On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Eliot Bank <eliotb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "My record SO FAR on a 24hour fast I did a 6-hour bike ride with just
> water" "I felt pretty good!
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Eliot Bank <eliotb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks.
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
Watched it, great interview, thanks Tuck. Sounds very similar to same effects I am noticing.
It makes me wonder, he mentions ultra endurance athletes still utilizing 70% fats after a multi-hour workout. Does that imply that some glucose supplementation becomes necessary at that point ? I mean where does the other 30% come from.
At this moment I am trying to figure out what to do when you reach the maximum of your fat burning current capabilities. Do you just slow down (no choice) and do what you can or do you start supplementing ? If so how much ? These are rhetorical of course since I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that yet or at least it is a very person specific answer.
I am at this point simply because it is the 50-100 mile part of the run where things get choppy, up to 50 miles is pretty nailed (just salt an water).
My suspicion, as I mentioned in another post, it is probably a challenge more about blood volume than carbs (dehydration,electrolytes,etc)
In his other posts he does mention running out of glycogen at some point,
but it is many many hours. My guess is in an ultra (probably more like a
100) you will need to supplement at some point. Not sure you need gels
though. As long as you don't wait until the last second anything can work
even if it slow burns.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM, JasonH <jasonm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Watched it, great interview, thanks Tuck. Sounds very similar to same
> effects I am noticing.
> It makes me wonder, he mentions ultra endurance athletes still utilizing
> 70% fats after a multi-hour workout. Does that imply that some glucose
> supplementation becomes necessary at that point ? I mean where does the
> other 30% come from.
> At this moment I am trying to figure out what to do when you reach the
> maximum of your fat burning current capabilities. Do you just slow down
> (no choice) and do what you can or do you start supplementing ? If so how
> much ? These are rhetorical of course since I don't think anyone really
> knows the answer to that yet or at least it is a very person specific
> answer.
> I am at this point simply because it is the 50-100 mile part of the run
> where things get choppy, up to 50 miles is pretty nailed (just salt an
> water).
> My suspicion, as I mentioned in another post, it is probably a challenge
> more about blood volume than carbs (dehydration,electrolytes,etc)
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM, JasonH <jasonm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Watched it, great interview, thanks Tuck. Sounds very similar to same
> effects I am noticing.
> It makes me wonder, he mentions ultra endurance athletes still utilizing
> 70% fats after a multi-hour workout. Does that imply that some glucose
> supplementation becomes necessary at that point ? I mean where does the
> other 30% come from.
> At this moment I am trying to figure out what to do when you reach the
> maximum of your fat burning current capabilities. Do you just slow down
> (no choice) and do what you can or do you start supplementing ? If so how
> much ? These are rhetorical of course since I don't think anyone really
> knows the answer to that yet or at least it is a very person specific
> answer.
> I am at this point simply because it is the 50-100 mile part of the run
> where things get choppy, up to 50 miles is pretty nailed (just salt an
> water).
> My suspicion, as I mentioned in another post, it is probably a challenge
> more about blood volume than carbs (dehydration,electrolytes,etc)
On Friday, August 24, 2012 10:50:51 AM UTC-6, Tuck wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised if 50 miles is a limit of what we evolved to > achieve... 50 miles in one go is pretty tough in bare feet.
IIRC, what data I've seen on persistence hunts shows the typical distance run to be around marathon distance. Being able to do double that if needed could have some survival value ....
Agreed. The Barefoot Sisters said hiking more than 35 miles/day was tough
mentally, not on their feet, because they had to watch the trail to walk
safely. On the other hand you have the Zulus running 50 miles/day in their
bare feet, but of course they probably grew up barefoot...
Clearly there's going to be a limit, and it would make sense that your
glycogen capacity when fasted would be in the same neighborhood.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:13 PM, gordo <gaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 24, 2012 10:50:51 AM UTC-6, Tuck wrote:
>> I wouldn't be surprised if 50 miles is a limit of what we evolved to
>> achieve... 50 miles in one go is pretty tough in bare feet.
> IIRC, what data I've seen on persistence hunts shows the typical distance
> run to be around marathon distance. Being able to do double that if needed
> could have some survival value ....
I don't think so. There are just too many runners you can run a solid 100 miles 'easily'. Just need to figure out the secret sauce for my body (literally or figuratively).
Now if you mean 50 miles max. on fat burning metabolism (sans glucose) that remains to be seen. Even though the winner of Western States is low carb it still sounds like he supplemented with glucose during the race.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:16 PM, JasonH <jasonm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think so. There are just too many runners you can run a solid 100
> miles 'easily'. Just need to figure out the secret sauce for my body
> (literally or figuratively).
> Now if you mean 50 miles max. on fat burning metabolism (sans glucose)
> that remains to be seen. Even though the winner of Western States is low
> carb it still sounds like he supplemented with glucose during the race.
I get the tough mentally aspect. Just running 10 km with a few gnarly patches here and there requires concentration. And then you're supposed to relax at the same time...
I've read somewhere that running stimulates the brain, not because of increased blood flow, but because it has to work, even at a subconscious level, to ensure you don't trip, stay upright,etc. If that's the case, barefootting must be very stimulating...
On Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:20:19 AM UTC+10, Tuck wrote: > I mean a limit to running barefoot and without glucose. Obviously people > can run more than 50 miles... ;) People other than me, anyway...
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:16 PM, JasonH <jaso...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>> I don't think so. There are just too many runners you can run a solid >> 100 miles 'easily'. Just need to figure out the secret sauce for my body >> (literally or figuratively).
>> Now if you mean 50 miles max. on fat burning metabolism (sans glucose) >> that remains to be seen. Even though the winner of Western States is low >> carb it still sounds like he supplemented with glucose during the race.
