How many miles did you run today?

Originally Posted by marc237

Click to expand...

Please re-read my prior post. Sprinting does NOT burn fat like crazy. Sprinters have larger muscles in their legs and upper bodybecause of the way they train. Sprinters build mass for short bursts of speed.

Long distance runners seek to trim weight. Most prizxe longer, leaner muscles. Sprinters do not have more definition that other runners, they just have more mass than other runners. They have more mass because of they manner in which they train and eat.

God forbid I not believe your post, hook, line, and sinker. After all, you are the expert. What a minute, you're just another guy on a forum giving his opinion.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-36398,00.html

As far as sprinters and distance runners, I think a lot of the look of the two has to do with genetics and a natural tendency to go fast or go long. It's not like sprinters are scrawny to begin with and the sprinting builds them up. They are usually more muscular to begin with and that leads them to sprinting. The skinny (often slower) guys take up distance. The little league catcher doesn't get fat because he's the catcher; he's the catcher because he's fat.

Originally Posted by Grayland

Click to expand...

God forbid I not believe your post, hook, line, and sinker. After all, you are the expert. What a minute, you're just another guy on a forum giving his opinion.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-36398,00.html

As far as sprinters and distance runners, I think a lot of the look of the two has to do with genetics and a natural tendency to go fast or go long. It's not like sprinters are scrawny to begin with and the sprinting builds them up. They are usually more muscular to begin with and that leads them to sprinting. The skinny (often slower) guys take up distance. The little league catcher doesn't get fat because he's the catcher; he's the catcher because he's fat.

I do not actually contend that you ought believe me hook, line, and sinker. However, you were not offering any rebuttal based in science. The link is not relevant. It addresses metabolism boosting for overweight sedentary adults; not the sources of calories for active athletes.

Yes. Persons with certain body-types may choose to select distance running over sprinting. Certain body types will be more predisposed to excel at sprinting as opposed to long distance running. However, the simple fact is that the sprinter will still need to spend the time working out to achieve the leg mass to which you refer. Keep in mind that sprinters to be good need not only leg strength, but also explosive strength as well. This means that many sprinters will do power exercises as well as regular training. Olympic caliber sprinters may work out up to 3x per day and include weight training. Of course, they consume calories necessary to ensure that they do not go into an undesired deficit.

I think the link is very relevant. There was a guy on this forum who asked about running to get more defined. Certainly, he's not a world-class athlete and may very well be overweight. Fat loss leads to definition. The link showed interval type training (sprinting) burned 3 X as much body fat as LSD. Here's another link. I wouldn't know where to look to find scientific, double=blind studies; if you do, let me know. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2213727AATFZZ1

I'm not expert and I wouldn't pretend to give advice to world-class athletes. We have to keep in mind that steroids often play a role in sprinter's physiques, too. I do feel pretty comfortable giving fitness opinions to average Joes.

I do appreciate the discussion.

Originally Posted by Grayland

Click to expand...

It literally eats away your muscle. .

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

What the hell?

No it doesn't. And sprinters lift weights.

Originally Posted by Grayland

Click to expand...

I didn't literally mean it (LSD running) eats away your muscle..

We should debate this somewhere else, b/c this is a useful thread that shouldn't go astray.

About 6 miles, running intervals along the towpath.

Originally Posted by Grayland

Click to expand...

I think the link is very relevant. There was a guy on this forum who asked about running to get more defined. Certainly, he's not a world-class athlete and may very well be overweight. Fat loss leads to definition. The link showed interval type training (sprinting) burned 3 X as much body fat as LSD. Here's another link. I wouldn't know where to look to find scientific, double=blind studies; if you do, let me know. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2213727AATFZZ1

I'm not expert and I wouldn't pretend to give advice to world-class athletes. We have to keep in mind that steroids often play a role in sprinter's physiques, too. I do feel pretty comfortable giving fitness opinions to average Joes.

I do appreciate the discussion.

OK. But the problem i am having is with the use of the term "defined." Definition is a function of stripping fat from muscle. What you will see when you have done that is definition. If you (or the other poster) wish to see more muscle when the fat has been stripped, one needs to have muscle bulk to begin with. It is extraordinarily difficult to build muscle mass (as opposed to increased strength while losing weight). I also agreed that interval training, which is different than sprinting, can be a useful tool for weight loss. But, even marathoners, I am one, do intervals. Intervals and sprinting are superficially similar, but ultimately different activities.

As to Mentos' plea - I did 10 miles Sunday as part of a long run for the NYC marathon - 80% on a track and 20% on streets with hills. Long run pace.

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Click to expand...

My point was that of course, LSD doesn't actually consume and digest muscle; but that LSD often leads to a calorie deficit which leads to loss of mass (both fat and muscle).

Mentos - my apologies for helping lead this thread astray. I'll post in advance of tomorrow's workout. 10 X 100 meter sprints w/ 2 minutes rest between each sprint

Sprints don't burn more bodyu fat than SS cardio. Old myth. Won't die.

Originally Posted by marc237

Click to expand...

OK. But the problem i am having is with the use of the term "defined." Definition is a function of stripping fat from muscle. What you will see when you have done that is definition. If you (or the other poster) wish to see more muscle when the fat has been stripped, one needs to have muscle bulk to begin with. It is extraordinarily difficult to build muscle mass (as opposed to increased strength while losing weight). I also agreed that interval training, which is different than sprinting, can be a useful tool for weight loss. But, even marathoners, I am one, do intervals. Intervals and sprinting are superficially similar, but ultimately different activities.

As to Mentos' plea - I did 10 miles Sunday as part of a long run for the NYC marathon - 80% on a track and 20% on streets with hills. Long run pace.

Good luck with the NYC marathon. I mentioned earlier that I ran a 15 K last week. It went pretty well, but afterwards, I remember thinking that I'd to almost do it 2 more times to equal a marathon. That's a lot of running.

Thank you. It will be my 5th if i do it. Sheer insanity.

p.s. As to the question of distance running and thinness, you ought meet the Clydesdales. See http://www.clydesdale.org/

Originally Posted by marc237

Click to expand...

p.s. As to the question of distance running and thinness, you ought meet the Clydesdales. See http://www.clydesdale.org/

Those guys are awesome. Recently trained for a tri with a big guy, and his attitude was great the whole way through.

Not all runners self-select based on body type.

I'll just give my experience on this discussion. All the running i do doesn't make or hasn't made me really defined, though i do start to look a little more defined when i do more speed-work or run races more often because that seems to build some muscle on me, especially in my back. I mean, im lean and somewhat defined, but not what most would think of as having an athletes body, but i don't look like some super-skinny elite marathoner either.
When i run higher milage, my chest and arms start to get scrawny but my legs get more muscular and defined. Right now i've been at about 70-80 miles/week since about april but nothing in terms of weights/cross-training... i know a little core work or weights would have me looking fitter but i dont find those things fun like i do running. If i was just looking to have a more fit/defined appearance i definately wouldn't run as much as i do.

And someone said the speed you run doesnt have much affect on the calories consumed but didnt really specify relative to what. Relative to distance, no, its roughtly the same calories burned per mile, but if you run for an hour at say 10mph vs. an hour at 6 mph you burn alot more running faster. Your statement seemed to imply that running for a specified time will burn the same amount of calories regardless of speed, which isnt right.

anyway, last 3 days for me:
12.2 in 1:20
12.0 in 1:16:40
10 in 1:04:10

Originally Posted by Mentos

Click to expand...

Those guys are awesome. Recently trained for a tri with a big guy, and his attitude was great the whole way through.

Not all runners self-select based on body type.

My freshman and sophomore years of cross-country I was a typical runner. Very lean, and muscular. My best time was a 16:28 that qualified me for the state meet. Then, between my soph and junior year, health issues coupled with poor diet caused me to gain a TON of weight and thus, my times went severely south, I think my final two years the best I ran was an 18:48, didn't even qualify for Semi-state.

anyway, point of the story, one of the parents my senior year called me a Clydesdale in his high school sports journalism spot in the local paper. This was back in 04/05, so I don't know if he was referring to these guys or just a general statement kind of Clydesdale, but I never got it until now

Today, like every other day of the year, I ran zero miles. I just like to keep a running tally of my running.

after a few days off I made it through 5 1/3 miles this morning (45 minutes or so), then a couple of laps in the pool and off to work. Well, I did shower between pool and work.