Running on empty

brownian

Apologies if this has been done before - I've searched and seen lots of food threads, but not this....but might have missed it!

Anyway, I try not to eat while on long slow runs. Say, 20-25k of trail jogging or hill running around Glendalough, for 3 or 4 hours, or 20k on the road (in, say, an hour and three quarters). I bring a bar or a banana in the jersey pocket, but believe-for-no-good-reason that I'll get more training/weight-loss benefit from the run if I don't eat.

Of course, I get hungry, and if I do eat, it gives me energy...so should I stop messing about, and just eat when hungry, or am I benefiting by not eating?
I do eat before running - this isn't fasted running.

Post run, of course, I eat...so I'm not saving very many calories.

Thoughts on a postcard....thanks!!

tony1980

Is your primary reason for doing this weight loss?

I have thought about doing this eventually but for entirely different reasons, I would like to train my body to use fat as fuel instead of using things like gels, etc but have never thought about it as a weight loss method. I am not an expert but I would say diet, as in a proper balanced diet in general is the way to go for weight loss, the running will definitely help but not if the diet is wrong.

Enduro

Tony1980 has it pretty much spot on there! Getting your diet nailed down is far more fundamental to weight loss than running on empty. You're likely to get bigger benifits from things like cutting out added sugars, eating real natural foods etc.

Running on empty is all about training yourself to utilise fat as fuel. It's putting the body under stress to try to induce an adaption (Which is what all training is). Now if you do decide to really go for it and try to turn yourself into a good fat-burner you will probably find that it is easier to control your weight. But that's really more a side effect, part of a virtuous circle. It will definitely be better than what you are currently doing though.

Incidently my experience is hunger isn't really an issue at all if you're fat burning. I do 6 hour LSRs in the hills on empty without feeling hungry. The fact that you're feeling hungry mid-run, and eating (presumably carbs) gives you a noticable energy boost would sugget to me that you're not well fat-adapted yet.

average_runner

I run on empty on the long run as it's too early to eat. I need to have food in me an hour at least before I run. Never did it for weight reasons though.

Dilbert75

Enduro wrote: »

Tony1980 has it pretty much spot on there! Getting your diet nailed down is far more fundamental to weight loss than running on empty. You're likely to get bigger benifits from things like cutting out added sugars, eating real natural foods etc.

Running on empty is all about training yourself to utilise fat as fuel. It's putting the body under stress to try to induce an adaption (Which is what all training is). Now if you do decide to really go for it and try to turn yourself into a good fat-burner you will probably find that it is easier to control your weight. But that's really more a side effect, part of a virtuous circle. It will definitely be better than what you are currently doing though.

Incidently my experience is hunger isn't really an issue at all if you're fat burning. I do 6 hour LSRs in the hills on empty without feeling hungry. The fact that you're feeling hungry mid-run, and eating (presumably carbs) gives you a noticable energy boost would sugget to me that you're not well fat-adapted yet.

How long might it take to become fat-adapted and generally-speaking under what conditions? It sounds like my training and race carb consumption is relatively low but not yet low enough to become completely independent of supplementary nutrition.

Enduro

Dilbert75 wrote: »

How long might it take to become fat-adapted and generally-speaking under what conditions? It sounds like my training and race carb consumption is relatively low but not yet low enough to become completely independent of supplementary nutrition.

N=1, we're all different, but I've read anything from 6 months to 2 years. The way to look at it is like training for a marathon. You won't be able to run a marathon (well!) after just one or two weeks of training as it takes longer for the adaptions to take place, generally 6 months or more. Similarly when trying to adapt to be a better fat burner. Also similarly to marathon training, its gonna take effort and be uncomfortable at times. If you're not uncomfortable at times then you're probably not putting yourself under enough stress to trigger adaptions.

For me the conditions in order would be (And this is no more than my own opinion from my own learnings and experiences): do all training on empty, leave as large a gap as possible between eating and training, err more towards a LCHF type of diet.

brownian

It seems my first post was poorly phrased - I'm not running on empty to lose weight (tho, if I do, no harm done). I'm doing it because of some vague belief that it'll make me a stronger runner. The posts above (thank you) suggest that if I do this, I may train my body to use fat as a fuel, which would make me less dependent, while running, on regular eating/gels/sports-drinks. I imagine that I'd feel this benefit in the third and subsequent hours of longer food-free runs, by pushing the 'bonk point' out further.

In the heel of the hunt, what I'm taking from this is that there IS a potential (longer-term, adaptation-driven) benefit to running on empty, and I should persist with the notion, despite the (relatively minor) discomfort of being hungry.

walshb

Running on empty is not advisable. Best to have some sustenance on board. Everyone is different Some cannot run in the morning right after breakfast, and prefer to run on empty. Depending on the distance and effort you can decide. If it's a long run where you want to really commit I would advise to have a feed pre run. Not right before the run, but at a time where your body is using the fuel to give you fuel.

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

Running on empty is not advisable. Best to have some sustenance on board. Everyone is different Some cannot run in the morning right after breakfast, and prefer to run on empty. Depending on the distance and effort you can decide. If it's a long run where you want to really commit I would advise to have a feed pre run. Not right before the run, but at a time where your body is using the fuel to give you fuel.

More unsubstanciated BS. Your advice is based on what exactly now? The first thought you pulled out of the top of your head? Got any good science to back that up? Got any explanation as to how races are frequently won by competitors running on empty?

No doubt you won't have any answers for this either.

Enduro

brownian wrote: »

It seems my first post was poorly phrased - I'm not running on empty to lose weight (tho, if I do, no harm done). I'm doing it because of some vague belief that it'll make me a stronger runner. The posts above (thank you) suggest that if I do this, I may train my body to use fat as a fuel, which would make me less dependent, while running, on regular eating/gels/sports-drinks. I imagine that I'd feel this benefit in the third and subsequent hours of longer food-free runs, by pushing the 'bonk point' out further.

In the heel of the hunt, what I'm taking from this is that there IS a potential (longer-term, adaptation-driven) benefit to running on empty, and I should persist with the notion, despite the (relatively minor) discomfort of being hungry.

Bonking is generally defined as running out of glycogen (from sugar/carbs) energy. So if you train to race using fat as fuel you take bonking out as a factor almost completely.

There most certainly is long term benifit from being able to train and race on empty, and not just in pure running terms. Cutting down on your need to stuff yourself with sugars allows you to adopt a much more healthy diet, and reduces your chances of picking up health issues caused by too much sugar consumtion, such as type 2 diabetes. There are obvious dental benifits as well.

In racing terms you are removing a fragility (dependence on a supply of food), and replacing it with resiliance (The knowledge that you can run for a long long time without worrying about finding something to eat). You're also removing other potential race issues, such as upset stomach, getting your breakfast wrong (or indeed worrying about scheduling breakfast at all), dealing with food coming out the other end! Lots of time gains that cumulate. Lots of phsychological pluses.

Here is one of my favourite videos on LCHF showing a Tim Noakes lecture. It goes into some of the figures behind fat-burning, and some of the less obvious potential benifits of LCHF. Running on empty, fat burning, and LCHF eating can all link up nicely.

ooter

Enduro wrote: »

For me the conditions in order would be (And this is no more than my own opinion from my own learnings and experiences): do all training on empty, leave as large a gap as possible between eating and training, err more towards a LCHF type of diet.

I'm no expert on this but have an interest in it and read and listen to as much as I can about it and it would seem maybe 2 runs a week is beneficial, certainty the long weekend run and maybe 1 midweek run.
Running long runs on empty has certainly benefitted me anyway, I wouldn't have the time to do any midweek runs on empty to know if that would benefit me even more.

jamule

I usually do any LSRs first thing in the morning, no chance of a feed, usually my last meal is 6pm the night before, never had a problem with it. Most days I would eat fook all before lunch, after another run.

If I could only sort out my aversion to sugary ****e, How the fook can you do it the week after halloween!

I've never eaten during a run, wouldn't ever cross my mind (someone explain the gel addicts!)

walshb

Getting a "decent" feed in before a LSR would benefit you. We operate better when we are fuelled. It fuels the organs which otherwise would not get the necessary levels of blood flow on a long run due to the blood flow wanting to get to the muscles....

Pre meaning 60-90 minutes pre run, and about 400-500 "healthy" calories max.

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

Getting a "decent" feed in before a LSR would benefit you. We operate better when we are fuelled. It fuels the organs which otherwise would not get the blood flow on a long run due to the blood flow wanting to get to the muscles....

Pre meaning 60-90 minutes pre run, and about 400-500 "healthy" calories max.

Again, any evidence to support this? Would you like to explain why Tim Noakes is wrong? Can you explain why an "unfuelled" runner can win a race full of "fuelled" runners?

Your psuedo-scientific ramblings don't make any sense. You seem to be saying that blood flow will stop if someone doesn't eat before a long run. That should be easy to prove as that would lead to rapid death. Yet I've yet to see it, or even hear of it happen anywhere in the world.

Enduro

jamule wrote: »

I usually do any LSRs first thing in the morning, no chance of a feed, usually my last meal is 6pm the night before, never had a problem with it. Most days I would eat fook all before lunch, after another run.

Sounds perfect! That's pretty much how I do my weekend LSRs.

jamule wrote: »

If I could only sort out my aversion to sugary ****e, How the fook can you do it the week after halloween!

I've never eaten during a run, wouldn't ever cross my mind (someone explain the gel addicts!)

I preume you mean addiction rather than aversion! If so, I feel your pain. There is actually a lot of evidence that sugar is an addiction. Most processed foods are engineered to be so (for obvious reasons). Getting the stuff out of the house is definitely a good first step. Going cold turkey on added sugars is a good target.

On sugar addiction... here is a long but very comprehensive (American centric) film on the subject. There's much more at play here than mere running performance.

Chartsengrafs

walshb wrote: »

Getting a "decent" feed in before a LSR would benefit you. We operate better when we are fuelled. It fuels the organs which otherwise would not get the necessary levels of blood flow on a long run due to the blood flow wanting to get to the muscles....

Pre meaning 60-90 minutes pre run, and about 400-500 "healthy" calories max.

I agree 100%
On a number of occasions I haven't got the 'necessary' blood flow to my organs due to the lack of a decent feed. In fact I've died a few times from this.

walshb

Chartsengrafs wrote: »

I agree 100%
On a number of occasions I haven't got the 'necessary' blood flow to my organs due to the lack of a decent feed. In fact I've died a few times from this.

Bit of an exaggeration there, kid.

Anyway, it's all about performing at your optimum level. Isn't that what we all should be aspiring to? In saying this then a pre run feed before a LSR is going to give you that chance. You will likely perform better as well as being a little safer. No need to go dying....

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

Bit of an exaggeration there, kid.

I think we all agree that your post most certainly was.

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, it's all about performing at your optimum level. Isn't that what we all should be aspiring to? In saying this then a pre run feed before a LSR is going to give you that chance. You will likely perform better as well as being a little safer. No need to go dying....

An LSR isn't about performance. It's about training. Basic stuff there. You don't race your training runs.

What are you talking about with your saftey comment? Care to explain how running on empty is unsafe (Now that you seem to accept that your previous rubbish about stopping bloodflow was an exaggeration)?

jamule

walshb wrote: »

Bit of an exaggeration there, kid.

Anyway, it's all about performing at your optimum level. Isn't that what we all should be aspiring to? In saying this then a pre run feed before a LSR is going to give you that chance. You will likely perform better as well as being a little safer. No need to go dying....

Which is less safer , not eating or getting mugged on a trail by a baddie?

walshb

jamule wrote: »

Which is less safer , not eating or getting mugged on a trail by a baddie?

Not eating. Muggings are overrated.

Ayuntamiento

If you want to get used to running in a fasted state then do your run first thing in the morning before breakfast. Realistically none of us are really 'running on empty'. Whatever you ate the night before is stored in your muscles and liver as glycogen. When you go out for your pre-breakfast morning run your body will go down the metabolic pathway of glycogenolysis (the breakdown of stored glycogen) and gluconeogenesis (the process of creating glucose from your stored glycogen). After you've depleted your stored glycogen to a certain level, your body will start tapping into its fat supplies in an attempt to create glucose from fat. This process is ketosis. It's not a metabolic pathway that your body particularly likes using and as such, you'll probably feel like crap if you're not used to it.

jebuz

The majority of my clubmates including myself run all of our Sunday morning efforts completely on empty. We've usually done a fairly tough interval session on the Saturday and then spend typically 2 hours on our feet for the long run, chatting away at a decent clip and nobody complains about a lack of energy. We're fat adapting without even knowing it, it's just the done thing and nobody makes a big deal of it. And it yield results, there's a bunch of top marathon runners around with people constantly improving. I agree with Enduro's comment, it's training not performing when it comes to these runs and we're training our energy systems to be able to step up in the latter stages of the marathon when we'll be burning a higher % of fat. It's really not that complicated when you break it down.

They did all this back in the 80s running even faster than us (and without special drinks or gels), it's nothing new or exciting, it's fairly standard long distance training. I really don't get the 'safety' comment above, your'e not going to keel over if you don't eat before a long run, there's nothing unsafe about it. As far as I can remember and I've been running 4+ years, I've never eaten before the long one (and all of my morning runs) and have managed to continue knocking chunks off my marathon times every year.

I'd hazard a guess that if people are bonking on long runs they're most likely running too fast for their ability or they haven't refuelled properly after a previous session (or simply aren't eating enough).

Ruddock25

Enduro wrote: »

Again, any evidence to support this? Would you like to explain why Tim Noakes is wrong? Can you explain why an "unfuelled" runner can win a race full of "fuelled"

While I agree with most of what you are saying and I haven't heard what Tim Noakes has to say I think that using an example such as this has no scientific merit to prove your argument.Maybe the unfuelled runner is extremely talented vs the fuelled runners and if he had fuelled he would win by more.

ford2600

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

If you want to get used to running in a fasted state then do your run first thing in the morning before breakfast. Realistically none of us are really 'running on empty'. Whatever you ate the night before is stored in your muscles and liver as glycogen. When you go out for your pre-breakfast morning run your body will go down the metabolic pathway of glycogenolysis (the breakdown of stored glycogen) and gluconeogenesis (the process of creating glucose from your stored glycogen). After you've depleted your stored glycogen to a certain level, your body will start tapping into its fat supplies in an attempt to create glucose from fat. This process is ketosis. It's not a metabolic pathway that your body particularly likes using and as such, you'll probably feel like crap if you're not used to it.

That depends on intensity, adaptation no?

If out for a run at sub 70% VO2 max I'd expect an adapted athlete to run primarily on fat, and leave his glycogen stores alone, with a trickle to power the brain.

At high power rates the oxygen demands of fat burning make glycogen a better fuel source for high intensity.

So on a LSR in a fasted state, while there maybe some ketones about it would not be at levels of someone on a very low carb ketogenic diet.

An athlete who has a carby breakfast everyday, and fuels up before every run will deplete his glycogen stores very quickly on a similar LSR to a fat adapted athlete. Putting the carbs in ironically means you'll run of a precious fuel really quickly.

The bonk is pretty horrible, it's your brain saying "I'll be having that" about the remaining glycogen/glucose.

On how to fat adapt I posted the section at bottom previously(it's in relation to cycling but relevant).

An an aside, I've been doing 12hr days of really hard physical labour this week; lots of heavy lifting, walking, standing etc. 6am rise, finishing at 7 ish. 2 meals a day, one at 1pm and one at 7.30. No hunger at all, coffee would probably do me at 1 but my co worker or dog wouldn't approve! Convenience
and the ability to avoid modern pretend foods is probably the best thing about being fat adapted.


In order to fat adapt the surest way is go keto, you then have no choice as the brain will fire up it's backup system in the absence of glucose. Even if you switched easily, keto is really hard to maintain in the modern world;your talking about weighing your non green veg ffs. You will aslo be slower less powerful all things being equal. (DR Louise Bourke has some research on the body down regulating it's use of glycogen in it's absence and presence of ketones) So if you want to have a fairly quality but not too restricted diet I'd be inclined to
*eat well, not necessarily hflc but, if you are going to eat a good percentage of carbs have them decent with plenty fibre, low gi etc etc. Good clean quality food with minimal sugar, processed foods
* try intermittent fasting, say one day a week when doing something sedentary. Whether any physiological changes happen or not(they probably will) it'll help you mentally when exercising fasted.
* start with a short spin and build up. My first spin was 30km I think. Bring an apple, the world champion of cycling foods, tastier than a banana and rugged as fcuk! A lot of it is in your head, sip water when you think you are hungry.
You will adapt slowly.
*If you feel miserable, eat. It's not a misery contest.
*If you are ever travelling use it as a chance to avoid airport, convenience a do a 24hr fast. If you are used to IF it's surprisingly easy

TFBubendorfer

jebuz wrote: »

I really don't get the 'safety' comment above, your'e not going to keel over if you don't eat before a long run, there's nothing unsafe about it.

Absolutely, and that's where the argument should have stopped long ago. There is no safety aspect to it. Nobody has ever starved on a run because of an empty stomach, not with stored body fat that provides enough energy for hundreds of miles.

It is a mild form of intermittent fasting, which, in contrast to what some people believe, actually has some health benefits.

walshb

I didn't mention starving, or keeling over.

I would also not discourage intermittent fasting.

Like I said, everybody is different. What feels good and right for some may not feel good and right for others. It all depends on how empty is empty? Undertaking a long run, even at a slower pace, should be undertaken when you are at your best. Doing it whilst not having eaten in a considerable amount of time is not advisable. If it's a long run then it's better to take precautions. Better to be fuelled and not need it than not be fuelled and need it.

Ruddock25

One of the aims of a long run is to improve fat burning as this helps to spare glycogen.Doing a long run in a fasted state augments this.It has been done for years.It is safe.It is based on sound physiological principles.There is plenty glycogen and fat stores in the body to allow you to run at a training pace.

jamule

walshb wrote: »

I didn't mention starving, or keeling over.

I would also not discourage intermittent fasting.

Like I said, everybody is different. What feels good and right for some may not feel good and right for others. It all depends on how empty is empty? Undertaking a long run, even at a slower pace, should be undertaken when you are at your best. Doing it whilst not having eaten in a considerable amount of time is not advisable. If it's a long run then it's better to take precautions. Better to be fuelled and not need it than not be fuelled and need it.

'You will likely perform better as well as being a little safer'- Safer than what? running through a mine field (or on that trail with the bad people)? So you should eat a three course meal at 6am in the morning so you can feel safer on your morning run because you have not eaten since the previous evening (even though you are not hungry or glycogen levels are grand because your body has adapted)

I like the way you keep posting bull****e to wind up Enduro and a few others. very amusing

walshb

jamule wrote: »

'You will likely perform better as well as being a little safer'- Safer than what? running through a mine field (or on that trail with the bad people)? So you should eat a three course meal at 6am in the morning so you can feel safer on your morning run because you have not eaten since the previous evening (even though you are not hungry or glycogen levels are grand because your body has adapted)

I like the way you keep posting bull****e to wind up Enduro and a few others. very amusing

It's clear that you are only out to stir. None of what you have posted is relevant to anything I said. "Three course meals, 6am in the morning, mine fields, bad people." We'll leave it there.

jamule

walshb wrote: »

It's clear that you are only out to stir. None of what you have posted is relevant to anything I said. "Three course meals, 6am in the morning, mine fields, bad people." We'll leave it there.

go on then explain what you mean by safer then? give us a laugh

f@steddie

walshb wrote: »

Doing it whilst not having eaten in a considerable amount of time is not advisable. If it's a long run then it's better to take precautions. Better to be fuelled and not need it than not be fuelled and need it.

You seem to be stating your opinion as fact. Of course your opinion directly contradicts many experienced runners posting here.

walshb

jamule wrote: »

go on then explain what you mean by safer then? give us a laugh

You are clearly not after a mature discussion. Baiting has never worked on me.

walshb

f@steddie wrote: »

You seem to be stating your opinion as fact. Of course your opinion directly contradicts many experienced runners posting here.

It's not fact. If I was stating it as fact I would have stated it as fact.

jamule

walshb wrote: »

You are clearly not after a mature discussion. Baiting has never worked on me.

and you are? any chance you can explain what you mean? As we now know what you post is not 'fact' , any chance you can give us a clue what the fook you mean

Djoucer

Come on lads. Walshb is clearly trolling. There's no point engaging him. Turning s decent thread into a train wreck as usual.

The ignore feature doesn't work if you keep quoting his nonsense.

walshb

Sorry, but why is it here that any opposing thought or view is met with the usual accusations of trolling by the usual suspects?

I happen to think that fuelling pre long run is more advisable than running it when fasting, or having gone without food for a significant period of time. Why is this opinion labelled trolling?

Is there some hard facts to say that I am wrong? As far as I Know there is a debate on such subject. Some believe one way and some believe the other. This forum is being destroyed by people getting irritated and frustrated due to an opposing thought on a topic that is far from provable. It's a very odd state of affairs.

I am not asking people to agree with me, but I don't expect to be constantly labelled as trolling because I have a view. To me the only ones trolling are the ones throwing about the accusation of trolling.

It happens in every thread. I mentioned the mile "probably" being the toughest event, and people jumped in baiting. You'd swear I had made a pathetic claim or fact just to wind people up.

There are surely some seasoned and experienced runners here who run long runs, and prefer to do it with a pre run meal of some kind as opposed to a period of fasting? Are they trolls too because they prefer this or believe this to be the best option?

Why start and debate a thread (on a topic that is not really provable one way or the other) if only one opinion is "allowed" and anything else is the work of a troll? It's a very odd way to conduct a discussion.

I personally run 5- 6 ks max, and I always eat pre run. I find I operate better and feel better. If I fasted for 12-15-18 hrs before it I would not feel as good.

Now, 5-6 ks is short. Take 15-20-25 ks for the average person. Is it just too much trolling to suggest that maybe some would operate or perform their long runs that bit better with fuelling taken on board as opposed to a fast?

Link below is quite interesting, and certainly doesn't imply that my view is dishonest, insincere or trolling.

https://runnersconnect.net/coach-corner/marathon-long-runs-on-an-empty-stomach-or-fully-fueled/

jamule

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, but why is it here that any opposing thought or view is met with the usual accusations of trolling by the usual suspects?

I happen to think that fuelling pre long run is more advisable than running it when fasting, or having gone without food for a significant period of time. Why is this opinion labelled trolling?

Is there some hard facts to say that I am wrong? As far as I Know there is a debate on such subject. Some believe one way and some believe the other. This forum is being destroyed by people getting irritated and frustrated due to an opposing thought on a topic that is far from provable. It's a very odd state of affairs.

I am not asking people to agree with me, but I don't expect to be constantly labelled as trolling because I have a view. To me the only ones trolling are the ones throwing about the accusation of trolling.

It happens in every thread. I mentioned the mile "probably" being the toughest event, and people jumped in baiting. You'd swear I had made a pathetic claim or fact just to wind people up.

There are surely some seasoned and experienced runners here who run long runs, and prefer to do it with a pre run meal of some kind as opposed to a period of fasting? Are they trolls too because they prefer this or believe this to be the best option?

Why start and debate thread (on a topic that is not really provable one way or the other) if only one opinion is "allowed" and anything else is the work of a troll? It's a very odd way to conduct a discussion.

I personally run 5- 6 ks max, and I always eat pre run. I find I operate better and feel better. If I fasted for 12-15-18 hrs before it I would not feel as good.

Now, 5-6 ks is short. Take 15-20-25 ks for the average person. Is it just too much trolling to suggest that maybe some would operate or perform their long runs that bit better with fuelling taken on board as opposed to a fast?

Link below is quite interesting, and certainly doesn't imply that my view is dishonest, insincere or trolling.

https://runnersconnect.net/coach-corner/marathon-long-runs-on-an-empty-stomach-or-fully-fueled/

Ah poor Walshb everyone is out to get you. Maybe if you posted the last few paragraphs above first, instead of making bull****e statements like 'Running on empty is not advisable' 'It fuels the organs which otherwise would not get the necessary levels of blood flow on a long run due to the blood flow wanting to get to the muscles' 'you will likely perform better as well as being a little safer. No need to go dying'.
I still agree with you on the mile.

walshb

jamule wrote: »

Ah poor Walshb everyone is out to get you. Maybe if you posted the last few paragraphs above first, instead of making bull****e statements like 'Running on empty is not advisable' 'It fuels the organs which otherwise would not get the necessary levels of blood flow on a long run due to the blood flow wanting to get to the muscles' 'you will likely perform better as well as being a little safer. No need to go dying'.
I still agree with you on the mile.

Running on empty is not something that I would advise. That's not BS. It's my view. Like the link, this is a debated issue. I would advise to fuel more than advise to not fuel.

I also happen to believe that you will perform better with fuelling. Again, not BS, my view and something that is debated.

No need to go dying? Did you see where I posted this? It was in reply to a smart ass post. Seems my reply was lost on you.

As for the mile. Good for you. Two of us obviously tuned in....

So, nothing in my original posts is all that different to the longer posts above. Nothing. But the same old tired trolling accusations are thrown around when a differing view is presented.

I research my posts. I am well educated in sports and science and all that comes with it. You're not talking to a novice here, kid.

walshb

jamule wrote: »

Ah poor Walshb everyone is out to get you. .

BTW, my post was more an observation/enlightening post. I couldn't care who may or may not be "out to get me." This is an invisible forum. I don't interact in real life with you guys.

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

It's clear that you are only out to stir. None of what you have posted is relevant to anything I said. "Three course meals, 6am in the morning, mine fields, bad people." We'll leave it there.

Another one added to the list!

Enduro

walshb wrote: »

As far as I Know there is a debate on such subject. Some believe one way and some believe the other. This forum is being destroyed by people getting irritated and frustrated due to an opposing thought on a topic that is far from provable. It's a very odd state of affairs.

I am not asking people to agree with me, but I don't expect to be constantly labelled as trolling because I have a view. To me the only ones trolling are the ones throwing about the accusation of trolling.
<snip>

Why start and debate a thread (on a topic that is not really provable one way or the other) if only one opinion is "allowed" and anything else is the work of a troll? It's a very odd way to conduct a discussion.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You are the one deciding you won't debate with people and refusing the engage with other posters. The intellectual dishonesty and cowardice continues.

Enduro

Ruddock25 wrote: »

Enduro wrote: »

Again, any evidence to support this? Would you like to explain why Tim Noakes is wrong? Can you explain why an "unfuelled" runner can win a race full of "fuelled"

While I agree with most of what you are saying and I haven't heard what Tim Noakes has to say I think that using an example such as this has no scientific merit to prove your argument.Maybe the unfuelled runner is extremely talented vs the fuelled runners and if he had fuelled he would win by more.

It's an n=1 argument there. I can back up the unfuelled runner winning races a I'm that runner. I agree it doesn't prove anything scientifically. There's a correlation at best but no proof whatsoever of causation.

However, it is a valid dispoof. It does disprove that you "need" to be fueled up before a run. It disproves that you "can't" perform at a high level without carb loading, fueling up before and during races etc. Significant exception is enough to disprove absolute contentions like that.

Again, from n=1 experience, I know myself that fuelling up during a lot of the races I'm referring to would have been disadvantagous. I've got experience of both sides.

jamule

Enduro wrote: »

It's an n=1 argument there. I can back up the unfuelled runner winning races a I'm that runner. I agree it doesn't prove anything scientifically. There's a correlation at best but no proof whatsoever of causation.

However, it is a valid dispoof. It does disprove that you "need" to be fueled up before a run. It disproves that you "can't" perform at a high level without carb loading, fueling up before and during races etc. Significant exception is enough to disprove absolute contentions like that.

Again, from n=1 experience, I know myself that fuelling up during a lot of the races I'm referring to would have been disadvantagous. I've got experience of both sides.

What do you mean by 'unfueled', i wouldn't consider myslelf unfueled running in the morning after not eating for 12-13hrs. I'd be failrly certain the glycogen levels are grand and i would not be hungry. Is that considered unfueled?
Do people really go mad horsing into food 2-3hrs before an ultra?

Ruddock25

An N=1 study doesn't prove or disprove anything.Would bekele winning a 10k club race "unfuelled" prove or disprove anything in relation to metabolic ergonomics.No All it would prove is the Bekele is a good runner.A high level of performance is always relative

BeepBeep67

Pete Kostelnick recently broke the FKT for running West to East across America clocking 70+ miles per day.
Interesting diet of 13k calories per day, including McDonald's, Burger King, Subway, Chipotle, Ben and Jerry's and host of processed snack bars and drinks :eek:
Guess there's more than one way to skin a cat: http://www.outsideonline.com/2131106/pete-kostelnick-13000-calories-run-across-america

Enduro

jamule wrote: »

What do you mean by 'unfueled', i wouldn't consider myslelf unfueled running in the morning after not eating for 12-13hrs. I'd be failrly certain the glycogen levels are grand and i would not be hungry. Is that considered unfueled?
Do people really go mad horsing into food 2-3hrs before an ultra?

Yeah, people really do go mad horsing into food right up to the start of ultras and beyond. Plenty of people out there who describe ultras as eating competitions with some running in between.

I would consider what you're doing there to be unfueled alright. Nice big gap between your last meal and your run (and I'm guessing you're not eating on your run).

Enduro

Ruddock25 wrote: »

An N=1 study doesn't prove or disprove anything.Would bekele winning a 10k club race "unfuelled" prove or disprove anything in relation to metabolic ergonomics.No All it would prove is the Bekele is a good runner.A high level of performance is always relative

An n=1 study is more than adequate to disprove any study study that says you "must" eat X ammount of calories per hour or that you "can't" run wihout eating drinking X ammount before or during the run.

Bekele winning a 10k club race unfuelled would prove that anyone who says that you "need" to be fuelled before competing in a 10k run is plain wrong.

Enduro

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Pete Kostelnick recently broke the FKT for running West to East across America clocking 70+ miles per day.
Interesting diet of 13k calories per day, including McDonald's, Burger King, Subway, Chipotle, Ben and Jerry's and host of processed snack bars and drinks :eek:
Guess there's more than one way to skin a cat: http://www.outsideonline.com/2131106/pete-kostelnick-13000-calories-run-across-america

yeah, a 42 day 70 mile/day run is going to deplete anyone's fat stores completely, never mind their glycogen stores. So he absolutely had to keep himself fuelled up. Amazing run from him. A class runner.

jamule

Enduro wrote: »

Yeah, people really do go mad horsing into food right up to the start of ultras and beyond. Plenty of people out there who describe ultras as eating competitions with some running in between.

I would consider what you're doing there to be unfueled alright. Nice big gap between your last meal and your run (and I'm guessing you're not eating on your run).

There must be some craic with toilet incidents!

BeepBeep67

Enduro wrote: »

yeah, a 42 day 70 mile/day run is going to deplete anyone's fat stores completely, never mind their glycogen stores. So he absolutely had to keep himself fuelled up. Amazing run from him. A class runner.

How would you approach this type of endeavour?

Enduro

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

How would you approach this type of endeavour?

It looks to me like Pete K has "written the book" on how to approach a transcon record attempt. Ace support crew (It was a team effort, not just a solo run in reality), solid pacing, total focus, full transparency and accountability.