Yo Curious C, what about the effects of exercise on insulin resistance? I could list a bunch of articles but no one would read them.
Yo Curious C, what about the effects of exercise on insulin resistance? I could list a bunch of articles but no one would read them.
Duh weight matters. Just look at good runners; even the 'chunkier' pro's (Erin Donohue, Alan Webb, etc.) are really, really thin. Personally, I can feel the difference in running when I gain/lose weight and it is reflected in my times. With similar milage and interval schedule, here are my 5k PR's at different weights:
BMI 16.6 - 16:40 (way too thin, very unhealthy)
BMI 18.6 -17:20
BMI 21.8 - 21:30
BMI 23.0 - 21:40 (packed on the freshman 15 and then some)
BMI 19.5 -17:50 (I'd consider myself to be healthy now)
Running fast and being skinny aren't necessarily reflective of overall health, especially for women. So yes, losing weight can help you get better at running, even if you go overboard and lose too much. But is it worth compromising your health? No.
It seems like everyone on here is a male thats just concerned about their performance. With a few exceptions, it seems to be "the lighter the faster." Do you think its the same for women (just that they might not be as healthy while at racing weight?).
Also, this is sorta random, but on occasion, I will just skip dinner and have dessert. A super rich slice of chocolate peanut butter pie has easily enough calories as a regular meal and has all the food groups (eggs, flour, fats etc). Im only running 50 mpw and dont want to be completely restrictive. Does anyone else do this?
Weight does make a huge difference in running performance, but I think most people already were aware of this. When I don't pay attention to my weight, I naturally weigh around 140 (and I'm 5'8-5'9ish) but I when I finally got down to the low 130s my times dropped dramatically. My marathon pr dropped from 2:50 to 2:40 by running slightly less mileage and simply weighing almost 10 lbs less. And I mostly lost muscle mass, not fat, so it's not necessarily a body composition issue for me. I'm by no means a muscular guy, but I'm still naturally more muscular than an "ideal" runner. However, I've found that the more I look like a runner, the less I weigh, the faster I run. Most people can lose muscle mass, simply by restricting calories.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but it's probably a different story for a 2:50 marathoner or someone that runs 50 mpw, as compared to an elite runner. An elite runner is generally already going to be at a very competitive weight, and he is burning way more calories. So from an elite's perspective, the best way to get faster is by fueling properly and training harder, not by restricting calories. If you are truly 10 pounds overweight, then yes, losing the weight is definitely the easiest way to get faster. But the more you train, the less likely it is you'll have more than a couple pounds to spare (unless you're coming from a long lay-off, in which losing the weight and training harder will go hand in hand).
Biochemista wrote:
BMI 16.6 - 16:40 (way too thin, very unhealthy)
. . .
BMI 19.5 -17:50 (I'd consider myself to be healthy now)
What criteria are you using to decide what's healthy and not healthy?
random_coach wrote:
Just so everyone understands, weight increase is NOT proportional with height increase.
Weight goes up with the cube of the height.
For example, if Lagat is 68 inches and 134lbs, then Galen Rupp, at 71", would have to be 134*(71/68)^3 = 152.5lbs, or 18.5lbs heavier.
That's why we don't see giant ants ;)
What criteria are you using to decide what's healthy and not healthy? - I'm female, so yeah there are some pretty obvious indicators of baseline health.
BMI 16.6 = amenorrhea, was tired/b**chy all the time
BMI 19.5 = regular visits from aunt flo, feel pretty good physically/emotionally
Also, <18.6 BMI is considered underweight by most medical definitions, so that somewhat arbitrary line seems to describe my situation pretty well.
I had a long well-thought response typed, but for whatever reason it didn't allow me to post it... to the sugar brain person, I have some anecdotal evidence to show you otherwise.
CuriousC wrote:
I had a long well-thought response typed, but for whatever reason it didn't allow me to post it...
Well, how about that, the brojo's new BS meter is now working!
But seriously, I will save you the time of trying to post it again, and sum it up for you this way, since we already know what you were going to type:
Carbs baaaaaad. VERY baaaaaaaad.
Raise insuliiiiiiin. Insulin baaaaaaad.
Fats gooooooood. VERY GOOOOOOOD!
Protein even bettttttttttter. MUCH bettttttter.
USDA duuuuuumb. VERY DUUUUUMB!
Gov't out to get us.
Instead.......listen to untrained/uneducated health bloggers! THEY knew the truth of the carb conspiracy meant to make us all fat.
So did I nail it? Something along those lines? Great, I saved you the time of posting it.
still whip yo' ass wrote:
I'm 5'10 and weigh 176lb. My 5k is 15:56. Lowest weight I reached for 165. If you've got the talent baby, you've got the talent...
If you HAVE the talent baby, you HAVE the talent - the 'got' part is not necessary.
still whip yo' ass wrote:
I'm 5'10 and weigh 176lb. My 5k is 15:56. Lowest weight I reached for 165. If you've got the talent baby, you've got the talent...
donkey lips wrote:
If you HAVE the talent baby, you HAVE the talent - the 'got' part is not necessary.
Not necessary, but still grammatically correct.
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
CuriousC wrote:I had a long well-thought response typed, but for whatever reason it didn't allow me to post it...
Well, how about that, the brojo's new BS meter is now working!
But seriously, I will save you the time of trying to post it again, and sum it up for you this way, since we already know what you were going to type:
Carbs baaaaaad. VERY baaaaaaaad.
Raise insuliiiiiiin. Insulin baaaaaaad.
Fats gooooooood. VERY GOOOOOOOD!
Protein even bettttttttttter. MUCH bettttttter.
USDA duuuuuumb. VERY DUUUUUMB!
Gov't out to get us.
Instead.......listen to untrained/uneducated health bloggers! THEY knew the truth of the carb conspiracy meant to make us all fat.
So did I nail it? Something along those lines? Great, I saved you the time of posting it.
Well, that wasn't very nice, over-simplified and I don't believe that it is a "conspiracy" or that the government is out to get us. I do think that the low-fat/high-carb bias was based on poor science and I don't need bloggers to tell me that. I believe that people are well-intended, but often misinformed. I don't ask people to believe what I have to say because I haven't done any of the work, but there are studies and meta analyses that exist and they speak for themselves.
It seems to me that you are not a very nice person and there is a fine line between skepticism and cynicism. You seem to be on the cynical side of that line. It could be because you are lacking enough of the right type of fat in your diet that can act as a mood stabilizer... or possibly you are in need of magnesium of which almost 70% of Americans are deficient (USDA stat, I think). I'm not exactly hurt, though... I've been called a lot worse by people a lot prettier than you.
I'm going to quote Gary Taubes and say, "Let's pretend for a moment this is a science." I recently sat down and spoke at length about this very topic (earlier this week in fact) with a nationally renowned cardiologist, I don't think he wants to be referenced without permission, so I will keep him nameless. I guess you'll have to take my word for it. I'm paraphrasing, but he put it in this light, "In medicine we have a name and a diagnosis for a variety of deficiencies. There isn't one for a carbohydrate deficiency. I have never seen someone or heard of anyone becoming ill because of a lack of carbohydrate." So, that right there can get the ball rolling on a person's research... Why is this? Is this true? Don't we need carbs? These are all questions that can lead an individual to the truth. I'm not here to say what exactly that means, but to point out that maybe what we've been lead to believe is not exactly true.
Following ketoadaptation, endurance performance can actually be improved or at least not impaired compared to a high-carbohydrate diet. Also, a high-fat, sufficient protein diet spares muscle. There is a LOT of literature out there that I didn't read on a blog. Actually, I just came across this study from 1994 in the European Journal of Applied Physiology
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4l6436785p5v354/No, I'm not basing my entire argument on one study, but I thought this one had some teeth and is worth checking out. I don't want to be a medical journal "fundamentalist" and quote med "scripture," but I have that ability if need be and feel that people should have well-executed scientific studies to support their views and opinions. I'm going to bet that my non-inflammatory high-fat, mod-protein diet is healthy and bet my family's health on it. If you choose to go with convention, I hope you do not lessen the health of those around you by promoting it and touting it as truth.
I love civil intellectual conversation; so, if you'd like to continue this discussion, please do so kindly and I will respond likewise. Otherwise, I'm going to spend my energy elsewhere.
Junk Master wrote:
Yo Curious C, what about the effects of exercise on insulin resistance? I could list a bunch of articles but no one would read them.
Well, I would take the time to read them. And this is a good point. However, I feel it only bolsters the argument for carbohydrate reduction in the diet because without carbohydrate (and moderate protein), insulin really isn't even a question, is it? This also points out that insulin resistance is an important factor and thus admitting that it's not just about how much one eats, but rather what one eats. Thoughts?