The High Fat Diet of an Ultra Runner - Profile of Timothy Olson

This Fat Girl Runs

Saw this profile on Timothy Olson; interesting diet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96VZFklUM_Q

What do you all think?

rom

Yes, you will lose weight on a lower carb diet. Carbs are why people are fat. Then again portion control is probably the main thing.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/time-magazine-we-were-wrong-about-saturated-fats/

This Fat Girl Runs

rom wrote: »

Yes, you will lose weight on a lower carb diet. Carbs are why people are fat. Then again portion control is probably the main thing.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/time-magazine-we-were-wrong-about-saturated-fats/

Thanks. That's not what I was asking though.

I meant, what do you all think of an ultrarunner going LCHF?

menoscemo

Interesting study on this in Runners world a few weeks ago (assuming that the high fat diet is to bring about 'fat adaption' while running/excercising.)

http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/adapting-to-burn-fat-as-fuel

The conclusion seems to be Carbohydrate is the better fuel up to and including 100 mile races, perhaps beyond that fat adaption is an advantage.

DogSlySmile

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

Thanks. That's not what I was asking though.

I meant, what do you all think of an ultrarunner going LCHF?

*hears Enduro typing*

Enduro

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

Thanks. That's not what I was asking though.

I meant, what do you all think of an ultrarunner going LCHF?

Plenty of ultrarunners go LCHF (including myself, as DogSlySmile implies!). There's loads of material on the internet about it if your interested. There's tons of interesting stuff from the likes of Tim Noakes etc. Another notable American ultraruner doing some interesting science with LCHF is Zach Bitter. More locally, Barry Murray is another Irish ultrarunner who practices LCHF. He is also a very high level professional sports nutritionist who is excellent at describing the science behind the adavnatages of LCHF (With LCHF just being a small part of a more holistic overall approach to optimising performance (and lifestyle!)).

To directly answer the question, but slightly reversed, I think any runner who runs for about 2 hours or more (which includes all ultrarunners, obviously) is missing out if they're not exploiting the benifits that LCHF, and associated training and lifestyle changes, can bring.

Enduro

menoscemo wrote: »

Interesting study on this in Runners world a few weeks ago (assuming that the high fat diet is to bring about 'fat adaption' while running/excercising.)

http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/adapting-to-burn-fat-as-fuel

The conclusion seems to be Carbohydrate is the better fuel up to and including 100 mile races, perhaps beyond that fat adaption is an advantage.

Interesting article. The power/distance graph is very interesting. To a non-LCHF skeptic like me it shows that most conventional nutrional advice is rubbish for most runners (working off the presumtion that most people have about 2 hours of Glycogen to burn). He seem like a big LCHF skeptic, and I've heard very different numbers from some other research I've come accross (From Tim Noakes I think), which showed that a 2:40 marathon could be done totally on fat burn by a well adapted athlete (The context was Long Distance triathlon racing where a 2:40 would have been at elite level, and had examples of elite athletes who had been successfully doing so by winning Kona).

ger664

Enduro wrote: »

To directly answer the question, but slightly reversed, I think any runner who runs for about 2 hours or more (which includes all ultrarunners, obviously) is missing out if they're not exploiting the benifits that LCHF, and associated training and lifestyle changes, can bring.

Does the benefit not get balanced out by the depletion of the bodies glycogen store which is of far more importance to people wanting to race for 2-3 hours as fast as they can ?

TFBubendorfer

Enduro wrote: »

Plenty of ultrarunners go LCHF (including myself, as DogSlySmile implies!). There's loads of material on the internet about it if your interested. There's tons of interesting stuff from the likes of Tim Noakes etc. Another notable American ultraruner doing some interesting science with LCHF is Zach Bitter. More locally, Barry Murray is another Irish ultrarunner who practices LCHF. He is also a very high level professional sports nutritionist who is excellent at describing the science behind the adavnatages of LCHF (With LCHF just being a small part of a more holistic overall approach to optimising performance (and lifestyle!)).

To directly answer the question, but slightly reversed, I think any runner who runs for about 2 hours or more (which includes all ultrarunners, obviously) is missing out if they're not exploiting the benifits that LCHF, and associated training and lifestyle changes, can bring.

On the other hand, there are some very successful ultra runners who are not on a LCHF diet.

Enduro's success makes it hard to argue against him because whatever he is doing is clearly working for him, and spectacularly so.

I could not see myself ever on a LCHF diet because my wife does 90% of the cooking and there is no way I would want to subject her and the kids to a diet that is specific to my running, nor would I expect her to double up on cooking just for me. We do eat a healthy, balanced diet and I do not count the carbs/protein/fat content, nor the calories for that matter.

There is clearly more than one way, and to succeed you need to find out what works for you, not what works for X/Y/Z. Also, don't look at diet in isolation and look at the bigger picture instead including training, lifestyle, stress, sleep and so on.

RayCun

Enduro wrote: »

I've heard very different numbers from some other research I've come accross (From Tim Noakes I think), which showed that a 2:40 marathon could be done totally on fat burn by a well adapted athlete (The context was Long Distance triathlon racing where a 2:40 would have been at elite level, and had examples of elite athletes who had been successfully doing so by winning Kona).

The marathon in a long distance triathlon comes after 5 hours of racing in the water and on the bike, so you can't compare the fuel use there with the fuel use in a standalone marathon. It's like separating out the last 26.2 miles of a 100 mile race and saying, "look, here is a marathon done totally on fat burn!"

Enduro

ger664 wrote: »

Does the benefit not get balanced out by the depletion of the bodies glycogen store which is of far more importance to people wanting to race for 2-3 hours as fast as they can ?

All the below is just my opinion....

2-3 hours covers the the greyest area nicely

If someone is racing for 3 hours then I would guess that unless they're an elite level ultrarunner then they'd be at their most efficient running within the fat-burn zone of most people (and comfortably well within it for anyone who is more fat adapted and a more efficient fat-burner). So there should be definite racing benifits to being a more efficient fat burner.

If someone is racing for 2 hours... well I'd guess if they're an elite level marathon runner then they're probably burning through their glycogen stores at a rate of knots alright! I would guess that the further away from that you go the greyer it becomes.

Most people seem to generalise that most athletes have about 2 hours of glyocgen to burn, so anyone racing for less than 2 hours (again speaking in approximate gneralities), should not need to worry about having to fuel during a race. If that's the limit of their racing time then LCHF is much less likely to bring any advantages w.r.t. race fueling (but there are other advantages to LCHF that they could benifit from).

Enduro

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

We do eat a healthy, balanced diet and I do not count the carbs/protein/fat content, nor the calories for that matter.

There is clearly more than one way, and to succeed you need to find out what works for you, not what works for X/Y/Z. Also, don't look at diet in isolation and look at the bigger picture instead including training, lifestyle, stress, sleep and so on.

FWIW, I absolutely agree with all of that! It's more important to eat healthy natural non processed food than to worry about carbs/fat/protein balance. High fat junk food is still junk food!

And to back up your other point, Barry Murray will also emphasise that lifestyle elements like sleep and stress are far more significant than diet.

Enduro

RayCun wrote: »

The marathon in a long distance triathlon comes after 5 hours of racing in the water and on the bike, so you can't compare the fuel use there with the fuel use in a standalone marathon. It's like separating out the last 26.2 miles of a 100 mile race and saying, "look, here is a marathon done totally on fat burn!"

Which is exactly why I put it in context. But what it does tell you is that a 2:40 marathon can be done on fat-burning. Full stop! If it can be done under the more difficult circumstance of being preceded by another 5 hours of racing then it can easily be done in isolation. That's the point.

If you're aim is to go faster than 2:40 then this point is irrelevant. If you're aim is to run 2:40 or slower then there is something to be learned there, if you want to.

Peterx

Enduro wrote: »

Which is exactly why I put it in context. But what it does tell you is that a 2:40 marathon can be done on fat-burning. Full stop! If it can be done under the more difficult circumstance of being preceded by another 5 hours of racing then it can easily be done in isolation. That's the point.

If you're aim is to go faster than 2:40 then this point is irrelevant. If you're aim is to run 2:40 or slower then there is something to be learned there, if you want to.

I completely agree there is something to be learned and teaching the body to use all the fuels available is a good idea. Context is important.

The example above doesn't fully flesh it out for me.
If the lad can run a 2.40 marathon after 6 hours exercise he will not be happy with 2.40 in a standalone marathon and will want and need to go faster. What's his marathon pb? Has he tried his hardest at it? What fuel strategy did he have on the standalone day.

ThinkProgress

I thought you endurance junkies had no body fat left to burn...!? :P

These different functional diets say something very basic about the human metabolism to me. Our body is like a furnace and it requires fuel to burn and generate energy...

You can put almost anything in there and it will burn away nicely. Much really depends on how efficient the furnace is, not necessarily how efficient the fuel is.

RayCun

Enduro wrote: »

Which is exactly why I put it in context. But what it does tell you is that a 2:40 marathon can be done on fat-burning. Full stop! If it can be done under the more difficult circumstance of being preceded by another 5 hours of racing then it can easily be done in isolation.

But there is broad agreement (I think) that in longer distance races it is an advantage to burn fat rather than carbs. An 8 (?) hour triathlon is a longer distance race, so most people would see the logic in using a HFLC diet there.

Whether it is appropriate for a 2-3 hour race is controversial. Pulling out the marathon section of a triathlon and saying "this bit took 2-3 hours" doesn't add anything new.

Enduro

RayCun wrote: »

Whether it is appropriate for a 2-3 hour race is controversial. Pulling out the marathon section of a triathlon and saying "this bit took 2-3 hours" doesn't add anything new.

Again, what it says is that a 2:40 marathon can be run on fat burn. Full stop! It is physiological possible, and proven so by example. It tells you that anyone who says that you have to consume X amount of carbs to run a marathon in 2:40 or slower because (insert any of the usual dogmas here), or you won't be able to finish, is clearly and provably incorrect.

And there are plenty of people (professionals, psuedo professionals, and vast numbers of non professionals) who are still going around saying that sort of thing, how many gels you need, how its vital to fuel at all the stations, carbo load the night before etc etc etc.

It should add something new to anyone who thinks that way. The fact that the 2:40 marathon is at the end of a triathlon just emphasies the point significantly more strongly.

That little window of information should at least get someone who is interested enough in the subject to seek out advice to question the traditional dogmas which are still out there as "common sense" and recieved wisdom.

Enduro

ThinkProgress wrote: »

These different functional diets say something very basic about the human metabolism to me. Our body is like a furnace and it requires fuel to burn and generate energy...

You can put almost anything in there and it will burn away nicely. Much really depends on how efficient the furnace is, not necessarily how efficient the fuel is.

You're missing out on the importance of quality there. Sure we might burn a few different types of fuel (don't try drinking petrol ), but just like putting badly contaminated diesel into a modern diesel engined car will probably feck it up completely (as has happened with a lot of laundered deisel), similarly continuosly feeding ourselves crap quality food will cause health problems, even if we can still run about a bit!

Enduro

Peterx wrote: »

The example above doesn't fully flesh it out for me.
If the lad can run a 2.40 marathon after 6 hours exercise he will not be happy with 2.40 in a standalone marathon and will want and need to go faster. What's his marathon pb? Has he tried his hardest at it? What fuel strategy did he have on the standalone day.

I'm not using that example to flesh out any of those questions. But they're good questions alright, and it would be very interesting to see proper scientific experiments done to flesh out the answers. Given that the lad in question was the most successful IM racer of his time, I would presume that he wasn't a top class marathon runner.

demfad

I think fat burning capabilities may be relevant for elite marathoners also:

I quoted from the DCM marathon champs thread here and this refers to Eliud Too the current DCM champion.

wall.e wrote: »

1) We noticed in May that Eliud's ratio of fat/glycogen utilization was not efficient enough for marathoning, primarily as his background was steeplechase. So to train his body for utilizing fat more efficiently he needed to push his body for increasingly longer efforts at a low intensity, getting to 2+ hr runs. Zone A1 has the highest RER which means it is the optimal zone for enhancing fat oxidation. The rate of glycogen depletion is a key determinant of performance in the marathon and the best way to reduce this rate is by enhancing fat oxidation. This is a component we are very keen to develop in Eliud, but it can take over a year to observe any noticeable adaptation. His A2 zone would be what you are referring to as Canova Long Runs. Neil and I had hoped to have a fair bit of running in this zone, but as things progressed I found Eliud wasn't ready for this component in his program so I reduced the volume of A2. The priority was improving his fat oxidation. His A2 zone is something we will be integrating more and more as he matures. But he's still not ready for it yet.

It might be a good question for one of those lads too if they're still around these parts.

ThinkProgress

Enduro wrote: »

You're missing out on the importance of quality there. Sure we might burn a few different types of fuel (don't try drinking petrol ), but just like putting badly contaminated diesel into a modern diesel engined car will probably feck it up completely (as has happened with a lot of laundered deisel), similarly continuosly feeding ourselves crap quality food will cause health problems, even if we can still run about a bit!

Yeah I agree the quality is important.

Although I see many people who seem to benefit from including a certain amount of junk food in their diet... Presumably because their high energy needs mean they require some rapidly digested nutrients.

Really what I was alluding to though, was that some people's engines seem to motor along really well despite the fact that they appear to be breaking many dietary "rules"...

This leads many people to analyse the makeup of their diets and draw conclusions solely from what they're ingesting... When maybe they are overlooking the idea that perhaps it's more about that person's genetic make up and the overall quality and performance of their digestive system that has the most significant influence.