Old dudes...weight question.

48 yrs old and yeah, it only get more difficult. I have embraced weight training after years and years of avoiding it.

The good news about weight training for a runner: it's actually pretty easy, especially when compared to what you are used to as a runner.

-With weights you can get in a good workout in 30-40 mins. and afterward while your arms may be sore, you don't won't be totally wiped out like after a run.

-it's not dependent on weather conditions

-only need a few days a week

- it's nice to have some muscle definition, so you do look better.

Yup. Once you hit 60 you start thinking about health and longevity and just being able to run. Getting a medal every once in awhile is icing on the cake although sometimes it is by default because of the few number of runners in my age group.......

sevin wrote:

I'm 35 and can't stop eating cheese lately.

tell your boy he should be washing himself more frequently!

Absolutely you are wrong. Google Jeff Volek/ FASTER study for details. Guys like Zach Bitter and Jeff Browning are running ultra records, like 100K at 6:30/mile, burning little or no carbohydrate for the entire distance. If you haven't given it a solid effort to convert to ketoadaptation, you are speaking from ignorance my friend.

No, you are wrong. You can't run an ultra without burning lots of glcyogen. SImply not possible. You need glycogen even at rest for basic cell function.

Gordo #2 wrote:

I'm 39 and it's no joke trying to keep the weight off now compared to 10 or 15 years ago.

Is 50 that much worse thane 40!? How about 60?

If you want to lose weight then do it. Either you want to do it or you don't.

48, 5'10, 138

I've had a strange experiences with weight the past few years - until 2 years ago my weight never changed no matter what I did.

But recently I've had these crazy zig zags - down 5 lbs, up 8 lbs, with no change in what I am doing or eating.

Right now I am at the same weight I was at 40, which is fine, but that could be different in a few months.

I'd suggest lifting and cross training to lose weight - use some muscles you aren't used to using. I think that will use up some calories.

Here is an example of a fat-adapted older guy (early 60's). He eats around 80-100g carbs/day (as I do) from whole foods, eats lots of healthy saturated fats, and doesn't have to run 50 miles/week to stay low in body fat:

https://www.bulletproofexec.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mark-sisson-inspirational-fitness-photos.jpg.jpg

I look similar to this (around 7-8% bodyfat), and run 30-60 miles week because I love running. I could maintain this body composition on 20 miles/week easily (and do, during "off" periods) without any fluctuation of weight or body composition.

The main problem that older athletes have with this is having the mental flexibility to even comprehend or want to change the fundamentals. Most would rather continue pounding carbs and pounding miles forever, while digging a deep hole of oxidative stress. I see older cohorts struggliing with this, adding pounds around their middle, losing muscle mass, despite putting in the hard efforts of their past.

High-carb is literally a dead-end for most, as evidenced by our obesity/diabetes epidemic of the last 30 years, due to governmental high-carb/low fat recommendations, which were based on faulty, politically-skewed research. "Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz documents this tragedy of epic proportions.

That guy is way too heavy. Have some dignity, man! No wonder he doesnt run 50 a week.

Im not old yet, only 33, but at 60 I would like to look more like Bekele than that bodybuilder you posted.

Is that the same guy who advocates drinking coffee with a bunch of butter in it? (Seems to be the same site but I'm not sure if that's him.) I've read some of his stuff and his claims seem a bit outlandish.

What's the difference between "fat adapted" and "ketogenic?" Surely you're not in the latter state if you're consuming 80g of carbs a day?

Not sure about the reduced carbs, but I've noticed benefits in energy and recovery in increasing healthy fats this year. Coconut oil, MCT oil, ghee, nuts, added to foods or to fruit smoothies. I don't count calories or carbs. I've also reduced breads and grains as too many give me a bloaty stomach.

Without increasing miles or trying to lose weight, my weight is lower than it's been since I was in high school.

I'm 54, 5'11" and 145.

Yeah ... that old b@stard is all natural.

Another Paleo proponent. Changed my life AND physique. 50-something. 5'9"; 145.

Sisson's claims seem outlandish because of how far off-base conventional dietary advice has strayed. Tim Noakes is another guy who was the definitive "high-carb" researcher for decades, who then had to do a 180 on diet (largely due to the harmful effects high-carb had on his health), and has been vilified for it in some circles.I believe that "fat adapted" refers to eating lower carbs (~100-150g/day) AND you train in the aerobic zone (under 60-70% max HR), and consequently use a higher percentage of fats than carbs for most of your running. That is where I am most of the time. Currently I am entering ketosis (less than 50g/day net carbs) in order to prepare for an ultra. This will put fat-burning up to higher level, allowing my physiology to access almost exclusively fat during an all-day type of effort.For the other comment about Mark being a "bodybuilder": he is a former 2:18 marathoner and top triathlete from the 80's. He is all of about 150-160 lbs. I know that is higher than most hobby runners, but far from "bodybuilding"parameters. I would call it "athletic".

hmm...... wrote:

Is that the same guy who advocates drinking coffee with a bunch of butter in it? (Seems to be the same site but I'm not sure if that's him.) I've read some of his stuff and his claims seem a bit outlandish.

What's the difference between "fat adapted" and "ketogenic?" Surely you're not in the latter state if you're consuming 80g of carbs a day?

hmm...... wrote:

Is that the same guy who advocates drinking coffee with a bunch of butter in it? (Seems to be the same site but I'm not sure if that's him.) I've read some of his stuff and his claims seem a bit outlandish.

What's the difference between "fat adapted" and "ketogenic?" Surely you're not in the latter state if you're consuming 80g of carbs a day?

yeah that stuff is all BS.. again this site proves that diet is one of the biggest debate point among those that care about fitness.

I dont prescribe to all the Paleo crap, but what gets lost in their zeal is simply cutting out (or down) on highly processed foods.

In 2016, the sincerest form of flattery for an athlete is a doping accusation.His physique doesn't trigger "unnatural" alarms for me, simply because I, and many of the multi-sport athletes I train with, are built the same, and are for sure drug-free. A big part of the low-carb lifestyle is SUSTAINABLE, LONG-TERM health, especially on the hormonal level. Having had serious health issues in the past, due to hormonal imbalances stemming from a high-carb diet, I would never introduce an artificial hormone (T, HGH, etc) into a fine-tuned and delicate system to bludgeon out short-term results. I want to be happy and healthy at 80, and that won't happen for dopers. If for no other reason, eating healthy is a far more economical route to a similar or better result, especially when you look at long-term risks associated with cancer, heart disease, etc..

total f got wrote:

Yeah ... that old b@stard is all natural.

One Not Like The Others wrote:

.....

For the other comment about Mark being a "bodybuilder": he is a former 2:18 marathoner and top triathlete from the 80's. He is all of about 150-160 lbs. I know that is higher than most hobby runners, but far from "bodybuilding"parameters. I would call it "athletic".

Hi, I am not dissing the guy at all. But of course, like a good 6ft. 145 lbs hobby runner I couldn't let the chance pass to call him a BB'er ;)

He looks very good, but his is not a runner's body [anymore]. What I would like to know is, if it is possible to be lean and light at 60, without the big muscles. Or do you really need the muscle mass to keep your metabolism in overdrive or something?

I'm 67, 5'8", 130 lbs, same as my college racing weight. Right now I'm running about 35-45 mpw, on my way back after a knee injury to about 55-60 mpw. Weight management is a little bit grim at this age. I do have a sedentary job, but otherwise am pretty active outside of work. For lunches I usually just have a couple of pieces of fruit, and normal breakfasts and dinners. I do have to limit desserts more than I like, but I also usually have a "free feeding" day on the weekends where I ignore calorie intake amounts.

The guys espousing low carb diets must not train hard. If you run hard, you need good carb intake to refuel after workouts. Balanced, healthy, mostly fresh foods are all you need for a long term stable weight.

Gordo #2 wrote:

I'm 39 and it's no joke trying to keep the weight off now compared to 10 or 15 years ago.

Is 50 that much worse thane 40!? How about 60?

50 is worse than 40.