if long distance running keeps you from losing weight, why are marathoners so skinny?

[Globetrotter 1,340]

On another thread we have been talking about the benefits/drawbacks to long distance cardio vs short burst and the role in weight loss played by strength training. In that thread it was talked about regular and lengthy run sessions make losing weight more difficult, that long distance running keeps a layer of fat on you, and that for real results you should run faster in short bursts.

Then, why are marathoners so string bean skinny? Is it because for the pros, that IS their job and so they do it all day every day, and a sleever may *only* do 10 miles every other day? My workout regime is kinda all over the place right now because I have so many different streams of knowledge conflicting right now and I'm frustrated over lots of effort and no loss.

[danyelleb 386]

Yeah, you're on to something. I was reading about Shalane Flannagan and Kara Goucher- daily intense training.

But, I can also tell you about my experience because I think we are the same height. I was 235 and dos was 212. I started "running" at the beginning of May. I completed the couch to 10k program and then kept adding miles to my long run until I hit 20 miles for my long run alone. I consistently ran three times a week. On Tuesday and Thursday I would run 5-7 miles. Saturday would be my long run. Sure I would do some random exercise in occasionally as well- kayaking, bike riding, pole dancing, swimming, etc. the weight consistently melted off of me. I hit goal and my bones (clavicle, hip, spine, etc) are visible. I think I'm going to comfortable stay between 128-130. When I eat clean I drop more weight- I was down to 125. I don't think that I was holding on to fat at all. No HIIT or weight training (I know that this is not good) for me. I always would start a weight regime, but it's the first thing to go if I'm stretched for time. I really need it! Anyhow, I think I'm in shape. I could def tone the arms and butt. My point is- I think everyone is different and goals for body type are different. Long distance cardio definitely worked for me.

Good luck GT. I hope u find something that works. I would stick with at least 50 minutes of cardio tho IMO.

[LipstickLady 25,682]

Run? On PURPOSE???

[aroundhky 1,174]

We can't really paint everyone with the same brush saying that this will automatically do that or it will automatically cause this to occur. It seems we are often genetically different in the way our bodies respond to certain stimuli/stresses. Just my guess....I'm not a professional. I think the key is trying different things, be in tuned with how your body reacts and go from there. Also, we don't all have the same goals, so that is yet another variable. For me, if I consistently run long distances (a few miles for 3-5 times a week), my body does not respond well muscle/strength-wise. But if I limit cardio to no more than twice a week for 30 minutes or less, I don't really see any negative side effects for me in the weight room, yet I still get some cardio benefit. Someone else may be able to run every day and not see any muscle/strength loss. But on the other end of the spectrum, another person may just simply look at a pair of running shoes and feel their muscles run away in sheer horror from the sight of anything to do with running. That's probably a reach, but the point is that some people would barely do any cardio and have negative strength effects from it. For me, I fall somewhere in between and my cardio is just an auxiliary exercise for me, but also one that I don't want to give up completely.

[Wags 549]

Run? On PURPOSE???

Lol!!

[Globetrotter 1,340]

I had a personal trainer friend once who suspected that I might be what they call a, "non-responder", meaning that regardless of my efforts, I never really have any effect from exercise. This is good and bad, I can be ready to topple over wheezing shaking and exhausted to the bone soaked in sweat, but give me a drink of Water and 5 minutes and I can start all over again. That's the good I guess. The bad is that no matter how heavy my weights, how calibrated my efforts, I receive no benefits of change in bodyshape, strengthening of muscles, loss of fat, etc.

Exercising may feel good, I may be interested in running for fun, but it never had any effect on my weight loss.

[mistysj 1,940]

What I have read is that running long distance makes you lose muscle mass (get stringy) and slows your metabolism. Because metabolism is a function of muscle mass.

[Butterthebean 8,146]

First of all, there is alot of talk on the web about how sprinters have a certain physique and marathoners have a different physique and everyone wants the sprinter physique. But the question is, do they have that physique because they sprint, or are they world class sprinters because of their body type? Same with marathoners. You don't win the Boston Marathon because you were born with an offensive lineman's body but you ran and ran until you were skinny and stringy. Those world class marathoners had that body type naturally, and they enhanced it through training. Same with all world class athletes.

Through out time, many people have gotten incredibly lean by doing a boat load of cardio and eating lots of carbs. And others have become just as lean through strength training, a modest amount of HIIT and very low carbs. There is obviously more than one way to do it. The only thing that is certain is that you can build and maintain more muscle with resistance training than with cardio, but muscle loss and fat loss are dependent on many factors such as diet and individual body type/chemistry, not just the type of exercise.

[Globetrotter 1,340]

Hmm ... I was a swimmer growing up, specifically a sprinter. I was never thin though and I blame that on the fact that, at that time, we were all about the carbo loading and I just lived off spaghetti . The one time I significantly lost weight to go from chubbyfit to slim, was when I radically reduced calories.

Sigh, what can I say, a thousand years ago I was what ever Lord coveted in his fields - a serf who could toil all day and live off crumbs.

[Ruthie1974 34]

Sorry to ask but what is HIIT? I'm thinking high intensity ----training but I can't figure out the other "I ". Is it indurance?

[Butterthebean 8,146]

Sorry to ask but what is HIIT? I'm thinking high intensity ----training but I can't figure out the other "I ". Is it indurance?

High intensity interval training

Basically, 30 seconds sprinting, 60 seconds recovery....repeat...that's just 1 example.

[Butterthebean 8,146]

.....

Sigh, what can I say, a thousand years ago I was what ever Lord coveted in his fields - a serf who could toil all day and live off crumbs.

Me too Globetrotter. My people definitely survived the famines.

[Ruthie1974 34]

High intensity interval training

Basically' date=' 30 seconds sprinting, 60 seconds recovery....repeat...that's just 1 example.[/quote']

Thanks.

[M2G 1,836]

Sigh, what can I say, a thousand years ago I was what ever Lord coveted in his fields - a serf who could toil all day and live off crumbs.

Hahaha. I think that is me also.

I'm glad you asked about this because for the first time I'm really trying to have some "focus" in regards to my exercise. I was a Curves workout person for 9 years solid (went every week from 3-5x a week) and now have gotten into a "real" gym, taking real classes 1hr cardio/spin class 2x a week, 1hr cardio (only 20 mins) and the rest muscle/weight lifting (40 mins) 1x a week, and then I fill in the rest of my days with cardio on the treadmill. But I'm wondering what results I could get if I were to cut cardio and increase strength? But I know that cardio is good for eliminating the visceral fat which is the worst kind of fat. I had read something that basically said the BEST exercise is doing BOTH, cardio AND strength, but that if you had to choose only ONE option, then go for cardio.

It's all confusing...just like eating and the right amt of calories, etc. Bah.

So it's back to toiling and crumbs...