Low carb and endurance running -- results of my experiment

In article ,
lid says...

In article , Armand wrote:

Sorry, but I do not look at marathon runners with any kind of
reverence. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I feel that this type
of activity is quite unhealthy as it's clear that long distance,
steady-state aerobics of any kind burns muscle. Ever see a
sprinter? Built like a bull with outstanding mucsle
development. Compare that person to a LD runner who conversely,
looks like a starved bird.

Ask a bodybuilder what kind of aerobics he does and he'll probably
answer: 15 minutes of "HIIT" training, which stands for High
Intensity Interval Training. An example of HIIT would be, running
at top speed for 30 seconds then running low speed for 30 seconds,
repeating the cycle for the duration workout. What this does is
force the body to *not* get used to a training regimen and to see a
constant dynamic which has been found to accelerate muscle
development and burn fat while enhancing the cardiovascular system.
Why just 15 minutes? Anything more will burn muscle and just isn't
necessary.

If you want to learn more, just do a Google search on HIIT.

Comments welcome.

Well, in fairness to me, I am not going to run a marathon, for now.

My boss runs marathons and he is very good looking. My friend's dad
runs marathons and he is also decent looking.

Marathoners whom I saw, do not look like starved birds, they look like
lean running machines. Which is to say, it is a good, positive
look. Female runners whom I encountered at our 5K race who ran well,
had breathtaking legs. (I recognize that 5K is not an LD race).

I disagree with your assertion that marathoners are bad looking.

Well that may have been a little strong, but in direct comparison with
sprinters, well, there is no comparison in my opinion. I guess the point I was
trying to make is that you don't have to sacrifice muscle to burn fat. But as
another pointed out, this is off the mark of the original thread and I apologize
to all the posters and originator of this thread for that.

In article ,
lid says...

In article , Armand wrote:

Sorry, but I do not look at marathon runners with any kind of
reverence. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I feel that this type
of activity is quite unhealthy as it's clear that long distance,
steady-state aerobics of any kind burns muscle. Ever see a
sprinter? Built like a bull with outstanding mucsle
development. Compare that person to a LD runner who conversely,
looks like a starved bird.

Ask a bodybuilder what kind of aerobics he does and he'll probably
answer: 15 minutes of "HIIT" training, which stands for High
Intensity Interval Training. An example of HIIT would be, running
at top speed for 30 seconds then running low speed for 30 seconds,
repeating the cycle for the duration workout. What this does is
force the body to *not* get used to a training regimen and to see a
constant dynamic which has been found to accelerate muscle
development and burn fat while enhancing the cardiovascular system.
Why just 15 minutes? Anything more will burn muscle and just isn't
necessary.

If you want to learn more, just do a Google search on HIIT.

Comments welcome.

Well, in fairness to me, I am not going to run a marathon, for now.

My boss runs marathons and he is very good looking. My friend's dad
runs marathons and he is also decent looking.

Marathoners whom I saw, do not look like starved birds, they look like
lean running machines. Which is to say, it is a good, positive
look. Female runners whom I encountered at our 5K race who ran well,
had breathtaking legs. (I recognize that 5K is not an LD race).

I disagree with your assertion that marathoners are bad looking.

Well that may have been a little strong, but in direct comparison with
sprinters, well, there is no comparison in my opinion. I guess the point I was
trying to make is that you don't have to sacrifice muscle to burn fat. But as
another pointed out, this is off the mark of the original thread and I apologize
to all the posters and originator of this thread for that.

In article ,
lid says...

In article , Armand wrote:

Sorry, but I do not look at marathon runners with any kind of
reverence. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I feel that this type
of activity is quite unhealthy as it's clear that long distance,
steady-state aerobics of any kind burns muscle. Ever see a
sprinter? Built like a bull with outstanding mucsle
development. Compare that person to a LD runner who conversely,
looks like a starved bird.

Ask a bodybuilder what kind of aerobics he does and he'll probably
answer: 15 minutes of "HIIT" training, which stands for High
Intensity Interval Training. An example of HIIT would be, running
at top speed for 30 seconds then running low speed for 30 seconds,
repeating the cycle for the duration workout. What this does is
force the body to *not* get used to a training regimen and to see a
constant dynamic which has been found to accelerate muscle
development and burn fat while enhancing the cardiovascular system.
Why just 15 minutes? Anything more will burn muscle and just isn't
necessary.

If you want to learn more, just do a Google search on HIIT.

Comments welcome.

Well, in fairness to me, I am not going to run a marathon, for now.

My boss runs marathons and he is very good looking. My friend's dad
runs marathons and he is also decent looking.

Marathoners whom I saw, do not look like starved birds, they look like
lean running machines. Which is to say, it is a good, positive
look. Female runners whom I encountered at our 5K race who ran well,
had breathtaking legs. (I recognize that 5K is not an LD race).

I disagree with your assertion that marathoners are bad looking.

Well that may have been a little strong, but in direct comparison with
sprinters, well, there is no comparison in my opinion. I guess the point I was
trying to make is that you don't have to sacrifice muscle to burn fat. But as
another pointed out, this is off the mark of the original thread and I apologize
to all the posters and originator of this thread for that.

"Armand" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but I do not look at marathon runners with any kind of
reverence. In
fact, it's quite the opposite. I feel that this type of activity is
quite unhealthy
as it's clear that long distance, steady-state aerobics of any kind
burns
muscle.

I laughed so hard I nearly ****ed my pants. You obviously know nothing
about physiology.

Ever see a sprinter? Built like a bull with outstanding mucsle
development. Compare that person to a LD runner who conversely, looks
like
a starved bird.

Sprinters need mucles for their sport, distance folks do not need to
drag a big muscles and tend to do keep muscle tone and not look like
Arnold.

If you prefer the "muscular" look fine, I like my starved bird look.

-DougF

"Armand" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but I do not look at marathon runners with any kind of
reverence. In
fact, it's quite the opposite. I feel that this type of activity is
quite unhealthy
as it's clear that long distance, steady-state aerobics of any kind
burns
muscle.

I laughed so hard I nearly ****ed my pants. You obviously know nothing
about physiology.

Ever see a sprinter? Built like a bull with outstanding mucsle
development. Compare that person to a LD runner who conversely, looks
like
a starved bird.

Sprinters need mucles for their sport, distance folks do not need to
drag a big muscles and tend to do keep muscle tone and not look like
Arnold.

If you prefer the "muscular" look fine, I like my starved bird look.

-DougF

"Armand" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but I do not look at marathon runners with any kind of
reverence. In
fact, it's quite the opposite. I feel that this type of activity is
quite unhealthy
as it's clear that long distance, steady-state aerobics of any kind
burns
muscle.

I laughed so hard I nearly ****ed my pants. You obviously know nothing
about physiology.

Ever see a sprinter? Built like a bull with outstanding mucsle
development. Compare that person to a LD runner who conversely, looks
like
a starved bird.

Sprinters need mucles for their sport, distance folks do not need to
drag a big muscles and tend to do keep muscle tone and not look like
Arnold.

If you prefer the "muscular" look fine, I like my starved bird look.

-DougF

"Donovan Rebbechi" wrote in message
...
Running 6 miles a week will do almost nothing.

In this small range, more likely increase his appetite. Were talking
about roghly 600 calories a week.


Any exercise physiology textbook should suffice.

Because they are known to be beneficial to performance ? Because
you're less
likely to have trouble with recovery if you take them ?

Those textbooks are usually very boring. I'd send him to
http://www.pponline.co.uk/ and the search feature and throw in carbs,.
low carbs, nutrition, etc and have a read. It won't take him long to
find when carbohydrates are not taken orally during exercise, blood
glucose levels fall, and fatigue occurs quickly. If he doesn't come away
with a better understanding of the value of carbs during exercise he has
a closed mind and is arguing for the sake of arguing.

-DF

"Donovan Rebbechi" wrote in message
...
Running 6 miles a week will do almost nothing.

In this small range, more likely increase his appetite. Were talking
about roghly 600 calories a week.


Any exercise physiology textbook should suffice.

Because they are known to be beneficial to performance ? Because
you're less
likely to have trouble with recovery if you take them ?

Those textbooks are usually very boring. I'd send him to
http://www.pponline.co.uk/ and the search feature and throw in carbs,.
low carbs, nutrition, etc and have a read. It won't take him long to
find when carbohydrates are not taken orally during exercise, blood
glucose levels fall, and fatigue occurs quickly. If he doesn't come away
with a better understanding of the value of carbs during exercise he has
a closed mind and is arguing for the sake of arguing.

-DF

"Donovan Rebbechi" wrote in message
...
Running 6 miles a week will do almost nothing.

In this small range, more likely increase his appetite. Were talking
about roghly 600 calories a week.


Any exercise physiology textbook should suffice.

Because they are known to be beneficial to performance ? Because
you're less
likely to have trouble with recovery if you take them ?

Those textbooks are usually very boring. I'd send him to
http://www.pponline.co.uk/ and the search feature and throw in carbs,.
low carbs, nutrition, etc and have a read. It won't take him long to
find when carbohydrates are not taken orally during exercise, blood
glucose levels fall, and fatigue occurs quickly. If he doesn't come away
with a better understanding of the value of carbs during exercise he has
a closed mind and is arguing for the sake of arguing.

-DF

"Ignoramus7876" wrote in message
...
PMID: 12796071
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12796071

They all ate ad libitum. (all they wanted and as much as they wanted)

I don't think anyone said that you can eat any number of calories on a
exercise program and still lose weight. To boringly repeat, it's
calories in and calories out.


So, women did not lose weight due to exercise, and men lost measly 11
lbs, on their exercise programs. That was quite good for them, and
they did not continue gaining weight like the controls did, but it was
not the sort of dramatic weight loss that people achieve when they
control both diet and exercise.



I work with a lot of new women runners and it's correct, when they take
up running there is small initial weight lose(unless they are very
heavy) but when they track their hips, waist, and thighs, their
dimensions improve(sorry but boobs do get smaller). It's a subtle
redistribution. Just as with men, one swaps fat for muscles so the scale
in not always the best way to measure success. Not everyone that looks
fat is unhealthy nor is everyone that is thin means they are healthy.
Percentage of body fat is a better gage than a scale.

FWIW I have weighed 175 +/- 5 pounds for the last 15 years. I was 205
when I started with a 38 inch waist. I'm now 33-34 depending on my
training cycle. By some asinine tables I almost heavy, but my body fat
is about 10% which is lean for an old fart.

If this is all new news to you then your primary problem is you have no
or very little idea about exercise physiology or even general health.
Once you have a better understanding of exercise physiology you may
understand why your LC regimen especially for endurance activities gets
hammered.

-DF