Maffetonovember

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

The dawn of a new era?

So on a day when we mourn the loss of Leonard Cohen and the ascendancy of Donald to the Trump House (as he must surely rename it), I ask upon exactly which dark threshold do we now tread, from where we nervously peer into the fog of future times? Such a crazy and scary year it has been, with more to come, I fear, before the year is out, and as far as next year is concerned, well, probably it's best simply to not think about it too much.

But despite the deaths of so many very fine musicians over the last 12 months, and the rise of some truly awful political powerhouses, the mood here in Chez Crisis Man remains buoyant, not least because I am now on holidays for the best part of three weeks with no commitments other than a little gardening, a spot of painting and some dedicated, devoted attention to my new running fitness programme. Oh, there may be a little cooking and wine appreciation thrown into the mix as well. In all, it's a blessed prescription for stress-free recuperation from a long year of trouble and strife.

So, let's try and nut out this aerobic running thing, then, shall we? I think, if I may allude once more to the current political situation in the U.S.A., we may have had our perceptions blinkered by the media and general societal beliefs a little, and have focussed on the wrong aspects of what we do, especially for those of us no longer in the prime of youth. We've known of course for some time that sugar, or to be more precise, carbohydrates, and not fat in our diets has been the major contributor to the obesity epidemic which threatens to turn the world into a planet of lard-buckets awaiting the next heart attack and with their cardiac ward on speed dial. But what exactly is going on here, and how/why does this impact our running?

Well, let's go back to basics, at least as I am slowly beginning to understand them.

We get the energy we need for everything we do from three sources: carbohydrates (sugars and starch), protein and fat. When we eat carbohydrates, they are broken down and absorbed as glucose. Proteins are broken down into amino acids, and fat far more basically just gets turned into smaller fat particles. Our muscles can use both glucose and fat as fuel. For everyday low-impact living (aerobic activity) such as watching telly, paying bills online or ambling down to the pub for a beer, we burn fat, but when we run to catch the last train home from the pub, or lift a slab of beer into the boot of the car (anaerobic activity) we burn glucose. We are very efficient at burning fat, and even small amounts of it will last for many hours, which is why watching TV will indeed burn a very small amount of fat, but this is generally tiny in comparison to the fat laid down when we also consume a six-pack of Mr Kipling's Cherry Bakewell tarts and a bottle of Marques de Riscal Rioja* whilst watching re-runs of Midsomer Murders. And this is why we get fatter whilst watching TV despite it ironically being a fat-burning activity.

 

Glucose (such as in the cherry tarts) is readily absorbed and used quickly, but only if undertaking anaerobic activity. It is also a relatively limited energy source unless we re-ingest large quantities of it (such as the slab of beer we just bought), which is why ultra marathoners and iron man triathletes train themselves to eat large quantities of carb-rich gunk whilst on the move (not usually beer**). This is not something I've found I can do very well at all, hence my interest in this fat-burning game.

Here's the problem: in the last few decades the average Western diet has for various reasons become exceedingly dense in refined carbohydrates. The problem of course is that for most sedentary lifestyles, we are only burning fat throughout the day, and because we burn it so very efficiently, we only use a small portion of what we have available. The large amounts of carbohydrate people typically consume and don't use is stored as even more fat, and done so in considerable quantities as, again, we are very efficient at turning any unused carbohydrate into stored fat.

The problem for runners is that we've been taught to consume and run on carbohydrates (pre-race pasta loading, anyone?), which all but ignores the vast store of energy we have available to us in our fat reserves. According to one article I read on the internet (and which  is therefore undoubtedly true), only about 3% of the body's stored energy is available as glucose, the rest being nearly all fat.

Of course, this isn't all completely black and white. We don't consume only fat whilst doing our everyday aerobic stuff and then suddenly switch to burning only glucose when we decide to don the running shoes. In fact we need some carbohydrate to initiate fat burning - the common analogy is carbohydrate being the kindling whilst fat cells are the logs that burn slower and longer. However, if we only ever run at high speeds, we will only ever burn carbohydrate, of which we have only a limited supply, which is why we 'bonk' if we don't refuel.

Instead of running fast, if we train at much lower speeds, we can move considerable distances whilst still predominantly burning fat, as we do when we merely walk, or just sit about messing with our mobile phones and laptops. But this is not much use to us if it means we have to run so slowly that we either come last in every race or miss the cut off entirely and have to drown our sorrows in some nearby carb-rich ale house.

This is where the likes of Dr Maffetone, Christopher MacDougall  and Stu Mittleman come in. They believe that we've lost our way, and that in fact the human body if we give it a chance is well adapted to fat-burning, endurance activity. Unfortunately, with the advent of carb-rich diets in the last hundred years or so we've become dependent upon carbohydrate which has in turn caused the obesity epidemic. For runners, the abundance of cheap, readily-available carb-laden foods has meant we can focus on speed and power, rather than endurance, which is all well and good except for one thing: the body, being generally better adapted for low-impact endurance activity, far too readily breaks down under the constant strain and impact of high-speed training and racing. And that's the bit that has been killing me for all these years without me fully realising it.

Like many (perhaps most) runners, I've come to think of physiotherapy as just part and parcel of the sport of running. If running is so damned healthy, why is it so, so easy to overtrain? I think we must be doing something fundamentally wrong to be so injured, so often.

Now this is where the science gets a little daunting. I understand that slow running, down in the aerobic, low heart-rate zone, enables me to run further because it's, well frankly, just so much easier, being little more than a fast walk. I know that it's much healthier for me, because I can now run 5 - 6 days per week and for far longer periods of time without the usual aches, pains and strains I associate with the running I've been used to, and which I could only do 2 or 3 times per week for fear of succumbing to another injury.

I can also believe (even though it hasn't happened for me yet) that if I persist with this form of slow running, that my body will readily adapt to it and my pace will gradually increase, whilst my heart rate stays well down in that slow and easy aerobic region. This will mean that I will still predominantly be burning fat despite covering longer distances at (eventually) a decent pace. Or so the science seems to be saying. It's going to take a few months for me to prove the truth or otherwise of it, but I'm in with a shot.

In any case, let's face it, at my age and with my inadequate running history I'm never going to win anything, but finisher's medals are handed out regardless of whether you finish a race in one hour or three hours. To that end then I've radically changed my focus. Because I've essentially had to start again with this whole running malarkey, the emphasis is now not on distance covered, but on the number of hours run. The freedom this gives is quite remarkable, and as I forget about distance covered, running becomes literally much easier. I know I can run for x hours per week, and run on five or even six days in the week without fear of injury. I also know the run will be easy but still leave me feeling fantastic, and most importantly it does me a power of good in boosting my aerobic fitness through the roof, with the only side effect being that my cardiologist will surely strike me off his Christmas card list.

There's a lot more science to it than that of course, but that's my understanding of the core elements. It sounds logical to me, and perhaps the only truly difficult aspect of it is changing one's mindset and beginning the whole process again from scratch. You have to become a slow, fat-burning athlete with an emphasis on time spent on your feet at a comfortable pace, rather than burning through a blistering, tough, anaerobic workout. That requires a considerable attitude change, that much is for certain. In my case, I run not for the enjoyment of it (most of my runs aren't that interesting), but for the resultant life-enhancement and longevity it offers. And with general health being the primary reason for running, it no longer makes sense to set distance as the goal. Yes, most races are distance-based, but if your training goals are time-based, then the distance will come automatically. And if I have race goals at all, it is to run well and finish strongly, no matter how slowly that might be by comparison with the bulk of the crowd.

Because, as our fearless leader once said in one of his more profound moments, we run not against the clock, but against the calendar.

* Yes, yes, I know that's terrible pairing of food and wine, but it's just an example and sort of rolled off the tongue.

** With the exception of Hash House Harriers, that is.

 

[marathondan]

These are great posts MLCMM, do keep 'em coming. What I find odd is that surely we've been relying on carbs for hundreds if not thousands of years? I'm guessing here, but surely since humans started farming, most of our calories have come from grains and starchy vegetables, since they're easier to produce than meat. I think meat, which must be our main source of fat, has always been a luxury. I suppose I'm trying to work out what might be our "natural" diet.

Also I can't get away from the simple axiom quoted in a running book some time ago (Hal Higdon I think): "eat a wide variety of lightly processed foods". We've always been brought up to eat a balanced diet. Leaving that behind feels wrong.

Thoughts?

(I guess you concur with most of this but you are convinced by the science and so are giving it a go. And good on ya.)

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

Also I can't get away from the simple axiom quoted in a running book some time ago (Hal Higdon I think): "eat a wide variety of lightly processed foods". We've always been brought up to eat a balanced diet. Leaving that behind feels wrong.

Thoughts?

Well there's a couple of points to be made here, and whilst I don't pretend to be full-bottle on the science or even legitimacy of all the claims being made, they do seem to me to have at least a large chunk of truth behind them.

As you say, a balanced diet is the way to go. Unfortunately, in recent times the level of highly refined carbs in the form of wheat in particular, and sugar (especially in the form of high fructose corn syrup) have become cheap and plentiful, and our bodies do not seem to have adapted to this high-carb, highly-processed diet. Additionally, the claim has been frequently made that modern fruits, vegetables and grains bear little resemblance to even what we term 'heritage' foodstuffs, with modern farming practices being geared toward high yields and shelf-life far more so than nutrition*, which has by turn suffered, some say to a very large extent. I find this is not hard to believe and is a relatively recent phenomenon. As an example, I even remember my mother grinding her own wheat to make flour, rather than purchase the relatively expensive refined flour. Apparently, even modern whole wheat flour has much of the essential goodness removed from it, but the primary problem is its very high glycemic index. Maffetone, in particular, believes wheat to be a more serious problem than sugar in the modern diet. Whether strictly true or not, I certainly function better and feel much healthier when not eating wheat-based foods.

The simple argument is that modern, refined carbohydrate foodstuffs have made our diets far more highly glycemic, and our whole sport has essentially been based on the belief that as we consume such high amounts of carbohydrate anyway, we should use that as the primary fuel for our running. This might only really be true for genuine sprinters. For us mere mortals it seems to me far more sensible to burn the fat we store so readily due to our intake of sugar and starch.  If we only ever primarily burn glucose when we run, we're only going to crave more sugars when we burn up that fuel, and never learn to instead burn the fat we've so readily stored in our bellies and around our internal organs. This might not be so bad except that our diets have become very carb-heavy generally, and those carbs not burned get stored away as fat, which we have little chance of using so long as we keep shovelling high-GI, refined carbs into our gullets.

In going back through my training logs and diaries, I discovered that in 2012 - my best year of running to date - through sheer numbers of hard kilometres run, I eventually did get to the stage where I could run an easy 15 kilometres with my heart rate at a steady 130bpm. That, however, required running 200km or more per month, most of it far further and faster than the 'easy' 15 to which I refer. The idea of this new strategy that I'm now employing is to get to that point sooner, and with less stress and strain, i.e. fewer injuries. A solid base of aerobic running can then be augmented with anaerobic training to assist with speed development.

So, yes, a balanced diet is part of the key, and that is what I'm aiming at. But by 'balanced' I personally am looking at only about 100 grammes of carb per day, which should be plenty, according to the research and training I've done thus far. Four slices of bread, as an example, is roughly 60 grammes of carbohydrate; a chocolate doughnut is about 50. By eliminating bread and sugar, it actually takes a bit of effort to reach 100 grammes, most of which will come from grains (non-wheat, preferably) and legumes.

So for now, whilst my speed is painfully slow, I am running easily and pain-free every day, which is a new experience for me. I run a mix of thirty and sixty-minute jogs, and I've already reached the point where I can run a full hour staying easily within my target heart rate zone of 120 - 130 bpm. I also feel better generally and have no running-related pain at all.

This is not a quick process though and I may end up taking two and half hours or more to run Almeria, at least given my current rate of progress. Eventually, however, I feel confident that I will be able to run both marathons and Point to Pinnacles without hitting that damned wall.

Speaking of the brutal P2P, the 2016 edition was run today. I was to have run this with number two son, Stephen, but he pulled out through injury and I therefore also pulled the plug. As it transpired, the weather was so atrocious down in Hobart today that the ascent of Mount Wellington had to be cancelled, with the race re-routed; a major disappointment to all concerned. So it turns out that it was a good year to have given it a miss. It remains a firm goal of mine, however, to run the sodding thing at least once more, without running out of fuel, and finishing the thing feeling strong. This is no small goal, and quite probably much harder than running another marathon in the same manner. But there's still plenty of time. I mean, I'm still young. I'm only 55!

Waddle on!


*CC5 might be able to tell us something about that?

[Sweder]

Good on you. I've completed week one and confirm the low heart-rate, low impact running feels good and allows for more outings. I have my doubts, though. Reading Dr Phil's book it transpires one needs to follow this through for months, even years, to see major improvements. I'll complete the fortnight but I can see I'll be back to breathless flogging, or Twitten Running, as we call it, sooner rather than later.

The dietary experiment continues. My only carb intake is from fruit and vegetables (no spuds, fries or associated starch monsters) and one beer (bottle, not print) per day. A man has to have a beer after a day on show site, as I am now here in Rotterdam. I've cut out bread, rice, pasta and cereals and limited my milk intake to almost zero. My digestive system is in uproar, but I'll ride this out to see if things settle down. Can't say I feel too much in the away of extra energy yet, but it really is early doors for me.

In happier news I'm enjoying my reunion with red wine. Last night's Argentinian Malbec was fabulous.

[Charliecat5]

Good on you. I've completed week one and confirm the low heart-rate, low impact running feels good and allows for more outings. I have my doubts, though. Reading Dr Phil's book it transpires one needs to follow this through for months, even years, to see major improvements. I'll complete the fortnight but I can see I'll be back to breathless flogging, or Twitten Running, as we call it, sooner rather than later.

The dietary experiment continues. My only carb intake is from fruit and vegetables (no spuds, fries or associated starch monsters) and one beer (bottle, not print) per day. A man has to have a beer after a day on show site, as I am now here in Rotterdam. I've cut out bread, rice, pasta and cereals and limited my milk intake to almost zero. My digestive system is in uproar, but I'll ride this out to see if things settle down. Can't say I feel too much in the away of extra energy yet, but it really is early doors for me.

In happier news I'm enjoying my reunion with red wine. Last night's Argentinian Malbec was fabulous.

Milk doesn't have carbs in it?  It has masses of glorious proteins and much needed fats.  It's the best thing you can drink as a runner (well it's second in the queue after a crisp cold Pale Ale).  

Me and Radar ran 12.5 miles this morning - taking in the beauties of Caburn and Firle.  I'm completely buggered.

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

Milk doesn't have carbs in it?  It has masses of glorious proteins and much needed fats.  It's the best thing you can drink as a runner (well it's second in the queue after a crisp cold Pale Ale).  

Sure, milk has carbs ... about 5gm per 100ml, which is quite a lot more than beer. I presume this is from the lactose... better stick to the beer, eh? Milk stout, anyone?

[Charliecat5]

Milk doesn't have carbs in it?  It has masses of glorious proteins and much needed fats.  It's the best thing you can drink as a runner (well it's second in the queue after a crisp cold Pale Ale).  

Sure, milk has carbs ... about 5gm per 100ml, which is quite a lot more than beer. I presume this is from the lactose... better stick to the beer, eh? Milk stout, anyone?

Even better then... failing to consume adequate carbs after running can lead to fatigue and muscle soreness.   Although, I'd always thought it was the running that caused the fatigue and muscle soreness.

[marathondan]

Thanks for all that MLCMM, I hope you don't mind the continued cross examination. I can completely see that refined carbs are a problem, e.g. refined flour and sugar. But I keep seeing this phrase "our diets have become very carb-heavy". Surely our diets have always been carb-heavy? (Complete guesswork on my part, admittedly.) So is it really carbs that are bad, or just refined carbs? Bottom line I guess is that I find it very hard to believe that potatoes and apples are bad for me.

[marathondan]

I'll complete the fortnight but I can see I'll be back to breathless flogging, or Twitten Running, as we call it, sooner rather than later.

Can one even walk up a Twitten below 130bpm?

[Bierzo Baggie]

 Bottom line I guess is that I find it very hard to believe that potatoes and apples are bad for me.

And milk!!!!!!!  
 Am I the only one here who drinks more milk than beer?

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

Well, I don't see how you can claim that drinking cow's milk is in any way 'natural'!

And BB, you're possibly right about my use of 'carb heavy' ... perhaps the real problem is that people are generally eating too much of everything rather than the ratio of carbs to proteins and fats. That said, however, if you eat a smaller proportion of carbs, you will almost certainly lose weight, even if you consume a high calorie intake of fats and proteins.

[glaconman]

Thanks for the comprehensive updates MLCMM.

I've come across these ideas here and there over the last couple of years. It's one of the most important debates humans are having at the moment. And beyond being a nutritional scientist these kind of observations you're making are important.

Reminds me of the first chapter of Mike Stroud's "Survival Of The Fittest". Where he describes how early humans hunted for food.

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

I may have found a problem with the Maffetone method...

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

Somewhat frustrating news from this end of the planet. After a few days off running due to 'summer flu' I was laying happily asleep in bed when I had the worst God-almighty cramp in my right calf (the same one I buggered some weeks back) ... it was like being hit by a maniac with a hammer. And I hadn't even been running ... what is with that?!?

Anyway, it's another setback in my training and will take a day or three to recover.

I might be walking the bloody Almeria half after all...

[Bierzo Baggie]

Have picked up loads of niggling muscular injuries over the last couple of years and the calf strain is one of them.
They seem most likely to appear in the transition from trail to road and I'll sooner walk home than risk a tear in the muscle.

Don't know what the solution is but I feel your pain!