joewein

That "the very first marathon runner died soon after he finished his run", which you used to back up your other statement that running marathons is not particularly healthy.

Using data from modern sources we can argue about how healthy or unhealthy running marathons really is, but the mythical death of that first runner is no evidence for it, because almost certainly it never happened.

Fat Boy

Instead of acting all high and mighty, why don't you read the thread. I didn't say anything of the sort.

joewein

Sorry for confusing you with wolfchild, whose posting I was responding to. It was he who used the claim that "the first marathon runner died soon after he finished his run" to back up his other statement about harmfulness of marathons, not you. My apologies!

Fat Boy

I was just asking what was the myth, the runner or the medical statement.

FWIW, I think that marathon running (specifically, 40-60 miles a week) isn't particularly healthy. For me, it's too much punishment to my joints and I wonder about the cardiac implications. I think that running really feeds into that low level of systemic inflammation which can be a real problem.

In the last 6 months or so, I've cut back in my riding and increased my time lifting heavy things. I've struggled with low testosterone and I don't feel like going on TRT (I'm still interested in racing from time to time). I think there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to cardio work, and once you get over about 6-8 hours/week (assuming that's good quality time, not just tooling around), it's more of a psychological aid as opposed to a physiological one. So get in a couple good hard rides that includes sprints and threshold work, lift some weights, eat well and let your body actually recover.

Carbonfiberboy 

"Just fitness doesn't cut it.."
Very true. This thread has become mostly about diet for endurance athletes. Current medical recommendations for preventing arteriosclerosis are here:
https://www.nytimes.com/health/guides...iet/print.html
Notable among these recommendations is to strongly limit saturated fat and to limit sugar to less than 10% of one's diet.

Some study links:
Diets High In Fat Can Result In Atherosclerosis
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/251364.php

Researchers say fructose does not impact emerging indicator for cardiovascular disease
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/270701.php

Meat, smoking have strongest links to cancer incidence rates (a little OT, but still . . .)
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270692.php

Eating practices of the best endurance athletes in the world
https://www.active.com/running/articl...s-in-the-world
Executive summary: This article is well worth reading. They eat mostly complex carbs, low fat, very little meat but quite a bit of milk. However, 20% of their calories comes from sucrose, plain sugar.
Note how little daily time they actually spend running. This is in line with the heart health studies I linked to in an earlier post.

Fat Boy

This just in...Scientists who start out with the premise that fat is bad find fat is bad. In other news, water found to be wet and lead found to be dense.

Yes, yes, CFB, we all understand what you believe. We just don't all believe it.

Sixty Fiver

They have been studying black African runners for a long time to see what makes them better than everyone else, their success appears to stem from better running efficiencies and not cardio - respiratory advantages as they have the same VO2 numbers as their slower white counterparts.

Carbonfiberboy 

"water found to be wet and lead found to be dense". Exactly.
Why is water wet?
https://www.rebresearch.com/blog/heis...-is-water-wet/

Why is lead heavy?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1151950AA6TL6O

There are scientific answers to many common questions. Some believe them, some don't. And, as in the cases of Mr. McGillivray and the Kenyan marathoners, results matter.

Fat Boy

I think the African runner's diet is pretty interesting. It looks like a good way to get some insulin resistance to me, but they exercise enough that, at least in the short term, this doesn't seem to be the case. Noakes spends a good bit of time talking about them in some podcasts I've listened to. Being from South Africa, he gets the opportunity to work with athletes from all over Africa. Anyway, he thinks it's somewhat of a self-selective process. All of them eat in the same way and the ones that can process that food the best are the ones that become the most successful. It doesn't necessarily mean that this is the best diet, rather, this is the diet that the best eat. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

It also shows that different people need to fuel themselves differently based on their goals and genetics (possibly epi-genetics).

Fat Boy

Incidentally, notice how much of the Kenyan's diet came from wheat (refined, whole, whatever)....0%.

GeorgeBMac

Yes, there are... But it seems like you often cherry pick the evidence you choose to look at. For example, from the "current medical evidence" that you sited:

"There has been debate about whether Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets can increase the risk for heart disease, as people who follow these diets tend to eat more animal-saturated fat and protein and less fruits and vegetables. In general, these diets appear to lower triglyceride levels and raise HDL (“good”) cholesterol levels. Total cholesterol and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol levels tend to remain stable or possibly increase somewhat. However, large studies have not found an increased risk for heart disease, at least in the short term. In fact, some studies indicate that these diets may help lower blood pressure."

Yet, you still say:
"Notable among these recommendations is to strongly limit saturated fat"

For the record, I agree with your contention that saturated fats are unhealthy. But, I also respect the evidence that points to the contrary.

I believe the trouble comes when people (including the experts) prove points 1, 2, and 3 -- and then ignore points 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10...

The experts can debate these points of science all they want (that's how they make their living). The trouble for us is, if you don't pick your poison you are then just playing russian roulette with your health -- which is what Dave McGillivray did. And that's what triggered this whole discussion.

Sixty Fiver

I think the AHA is still holding on to theories that have not proved themselves to be that effective and the evidence and / or lack of evidence that diets that are higher in fats and lower in sugars / carbs do not contribute to the incidence of heart disease / stroke.

High cholesterol levels, in the absence of other risk factors like smoking, stress, and family history, does not appear to increase risk factors either unless you have hyperlipidosis.

Eating a higher fat diet will increase your LDL but what is important to know is that there are multiple types of LDL, increased fat intake increases the level of benign LDL and a lower carb diet decreases trigylcerides and improves HDL numbers which is what is most important.

Eliminating carbs and sugars has also shown itself to reverse type 2 diabetes and also help people deal with autoimmune issues caused by the inflammatory effects of some groups of carbs.

One can also thrive on a high carb diet as long as it does not include a lot of fructose or processed oils... these Kenyans seem to avoid these as well as wheat based products.

Although it is anecedotal my triglyceride number is 30 and HDL is 70 and the LDL coursing through my veins is a little higher by virtue of a diet that has more saturated fat and fats that are high in Omega 3's.

Carbonfiberboy 

You make a good point. It is said that "RAAM is more of an eating contest than an ordinary bike race." If one wants to be fast, one must first solve this conundrum one way or the other: Is it that I can't eat what makes other people so fast, or is it that I haven't yet figured out how to do so?

beatlebee 

There is a huge assumption that is being made here and is prevalent in most med research at the moment, though I think that is changing.

One size may not fit all. Our individual biochemistry may require different approaches to diet/exercise etc. But by how big of a degree?

GeorgeBMac

I had never heard of that (aside from how the bugs in our gut affect so many things).

But interestingly, I got an announcement that the Wellness physician who sees me is giving talk at the Lyndhurst, OH campus of the Cleveland Clinic on the 27th of this month on just that topic. His description is:

Nutrigenomics is the study of how foods affect our genes and how
individual genetic differences can affect the way we respond
to nutrients in the foods we eat.
Come and learn about the power of personalized medicine
and how a new safe and easy-to-use test can help you
to eat according to your personal genes.

Carbonfiberboy 

Seems to be quite a small degree. Clinical trials are done with large numbers of subjects, and observational trials with thousands. All else being the same, which can be allowed for to a high degree, healthy people seem to respond about the same to dietary inputs. You change the diet of 10 people with similar height/weight etc. and they all respond about the same to that change. Same thing if you change the diet of a whole country. If biochemistry weren't real, it would be hard to do science with living things.

That said, people do have different tastes and different digestive tract responses to some foods. In interventional dietary studies, they're careful to use stuff that anyone could eat. However, what you like to eat is going to affect what you're going to eat on your own, whether that's the most appropriate thing to eat or not. I see that all the time: everyone has something different in their bottle. However the macros of what's in the bottle or bottle + jersey pocket are pretty much all the same. Same with after-ride food. I don't get to see what they eat before. Anecdotally, oatmeal seems the most common.

In the case of exercise, some are more talented than others and more talented in various parts of an exercise discipline. Some are better at one thing, some another. Some are better at recovering or building muscle. There is a tendency for people to like to do what they're good at. So what you're trying to accomplish will affect what and how much you eat. Again, that's not biology or biochemistry as much as it is preference. Pro cyclists have retooled themselves from sprinter to climber and vice versa by simply changing their training and diet.

Of course if you're talking about the different nutritional approaches needed by the obese, or those with eating disorders, or those who have messed with their liver, or messed with their pancreas, sure, those are going to be very different. But I think that's well known, and the dietary approaches for dealing with those problems have and are being studied.

Carbonfiberboy 

Cherry pick? No one other than myself (you might check) has posted a link to any evidence at all in this thread. Words without evidence don't carry much weight in the scientific community. Thus your complaint seems ill founded. One might treat a forum such as this as a peer reviewed journal. We may all present evidence and comment on evidence presented by others.

Be that as it may, you have chosen a quote from way down in that document, where it discussed various fad diets which they do not recommend. The quote from their recommendations at the top of the doc is:But that's a tiny side discussion.

I am totally convinced by the evidence of many studies, for example here:
23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets – Time to Retire The Fad
https://authoritynutrition.com/23-stu...low-fat-diets/
that low carb ad libitum diets result in faster weight loss, at least initially, than any other ad libitum dietary protocol.

However, I also am convinced by the evidence of many studies that health is improved by the weight loss, not by the diet by which said weight loss is achieved. F.I. see here:
Losing Weight from Either a Low-Carb or Low-Fat Diet Lowers Body Inflammation
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1105140038.htm

If someone thinks that hypothesis is not true, let's see the study.

I am also convinced by the evidence that a high carb diet is not good for the obese. I am not convinced that a low carb diet is any better, however. Dietary studies that have shown improved health in the obese from a eucaloric diet, i.e. a diet which does not result in weight change, have shown improved health from "high fat" diets. However, in the studies I've read, these "high fat" diets have about equal carbs and fats, ~40%, thus pretty much a Mediterranean diet, and were not of course done on athletes. I agree that these are valid studies.

I am not pushing a low fat approach to diet for non-endurance athletes, nor any fad diet. From the evidence, I agree with the current AHA dietary recommendations. I have not seen a long-term study which calls them into question.

Oh, special bonus link for the anti-sugar folks:
Effect of Eucaloric High- and Low-Sucrose Diets With Identical Macronutrient Profile on Insulin Resistance and Vascular Risk
https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...5/12/3566.full
A gold standard study, a randomized controlled trial.

bmontgomery87

They do. But weight loss and fat loss are two different things.
From what I've experienced, and seen in others, a huge part of the initial weight drop is water/glycogen depletion. When you cut your carbs, your muscles aren't holding onto as much fluid as they were before.

It definitely does the trick, and I think low carb is great for a lot of people. But some people don't respond well, get irritable and nervous, and cannot perform well in sports. I absolutely have to have carbohydrates or I'm miserable to be around.

Astrozombie

The potatoes? Aren't they high on the Glycemic Index?

Sixty Fiver

When you cut carbs to the threshold where ketosis kicks in you start burning fat and in that, you lose more water due to the composition of the fat molecule.

This does not have to be a radical reduction in carbs and with that your carb choices become fairly refined as you eliminate those that are not as beneficial. I eat a good amount of nuts and a great deal of vegetables with moderate protein (this will convert to glycogen) and more fats to provide the calories I need.

Null66

As a Formerly Fat Boy, insulin resistant, now large and muscular, but NOT insulin resistant...

Carbs are not carbs... Gross oversimplification.

Simple carbs like sucrose, fructose, potatoes, white rice, white bread, fruit juice... High insulin response... Lactose as well...

Other carbs like sweet potatoes, whole wheat, vegetables, fruit... Low to moderate insulin response.

Some like beans, legumes and such have low to extremely low insulin response.

Also ingestion timing matters immensely. When you are depleted, like after sleeping, after a long ride or work out... Insulin response will be much lower to any input when you're depleted. Also the insulin response will be different, muscle cells low on glycogen will pull in when low on glycogen even at low insulin levels however much faster when with insulin.

It seems that insulin causes its damage when it is at high levels and long duration. This is usually in response to intake while muscle cells are already have enough glycogen.

If you are really interested look up the metabolic pathway for alcohol... Amazing, really.

mapeiboy

This man knows what he is talking about . Stay away from the genetic modified grain .

zowie

That's right. As human being our desire to think we control our destinies leads us to over-emphasize the things we can control. "It happened to him because he did X but I'm safe because I never/always . . . ." From heart attacks and cancer to car and bike crashes.

GeorgeBMac

Just an update to this old thread....

Today's Wall Street Journal has a article in it:
Why Runners Can't Eat Whatever They Want
Studies Show There Are Heart Risks to Devil-May-Care Diets—No Matter How Much You Run

in the original article he posted I sited a quote where McGillivray ate the Standard American diet:
"“I’m from that ‘Leave It to Beaver’ era,” he said. “You know, meat and potatoes. I was hard-core. That’s what I ate, what I lived on. I always felt like if the furnace was hot enough, it would burn everything. And I never really gained any weight, so I wasn’t showing signs that what I was eating was hurting me."

Today's article expanded on that:
"... he regretted including a chocolate-chip-cookie recipe in his memoir about endurance athletics."
and:
" When McGillivray ran from coast to coast in 1978, he tended to finish each day at a Dairy Queen. "It wasn't just replacing calories but a mental thing—that vanilla shake was my reward," he said."

And this article also points out that cardiologists do not agree on the real cause of his McGillivray's heart disease: 'Is it because of his excessive running or in spite of it?' And, they also differ over whether it is safe for him to continue.

But McGillivray isn't conflicted:
"Replacing thousands of calories with purely nutritious foods can be challenging. Since receiving his diagnosis last October—and radically changing his diet—the 5-foot-4 McGillivray has dropped to 128 pounds from 155, an improvement he celebrates.
Far from cutting back his workout regimen, McGillivray has amped it up, boosting his weekly mileage to 70 from about 60"

Here is the link to the article:
Why Runners Can't Eat Whatever They Want - WSJ.com

I wish it said more about what "purely nutritious foods" he is eating... The only thing I could find on that was from MedScape where they said:

"McGillivray said he is currently being treated with medication and is back running again, although he has lowered the intensity of the workouts. In addition, he has cut red meat from his diet and is closely monitoring his intake of fat."

Null66

and higher mitochondrial densities...