd try and workout this kid was just in the window, staring at me. Made me so uncomfortable to the point that I just cancelled my gym membership and have accepted that I'll be a fat runner for the rest of my life.
yo that was me bro hahaha shiet mang u on here to?
what gives? wrote: I don't understand how they can train for marathons and still have a gut if there not out getting ripped drinking several times a week?
it isn't immediately clear how you would know the weight of some random jogger you saw in the street nor is it obvious how you would know what their weight was last month, so unless random joggers habitually turn up at your house to weigh themselves on your bathroom scales the basic premise behind your question, that they are not losing weight, exists entirely in your imagination, which probably explains why you find it so confusing.
also, unless these random joggers shouted out their Strava handles as they went by it isn't clear how you are able to properly assess the volume and intensity of their training and I would be particularly interested to know how exactly, from among the many hundreds of different reasons for going for a run, you determined that they are training for a marathon.
however, for the LRC lols, let's take the least likely assumption, that you have actually got a clue, and that these dudes are overweight, that they are training for marathons, and yet they are not losing weight.
the fuel you burn is determined by the speed at which you run. the precise point at which we change over from predominantly fat-burning to proportionally more carb-burning differs from person to person but generally, on average, running slow burns mostly fat and faster running burns more carbs.
these guys are probably not running fast enough to burn a lot of carbs. they are in fat-burning mode and their running is fuelled mostly by their middle-age paunch.
which means that the fuel they eat is not being burned, and it is therefore being turned in to fat to be stored around the body for later use.
therefore, their running is merely turning over their fat reserves. in one side and out the other. if they ran one faster session per fortnight they would probably start to lose weight.
yours, mr obvious.
It's being married from my experience.
Lots more nights in. Ever watched a film without having a snack?
Plus you only have to put 2lbs a year on after 10 years you are overweight for running.
Still if I'd not spent 10 years being injured I'd be s lot slimmer. Most I ever get up to is 2-3 runs a week and that never lasts long. Can't stand the gym etc so ...
amkelley wrote:
I have no trouble gaining weight on 70+ miles per week if I don't limit my food intake. And I'm not binge drinking either. As many other people have said here and elsewhere, you can't outrun a bad diet. Calories are just too easy to take in.
Ditto. I eat a high quality diet of whole foods and run 100 miles a week, but I weigh myself every day and exercise very careful portion control. If I don't, I gain weight. Your hunger very quickly matches your activity level.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
It's being married from my experience.
Lots more nights in. Ever watched a film without having a snack?
I would say I rarely eat anything in front of the tv.
I don't think I've ever heard someone suggest that nights in are more dangerous from a calorie perspective than nights out. When I was in my 20s it was dinner out, 6-7 drinks at a couple bars, then capping the night with a jumbo-slice.
At home I might have 2 beers on a weekend. If I have something while watching a film, it's probably a bit of homemade popcorn.
Sorry for the 3 consecutive posts.
The phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with athletes getting more efficient and therefore burning fewer calories. While it's true that athletes can improve running economy slightly over time, that effect would be totally dwarfed by the increased cost of carrying extra weight. Nobody is getting fat because they burn fewer calories per mile. For the most part, your calorie cost per mile is determined by weight, with economy playing only a small role.
As someone who is 43, I can say I am always fighting my ever slowing metabolism. It gets hard and harder to keep weight off. I am a steady 165lbs (150 in college). It takes 40-50 miles a week plus weight training just to maintain. Any time off for injury almost always results in significant weight gain. A knee injury two years ago led me to push towards 180, despite watch what I ate. At best when seriuosly training, Ican get down to 160, but never lower.
In summary.....Just wait it will happen to you.
easy to gain wrote:
what gives? wrote:
How can someone be 25-30 lbs overweight when logging that cardio activity? Is their diet, just terrible? I don't understand how they can train for marathons and still have a gut if there not out getting ripped drinking several times a week?
For most people, as you age it becomes very easy to gain weight and very hard to lose weight.
I gained over 30 pounds over my college weight without ever really noticing, got busy at work, family etc. - and with that weight I could still train for and run a marathon and a lot of thin young guys were not happy to get beaten by me. Slow for me was still a lot faster than kids who'd never ran in college etc.
I had that weight on for years, could not lose it despite various protracted efforts. Diet was the main issue. It's not enough to just eat well, you need caloric deficit over a prolonged period while not screwing your metabolism. Its hard work. I eventually lost most of it (range between 5-10 pounds over college weight now), and I'm keeping it off for, but for me it means always watching what I eat. Diet > Exercise.
+1
You have learned well, young grasshopper.
Cottonshirt wrote:
what gives? wrote: I don't understand how they can train for marathons and still have a gut if there not out getting ripped drinking several times a week?
it isn't immediately clear how you would know the weight of some random jogger you saw in the street nor is it obvious how you would know what their weight was last month, so unless random joggers habitually turn up at your house to weigh themselves on your bathroom scales the basic premise behind your question, that they are not losing weight, exists entirely in your imagination, which probably explains why you find it so confusing.
also, unless these random joggers shouted out their Strava handles as they went by it isn't clear how you are able to properly assess the volume and intensity of their training and I would be particularly interested to know how exactly, from among the many hundreds of different reasons for going for a run, you determined that they are training for a marathon.
He said they're in his training group, so he would likely their strava or their training logs. At the very least he sees them on a regular basis to know their training goals and their general weight pattern.
If they could only get some NOP thyroid meds, the weight would come right off.
U Glass House BOPer wrote:
what gives? wrote:
A friend and I were discussing this weekend the amount of middle aged men marathon training with a gut in our training groups We are both around 40 years of age and been in marathon training group for quite a few years observing this.
Why are you and your "friend" still in a freaking training group??
OP here. Frankly, neither of us are stellar runners, but there are some some decent runners in our groups (train different cities).
old is as old does wrote:
As someone who is 43, I can say I am always fighting my ever slowing metabolism. It gets hard and harder to keep weight off. I am a steady 165lbs (150 in college). It takes 40-50 miles a week plus weight training just to maintain. Any time off for injury almost always results in significant weight gain. A knee injury two years ago led me to push towards 180, despite watch what I ate. At best when seriuosly training, Ican get down to 160, but never lower.
In summary.....Just wait it will happen to you.
All too true.. unless you are over 40 you really cannot understand how hard it is to drop weight, especially when the injuries start to stack up. It's a terrible cycle. You get hurt, you gain weight, you try to come back, but get injured again because you've gained weight and it's even harder on your joints...
I didn't run my local marathon this year. It was the first time in about a decade that I had a chance to just hang out and watch all the runners. It is pretty clear that there is a certain pace where the calorie burning benefits of running no longer give you a free pass on diet. For men, it seems to be at about 3:45 and for women 4:00 where there is a very wide range of weight on the runners. I have found that when I am running just 30-40 mpw my weight stays constant. When I am doing 60-80 mpw in marathon training, the weight comes off pretty quickly (I am in my mid 40s). After taking an extended break from running, I put on about 15 lbs. I now am doing about 30-40 mpw with very little intensity and going to the gym about 5 days a week to lift weight. I have lost about 5 lbs over the past four months. So, I think there is definitely a minimum amount volume and intensity needed to lose weight and to keep the weight off and a lot of runners in their 40s are just not putting in the necessary volume and intensity. And if you are not very vigilant about your diet, you will be the 3:45 marathoner with a gut.
old is as old does wrote:
As someone who is 43, I can say I am always fighting my ever slowing metabolism. It gets hard and harder to keep weight off. I am a steady 165lbs (150 in college). It takes 40-50 miles a week plus weight training just to maintain. Any time off for injury almost always results in significant weight gain. A knee injury two years ago led me to push towards 180, despite watch what I ate. At best when seriuosly training, Ican get down to 160, but never lower.
In summary.....Just wait it will happen to you.
54 years old 155lbs. Was 145 until I was about 40. Run 40-45 mpw
Physique hasn't really changed that much to look at
Don't get why some people put on weight and others don't, when they appear to be doing similar things
I don't eat sugary foods though
I fall into the 35-45 mpw category, although the longest race I run these days is a half-marathon. At 59, I think I'm qualified to weigh in.
My weight right now is 167. I'd like to be 165. Ten years ago I was 161-162. When I got injured a couple of years ago and my weight briefly ballooned to 175, I felt like a fat pig. Three or four years ago, when 165 was my base weight, I routinely went into crisis-mode when a morning weigh-in saw me at 167. "Fat pig!" I'd should. Point is, I've got all the basic weight neurosis of your average aging runner.
It is TOUGH, my friends, to keep it down. As you age, muscle mass slowly ebbs. As that happens, your basal metabolism slows. There's just less muscle that needs to be powered up, regardless of whether you maintain a training load consistent with your younger self. (And I pretty much do.) Truth is, I eat pretty well. I don't eat junk. I'm mostly vegetarian. I don't eat desserts. But I've got one daily weakness--a substantial Martini in the evening--and that's almost 500 junk calories. If a gun were pointed at my head and I needed to lose those last 2 pounds, I could do it. But I just don't....quite...do it. Even though the trend lines are completely obvious.
As for why anybody would allow themselves to remain 25 pounds overweight, or even 10 pounds overweight, while doing a lot of miles and training for a race, is beyond me.
I just don't want to feel like a fat pig, while running and when not running. Of course that notch-point slowly drifts upward over the years, even it it's not evident to a non-runner that I've put on a couple of pounds.
I haven't answered a damned thing here, have I? Maybe it's just enough to bear witness to the mind of an aging runner. The weight thing is something we think about. Yes.
KudzuRunner wrote:
But I've got one daily weakness--a substantial Martini in the evening--and that's almost 500 junk calories.
Spirits are ~64 calories/ounce. A properly made Martini should have 2.5oz of gin. Any more and it will warm up before you finish it. So instead of one gigantic mediocre one have two smaller good ones and save yourself some calories.
"As for why anybody would allow themselves to remain 25 pounds overweight, or even 10 pounds overweight, while doing a lot of miles and training for a race, is beyond me."
Too true... why put in all that work, all the energy, bother to set time goals for races etc.. and not work at dropping weight? It will give you a big bang for your buck, same training but 10-15lbs lighter= racing faster.