Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: ESPN promoting endurance running page

  1. #1
    packattack22's Avatar
    packattack22 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Florence, Or
    Posts
    10

    ESPN promoting endurance running

    Primal Fuel
    So just when I thought I had an understanding of chronic cardio/ endurance running a person I respect in the paleo online community posted this. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6110087


    I know Mark covers just about everything in the article is his post why humans didn't evolve to be endurance runners. However, I visit hunter-gatherer.com often, and John Durant posted this article seemingly in support. I am just really confused, Mark says no endurance running, yet has posts on persistence hunting... I guess it's all about heart rate? This has to be the most confusing part of a paleo lifestlye.

  2. #2
    iniQuity's Avatar
    iniQuity is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Posts
    5,683
    I don't have too strong an opinion for or against this, but here's my two cents:

    Early man had no other choice but the persistence hunt (they didn't have spears??) that doesn't mean we're specifically made for it, or that we should actively engage in ridiculously long runs.

    Many people truly love to run, and for them this article would be a good read. I personally don't absolutely love running just to run, but would do so after a soccer ball as I did for many many years. I much prefer to sprint when I have to.

    I figure if you're confused about it it's because you want to run long distances but are afraid it can negatively affect your health? the solution to that would be to not run long distances all the time, but to do so once in a while.

    PS: I read Born to Run but can't remember why exactly the persistence hunt was needed, and I don't think I will ever run even more than 10 miles, it is so utterly boring that just a 5k is enough for me.

    Edit: I forgot, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it. I'm willing to accept that humans are built for long distance running, but that doesn't mean I should run long distances. If I had to for survival (hunting down my food) of course I would, but since I have a choice (which they didn't) I'm going to opt out.

    I met John Durant, very nice dude, but his physique is one I'm not after, too skinny. I'm training like the athletes I want to look like: gymnasts and sprinters, so I do what I can to imitate gymnastic style training and I sprint once in a while. If you'd like to look like an endurance runner, then running long distances is what you should do. I'm not passing judgment with this statement.
    Last edited by iniQuity; 02-17-2011 at 02:31 PM.

  3. #3
    PatrickF's Avatar
    PatrickF is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    163
    The quoted time of 3 hours 35 for 35 km (9,7 kph) isn't exactly impressive considering the fastest time for 42 km is around 2:05 (20,2 kph). This certainly can fall into "move slowly" if the people doing the persistence hunt are really fit.

    How often do they need to do such a hunt? To match the chronic cardio workouts they would have to hunt at least every other day.

  4. #4
    Vick's Avatar
    Vick is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    604
    The "fat burning" zone is the problem. We have been told that bringing our heart rate up to a moderate zone (jogging) will be benefical. This moderate heart rate puts us in the "fat burning" zone.

    What conventional wisdom screwed up is we don't want our body to burn fat. That teaches our bodies to store fat. It has to store fat because thatis what we are burning. Eventually most people get tired of the jogging and then they put on the pounds because the body is still trained to store the fat to burn.

    The other problem with this life style, is the body has to adapt to keep up this pace. You lose muscle mass (as the picture in the article clearly shows) and your heart and other organs adapt by shrinking.

    Walking and sprinting burns glycogen. This causes the body to reduce the body fat because it isn't being used as the main fuel. To increase the gylcogen storage requires more muscle and organ tissues.

    The link you posted to the article by Flemming quotes author Christopher McDougall in his best-selling book "Born to Run". McDougall talks about not only running... but being a pack animal. In other words like wolves our ancestors probably took turns sprinting to catch the animal. In other words the part he down plays is probably closer to the truth.

    McDougall also fails to mention the number of runners that suffer cardiac failure. He fails to mention the amount of damage to the that occurs to the bodies and organs after running a marathon. This is damage that take the body close to three months to repair.

    You are quite right that it is about heart rate. I hope this helps you understand it.

  5. #5
    federkeil's Avatar
    federkeil is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by Vick View Post
    McDougall also fails to mention the number of runners that suffer cardiac failure. He fails to mention the amount of damage to the that occurs to the bodies and organs after running a marathon. This is damage that take the body close to three months to repair.
    This, is based on evidence from untrained runners. For example, I could probably complete a marathon at my current physical condition in under 5 hours. The longest I run right now is the length of a basketball court for a few minutes at a time (20 at the most). For me to go and run for 4-5hours would hurt my heart because it hasn't had any stressors close to that, ever.

    It's a muscle and like any other muscle you need to train it.
    I didn't like the rules you gave me, so I made some of my own.

    Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general. - Mark Rippetoe

  6. #6
    Vick's Avatar
    Vick is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by federkeil View Post
    This, is based on evidence from untrained runners. For example, I could probably complete a marathon at my current physical condition in under 5 hours. The longest I run right now is the length of a basketball court for a few minutes at a time (20 at the most). For me to go and run for 4-5hours would hurt my heart because it hasn't had any stressors close to that, ever.

    It's a muscle and like any other muscle you need to train it.
    I'm sorry but you are wrong. You can't train a muscle. I'm typing this slowly in case some people are slow readers. You apply a stimulus and the body adapts. It grows muscle, reduces muscle and organ tissue or promotes changes in the nervous system based on the stimulus. It really is that simple.

    I'm quoting part of an article by Clarence Bass....

    "As I was writing this, a new study was announced confirming that marathon runners suffer heart damage. Eric Larose, a professor of medicine at Laval University in Quebec, was running in a marathon when a younger runner close to him collapsed and died near the finish line. The incident prompted the study which he reported at the 2010 Canadian Cardiovascular Congress.

    Larose and his colleagues recruited 20 healthy runners in the 2008 Quebec City Marathon; the runners ranged in age from 21 to 55. They were given exercise, blood, and MRI tests 6 to 8 weeks before the marathon, two days after, and three months later.

    The tests showed that during the race, over half of the segments of the heart lose function due to an increase in inflammation and a decrease in blood flow. The less fit runners showed greater signs of injury, said Larose. They experienced greater loss of function associated with lower blood flow and greater irritation of heart segments, he explained.

    Most of the damage had disappeared at three months."

    Note the phrase.... "experienced runners". I don't care if you are Forest Gump and run across the U.S.A. 15 times. The fact is.... the body isn't trained... it adapts to the applied stimulus... and if you don't apply the correct stimulus you will suffer the consequences.

    Here is the link for the full article

    http://www.cbass.com/PACE.htm

  7. #7
    Abu Reena's Avatar
    Abu Reena is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    602
    God, Vick, the errors in your writing are ridiculous. What do you think primal living is about? Burning fat. We eat fat, we convince our body to burn fat instead of using carbs/sugar for that purpose.

    Jogging, if you are in shape, is perfectly fine and isn't chronic cardio. I can run slowly for an hour and never have my heart rate go above about 72% of my max. No cortisol, fat is fueling my running -- not glycogen -- and it's all good. (If only my bum knee would let me do this). The problem is running longer, faster, etc. That's when you start overeating to compensate for your output.

    Jogging, if you are in shape, fits in perfectly with "move slowly".

    Have you read the Primal Blueprint? Do you understand it?

  8. #8
    iniQuity's Avatar
    iniQuity is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Posts
    5,683
    I think Vick is trying to say moving slowly for over 80 miles can lead to all the nasties he mentioned. He's not saying that's going to happen on a 10k.

  9. #9
    eisenreich's Avatar
    eisenreich is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    86
    From what I've read from Mark, he seems opposed to distance running at above lactate threshold. He said something along the lines of, "Grok wasn't going out every weekend and running 26 miles like he was trying to qualify for Boston." I agree with him here and most marathon racing does fall into what I would consider chronic cardio.

    However, I'm training for a 50miler ultramarathon and the pace I "run" at is significantly slower than my marathon pace. Yesterday I ran 16 miles in about 3 hours and my HR never went about 160bpm. As Abu pointed out, I was burning fat rather than glycogen and only taking in water, NUUN tabs, and a few handfuls of almonds.

    I'm not sure what Vick was trying to say with, "What conventional wisdom screwed up is we don't want our body to burn fat. That teaches our bodies to store fat." Uh whut..? That still has me scratching my head..
    Last edited by eisenreich; 02-18-2011 at 11:59 PM.

  10. #10
    federkeil's Avatar
    federkeil is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    849
    oh tsk tsk vik, applying a stimulus and causing adaptation is the definition of training. Just because you can't stand in place for 33.4 seconds and cause cardiovascular adaptation.....

    I don't see tarahumara dropping dead from running 50miles (yeah, i went there, you can't get more experienced than that).

    Your study leaves out oh so many variables that it is unreliable as source material. For one, I'd like to know what constitutes "experienced"
    I didn't like the rules you gave me, so I made some of my own.

    Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general. - Mark Rippetoe

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •