From: kenl@origami.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: Clinton mediocre runner?
Organization: Bellcore
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:24:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.055916.25800@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, jcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (john.c.schwebel) writes:
[...]

|> 
|> The thing that bothered me about the original posting was the
|> implicit assumptions and self-rightous implications.
|> 
|> My question asked for "proof" that a "healthy" diet improves
|> running performance.
|> The answer above said it was "accepted" and "most people" advocate it.
|> I'm still waiting to see the proof.

(Don't ask me to cite sources, I don't have them.  I'd suggest looking for
research done by Dr. David Costill of Ball State; he's done studies
disproving a lot of commonly-held ideas about exercise physiology, and he
has done research on glycogen replacement).

|> 
|> I would say most claims for dietary effects on running performacne
|> are theories rather than proven facts.
|> And plenty of theories about diet have been subsequently disproved.
|> 

Two instances:

Increased carbohydrate intake, especially after lengthy aerobic activity,
increases the levels of stored glycogen, which will be used during the
next training run.  Without this, one would not be able to train
effectively.  Fact, not theory.

Increased caffeine intake can result in a state of dehydration, which
reduces the body's ability to work (thicker blood, less ability to cool
and deliver energy to working muscles).  Same for alcohol.  Fact, not
theory.

|> In addition, the current theories usually relate to the relative
|> percentages of carbohydrates, protein, and fat in the diet.
|> Even accepting these theories, a person could eat french fries
|> and still have an acceptable diet.
|> No need to abstain from all fats, a certain percent is required.

Every calorie ingested in the form of fat displaces in the diet (more
than) a calorie of carbohydrate, which is used in training and in racing.
One either consumes less carbohydrates (not good) or more total calories
(also not good).  Simple logic (correct me if I'm wrong).

|> 
|> Please note, I'm not questioning the value of a good diet
|> in improving health, just in improving running,
|> all other things being equal.
|> Obviously if you eat enough to gain weight you'll get a deleterious
|> effect on  your running after some point.
|> 

Diets lower in fat promote weight loss, and a higher percentage of lean
body mass will improve running.  (I lost ~16 lbs over last summer, and my
3.5 mile time (Manufacturers Hanover races) went from 22:46 to 20:24.
Anecdotal evidence only)
Simple physics here:  muscles have to move less mass that doesn't
contribute to work.

|> I have followed a supposingly healthier diet for more than 2 years,
|> mainly trying to lower cholesterol and control weight:
|> no desserts, no red-meat, very little white meat,
|> very low fat, low salt, low caffeine, no alcohol.
|> It hasn't improved my race times and I can't prove it
|> improves my health, but I believe it does.
|> 

How old are you?  Can you say for sure that if you had not improved your
diet that your race times might have gotten worse?  Did you have blood
tests to determine your health prior to your change of diet?  Changes from
then to now could serve as proof, assuming you believe "theories" about
lower cholesterol, and the like...
Newsgroups: rec.running