"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by MCCLURE HARO » Mon, 16 Aug 1993 06:46:00


Jim D. has gotten a lot of good advice, but may be wondering how to put it
together, while Mary Ann is just beginning. Jim might want to read Mary Ann's
piece (9641) because she may already realize something many of us forget:
while improving requires some pushing your limits; the weightlifter "no pain, no
gain" attitude is not going to produce sustained results. In my experience,
there are 2 key elements: a consistent program but with great variety (I'll try
to explain this apparent contradiction later) AND patience: you will not be
Bill Rogers tomorrow. I have had to relearn running after a long layoff and am
in Michael's position ("How to Keep Going"). By the way, Michael: if you get
out there, you might meet a running partner on the road. For Jim and Mary Ann,
let me offer a few of my tips for what ever they are worth:

#1) listen to your own body and follow your own goals as we are all different;

#2) while endurance is important, for many runners, so is speed; speed may not
mean doing 5 minute miles; I train in an area where there are 4 minute milers
and body told me a long time ago that a 5:30 mile turns the run into a 1 miler
at best. There is a real problem, however, with trying to develop spped first;
if you do so without a base, you can get injured quite quickly. Develop some
sort of endurance and leg strength before you step on a track for intervals.
Intervals, by the way, are only one way to develop speed: I find fartleks (burst
of speed in the middle of a run is the best way I can describe the idea) and
tempo runs (near race pace for a few miles--"few" depends on where you are at)
to be less stressful on the body and on the mind.

#3) building a base means longer runs at a more relaxed pace but do not think
that you need to do 10 miles tomorrow. I do not think any of you are ready for
that. Find a good bookstore and buy a book that has a suggested training log
for beginners and be patient with building that base. Even if an accelerated
step-up in distance does not injure you, it might become a barrier to devloping
what ever speed you are capable of obtaining.

#4) practice "hard day", "easy day" and even possibly "hard week" "easy week".
My biggest problem is that I tend to run 6 miles on easy days even though my
total week is circa 50 miles. A lot of people tell me to run only 3 miles.
Rest days are absolutely necessary. My suspicion is Jim makes the same mistake
that I do here. By the way, I do not take many off days, but that too may be a
mistake. In the early part of your running, 3-4 days a week may be all you can
handle. Many experienced runners take 1 day a week completely off, and Mary
Decker had to learn the hard way to take off a day every other week.

#5) Mary-Ann mentioned fat loss; a laudable goal for many reasons including, you
run faster if you are carrying less. Ideally, fat loss (which may not mean
weight loss) takes care of itself. Do NOT crash diet (how Florence Johnson
trained in 350 calories/day is a real mystery) but do eat pasta rather than all
fat. Running is not a substitute for good diet; to give you one example: my
uncle and his buddies started a 3 mile every other day running routine with
each run followed by downing 5 beers. At a 150 calorie/beer and 100 calorie/mi.
pop, each work-out added 450 calories to their systems. Yet, they could not
figure out why they gained weight. A fellow economist once told his simple
theory: Number of pounds lost = (calories used - calories consumed)/3500. In
one sense, this simpleton formula must be right and each a fast paced marathon
uses up only 2600 calories.  

Let me close by repeating that every one is different and you running routine
must be YOURS AND YOURS ALONE. If you can get a partner of roughly equal
ability and goals, it helps, but the main piece of advice is to think of
running is a LIFETIME event. Be patient, be persistent, and be versatile...
but mostly HAVE FUN!

 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by R. Michael Litchfie » Mon, 16 Aug 1993 20:43:48

Quote:

> Do NOT crash diet but do eat pasta
> rather than all fat. Running is not a substitute for good diet; to give you
> one example: my uncle and his buddies started a 3 mile every other day
> running routine with each run followed by downing 5 beers. At a 150
> calorie/beer and 100 calorie/mi a pop, each work-out added 450 calories to
> their systems.

carbohydrate fascist, explain to me how the carbs in pasta don't add calories
to a system yet the carbs in beer do? Admitadly you will get more fiber with
pasta, and  if you drink the normal watered down horsepiss they sell as beer in
this country you willprobably get more vitamins. But it was my impressions that
carbohydrates were not a generally signifigant factor in body fat increase. I
might also point out that most people use some sort of fat on thier pasta,
olive oil, butter, white sauce, etc.

- Michael (who just had one of his buttons pushed)

 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by Steven Gordon Buckl » Tue, 17 Aug 1993 06:12:07


Quote:

> (MCCLURE HAROLD) writes:
>> Do NOT crash diet but do eat pasta
>> rather than all fat. Running is not a substitute for good diet; to give you
>> one example: my uncle and his buddies started a 3 mile every other day
>> running routine with each run followed by downing 5 beers. At a 150
>> calorie/beer and 100 calorie/mi a pop, each work-out added 450 calories to
>> their systems.

>carbohydrate fascist, explain to me how the carbs in pasta don't add calories
>to a system yet the carbs in beer do? Admitadly you will get more fiber with
>pasta, and  if you drink the normal watered down horsepiss they sell as beer
in
>this country you willprobably get more vitamins. But it was my impressions
that
>carbohydrates were not a generally signifigant factor in body fat increase. I
>might also point out that most people use some sort of fat on thier pasta,
>olive oil, butter, white sauce, etc.

>- Michael (who just had one of his buttons pushed)

Now I'm not against a beer or two myself, but have a question that may
feed into the above discussion.  In my almanac's "Nutrition Notes", it
claims that the standard beer has 150 calories, 14 grams of carbs, and
1 gram of protein (with no fat).  Using the standard formula:

4*(grams of carbs + grams of protein) + 9*(grams of fat)

we get 60 calories in this case.  So where are the "hidden" calories in
the beer?  I think that they're in the ***.  Standard lore predicts
that *** metabolizes to fat more easily than carbs... can anyone
provide us with some more guidance here?

Steve

 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by Mary-Anne Wi » Tue, 17 Aug 1993 12:10:40

Hello R.! ...

Sunday August 15 1993, at 05:43, R. Michael Litchfield Mentioned to All:

 RML> carbohydrate fascist, explain to me how the carbs in pasta don't add
 RML> calories to a system yet the carbs in beer do? Admitadly you will get

Actually there is evidence that drinking *** causes your system to store
fat.  So it is not necessarily the calories in the beer, it's the *** that
has the affect....

Mary-Anne =)

 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by Peter W Severan » Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:30:34


Quote:


>> (MCCLURE HAROLD) writes:
>>> Do NOT crash diet but do eat pasta
>>> rather than all fat. Running is not a substitute for good diet; to give you
>>> one example: my uncle and his buddies started a 3 mile every other day
>>> running routine with each run followed by downing 5 beers. At a 150
>>> calorie/beer and 100 calorie/mi a pop, each work-out added 450 calories to
>>> their systems.

>>carbohydrate fascist, explain to me how the carbs in pasta don't add calories
>>to a system yet the carbs in beer do? Admitadly you will get more fiber with
>>pasta, and  if you drink the normal watered down horsepiss they sell as beer
>in
>>this country you willprobably get more vitamins. But it was my impressions
>that
>>carbohydrates were not a generally signifigant factor in body fat increase. I
>>might also point out that most people use some sort of fat on thier pasta,
>>olive oil, butter, white sauce, etc.

>>- Michael (who just had one of his buttons pushed)
>Now I'm not against a beer or two myself, but have a question that may
>feed into the above discussion.  In my almanac's "Nutrition Notes", it
>claims that the standard beer has 150 calories, 14 grams of carbs, and
>1 gram of protein (with no fat).  Using the standard formula:
>4*(grams of carbs + grams of protein) + 9*(grams of fat)
>we get 60 calories in this case.  So where are the "hidden" calories in
>the beer?  I think that they're in the ***.  Standard lore predicts
>that *** metabolizes to fat more easily than carbs... can anyone
>provide us with some more guidance here?
>Steve

I can't find the source, but I understand that *** affects fat
metabolism -- interferes with it, so more fat ends up stored and less
burned.

There's little else in beer of nutritional value -- when compared to
getting the same calories from a pasta feed with a vegetable-rich
sauce --  to avoid saturrated fats, hold the meat, butter and go easy on
the olive oil.
You might want to add an additional dose of protein after a race
to assure that any damaged muscle tissue heals quickly.

Sports nutritionist Dr. Robert Haas points out that ***, as a diuretic,
screws up the water balance in your body. Furthermore, it destroys B-vitimins
which play critical roles in metabolism in general; its also poisonous
to the liver.

I drink it anyway.

Peter Severance
Running Wild

 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by Jay Rei » Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:50:30



Quote:

>carbohydrate fascist, explain to me how the carbs in pasta don't add calories
>to a system yet the carbs in beer do?

Beer ain't a good source of carbohydrates.... just a good source of
***.

I vaguely remember reading something about the *** in beer being
high enough so that the water in the beer didn't hydrate you and the
carbs in the beer being too complex a polysaccaride (no, I can't
spell it) to be metabolized easily.

The jist of the article was that runners who run so they can drink
beer are just fooling themselves.

Can't remember chapter and verse, but it was Runner or Runner's World
magazine a couple of years ago, I think.

Peace,

Jay Reidy

 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by R. Michael Litchfie » Tue, 17 Aug 1993 20:25:04

Quote:

> Hello R.! ...

> Sunday August 15 1993, at 05:43, R. Michael Litchfield Mentioned to All:

>  RML> carbohydrate fascist, explain to me how the carbs in pasta don't add
>  RML> calories to a system yet the carbs in beer do? Admitadly you will get

> Actually there is evidence that drinking *** causes your system to store
> fat.  So it is not necessarily the calories in the beer, it's the *** that
> has the affect....

hunh, can you give me some references?

Quote:
> Mary-Anne =)

-Michael
 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by R. Michael Litchfie » Tue, 17 Aug 1993 20:43:02


Quote:
> There's little else in beer of nutritional value -- when compared to
> getting the same calories from a pasta feed with a vegetable-rich
> sauce --  

I stongly disagree, it is against the law for beers in this country to print
the nutritional values on the label but I have seen some proposed ones for some
of the ones I like and they stand up pretty well to scrutiny. The trick is
though that I drink good beers, things which are brewed from grain, yeast, and
hops. One like Anchor's Steam, Porter, & Stout, Sierra Nevada's lush line,
Pete's Wicked Alse, Boulder Porter, and a host of micro brewery's (right now I
would kille for some Devil's Thumb Stout out of the Walnut brewery). It makes
sense though, Beer is basically grain soup w/o the fiber. Some of the
carbohydrates are turned into ***, far from all, but a lot of the
vitamins are left intact.

I will try to dig up some of the proposed nutritional labels.

Quote:
> to avoid saturrated fats, hold the meat, butter and go easy on
> the olive oil.

You are still going to get fats, I have gotten to the point where I can make
some pasta w/ tomato sauce with no oil, but then I also have the reputation for
making the worlds driest most sticky spaghetti (I refuse to call what I make
spaghetti but you go with what you know).

Quote:
> I drink it anyway.

sigh I expect I am just engauging in some heavy duty rationalizations, however
I think a lot of the health types attitudes towards beer comes from a
neo-prohibitionistic streak in them.

dammit, I got few enough pleasures I can legally engauge in I don't want one of
my last to be as unhealthy as every one suspects.

Quote:
> Peter Severance
> Running Wild

-Michael
 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by Mike D. Ka » Tue, 17 Aug 1993 22:59:22



|> > Hello R.! ...
|> >
|> > Sunday August 15 1993, at 05:43, R. Michael Litchfield Mentioned to All:
|> >
|> >  RML> carbohydrate fascist, explain to me how the carbs in pasta don't add
|> >  RML> calories to a system yet the carbs in beer do? Admitadly you will get
|> >
|> > Actually there is evidence that drinking *** causes your system to store
|> > fat.  So it is not necessarily the calories in the beer, it's the *** that
|> > has the affect....
|>
|> hunh, can you give me some references?
|>

I believe there is some data in the recently published book _Eat More, Weigh Less_,
by Dean Ornish, M.D.  A recent study has shown that 3 oz. of *** reduced
the body's ability to "process" dietary fat by a factor of 33%.  Sorry, I don't
have all of the exact data with me here at work.  This still won't stop me
from enjoying a beer or 2, but it _is_ something to ponder...

|> > Mary-Anne =)
|>
|> -Michael

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mike D. Kail                      AT&T:   (612) 945-6527      |
| Advanced Technology, IS&T         FAX:    (612) 945-6502      |

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm."         |
|  - Ralph Waldo Emerson                                        |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by geof » Tue, 17 Aug 1993 20:02:11

Quote:

>The jist of the article was that runners who run so they can drink
>beer are just fooling themselves.

>Can't remember chapter and verse, but it was Runner or Runner's World
>magazine a couple of years ago, I think.

Despite the quality of this reference ^^, I am confused as to what you are
saying.  Runners who run so they can drink beer would claim that they are
leaner than if they never ran.  Is there a dispute about this?  How could
there be?
 
 
 

"How fast gains" and "Starting to run"

Post by Peter W Severan » Wed, 18 Aug 1993 10:13:14


...

Quote:
>hops. One like Anchor's Steam, Porter, & Stout, Sierra Nevada's lush line,
>Pete's Wicked Alse, Boulder Porter, and a host of micro brewery's (right now I
>would kille for some Devil's Thumb Stout out of the Walnut brewery). It makes
>sense though, Beer is basically grain soup w/o the fiber. Some of the
>carbohydrates are turned into ***, far from all, but a lot of the
>vitamins are left intact.
>-Michael

Nice list. Every try any Catamount, Long Trail Ale, Post Road? A few nice
New England brews, perfect for a post-race recoup under a colorful fall
canopy at a New England trail run....

Peter
Running Wild

p.s. I'd be really interested in a nutritional summary of good beers...