Nutrition & Running
 

I'm 29 years old, 6'2" tall, and weigh 150 lbs. A month ago, I started training for my first marathon, and have been running more than I have in my whole life. In that month, I've lost 20 lbs, and my wife tells me that I'm doing something wrong. I think she may be right. She says that I'm not eating enough to support my running habit, and that I'm losing muscle mass. Has anyone ever been through this, and what did you do to correct the situation? I've noticed that I'm craving carbs, and that after a long run, I don't really feel much like eating. What say you?

It's very good of you to be concerned about your caloric intake. What, specifically, is your training regiment? Do you know about how many calories you burn a day? What are your eating habits now?

You should start taking more calories, pasta is a good choice. You should take a protein supplement as well as you're protein reservoirs most be depleted and your body for sure is cannibalizing your muscles for energy.

Currently, I eat about 2300-2500 calories a day. I've always had a high metabolism. As far as training, I'm running about 30 miles a week. Sundays are long days, during which I run at least 10, if not more. I rest on Monday and Thursday.

What does your diet consist of? 1000 calories of McDonalds is different than 1000 calories of oatmeal.

Your caloric intake seems reasonable, but it's possible that, because of your higher metabolism, you'll need more. Try, for a few days, to bring that up to 2500-2700 a day.

I'm 5"9' and training for half a marathon as well. When not training, my daily caloric intake is of 2500. When training, and if i want to keep my weight, i have to elevate it to at least 3000 calories to compensate for the extra calorie expenditure. The 2000 calories per day thing is nothing but a number that tries (very badly if i may say) to generalize the caloric needs of ALL people.
If I was going to live on a 2000 calories a day diet, I'd be a skinny mofo i tell you. When running one burns at least 100 calories per mile, so if you're running 30 miles a week, you should be adding about 3000 calories per
week to your diet (about 500 more each day), the easiest way to do it is eating lots of pasta (skip the butter, cream etc... that have high caloric values but is mainly fat), you should not be afraid of adding calories to your diet, is a high calorie intake plus a sedentary life what makes us get fat. When Lance Armstrong was training, he consumed between 6000 to 8000 calories a day, and he had a 2.5% - 4% body fat %.
Check these links: http://www.runnersworld.com/topic/0,...00-0-0,00.html
http://in.rediff.com/getahead/2005/jan/10marathon.htm

mojo - craving carbs and not being hungry after a long run are perfectly normal, especially if you're following one of the popular marathon training models. Generally speaking, your body isn't absorbing any nutrients during periods of anaerobic stress. Actually, that's not technically true since it will absorb SOME, but the rate is way down. For instance, most people only absorb about 4 oz of liquid/hour while exercising. Generally water is a better coolant than anything else, although it can help you maintain hydration if you start out hydrated.

As others have hinted, the amount of food isn't as important as the composition. When I was training hard, I'd sometimes have bizarre cravings, which generally meant that there was some trace element that was running low. I'd usually just answer the craving and it would subside. If you're craving a specific carb, I'd have some.

One other thing - you're not going to start burning muscle mass unless you've burned off most of your body fat. If you're below about 5% body fat now, I'd be worried and see a doctor. If you're over 10%, you're most likely still burning fat since it's the easiest energy production source in the body.

Ironman speaks the truth. Runnersworld is a magnificent website and magazine. Virtually any question you could ever have about running is answered there.

No offense meant, but Runner's World is to the serious running community as the National Inquirer is to serious journalism. Sure, they get some interesting things right, but you don't go there to learn about running. They're very much into fads at Runners World, and fads get you hurt. There are no shortcuts in distance running, and some of the "tips" I've seen in there are downright unhealthy (the average person doesn't need to be doing repeat miles over hills at 95% capacity, which was something they featured for 10k runners about 15 years ago). Their advice on race tapering is the exact opposite of what the recent science says (most notably the NC State study).

Speaking directly to the page linked above, there's some good stuff in there (the fluids one wasn't bad, and the zuccini-parmesean recipe is something I'm going to try), but nutrition is something that they're leaching from other sources. As far as this discussion goes, it isn't bad or wrong that I can see, but I've never considered Runners World a great source of anything other than some interesting interviews. Then again I might actually be the running snob my wife accuses me of being.

Nothing wrong with being a running snob. Do you have any sources for running information that you think are better researched and are less likely to follow fads? I'd honestly rather get the good stuff.

This site has some interesting discussions in the forum section

http://www.marathonguide.com/training/index.cfm

Honestly, distance training is something studied by academics, and the best source of information is either in books or in scientific journals.

Here are some of the books I particularly like:

http://www.everythingtrackandfield.c...tegoryID_E_238
http://www.everythingtrackandfield.c...385_A_rnd_E_43

There's a story behind the second one that I need to put in my journal some day.

A good rule of thumb is to take in an "extra" 100 calories for every mile that you run. So, as your long runs get ... long ..., you may need to eat an extra 1,000 or 2,000 calories above and beyond what you would normally eat. And it should be primarily carbs. And yes, it gets to be a lot of food. A LOT of food. You'll get sick of eating. Keep a food journal. Literally. You should be able to maintain your weight. A bit of strength training will help as well.

Part of training for a marathon is learning how to eat in preparation for it.

Fat burning vs. muscle burning has nothing to do with ones body fat %, but with exercising intensity, if you go anaerobic (that means your body works with very low levels of oxygen), it is easier for the body to burn glucose than fat, so it breaks down the protein in your muscles in order to create glucose.

Mmmm...pasta! Some butter noodles sounds really good right now. I've looked at Runner's World, and didn't find much there to help. I didn't go over the whole site, though. For training, I'm doing a schedule that I found at marathontraining.com. I'll try to start adding 100cals per mile, that sounds like a good idea. I think I'm going to start keeping a food diary, as well.

ironman, that's a good point. When I run, I'm never out of breath. My main limiting factor is my leg muscles

True, but a marathon runner shouldn't be going anaerobic in normal training. If they were doing speed work or threshold runs, you'd be right, but the ALL the popular training models call for lots of long slow distance. If you want to bring in the African model, that's something altogether different, but Westerners, and specifically Americans, don't train on the African model (basically all base-building runs at 90-95% race pace). And it's why there hasn't been a native-born American who's medalled in the Olympic Marathon in 31 years (men only, obviously).