View Full Version : Low-Resource Training
Donovan Rebecchi makes a good point on the "morning vs. evening running"
thread, in replying to the following:
> I say that if you would race doing that, you should train. You might be able to train at a higher
> intensity and get a better training stimulus.
Donovan's excerpted reply:
"Sounds highly speculative. It even seems possible from my naive viewpoint that the opposite could
be true (that you may get better training stimulus in a glycogen depleted state)."
My own further comments:
This would seem to explain WHY it is, after all, necessary to take "long runs" to prepare for
marathons, and WHY, for example, Frank Shorter and others have made great success of altitude
training (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Shorter used to train in the Colorado mountains --
and this is a guy with gold and silver olyimpic marathon medals, and who could pretty much hang with
"Pre" at 3 mi/6mi.)
The opposite view expressed on the "morning vs. evening running" thread, that you are somehow
"damaging" yourself by starting a run with low glycogen, etc., just seems not only counter-intuitive
but also seems completely contradicted by the evidence. Other than the "predictive" value of perhaps
a single run which exactly mirrors your race conditions, it seems that we should welcome the
opportunity to be training in these "low-resource" conditions (e.g., low-oxygen air, low blood
sugar, etc.)
Obviously, there are limits (e.g., go without water for 5k/10k, perhaps, but over an hour or so,
you'd best drink!).
I'm not buying it as your glycogen stores are your primary & preferred source of energy, once
depleated fat is used for energy and it's a very inefficient fuel.
if your goal is to lose weight and reduce fat....well than OK. however if your goal is to run well
and fast?....you don't want to a low reserve of glycogen stores.
the idea is to not rely on fat as an energy source.....no? seems to me your point conflicts with the
entire basis and foundation of the purpose/object/industry of gels.
i believe you train like you race. i always pop a gel in training 30 minutes into my run. ya know
gels aren't only for races.
>if your goal is to run well and fast?....you don't want to a low reserve of
glycogen stores.
You mean you didn't tune in to argue some more about whether we're "omnivores" or "herbivores"?
Surely we can't possibly disagree about everything?
I think, just like low-oxygen-air training, you will benefit from running further in training when
your body's other chemical resources are depleted, because you sort of train your metabolism to
shift into running efficiently on the "body fuels" it has available to it. This will be more
efficient than downing nutrients during a race, as they do take a finite amount of time to be
absorbed (though during a LONG race, it may have some value).
Why else run 20-30 mile long training runs (besides the pure joy of doing so)? You are training your
metabolism. I believe even autopsy studies of distance runners show that we develop the equivalent
of "fat marbling" in our muscle tissues -- sort of like a built-in store of running fuel right at
the site it's needed. Maybe we could use the comments of an MD here, but I have to say I am a firm
believer that pushing yourself onward in training after you're already pretty much out of gas is
precisely how you become fit for marathon distances.
To the extent you are feeding yourself during training runs (except for water and electrolytes), you
might actually be lessening this training effect. Conceivably, we might even be able to train for
water and electrolyte deprivation, but that sounds unsafe to me.
easy topcounsel. today i sat in an office w/a lawyer for slightly over an hour for an initial consultation.......200-friggen-
dollars to only confirm my understanding on a matter and hear a sales pitch to sign a retainer.
friggen lawyers. i'm with shakespeare.
anyway...to your nonsensical point. i like the way you dance around the word "fat". wtf does this
mean, "you sort of train your metabolism to shift into running efficiently on the "body
fuels"...hahahha. No, wrong counselor, once your glycogen is depleted your body will turn
specifically to a less efficient fuel...and the word is FAT, not "other body fuels".
there's no beating around the bush....squarely acknowledge and concede you're advocating fueling
your body on less efficient fuel sources than glycogen. are you really going to argue it's better to
fuel the body on less efficient fuel? i think not.
secondly, what's this "available to you nonsense"? it's called a Gel....long race? I staple or
safety pin them to the wide band of my jock strap. the point? More GLYCOGEN, the preferred fuel
sources is ALWAYS available to the runner (training or racing).
You guys are killing me with this well placed use for words like "possibly" and "maybe",
"might"...all theoretical mobojumob and nonsene. Replenishing my body w/Glycogen has worked wonders
for me in training and racing.
Your arguments run coutner to the study, science, basis, and research on the value of gels. You are
not arguing with me, you are arguing with the entire gel industry.
But I will agree w/everything you say counselor if you can handle my case at a discount from the
$275/hour w/ a 10 hour up front retainer my liar, oops, I mean "lawyer" wants.....
If memory serves me correct Frank Shorter learned his chops in Gainsville, FL, after he finished at
Yale??? He now lives in Boulder,
CO. He was one of the first middle distance runners to make the move up to the marathon, he had
speed, he just perfected how to use it for longer distances.
A certain amount of glycogen is necessary to 1. work the brain cells, and 2. complete the formula
for the utilization of fat as a source of fuel for the muscles. The body can work wonders but it
can't make sugar out of fat (it can canabalize protein though, still not a good thing to do) thus
the famous "wall" when first the muscles say they have had enough and then deleriums when the brain
says its had enough.
Current thinking about altitude training is to live at altitude (low oxygen levels) but train at
lower altitudes because the opposite results in slower training speeds which are difficult to make
up for during sea levels races.
TopCounsel <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote:
> Donovan Rebecchi makes a good point on the "morning vs. evening running" thread, in replying to
> the following:
>
> > I say that if you would race doing that, you should train. You might be able to train at a
> > higher intensity and get a better training stimulus.
>
> Donovan's excerpted reply:
>
> "Sounds highly speculative. It even seems possible from my naive viewpoint that the opposite could
> be true (that you may get better training stimulus in a glycogen depleted state)."
>
> My own further comments:
>
> This would seem to explain WHY it is, after all, necessary to take "long runs" to prepare for
> marathons, and WHY, for example, Frank Shorter and others have made great success of altitude
> training (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Shorter used to train in the Colorado mountains --
> and this is a guy with gold and silver olyimpic marathon medals, and who could pretty much hang
> with "Pre" at 3 mi/6mi.)
>
> The opposite view expressed on the "morning vs. evening running" thread, that you are somehow
> "damaging" yourself by starting a run with low glycogen, etc., just seems not only counter-
> intuitive but also seems completely contradicted by the evidence. Other than the "predictive"
> value of perhaps a single run which exactly mirrors your race conditions, it seems that we should
> welcome the opportunity to be training in these "low-resource" conditions (e.g., low-oxygen air,
> low blood sugar, etc.)
>
> Obviously, there are limits (e.g., go without water for 5k/10k, perhaps, but over an hour or so,
> you'd best drink!).
Damn. I thought this thread was going to be about how to survive winter running on a WalMart budget.
>squarely acknowledge and concede you're advocating fueling your body on less efficient fuel sources
>than glycogen. are
you really going to argue it's better to fuel the body on less efficient fuel? i think not.
You are side-stepping the real point here, Andrew. I am saying we are undoubtedly better off to be
trained to run on ALL energy sources. Any of us can down food at any time, and some of us are really
good at eating (what a "skill"...). I'm advocating that, in training, we should run against the wind
and swim upstream. You don't think you'll grow stronger faster that way? Down all the gel you want
when you're out there for 26 + miles, but again, I say, in training, to the extent you learn to do
without it, the boost on race day will be even bigger. And that goes for oxygen, food, rest, water,
bathroom breaks, sugar drinks, electrolytes, etc.
As I stated earlier, however, I do NOT advocate skipping needed water and electrolytes at any time,
despite the above. I must say, though, that to prep for Death Valley, it might not be a bad idea to
train in an overcoat and skip some water now and then....
>Your arguments run coutner to the study, science, basis, and research on the
value of gels. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the entire
>gel industry.
No, I'm just trying to distinguish between their use in training and in competition. Do without in
training, unless you are trying to set a predictive PB/PR or something, or are going to run so long
you may become ill (4 hours plus?). Say now, there's no animal products in those gels, right?
TopCounsel wrote:
> I think, just like low-oxygen-air training, you will benefit from running further in training when
> your body's other chemical resources are depleted, because you sort of train your metabolism to
> shift into running efficiently on the "body fuels" it has available to it.
I don't see the logic unless you are planning to cross the Mojave without water and a pebble in
your mouth.
> This will be more efficient than downing nutrients during a race, as they do take a finite amount
> of time to be absorbed (though during a LONG race, it may have some value).
To me this borders not on training but masochism. I'd prefer to train my body to assimilate food and
fluids during my run not perform a deprivation study.
> Why else run 20-30 mile long training runs (besides the pure joy of doing so)?
To train your self to keep your glycogen stores replenished and not experience pain and DNF?
> Maybe we could use the comments of an MD here, but I have to say I am a firm believer that pushing
> yourself onward in training after you're already pretty much out of gas is precisely how you
> become fit for marathon distances.
I guess I could also learn to jump out a three story building... :)
>
> To the extent you are feeding yourself during training runs (except for water and electrolytes),
> you might actually be lessening this training effect.
I'm not buying it and I live it.
> Conceivably, we might even be able to train for water and electrolyte deprivation, but that sounds
> unsafe to me.
I think running without food is equally dangerous.
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
Bumper wrote:
> Current thinking about altitude training is to live at altitude (low
Acutally it's "sleep" at altitude and train at sea level. They have sleep "tents" which simulate
elevation to avoid the drive.
> oxygen levels) but train at lower altitudes because the opposite results in slower training speeds
> which are difficult to make up for during sea levels races.
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
In article <20040120205330.11514.00000387@mb-m12.aol.com>, Globaldisc wrote:
> anyway...to your nonsensical point. i like the way you dance around the word "fat". wtf does this
> mean, "you sort of train your metabolism to shift into running efficiently on the "body
> fuels"...hahahha. No, wrong counselor, once your glycogen is depleted your body will turn
> specifically to a less efficient fuel...and the word is FAT, not "other body fuels".
>
> there's no beating around the bush....squarely acknowledge and concede you're advocating fueling
> your body on less efficient fuel sources than glycogen. are you really going to argue it's better
> to fuel the body on less efficient fuel? i think not.
Wrong. It's better to conserve the more scarce of your fuel sources. If you can run at the same
speed with lower usage of glycogen, you're doing better.
BTW, glycogen use is not always "more efficient" at all. For example, anaerobic metabolism, which
relies on glycogen, is less efficient than aerobic metabolism. Greater contributions from your
anaerobic metabolism enable you to go faster, but they also rip through scarce glycogen stores.
> secondly, what's this "available to you nonsense"? it's called a Gel....long race?
It's still a scarce resource. You can stuff it down your throat in whatever quantity you like, but
there's only so much gel you can absorb in so much time.
Also, the race you're training for may well be a lot longer than your typical training run. So if
you Gel in your training runs, you're actually not preparing yourself for race conditions at all.
The last 6 miles of a marathon is hardly the best place for your body to learn the importance of
sparing glycogen.
> I staple or safety pin them to the wide band of my jock strap. the point? More GLYCOGEN, the
> preferred fuel sources is ALWAYS available to the runner (training or racing).
I see -- you have a way to metabolise "jockstrap glucose" ? That's a first. I trust you've applied
for a patent.
> You guys are killing me with this well placed use for words like "possibly" and "maybe",
> "might"...all theoretical mobojumob and nonsene. Replenishing my body w/Glycogen has worked
> wonders for me in training and racing.
That would explain why you've crashed in the last half of nearly every race you've competed in.
> Your arguments run coutner to the study, science, basis, and research on the value of gels.
Feel free to cite "the study, science, basis and research on the value of gels".
> You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the entire gel industry.
Millions of dollars can't possibly be wrong.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
In article <gxlPb.232605$0P1.68711@twister.nyc.rr.com>, Doug Freese wrote:
>
>
> TopCounsel wrote:
>
>> I think, just like low-oxygen-air training, you will benefit from running further in training
>> when your body's other chemical resources are depleted, because you sort of train your metabolism
>> to shift into running efficiently on the "body fuels" it has available to it.
>
> I don't see the logic unless you are planning to cross the Mojave without water and a pebble in
> your mouth.
>
>> This will be more efficient than downing nutrients during a race, as they do take a finite amount
>> of time to be absorbed (though during a LONG race, it may have some value).
>
> To me this borders not on training but masochism. I'd prefer to train my body to assimilate food
> and fluids during my run not perform a deprivation study.
The point is that a long race is unavoidably a "deprivation study" because you can't assimilate fuel
all that rapidly during your run.
Now during training, there are two was you can run on depleted stores -- you can run long, which
will deplete glycogen stores *whether you gel or not*, and take the extra muscle damage that goes
with a very long run. Or you can just start the run with a lower fuel tank.
> To train your self to keep your glycogen stores replenished and not experience pain and DNF?
One way to "train to keep your glycogen stores replenished" is to train your body to use
less glycogen.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
>If memory serves me correct Frank Shorter learned his chops in Gainsville, FL, after he finished at
>Yale??? He now lives in Boulder,
>CO.
Yes, he competed for the Florida Track Club. But I distinctly remember reading he trained in CO at
altitude for the Olympics, and if he now lives there it doesn't surprise me. Maybe someone whose T&F
history is solid can elucidate this for us.
globaldisc@aol.com (Globaldisc) wrote in message news:<20040120190732.11514.00000369@mb-m12.aol.com>...
> i believe you train like you race. i always pop a gel in training 30 minutes into my run. ya know
> gels aren't only for races.
But we donīt *usually* train like we race, if we intend to race at the marathon distance - which, as
we know, is unconveniently long when ran at racing effort!
We can utilize a certain amount of carbs taken during the race and we have to "learn" to do it, so
it makes sense to "pop gels" during a long fast-finish run or a medium-long marathon pace run - but
beyond that I fail to see what good would those gels do in training (on other runs, that is).
Since we need to "learn" to utilize fat for energy, there is a good rationale for *not* "popping a
gel" during a normal long run - and possibly an argument *against* doing that, isnīt there?
Anders
Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<OAlPb.232606$0P1.46605@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> Acutally it's "sleep" at altitude and train at sea level. They have sleep "tents" which simulate
> elevation to avoid the drive.
A poor compromise when you donīt have access to a proper high altitude chamber facility where you
can actually live in (i.e. eat, watch action movies, read thrillers, take a nap and do whatever you
do to pass the time between training sessions); if an athlete wants to get the full benefit, he
descends to training level or steps outside *only* to train.
For practical and psychological reasons this may not be 100% possible, but itīs the general idea:-)
Anders
TopCounsel wrote:
> You are side-stepping the real point here, Andrew. I am saying we are undoubtedly better off to be
> trained to run on ALL energy sources.
For what reasone pray tell?
Any of us
> can down food at any time, and some of us are really good at eating (what a "skill"...).
Exactly! If you making light of eating as not an intergral form of training then I would guess you
are not very familiar with real endurance or you're one of the few with iron stomach.
> I'm advocating that, in training, we should run against the wind and swim upstream. You don't
> think you'll grow stronger faster that way?
In this case you building stronger muscles like tempo runs and hill runs.
> all the gel you want when you're out there for 26 + miles, but again, I say, in training, to the
> extent you learn to do without it, the boost on race day will be even bigger.
Now you gone a step too far. Specificity is the ideal training. If the race you're training for
demands that you compete with minimal resources then fine practice you survival skills. If the race
provides or at least allows you haul your own goods then do it. Your suggestion to train in some
state of deprivation thinking your body will perform better on race day or is somehow tougher isn't
specificity in my book. This a sounds more like a carry over into being macho.
> I must say, though, that to prep for Death Valley, it might not be a bad idea to train in an
> overcoat and skip some water now and then....
I'll buy the overcoat or extra layers to simulate the extreme heat but to not train your body
assimilate fluids at the same time, i.e. race conditions, makes no damn sense to me. To complete a
race through Death Valley as in this case, you train yourself to push a big volume of fluids to
"train" your renal system. Not to do this will help you understand the concept of renal shutdown, a
DNF and possibly dialysis.
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
In article <9euPb.134365$4F2.15909599@twister.nyc.rr.com>, Doug Freese wrote:
> Now you gone a step too far. Specificity is the ideal training. If the race you're training for
> demands that you compete with minimal resources then fine practice you survival skills.
Glycogen is a scarce resource. Training with low glycogen is "specific" to racing with low glycogen.
Now it's true of course that you could train by doing long runs of 20 miles duration or so and
refuelling on those runs. I don't think there's anyone who's arguing that this isn't a good idea.
The problem of course is that it's not practical to do these on a daily basis. On the other hand, it
is quite practical to do a 6-10 mile run before breakfast each morning.
> I'll buy the overcoat or extra layers to simulate the extreme heat but to not train your body
> assimilate fluids at the same time, i.e.
That depends on whether or not you're expecting dehydration in a race. I would expect that most
athletes do not plan to suffer dehydration.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> The point is that a long race is unavoidably a "deprivation study" because you can't assimilate
> fuel all that rapidly during your run.
You and Abrew have been hanging at the water cooler too much and are thinking as speedsters. What
yoiu get in endurance is not lack of glycogen but tired muscles. Th real deprivation comes when you
don't pay your dues with training. If you want to minimize the deprivation you train to handle it.
> Now during training, there are two was you can run on depleted stores -- you can run long, which
> will deplete glycogen stores *whether you gel or not*, and
Hogwash! If you running fast then of course you will deplete. When you run long you learn to burn
more fat and preserve your glycogen stores and in fact eat, drink to help replenish. You think the
body is like a car without a gas station.
> take the extra muscle damage that goes with a very long run. Or you can just start the run with a
> lower fuel tank.
Groan!
> One way to "train to keep your glycogen stores replenished" is to train your body to use less
> glycogen.
Yup, but NOT but starving it! And how many endurance runs have you done or trained for?
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
In article <%puPb.134427$4F2.15912026@twister.nyc.rr.com>, Doug Freese wrote:
>
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>
>> The point is that a long race is unavoidably a "deprivation study" because you can't assimilate
>> fuel all that rapidly during your run.
>
> You and Abrew have been hanging at the water cooler too much and are thinking as speedsters. What
> yoiu get in endurance is not lack of glycogen but tired muscles.
references ? The assertion that glycogen depletion isn't a factor seems to me to be a pretty
contentious one.
>> Now during training, there are two was you can run on depleted stores -- you can run long, which
>> will deplete glycogen stores *whether you gel or not*, and
>
> Hogwash! If you running fast then of course you will deplete. When you run long you learn to burn
> more fat and preserve your glycogen stores and in fact eat, drink to help replenish.
Yes, but I'm suggesting that maybe you can "learn to burn more fat" without running long.
I'm not asking for you to state your opinions in an even louder and angrier voice, I'm expressing an
interest in references that confirm or reject a certain hypothesis (that running on a low fuel tank
brings about favourable adaptions). Do you have any such references ?
>> One way to "train to keep your glycogen stores replenished" is to train your body to use less
>> glycogen.
>
> Yup, but NOT but starving it!
I didn't suggest "starvation", so I don't know what you're talking about.
> And how many endurance runs have you done or trained for?
I believe that I've stated these hypotheses clearly enough that hard data (which you have not
provided) can be either confirm or reject them.
My lack of experience does not help confirm or reject these hypotheses.
BTW, Noakes poses similar questions and he has more experience than you (and my dog can pee further
than your dog too) ... but again, this doesn't help confirm or reject.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
--
Sam, glad to be back after a bit of a hiatus. "TopCounsel" <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040120155101.25856.00000154@mb-
m23.aol.com...
> Donovan Rebecchi makes a good point on the "morning vs. evening running" thread, in replying to
> the following:
>
> > I say that if you would race doing that, you should train. You might be
able
> > to train at a higher intensity and get a better training stimulus.
>
> Donovan's excerpted reply:
>
> "Sounds highly speculative. It even seems possible from my naive viewpoint
that
> the opposite could be true (that you may get better training stimulus in a glycogen depleted
> state)."
>
> My own further comments:
>
> This would seem to explain WHY it is, after all, necessary to take "long
runs"
> to prepare for marathons, and WHY, for example, Frank Shorter and others
have
> made great success of altitude training (correct me if I'm wrong, but I
think
> Shorter used to train in the Colorado mountains -- and this is a guy with
gold
> and silver olyimpic marathon medals, and who could pretty much hang with
"Pre"
> at 3 mi/6mi.)
>
> The opposite view expressed on the "morning vs. evening running" thread,
that
> you are somehow "damaging" yourself by starting a run with low glycogen,
etc.,
> just seems not only counter-intuitive but also seems completely
contradicted by
> the evidence. Other than the "predictive" value of perhaps a single run
which
> exactly mirrors your race conditions, it seems that we should welcome the opportunity to be
> training in these "low-resource" conditions (e.g.,
low-oxygen
> air, low blood sugar, etc.)
Training in low PO2 is less important than LIVING at low PO2 as Stray-Gunderson and Levine
pointed out in there study. Actually you want to train in a higher O2 environment to, once again,
optimize the training stimulus. One of the issues with living at altitude is that leg speed tends
to be reduced over time. Yes, Shorter spent time in the mountains around Albuquerque (sp?), but
these were periods of a few weeks during times of low intensity high volume training. The rest of
the time he spent in places like Gainesville, FL (elevation about 30 feet---I have no idea, but
it ain't very high).
As for low blood sugar, again what would that stimulate? I say it would reduce the capacity to train
and thus give a low training stimulus.
People still think that training without fluids is the way to go and that the body adapts. Yeah, it
adapts in some ways but the training suffers. I asked Larry Armstrong this one time (he worked with
Alberto Salazar) and he said there is no scientific evidence or pathway through which this works
(good enough for me). You can read Larry's book on heat issues and I believe he is a contributor at
www.gssiweb.com.
>
> Obviously, there are limits (e.g., go without water for 5k/10k, perhaps,
but
> over an hour or so, you'd best drink!).
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
