Re: Stu Mittleman's Slow Burn book

Leafing through rec.running, I read Ignoramus23816's message of 11 Oct
2004:

Quoted message said:

In article said:

Ignoramus23816 <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

He probably could not eat much before commencing his run, or on the
run.

What leads you to this conclusion?

It is a supposition, not a conclusion. I suspect that it is hard to
run and eat/digest food at the same time. I may be mistaken.

This is one of the reasons for training long hours on your feet. Not
necessarily running the whole time, but moving forward and taking in fuel.
Your body has to learn how to process food while moving forward.

Phil M.

"Matthew Venhaus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Ignoramus23816 <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

He probably could not eat much before commencing his run, or on the
run.

What leads you to this conclusion?

Stupidity. He IS an ignoramus.

"Matthew Venhaus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

What leads you to this conclusion?

It took 45 minutes to burn, that's defeniately a slow-burn book.

"Ignoramus23816" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is a supposition, not a conclusion. I suspect that it is hard to
run and eat/digest food at the same time. I may be mistaken.

You are soooo far out to lunch it's unbelievable!

-DF

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

You are soooo far out to lunch it's unbelievable!

-DF

I apologize for my earlier comments. I'm rude, crass, and an ass.

-DF

[email hidden] (TBR lives!) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Matthew Venhaus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

What leads you to this conclusion?

It took 45 minutes to burn, that's defeniately a slow-burn book.

Oh GAWD I crack me up sometimes!

-DF alias TBR.

Doug Freesepop said:

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

You are soooo far out to lunch it's unbelievable!

-DF

I apologize for my earlier comments. I'm rude, crass, and an ass.

-DF

No problem, Doug.

Actually your supposition is correct. The process by which digestion is
accomplished requires blood to work the stomach (a muscle of sorts) and
more blood to flow past the small intestines and distribute it to the
rest of the body. The brain in its infinite wisdom shunts blood from the
digestive process to the large motion muscles to keep the old bod going
forward it that's what the brain really believes it is what you want to
do.

That why cold sugar water is more useful when on a run than a
cheeseburger. But then again sometimes after the other side of the
brain has suffered enough it will just say screw it and make that cheese
burger just smell to good to resist and you just throw good sense out
the window and choke it down, too little avail. But it still tasted
great, going and coming.

Ignoramus23816 said:

In article said:

Ignoramus23816 <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

He probably could not eat much before commencing his run, or on the
run.

What leads you to this conclusion?

It is a supposition, not a conclusion. I suspect that it is hard to
run and eat/digest food at the same time. I may be mistaken.

i

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bumper said:

Actually your supposition is correct. The process by which digestion is
accomplished requires blood to work the stomach (a muscle of sorts) and
more blood to flow past the small intestines and distribute it to the
rest of the body. The brain in its infinite wisdom shunts blood from the
digestive process to the large motion muscles to keep the old bod going
forward it that's what the brain really believes it is what you want to
do.

The body is cagier than that. The amount of diversion depends
on the workload. At all out sprint speeds, digestion is shut down.
You can't sustain that pace long enough for the digested calories to
matter. By the time you get down to marathon pace -- where you'll be
out for a prolonged period and calories can be important to you,
digestion is reduced, but not shut down. You can eat readily digested
things and get the calories in to your bloodstream.

At ultramarathon paces, which started the thread, digestion is
near 100% of normal and you can digest pretty much anything you
could sitting down. Whether you'll be happy with it bouncing around
in your stomach is something to experiment with.

See Noakes, _Lore of Running_, for more on digestive capacity
as a function of running effort level.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Bumper <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Actually your supposition is correct. The process by which digestion is
accomplished requires blood to work the stomach (a muscle of sorts) and
more blood to flow past the small intestines and distribute it to the
rest of the body. The brain in its infinite wisdom shunts blood from the
digestive process to the large motion muscles to keep the old bod going
forward it that's what the brain really believes it is what you want to
do.

That why cold sugar water is more useful when on a run than a
cheeseburger. But then again sometimes after the other side of the
brain has suffered enough it will just say screw it and make that cheese
burger just smell to good to resist and you just throw good sense out
the window and choke it down, too little avail. But it still tasted
great, going and coming.

I suspect you'll soon wish you deleted the cross post to rec.running before
you sent this.

"Robert Grumbine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The body is cagier than that. The amount of diversion depends
on the workload. At all out sprint speeds, digestion is shut down.
You can't sustain that pace long enough for the digested calories to
matter. By the time you get down to marathon pace -- where you'll be
out for a prolonged period and calories can be important to you,
digestion is reduced, but not shut down. You can eat readily digested
things and get the calories in to your bloodstream.

And Stu was running at a pedestrain pace and could eat a 12 course meal
every four hours and still move comfortably forward.

Quoted message said:

At ultramarathon paces, which started the thread, digestion is
near 100% of normal and you can digest pretty much anything you
could sitting down. Whether you'll be happy with it bouncing around
in your stomach is something to experiment with.

Precisely and Stu M was running at a pedestrain pace and could eat a 12
course meal every four hours and still move comfortably forward and
create normal turds.

Quoted message said:

See Noakes, _Lore of Running_, for more on digestive capacity
as a function of running effort level.

Here ya go Igor another text for the library but way too expensive for
you. Noakes is running Bible only not fun to read in my opinion. Like
trying to read an encyclopedia.

DF

Matthew Venhaus said:

I suspect you'll soon wish you deleted the cross post to rec.running before
you sent this.

Humor me Mattie, why would that be?

<< > I suspect you'll soon wish you deleted the cross post to rec.running
before

Quoted message said:

you sent this.

Humor me Mattie, why would that be? >>

O dear!
Look what the cat drug in!

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

<< Humor me Mattie, why would that be? >>

O dear!
Look what the cat drug in! >>

~(@:>
*cheese*

[Snap]

[Hey!]

~ waves ~

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

(Robert Grumbine) said:

At ultramarathon paces, which started the thread, digestion is
near 100% of normal and you can digest pretty much anything you
could sitting down.

My personal experience (7 Ironmans) would tend to put the digestive
capacity at Ultra/IM pace at something less than 100%, but that may
vary by person. Mine is probably more like 85% running, a bit better
on the bike.

However, the essential fact remains that you can digest food while
running. The stomach does not shut down at slower paces - unless you
have other problems like hyponatremia.

Quoted message said:

Whether you'll be happy with it bouncing around
in your stomach is something to experiment with.

Amen. That's what training is for - to find out if a Big Mac at mile
30 really is a good idea. <g>

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"

Bumper <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matthew Venhaus said:

I suspect you'll soon wish you deleted the cross post to rec.running

before

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you sent this.

Humor me Mattie, why would that be?

Because it was a stupid statment that just about everyone who posts here
knows is stupid becuase we have successfully digested food on the run.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ignoramus19594 said:

In article said:

"Robert Grumbine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The body is cagier than that. The amount of diversion depends
on the workload. At all out sprint speeds, digestion is shut down.
You can't sustain that pace long enough for the digested calories to
matter. By the time you get down to marathon pace -- where you'll be
out for a prolonged period and calories can be important to you,
digestion is reduced, but not shut down. You can eat readily digested
things and get the calories in to your bloodstream.

And Stu was running at a pedestrain pace and could eat a 12 course meal
every four hours and still move comfortably forward.

Quoted message said:

At ultramarathon paces, which started the thread, digestion is
near 100% of normal and you can digest pretty much anything you
could sitting down. Whether you'll be happy with it bouncing around
in your stomach is something to experiment with.

Precisely and Stu M was running at a pedestrain pace and could eat a 12
course meal every four hours and still move comfortably forward and
create normal turds.

Quoted message said:

See Noakes, _Lore of Running_, for more on digestive capacity
as a function of running effort level.

Here ya go Igor another text for the library but way too expensive for
you. Noakes is running Bible only not fun to read in my opinion. Like
trying to read an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias are not so bad...

I checked out Noakes book, unfortunately, it is very expensive. I may
order it from the library or interlibrary loan. There is a law of
diminishing returns from reading running books, as far as my goal is
concerned. I just received another marathon preparation book.

More of a series of journal review articles than an encyclopedia.
It really has very little overlap with most running books, I think.
Notwithstanding Doug's comment, I also think it's quite readable.

Most running books are a few steps down from the research and
towards the details of translating that into a running program.
As such, they repeat each other a lot. They also, being several
steps removed from the research, tend to omit a lot about just
why you're being recommended to do certain parts of training.
Noakes is only 1 step removed from the research, and generally
gives a sense of the scope of agreement or disagreement in
the research and how it applies to your training. So, while
a more typical running book (New Competitive Runner's Handbook,
Run Fast, ...) will say to run a VO2max workout for your 5k training,
they're unlikely to give enough detail for you to see that if you're a
39 minute 5k'er, your VO2 max is much less relevant than if you
are a 15 minute 5k'er.

It's also rather easy for igor to read the usual running books
(and people here) recommending certain nutrition processes as
merely being received dogma. It's less easy (not that this would
stop igor) to read through the details given by Noakes and call it
received dogma.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Tennent said:

(Robert Grumbine) said:

At ultramarathon paces, which started the thread, digestion is
near 100% of normal and you can digest pretty much anything you
could sitting down.

My personal experience (7 Ironmans) would tend to put the digestive
capacity at Ultra/IM pace at something less than 100%, but that may
vary by person. Mine is probably more like 85% running, a bit better
on the bike.

However, the essential fact remains that you can digest food while
running. The stomach does not shut down at slower paces - unless you
have other problems like hyponatremia.

Quoted message said:

Whether you'll be happy with it bouncing around
in your stomach is something to experiment with.

Amen. That's what training is for - to find out if a Big Mac at mile
30 really is a good idea. <g>

I think the 100% comment really only applies to the energy
level alone, based on the experiences of many, you included,
mentioned here.

As you've been out for 5, 10, 15 hours putting out substantial
effort, I'm pretty confident that the initial 100% digestive
capacity gets shifted. This isn't, I'll guess, a matter of
the digestion alone, but of the secondary chemical shifts going
on in your body as energy production byproducts continue to
accumulate, small shifts in electrolyte balances show up (perhaps),
changes to stomach acidity occur, etc. etc.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Robert Grumbine said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Ignoramus19594 <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I checked out Noakes book, unfortunately, it is very expensive. I may
order it from the library or interlibrary loan. There is a law of
diminishing returns from reading running books, as far as my goal is
concerned. I just received another marathon preparation book.

Consider cost / unit information, not the actual cost of book. Noakes is
probably a best buy. For instance, for 50% more than Daniels, you
probably get at least twice the *information*. (no training schedules,
but you get the background *information*).

It's also not a matter of just reading the books. You have to understand
what they are saying and apply it to your background and goals.

Quoted message said:

More of a series of journal review articles than an encyclopedia.
It really has very little overlap with most running books, I think.
Notwithstanding Doug's comment, I also think it's quite readable.

Most running books are a few steps down from the research and
towards the details of translating that into a running program.
As such, they repeat each other a lot. They also, being several
steps removed from the research, tend to omit a lot about just
why you're being recommended to do certain parts of training.

This is what drove me away from "standard" stuff.

Quoted message said:

Noakes is only 1 step removed from the research, and generally
gives a sense of the scope of agreement or disagreement in
the research and how it applies to your training.

I haven't had it as long, but the little bit I've read Martin and Coe, I
like that a lot also. One thing that has driven me up the wall about
Noakes as I've gotten more familiar with things, some of his stuff (like
hrm training in the new version) may be relative regurgitations of some
of the things I've had questions about - but no additional background.
Some of his material also seems to be personal experience, rather than
based on published research. (There's nothing inherently wrong with that
since I do that a lot with my own stuff that hasn't gotten synthesized
to journal articles yet.)

I like the newsletters like Peak Performance and Running Research News
since they always have primary citations in there. I depend on them to
call my attention to something and provide a first interpretation. If
I'm interested enough, I can go to the literature and read the original
- and maybe even find the articles on the other side of the story, which
may not be referenced in the secondary literature providing
documentation for their conclusion.

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog