NY Post exclusive: Multiple women claim marathon training made them fat

John QP wrote:

[quote]ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

He just explained that there is. Sounds like at 6'3'', 175 you're not skinny fat but there are plenty out there. The average lets run member is a skinnyfat freak.

No he didn't, he seemed to imagine that any runner who has body fat is this meaningless term "skinny fat". Newsflash . . . we all have body fat. Please define at what percentage this becomes " skinny fat" and how this differs from normal fat.

LetsRun.com wrote:

We came across an interesting article in the NY Post where many women say arathon training caused them to gain a lot of weight - between 15 and 30 pounds.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/03/marathon-training-made-me-fat/

Have any of you put on major weight while training?

as a former running store employee in NYC. I was shocked at the number of GU's bought by marathon runners. They basically took a gu before run, during run and after of every single training run. Lots of the training plans were 2-3 runs during week then a very long run on the weekend. All done at a bent knee walk pace.

John QP wrote:

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

So basically : No such thing as "skinny fat" if you actually take the idea seriously and test it. Oddly enough when not running my weight stays the same 6'3" 175 pounds because how much I want to eat is closely linked to how much I'm expending.

He just explained that there is. Sounds like at 6'3'', 175 you're not skinny fat but there are plenty out there. The average lets run member is a skinnyfat freak.

I could care less whether I'm skinny fat as long as I'm skinny fast.

Runningart2004 wrote:

You don't get fit by running, but you have to be fit to run.

I bet everyone on this board who is a runner was already relatively skinny and fit looking before they started running.

Alan

Interesting thought.

I know I got into running because I was skinny and it was a sport that I could excel at because of it.

Alan Bennet wrote:

gubyenletsrun wrote:

... Currently i run between 70-90 miles a week during a training cycle and I only need about 2000-2500 calories depending on the day (I'm a woman). ...

I find 2000-2500 difficult to believe. It might just be possible, provided you are motionless throughout the day except when running.

I know it sounds low but I track my calories on a semi regular basis. I'm very small (5'3" and 105-108 lbs) so that might make more sense? I don't burn that many calories when running as tracked by my Garmin and I have my height and weight plugged in. I strength train everyday and work but neither of these are strenuous enough to add overly to the calorie burn. I coach high school cross country and I do notice that meet days leave me feeling quite depleted so I'll eat a bit more on those days.

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

John QP wrote:

[quote]ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

He just explained that there is. Sounds like at 6'3'', 175 you're not skinny fat but there are plenty out there. The average lets run member is a skinnyfat freak.

No he didn't, he seemed to imagine that any runner who has body fat is this meaningless term "skinny fat". Newsflash . . . we all have body fat. Please define at what percentage this becomes " skinny fat" and how this differs from normal fat.

Not the guy you're responding to but...

"Skinny fat" is not different from normal fat. Because it isn't a type of fat. It's a description of one's build.

To me skinny fat indicates people with a relatively non-muscular build that store fat fairly evenly. People like this can probably get up to 15% BF and with clothes on look not all that different from a good runner in the 6-8% range. Hence the term, they look lean/skinny in normal context, but are still carrying an extra 10-20lbs over what would be an ideal race weight.

I'd say in my book 'skinny fat' takes place around 12-15% BF, but with BMI still in the 20-23 range. Most guys with a BMI greater than that are not going to be looking skinny, they will either be looking heavier set/thick and/or more muscular.

As always, there are probably exceptions.

Okay. I failed to consider that you might weigh about the same as a feather. In your case a basal in the neighborhood of 1200 is understandable, even for a runner. Sorry I doubted you.

Alan Bennet wrote:

gubyenletsrun wrote:

... Currently i run between 70-90 miles a week during a training cycle and I only need about 2000-2500 calories depending on the day (I'm a woman). ...

I find 2000-2500 difficult to believe. It might just be possible, provided you are motionless throughout the day except when running.

Not at all. Remember she is a woman, and probably a smaller one, likely around 45kg/100lbs.

Someone like this is typically going to have a total daily energy expenditure, excluding exercise, of somewhere around 1,200 kcal/day +/- a couple hundred either way.

Someone this small is likely buring 80-100 kcal/mile. So if she is running 11 miles a day that's an extra 900-1100 kcal. Add that to your 1,200 number and you're looking somewhere in the low 2,000 for maintenance.

A 6' guy doing the same running could easily need 3,500 kcal for the same routine. Size makes a really big difference.

Runningart2004 wrote:

You don't get fit by running, but you have to be fit to run.

I bet everyone on this board who is a runner was already relatively skinny and fit looking before they started running.

This concept is not new.

https://runningugly.com/tag/rachel-cosgrove/

Alan

On this board, I would bet that's true for more than not given the quality/type of runners this board self selects for. I highly suspect this would not hold true for other places, such as a poll on runnersworld or similar site.

It certainly doesn't hold for me either. I started out as a 5'8" 200lb guy. Not quite obese, but definitely looking much closer to fat than to runnerly.

When I hit 50mpw for the first time I was still 185lbs. Now if by "who is a runner" you mean the standard LRC definition of running at least 15:30 or better, then yes I imagine your right. Probably very few that start out fat and make it down to that level of running. It's one thing to be dedicated and train alot, it's another to go from being fat down to the levels of race leanness necessary for those times. I'm still working on it myself. I'm down to 145 6 years later, but certainly still have 10-15lbs I need to lose to be at a true race weight. Who knows, maybe then I'll crack 16.

Riiiiight . . so it is just a totally unscientific opinion based on what someone thinks someone might be like based on generalisations and assumptions - The American Council On Exercise defines the fat percentages as

Description Women Men

Essential fat 10–13% 2–5%

Athletes 14–20% 6–13%

Fitness 21–24% 14–17%

Average 25–31% 18–24%

Obese 32%+ 25%+

With your purported "skinny fat" 12% BF man, what do you propose the other 88% of their body composition is without testing them ?

Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject that contains actual measurements?

Runningart2004 wrote:

You don't get fit by running, but you have to be fit to run.

I bet everyone on this board who is a runner was already relatively skinny and fit looking before they started running.

I guess you are right for most people. I weighted 78-79kg (178-179 in retard units) beeing 177cm tall (5' 10"). That's around 25 BMI. I don't remember my body fat, but I'm pretty sure it was above the "overfat" threshold. For a lot of people I wasn't fat, but personally I thank that's just because today most people have a very generous (and wrong) definition of when you start beeing fat. Anyway, I still was able to run 6km under 30 minutes and 10km in 52-55 minutes without pushing hard, did so a couple of times a week when I started running. My second week of running I did 60km (~40 miles). So I was decently fit.

Typical stupid beginning runner--assumes whatever happens to him or her must happen to everyone else...

Yes, it will.

LM wrote:

Alan Bennet wrote:

I find 2000-2500 difficult to believe. It might just be possible, provided you are motionless throughout the day except when running.

Not at all. Remember she is a woman, and probably a smaller one, likely around 45kg/100lbs.

Someone like this is typically going to have a total daily energy expenditure, excluding exercise, of somewhere around 1,200 kcal/day +/- a couple hundred either way.

Someone this small is likely buring 80-100 kcal/mile. So if she is running 11 miles a day that's an extra 900-1100 kcal. Add that to your 1,200 number and you're looking somewhere in the low 2,000 for maintenance.

A 6' guy doing the same running could easily need 3,500 kcal for the same routine. Size makes a really big difference.

I'm female, 58 yo, 5-5 with a very narrow frame. At 115 pounds I'm probably 10 pounds over ideal running weight, but no one would call me fat. When not injured I normally run about 70 mwp and I don't eat a lot of junk, but I do eat a lot of healthy food, almost always at least 3000 calories per day. I could never understand how people who do any activity at all can survive on 2000 calories.

Also being "fit to run" is more than just body weight. The vast majority of people can't run more than 2-3 days in a row without getting sore knees, hips, or ankles. A 30min run is about it for the vast majority of exercisers.

I'm in the Army. There was a time back 10-20 years ago when physical training was running everyday, push-ups and sit-ups. The rate of stress fractures and other injuries were astronomical. The Army changed to less running, only running every other day, and muscle failure/muscle strength on the other days. Injuries are less while the 2mi run times are the same.

What I'm saying is even for guys who workout regularly running more than 30min every other day is going to greatly increase injury risk.

So part of being "fit to run" is being fit enough or genetically gifted enough to run multiple days in a row. As an example: my very first week of organized running I ever did was a 40mi week. If you have 100 people who have never run before and have them run 5-6 miles a day for a week 90% or more wouldn't make it to the end of the week without an injury. If all a person does is run for weight loss it's not a very efficient modality.

Also the article is stupid. Anyone, given enough motivation anyone can cover 26.2 miles on their feet and be considered a "marathoner". Anyone who actually runs the entire way is likely going at least 9-10:00 miles. If you're running at least 9-10:00 miles you're probably not obese.

Alan

It's not so much what you, how much you eat, or when you eat, but it's HOW you eat. Folks (and this includes you marathoners) you need to CHEW your food thoroughly--at least 100 times per bite of food. Because of their frenzied schedules and hectic lifestyles, people are gulping and wolfing down their food like never before. This means less mastication and bigger and bigger chunks of unchewed food landing in the stomach and overwhelming the digestive system. However, thorough chewing which allows for mastication which is a vital part of digestion, and simutaneously dissolves, dilutes, hydrolyzes and lubricates remedies this. Remember everyone, mastication is the key!

Yes, you've got it 100% correct. Bolded part sums it up flawlessly. Which makes the sarcastic tone really weird.

It's a subjective description of a certain kind of look. No different than describing someone as "big boned" or "broad" or "stocky". We all have a general idea of what those mean, but of course it's all purely subjective.

Are you thinking someone is arguing that skinny fat is an objective/scientific description? o.O

I concur. Few people can just jump into a bunch of running daily and not have some injury problem.

There is a genetic component without a doubt, but I also think there is a structural conditioning aspect that can be trained. Take 50 guys and have them run 40mpw without having ever run and probably 45+ get injured in week 1. Take that some cohort and have them build up to 40mpw over 2-3 months, starting with just 2-3 shorter runs a week and I'd be willing to bet the number of injured runners is significantly lessened.

I'm suspicious that you might not know what 3,000 calories actually is. But you're not 10 pounds over ideal running weight, you're technically borderline underweight for a healthy 5'5" woman but many competitive female runners are. Check out the YouTube video below for 3,000 calories of healthy food. If you can eat that much you have a fantastic metabolism and should thank your genes. I couldn't physically eat that much food. My body wouldn't process it! But that's because I don't need that much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7Fn21QORWc