Why Runners Can't Eat Everything They Want

I always thought it wouldn't happen to me. I've run on and off for 30 years. While not a total glutton, I never worried too much about diet - at 5'10" and 165lbs. I had chest pain a couple months ago while doing some light upper body exercises at home. I chalked it up to getting older, even though something felt "off" about it - but there where no other classic accompanying symptoms. I had another episode 2 days ago, and this time I went to the hospital. I am now officially a 44 year old man with heart trouble due to clogging of arteries. It doesn't seem possible.

So yeah, it may not happen to everyone but don't let yourself get blindsided.

Sorry to hear about that. Unfortunately this is the consequence of the "a calorie is a calorie" nonsensical mentality and the rejection of biology as a legitimate science by the medical mainstream.

In my book anyone working as a health professional who uses the phrases "a calorie is a calorie"; "calories in versus calories out"; or "disease is caused by too many calories" is committing a criminal act. The public at large doesn't really stand a chance as long as those appointed as the voices of authority don't know their arse from their elbow.

I do but I also run 140 mile weeks

You can eat everything you want. Just stop wanting everything.

Limey UK Runner wrote:

Sorry to hear about that. Unfortunately this is the consequence of the "a calorie is a calorie" nonsensical mentality and the rejection of biology as a legitimate science by the medical mainstream.

In my book anyone working as a health professional who uses the phrases "a calorie is a calorie"; "calories in versus calories out"; or "disease is caused by too many calories" is committing a criminal act. The public at large doesn't really stand a chance as long as those appointed as the voices of authority don't know their arse from their elbow.

Or is it a result of genetics? Backwater - Any history of heart disease in your family?

Limey UK Runner wrote:

Unfortunately this is the consequence of the "a calorie is a calorie" nonsensical mentality and the rejection of biology as a legitimate science by the medical mainstream.

The public at large doesn't really stand a chance as long as those appointed as the voices of authority don't know their arse from their elbow.

Meaning this as respectfully as possible, but if those are the types of medical professionals you frequent, you need to upgrade. "The medical mainstream" (of which my brother is a member) certainly do NOT reject biology as a legitimate science and his credentials, experience, and recommendations from his patients show he does know his arse from his elbow.

Limey UK Runner wrote:

Sorry to hear about that. Unfortunately this is the consequence of the "a calorie is a calorie" nonsensical mentality and the rejection of biology as a legitimate science by the medical mainstream.

In my book anyone working as a health professional who uses the phrases "a calorie is a calorie"; "calories in versus calories out"; or "disease is caused by too many calories" is committing a criminal act. The public at large doesn't really stand a chance as long as those appointed as the voices of authority don't know their arse from their elbow.

If you're talking purely about energy balance, then "a calorie is a calorie" IS absolutely true. If you're talking about sedentary individuals who do not have variety in their caloric intake and overconsume, then yes, they need to have variety in their source of calories.

Rod Munch wrote:

If you're talking purely about energy balance, then "a calorie is a calorie" IS absolutely true.

The subject is 'food as a cause of disease'; not whether 1 Joule of heat from carbohydrate is the same as 1 Joule of heat from a hydrocarbon (or whatever else).

Runner A consumes around 20000 calories per week from minimally processed meat and vegetables. Runner B consumes around 20000 calories per week from ethanol. Runner A gets maintains good health and gets fitter. Runner B gets diseased. This is despite the diets being isocaloric. Calorie count is not a useful metric in predicting disease. Doses of ingested compounds are.

To the other poster talking about his MD brother, yes fine I was being harsh to the point of facetiousness. Clearly health professionals know some biology. They just tend to not be very good at it.

In my case, it's all my fault. I was well aware that just being a runner and keeping the extra pounds off didn't necessarily mean I was truly healthy in terms of my different body systems. Additionally there was a little bit of history of heart disease in my family. I've always been a procrastinator and always told myself that someday I would really do a better job I terms of what I ate. Well, now I'll have no problem with motivation.

I've always thought the "if the furnace is hot enough, anything will burn" saying was silly. If you burn garbage in your furnace, you'll clog it up... not a very well thought out analogy.

[/quote]

Runner A consumes around 20000 calories per week from minimally processed meat and vegetables. Runner B consumes around 20000 calories per week from ethanol. Runner A gets maintains good health and gets fitter. Runner B gets diseased. This is despite the diets being isocaloric. Calorie count is not a useful metric in predicting disease. Doses of ingested compounds are.

[/quote]

Doses of exercise (or lack thereof) is an even better predictor of disease. Health isn't all about food. Of course you'll get sick if you literally consume nothing but Wild Turkey. All you need to do is watch Leaving Las Vegas to see that. But you're not necessarily gonna drop dead at age 45 just because you've had pepperoni pizza every week for 20 years, either.

While we don't get away with eating anything we want, our dietary needs are substantially different from sedentary people. And not just in the total calorie intake. I consume massive amount of carbs (mostly whole grains, fruits and vegetables), but I also run 8-10 hours a week. I would not recommend the same diet (65% carbs) to sedentary people. In fact, when I run less than normal, I cut back on the amount of grains I eat, while keeping everything else mostly constant.

Running Formula reader wrote:

While we don't get away with eating anything we want, our dietary needs are substantially different from sedentary people. And not just in the total calorie intake. I consume massive amount of carbs (mostly whole grains, fruits and vegetables), but I also run 8-10 hours a week. I would not recommend the same diet (65% carbs) to sedentary people. In fact, when I run less than normal, I cut back on the amount of grains I eat, while keeping everything else mostly constant.

I try to do the same thing, but I'm not very good at it. I love carbs, running or not. My wife and daughter are from Thailand, and they don't consider a meal a meal unless it includes rice, usually white.

Rod Munch wrote:

Doses of exercise (or lack thereof) is an even better predictor of disease. Health isn't all about food.

You appear not to even have glanced at the article that Shawn H linked, the gist of which is basically "high doses of steady state exercise do not protect against the disease risk of a poor diet". There is even the suggestion that "high dose running CAUSES heart disease" (something I think is completely unfounded, as does one cardiologist quoted in the article).

Eat healthily and everything in moderation. Most people know what's good and what's not. It's not hard...

Actually, I did read it. And I have seen Dr. Thompson speak on this topic a handful of times. All I said was LACK of exercise is a bigger risk than food. I never said people should be running 100 miles per week to reduce risk. At the same time, there's no evidence that a varied meal plan that includes food that some people would consider "unhealthy" will absolutely cause your demise.

I don't like the title of this thread because it assumes that "everything they want" is solely food that is nutrient-sparse. What if "everything" truly includes a huge variety of food? I get what the OP is saying and I understand that a lot of people DO NOT eat a varied meal plan. But how did we get to the point where people became so afraid of eating and discouraged to exercise?

The thread title simply reflects the article title so of course it's meant to be snappy rather than insightful (I've just noticed that the article says "whatever" not "everything").

I'm not sure where you've come to the conclusion that people are being discouraged to exercise. If anything that is the only thing that all camps agree on; apart from those attempting to draw a link between high volume running and CVD of course.

As for people becoming afraid of eating I think that is a product of the food industry convincing the health profession and the public at large that it does not matter what you eat but instead only how much. This has led to people everywhere adopting the ridiculous behaviour of trying to avoid calories.

As for people becoming afraid of eating I think that is a product of the food industry convincing the health profession and the public at large that it does not matter what you eat but instead only how much. This has led to people everywhere adopting the ridiculous behaviour of trying to avoid calories.

So you are saying the FOOD industry wants you to eat LESS food? That sounds like a business plan.

Trans Frats wrote:

I've always thought the "if the furnace is hot enough, anything will burn" saying was silly. If you burn garbage in your furnace, you'll clog it up... not a very well thought out analogy.

Dave McGillivray's first thought after being diagnosed with coronary artery disease was embarrassment. If i believed that furnace crap i'd be embarrassed too! He finished each run with a visit to DQ, come on!

Really, this is old news, Jim Fixx's death in 1984 showed in part, his garbage diet (and genes and previous smoking) was responsible. Amby Burfoot is a vegetarian and has high coronary calcium but eats "cookies and all dairy products—cheeses, ice creams etc.," Doh!

Can these conditions be reversed thought diet and exercise, and to what extent is the reversal? Bill Clinton seems to think so as do Dr's like Esselstyn and unfortunately a litany of TV Doctors and internet charlatans.