Long runs and the anaerobic threshold

[Abide]

First off I am not really sure about the implied link between glycogen depletion and soreness after a session. AFAIK the soreness derives from intra muscular tissue damage. A general feeling of fatigue however is almost certainly strongly correlated to the level of glycogen depletion.

I wasn't meaning to imply a link. The soreness issue was just a difference between pushing harder during a long run versus running slower.

If I start to look at the calorie issue my stats are a little tougher than the ones given above. By most calculators I burn roughly 900 calories an hour running at a 10mm pace. So at a slow pace I would assume I would burn through at least 600 calories per hour. Over 30 hours to finish that sticks me pretty close to a minimum 18,000 calories used in the run. I suspect at elevation I will be working harder so I think 21,000 is probably a better estimate. Which using the ratios above I will have to consume 14,000 calories, or 466 per hour. That's a shit load of food and I'm not sure I can actually consume that much on the race.

 

[Last Place Jason]

Buzz, that's pretty much my experience. My experiences at Western States last year (followed by the failure at Grindstone and experimentation at ATY) led to the following strategy:

• Consume ~500 calories an hour before the race
• As soon as the race starts, consume sports drink
• Eat a Gu (or other convenient food) about every 2 miles
• Try to eat about 200 calories at each aid station

Using this method, I was able to hold off that glycogen depletion point to mile 90 at WS. I was consuming enough to replace the lost glycogen until that point. It's easy to do the math to figure out where you'll likely hit that crash. When I did crash, I pounded a Red Bull and two packets of Gu, which got me to the finish.

For me, it was more important to learn to eat while running, which has allowed me to consume an unusually large number of calories during the run. That, combined with making my gait as efficient as possible (run faster at the lowest possible heart rate) has dramatically improved my ultra performances. That includes uphill "running."

 

[Abide]

Does the copiuos amount of sugar bother you at all? I tried running with gatorade and gummy worms the other day and I felt awful until I guzzled a bottle of water down. Should I not mix the two? Or have both water and gatorade available? I guess it is all about experimenting what works best.

BTW the mountain in your avatar is going to be my home for most weekends in July and August.

 

[Last Place Jason]

The sugar doesn't bother me as much as the method of delivery. I can tolerate some gels (Gu, Hammer Gel, Vi [new brand], and a few others) and some sports drinks (Heed, Cytomax, Gu Brew) but have a difficult time with any sort of candy, Gatorade, and PowerAid.

It can be useful to purposely crash during training just to learn what it feels like. During a race, the moment you start feeling the early signs, you can ramp up eating a bit. This has worked really well for me. I've had a few races where I didn't have food readily available when the crash was developing, and it almost always results in a DNF.

 

[bubba hotep]

The sugar doesn't bother me as much as the method of delivery. I can tolerate some gels (Gu, Hammer Gel, Vi [new brand], and a few others) and some sports drinks (Heed, Cytomax, Gu Brew) but have a difficult time with any sort of candy, Gatorade, and PowerAid.

I never consume anything other than water on runs under 20 miles but can stomach pretty much anything on longer runs and during races. The one thing that I can't stomach is anything chewy. For some reason that just really bugs me when I'm worn out and hungry.

It can be useful to purposely crash during training just to learn what it feels like. During a race, the moment you start feeling the early signs, you can ramp up eating a bit. This has worked really well for me. I've had a few races where I didn't have food readily available when the crash was developing, and it almost always results in a DNF.

I totally agree with this. I bonked hard during my 1st 50 miler and ended up dropping at 42 miles! I could have totally recovered by just sitting for a few minutes and drinking some fluids and eating. However, I just didn't have a frame of reference and wasn't totally sure what was happening. I've bonked hard a few times since then on training runs and just wanted to curl up on the side of the trail and wait for a rescue. I think the ability to hold it together and know that you will be fine is an important thing to acquire.

 

[KiwiRunning]

That sounds like a lot of calories to be consuming during a race.

Id just like to point out that in the MdS the minimum daily calorie allowance is 2000cal.... the elite runners carry no more than that, and still manage to run pretty well. Which implies that they are drawing the majority of their energy requirements from fat metabolism

I do however think that including some higher intensity work into your training to help with the hardening of your skeletal muscular system is a good idea, but milage is probably still king.

 

[Last Place Jason]

That sounds like a lot of calories to be consuming during a race.

Id just like to point out that in the MdS the minimum daily calorie allowance is 2000cal.... the elite runners carry no more than that, and still manage to run pretty well. Which implies that they are drawing the majority of their energy requirements from fat metabolism

I do however think that including some higher intensity work into your training to help with the hardening of your skeletal muscular system is a good idea, but milage is probably still king.

A good rule of thumb for ultras: n=1 always trumps both medical literature and the experience of others (especially elites).

 

[Last Place Jason]

I think the ability to hold it together and know that you will be fine is an important thing to acquire.

Knowing when the bad stuff is about to happen (glycogen depletion, dehydration, chafing, hot spots, hypothermia, hyperthermia, etc.) is invaluable at the longer distances, and it's relatively easy to set up training to purposely experience this.

Having a knowledgeable crew helps, too. At Grindstone last fall, I went out too fast and didn't eat enough. The Roctane I planned on using made me nauseous. I had a serious crash around mile 20. As much as I wanted to quit, I knew the cause and forced myself to continue. The low lasted until I saw my crew again at about 30. They immediately recognized the problem and forced me to stop and eat more than I would otherwise. At that point, I was convinced I couldn't recover and would have dropped. They forced me back out on the trail.

As it turns out I DNFed anyway, but they forced me to run to about mile 52. They knew my condition was most likely food-related, which is fixable. A less experienced crew would have listened to my incessant bitching and probably allowed me to drop far earlier. Had I actually trained properly, my crew would have salvaged the race.

 

[Last Place Jason]

Kiwi- I should have given a better answer. Most elites I know DO consume less than the field behind them. If we're talking about a 100 miler, they're going to exhaust their usable glycogen stores before the end of the race and aren't consuming enough to avoid having to rely on fat metabolism. So how do they do it?

Obviously training methods vary tremendously, but all of the elites or near-elites I know simply don't eat before or during many of their long, fast runs. If you hit that gylcogen-depletion wall frequently, your body begins to adapt and allow you to run faster longer. I used to do this a lot when I trained at higher mileage, and it works exceptionally well. I still do it when I can, but it's not enough to create a significant difference during races.The key is to run long enough to get a good crash, then keep running after the crash. It seriously sucks at first, but the body adapts quickly.

The physiology geeks like to talk about the impossibility and limits of various training adaptations, but they don't look closely at the research that determined the supposed "limits" of the human body. We like to talk about ultras as if we've mastered our knowledge about the human body. There's precious little research on the effects of endurance effects on the human body. The research that is available has serious methodological flaws... in most cases because of the inherent difficulty of measuring physiological responses in the middle of a typical ultra. The best data we have comes from Western States, and that research is still in its infancy (see Marty Hoffman).

Using Bighorn as an example (starting the race in about 5 hours), I could either eat enough calories to mostly avoid crashing, which allows me to run faster, or run until I crash, which will force me to slow wayyyyy down. Had I regularly trained in that deficit, I could maintain a faster pace after crashing. In the absence of that specific training, I'll eat. Both strategies produce the same end result- faster finish time.

Low intensity training (Maff) gets a lot of press among barefoot runners, especially lately. It's a good method to maximize fat utilization and will produce good results. However, it's not the only means to dealing with glycogen depletion.

 

[KiwiRunning]

Fair point Jason, Personally i do a whole lot of training in either a moderately fasted state, or with significant glycogen depletion. So much so that i feel that i often dont notice when im completly depleted ( other than the change in pace )

BTW I do eat during races, however I try and match calorie consumption against what i think is reasonable for my calorie absorbtion rate at the pace im targeting rather than the actual calorie burn. No point running around with a bunch of undigested calories in your gut.

"However, it's not the only means to..." absolutely, there are very few absolutes in this game. Thats what makes it all so interesting, there are so many ways to skin the cat!

 

[Last Place Jason]

Kiwi- I've used the same strategy in the past and it works well. The same thing would happen- my glycogen depletion crashes would have minimal effect on pace. They did affect me mentally late in 100s, though, which is why I started training to eat more than training to crash. I think I'll revisit the "crash training" though... it can only help during races.

 

[bubba hotep]

Low intensity training (Maff) gets a lot of press among barefoot runners, especially lately. It's a good method to maximize fat utilization and will produce good results. However, it's not the only means to dealing with glycogen depletion.

I am starting to loss faith in low intensity training. I did the maff method for a good while and I saw my heart rate drop/speed increase but it was very slow progress. I finally got frustrated and ditched it and went back to running a lot of my shorter runs hard and doing speedwork sessions. When I finally did strap the heart rate monitor back on, I noticed that I was running much faster at a lower heart rate. I also was doing some speedwork and faster runs in a fasted state.

Was there some lag time from the Maff training method and I was finally seeing the results of it or was it getting back to a more traditional training philosophy? I guess there is a reason why so many people train with faster short runs and slower long runs.

Anyway, I can't wait until this fall to see what I can do in a 100.

 

[bubba hotep]

That sounds like a lot of calories to be consuming during a race.

Id just like to point out that in the MdS the minimum daily calorie allowance is 2000cal.... the elite runners carry no more than that, and still manage to run pretty well. Which implies that they are drawing the majority of their energy requirements from fat metabolism

I do however think that including some higher intensity work into your training to help with the hardening of your skeletal muscular system is a good idea, but milage is probably still king.

I think the time on your feet difference b/w and elite and a mid to back of packer has to be accounted for. The body needs a lot of calories just for maintenance. An elite may only be on the course for 14 - 16 hours while others will be out there for 24-30 hours. You will need more calories per mile when you are out there longer. I wonder what the caloric intake per 100 miles is for an elite that runs Rocky Raccoon vs. the same elite running Hardrock?

 

[Last Place Jason]

Re: Maff- I think it is useful. It's essentially a base building phase, which ultrarunners have been using for years. I don't think it's a magical solution to dramatically improve performance, though. It's sudden popularity reminds me of the chia seed craze of 2009.

Re: caloric intake- I think you're right, BH. Metabolic processes take energy... what, like 2,000 per day on average? If a back of the packer is out there for an extra 12 hours, they're burning 1,000 more calories just staying alive. Factor in higher body weight and you begin to see why the elites can get by with so little.

 

[KiwiRunning]

Re: Maff- I think it is useful. It's essentially a base building phase, which ultrarunners have been using for years. I don't think it's a magical solution to dramatically improve performance, though.

To me this really depends on how long youve been running for, or more precisely how well developed your Aerobic engine already is. The beter it is already developed the less dramatic the improvements will be, but for someone who has a poor Aerobic condition the improvement can be very dramatic, and in a relatively short time frame.

Re: caloric intake- I think you're right, BH. Metabolic processes take energy... what, like 2,000 per day on average? If a back of the packer is out there for an extra 12 hours, they're burning 1,000 more calories just staying alive. Factor in higher body weight and you begin to see why the elites can get by with so little.

Absolutely, the longer it takes to complete the more total calories your going to need, however the calories per hour remains more or less constant. My main point is that its unnecessary to consume more calories per hour than your body can absorb, and in some special cases consuming significantly less may infact be the best strategy ( assuming the appropriate training has been done, and the race is paced correctly )

• As soon as the race starts, consume sports drink
• Eat a Gu (or other convenient food) about every 2 miles
• Try to eat about 200 calories at each aid station

In hindsight Im not actually sure how many calories per hour this would work out to for you, (or me for that matter)

 

[KiwiRunning]

I did the maff method for a good while ...I finally got frustrated and ditched it...
Was there some lag time from the Maff training method

There is always some lag in training vs effect. Personally Ive tried Maff, but im not a big fan, I prefer a bit more variation . I still concentrate almost exclusively on Aerobic paced running during a base building phase but use a variety of different Aerobic paces from sub threshold down to a recovery womble.

 

[NickW]

To me this really depends on how long youve been running for, or more precisely how well developed your Aerobic engine already is. The beter it is already developed the less dramatic the improvements will be, but for someone who has a poor Aerobic condition the improvement can be very dramatic, and in a relatively short time frame.

I don't know that I completely agree with this. I tried doing Maf exclusively for 3 months straight. I may have been able to run longer distances doing this method but my pace steadily dropped every week. When I started Maf I was at a 12:30 for the Maf prescribed hr. By the time I quit doing it at the same hr I was down to 17:20 pace I believe. This is on the same course... Now I do a mix of mostly shorter faster higher intensity runs with one longer slow Maf pace run a week. Amazing the difference for me. Anyhow, my point was I think there is a time and a place for Maf, but I do not believe it is as great as everyone here seems to think.

 

[Last Place Jason]

"My main point is that its unnecessary to consume more calories per hour than your body can absorb, and in some special cases consuming significantly less may infact be the best strategy ( assuming the appropriate training has been done, and the race is paced correctly )"

The key to this- all of us have different capacities to absorb calories, and it would appear as if this is something that can be improved via training. I have been repeatedly told that the human body can only absorb 250-300 calories per hour (based on the literature), which I clearly surpass. My ability to eat and run has improved over the years. Eating often to avoid gylcogen depletion is a strategy that few think is possible, so they don't attempt it. I think it's a mistake since glycogen crashes seem to precede decisions to drop from the race. Avoid the lows and you dramatically increase the likelihood of finishing.

I DO think it is also incredibly useful to train in a glycogen deficit to understand the feeling and minimize the effect should it happen, but it seems silly to purposely invoke that deficit in a race if it can be avoided.

In Bighorn (100 miler I ran this last weekend), I averaged 450 calories per hour for 32 hours with no ill effects. I did not have any lows. I screwed up hydration and ended up hurting my knee, but that's a whole different topic.

 

[Chaserwilliams]

According to my all mighty and all knowing Garmin I burn around 145 calories per mile on average, regardless of pace. My average pace is around 10:00 MM, or 6 mph.

So in an hour I can usually count on burning 870 calories.

If I were to convery this into a 50 miler, imagining that I could hold a steady 10:00 pace (HAHAHA! YEAH FREGGIN RIGHT!) that puts my finishing time at 8 hours and 20 minutes. So in that time frame I would have burned approximately 7247 calories by just running.

Combine that with say 691 calories that I burn in that same time frame (based off 2k cals burned a day regardless) and Ive burned 7,938 calories.

Almost 8,000 calories to cover 50 miles (and set a PR by almost 4 hours! lol). Thats a metric shit ton of eating... Thats like.... 160 Oreos (which sounds quite nice now that I think about it...) just to fuel my way to the finish line...

NOW, Ive read that a pound of fat carries somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 calories... So Im carrying somewhere around a bazillion extra calories in just one love handle!

Wouldnt it make more sense to train your body to burn that more effectively (aka, the Maffetone method)?

 

[Last Place Jason]

Remember, we start the race with muscle and liver glycogen stores (3-4k if I remember right). That reduces the needed input to 4,000 calories over 50 miles. It's still a fair amount, but can be done. In short, you can run a 50 fast without depleting glycogen stores.

Having said that, there is incredible value to being able to run at a faster pace while primarily relying on fat metabolism. I'd say a smart strategy would be to train both.