I once tried just 16 miles after just 36 hours of fasting. It was interesting. I don't remember a whole lot, other than that it was a serene kind of experience. I was in quite a different mental state from the run-of-the mill run.
Running 50km after 82h of fasting
111–120 of 123 posts
Re: Running 50km after 82h of fasting
#112A couple points: * He ran 50 KM in 7 hours and 45 minutes, which amounts to fast walking. In real terms, he probably ran some but probably walked most of it. * If you're going to do something like this, please do it under the supervision of a medical doctor. A 50km isn't a big deal, virtually anyone who can run a marathon can run a 50k, but people do die during this events. Respect the distance. Edit: Here is his Str…
Running means you are jumping through the air, so that at most one foot is in contact with the ground at any time. This can be done without moving forward, so there is no lower bound which separates running from walking. Walking means that at least one foot is in contact with the ground at all times, and there are at least brief periods of double support (two feet down).
I can walk up to an 8:30 mile pace. Elite race walkers can outwalk recreational runners; the paces are around 6:00 at that level, which is astonishing (though not in comparison with elite running of course).
If someone covered some distance at 11:00 to the mile, we have no idea whether they ran or walked without eye witness or video evidence of what it is their legs were doing.
I definitely ran my first marathon in 2003, in some 5:05:12. That's like 11:44 to the mile or thereabouts. I definitely made a point of not taking any walking steps in this thing. It happened by accident several times, but I immediately went back and re-ran those small stretches of the course where I had strayed from the pure running discipline. On subsequent ones, I didn't make a point of that at all, just the first one. I've never taken planned walking breaks or walked extensively, but I never re-ran any walked steps. The clock is ticking; no time for foolery! :)
Re: Running 50km after 82h of fasting
#113I did not see a doctor. Not before, not after. The truth is that even if I had seen one I wouldn't take in account her opinion anyway. The current standards for nutrition are based on a diet rich in carbohydrates. Any response from a doctor (at least the ones I have access to) will discourage this event. It just doesn't fit on their models. Plus they have to play safe. I appreciate all the people who are concern abou…
Still, it might have been interesting to have your blood work done before and after to see what the changes were. There's compelling evidence for fasting. See Micheal Mosley's Eat, Fast and Live Longer documentary: https://vimeo.com/103656060 Personally, I'm following a 5:2 intermittent fast this year while also maintaining 63 mi/week running, including 9 mi on the days I fast.
True. I'll try to get a blood test next time. What are you guys recommendation on what to check?
Re: Running 50km after 82h of fasting
#114A couple points: * He ran 50 KM in 7 hours and 45 minutes, which amounts to fast walking. In real terms, he probably ran some but probably walked most of it. * If you're going to do something like this, please do it under the supervision of a medical doctor. A 50km isn't a big deal, virtually anyone who can run a marathon can run a 50k, but people do die during this events. Respect the distance. Edit: Here is his Str…
Strava shows the spent moving time by default. If you want the overall time to be shown you have to tag it as a "Race". https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/22428904-Using-Strava-Run...
I also want to point out that when running barefoot/minimal you reduce the stride and increase the cadence. In my experience the result of it is that speed its generally reduced, specially downhill and flat surface.
And by going completely barefoot the surface of the terrain it really defines the speed you can go. When going fast the pressure on the sole its greater and if the terrain its harsh you are forced to slow down. A lot of time until the point of walking, or even slower. In complicated terrains the potential outcome for stepping over the wrong stone it really makes you to be conscious about every movement, slowing down as well.
Re: Running 50km after 82h of fasting
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still, it might have been interesting to have your blood work done before and after to see what the changes were. There's compelling evidence for fasting. See Micheal Mosley's Eat, Fast and Live Longer documentary: https://vimeo.com/103656060 Personally, I'm following a 5:2 intermittent fast this year while also maintaining 63 mi/week running, including 9 mi on the days I fast.
True. I'll try to get a blood test next time. What are you guys recommendation on what to check?
I too, would like to know what blood tests are useful in this effort.
Re: Running 50km after 82h of fasting
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense. A proper scientific experiment would have controls and independent results and medical oversight and calibrated measurement equipment and a clear definition of what's attempting to be proved. This is a guy fooling around and blogging for attention. Dangerously so. p=1, no scientific method = anecdata. His conclusions? Pseudoscience. It's dangerous to him personally and it's damaging to society broadly to pr…
He has gathered more data than had he not done it, or not blogged about it. You're right that it doesn't meet any scientific criteria for 'fact' yet, but it is data of a sort, and may be a helpful step on the road to the furtherance of science.
Wow. I didn't realize "doing random stuff while taking no measurements, and then later writing about it" qualified as "the furtherance of science." A sample size of 1, combined with an attitude of ignorance and machismo, helps explain why "medical remedies" like bleeding people with leeches and giving them liquid mercury to drink endured for hundreds of years despite no actual evidence that they worked or were safe.
Reality check: nutritional deficits lead to cognitive deficits. The Atkins diet is known to lead to heart disease, which Atkins himself died from.
Re: Running 50km after 82h of fasting
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
here is scientific explanation for some of this: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/strength-and-endurance-train... and http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/strength-and-endurance-train...
Everything on that site is subscribe-walled (one could use a phony email, I suppose), and even his cookie disclosure has a phony link. I stopped there.
There is a very hard to see "No thanks" button in red just below the nagware.
Re: Running 50km after 82h of fasting
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A slightly above average runner can do say 8 min miles over 26.2 miles on flats I make that a 3:30 marathon which I would suggest is rather more than "slightly above average" - you'd be in the first 25% male finishers at London 2015, for example.
I consider 25th - 40th percentiles as slightly above average... as many many of those people in your race are running their first and only marathon. Of people who do at least 1 marathon a year, I don't think you will find a 3:30 marathon much past the middlepoint. Not even close to an open BQ time for example.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/201...
> The average finishing time globally for 26.2 miles in 2014 was 4hr 21min 21sec – about 40 seconds faster than the average for the period 2009-2013. Men’s average finishing time was 4hr 13min 23sec, while women’s was 4h 42min 33sec – 29min 10sec slower.
I'd suggest your 3:30 was still definitely more than "slightly above average".
If you want to quibble about the median instead of the mean,
e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html
> In 2008, the median finishing time [for men] was 4:16, a pace of 9:46.
Which still puts 3:30 way above, I think.
Re: Running 50km after 82h of fasting
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider 25th - 40th percentiles as slightly above average... as many many of those people in your race are running their first and only marathon. Of people who do at least 1 marathon a year, I don't think you will find a 3:30 marathon much past the middlepoint. Not even close to an open BQ time for example.
While your intuition here may well be valid, to an outside observer it looks like you're cherry picking numbers without justification. Why 25th-40th percentiles? Do we know the distribution of first-and-only marathon runners to repeat runners or is this a pure intuition? If the latter I would be concerned about the flaws that exist in human thinking when it comes to generalizing over groups.
> Do we know the distribution of first-and-only marathon runners to repeat runners
I did look for those stats for London but I couldn't find anything relevant - I'd assume they collect that information on the entry form but it's possible they don't or just don't care to publicise it later.
Re: Running 50km after 82h of fasting
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool. Though your linked article still states that peak fat burn output is still lower than peak carb burn output and that high intensity still is best served by carb rich diet.
"high intensity" is sprinting , not distance running.
Well you are burning quite a few more carbs than fat even at a fast 1/2 or full marathon. Not sure exact switchover from more carbs to more fat is, maybe 5 or 6 hours?