PDA

View Full Version : What is the "ideal" fitness routine



lobster
10-26-2005, 15:48
to obtain the "best" combination of cardio, strength, flexibility, coordination, mental focus, etc. that will allow individuals to hike long distances day after day without becoming injured or too physically tired to keep going without reducing their output?

SGT Rock
10-26-2005, 15:49
Hiking. Duh.

Sly
10-26-2005, 15:51
Rock took the bait! ;)

SGT Rock
10-26-2005, 15:56
Naw, Rock saw the bait and decided to give a flippant remark. I figure someone will post a 4 paragraph response later to take the bait.

PKH
10-26-2005, 15:57
Well I don't know about taking the bait, but I do know that Chris Townsend wrote that "the best way to prepare for carrying a heavy backpack is to, well, carry a heavy backpack."

It made sense to me.

PKH

chris
10-26-2005, 16:07
As there is no reason to carry a heavy pack on the AT (nor, with a few exceptions, on the PCT), here is my approach. It has worked very well for me. People who want to hike 8 miles a day can ignore the following.

1) Before hand (year or more), start exercising regularly. I think the best is running with hills. Note the with hills part. Something like 10 minute or below miles, 20-30 miles a week. This builds endurance, cardio and some leg strength, but not really the right kind. An inclined treadmill does build the right kind of leg strength, but less cardio. Add some muscle building as well in the shoulders, back, and stomach areas, especially if you anticipate some snow. I was glad I built up some muscle for the CDT section hike earlier.

2) Hike as much as you can in the mountains. Up hill, down hill, in the rain, in the cold, etc, etc. Note, again, the uphill and downhill. Make sure to include overnight trips. Rock said, or quoted, once, "If it ain't raining, you ain't training." Know your gear, how to use it, and how it feels to hike for extended periods of time when the sun isn't shining and life isn't easy. Know how to put up a comfortably pitched tarp and how to stay warm. Know what gear you need, what you don't, and how to use it. Gain experience.

3) While on the trip, make sure to eat enough. If you want to hike 20 miles a day, day after day, you need to consume a lot of calories, especially fat calories. Fat, fat, and more fat. At least 3000 a day. 4000 is better. If you want to push longer in the day, say 25-35 miles, you'll need even more calories. While this isn't exactly training, it is super important. If you ever have serious hiker hunger (different from cravings) while in the outofdoors, you are not eating enough. Yes, you can carry enough food to support a healthy body weight.

So, this is my (roughly) four paragraph response.

lobster
10-26-2005, 16:15
What bait??

By the way, isn't it far easier to walk quickly up a hill than slowly? When you walk slowly, the body tends to fall back and you have to fight gravity more, but when you walk quickly, each footstep remains on the ground for a shorter time and you don't have this falling back phenomenon?

rickb
10-26-2005, 16:15
Lobster is good!

Is he a Rock Lobster?

lobster
10-26-2005, 16:16
Also, does anybody have any thoughts on flexibility training (yoga , pilates(sp?)) and the effect on hiking?

Spartan Hiker
10-26-2005, 16:24
to obtain the "best" combination of cardio, strength, flexibility, coordination, mental focus, etc. that will allow individuals to hike long distances day after day without becoming injured or too physically tired to keep going without reducing their output?Bionic implants with sound effects.

PKH
10-26-2005, 16:40
What bait??

By the way, isn't it far easier to walk quickly up a hill than slowly? When you walk slowly, the body tends to fall back and you have to fight gravity more, but when you walk quickly, each footstep remains on the ground for a shorter time and you don't have this falling back phenomenon?

Now, that's what I call bait!

PKH

rickb
10-26-2005, 16:49
He is a master.

But who is he, really?

Grampie
10-26-2005, 16:56
People I met, during my 02 thru, who did a lot of preperation, planning and training were not much better off than the folks who hiked with only doing the minimal.
The best way to prepare is to put the pack on your back and hike. If you are going to do that, you might as well do it on the AT attemptingt a thru-hike.
Let's face it. If you start out to do a thru-hike the odds of finishing one are against you. ;)

sierraDoug
10-26-2005, 16:58
What bait??

By the way, isn't it far easier to walk quickly up a hill than slowly? When you walk slowly, the body tends to fall back and you have to fight gravity more, but when you walk quickly, each footstep remains on the ground for a shorter time and you don't have this falling back phenomenon?
Is this a real question? Others here seem to think not. I'm sure personal experience has long ago answered this question for you, Lobster.

chris
10-26-2005, 17:10
What bait??

By the way, isn't it far easier to walk quickly up a hill than slowly? When you walk slowly, the body tends to fall back and you have to fight gravity more, but when you walk quickly, each footstep remains on the ground for a shorter time and you don't have this falling back phenomenon?

To actually answer your question, no it is not easier to go up fast than slow. Think about it this way: You burn more calories running a given distance than walking it. The slower you move, the less calories you burn. Going up hill slowly is going to be less taxing than going up fast. However, going up slowly can be tiring mentally as you never seem to get anywhere.

Almost There
10-26-2005, 17:17
I think Lobster actually owns a bait shop!

Moxie00
10-26-2005, 17:18
Get fat. bulk up, carry your own weight around all winter to build up your legs and lungs. Eat starch, cookies and ice cream. When you start to hike you will get in shape or go home, it's as simple as that. In 4 weeks the gym nuts and exercise freaks are no better off than the flabby slobs who stick it out until they hike themselves into shape. Lobster with alot of butter and potato chips is wonderful training food.

lobster
10-26-2005, 17:18
What about the fight with gravity when you are going slow. It seems to me to be easier speed walking the steeper pitches. When you don't rock back onto your heels you aren't having the gravitational issues. Just step quickly off the toes!

Just like riding a bike up hill. Once you stop pedaling, you are gonna go backwards.

Almost There
10-26-2005, 17:27
You don't wanna lose too much weight before your hike, or you'll be eating up your muscle a few weeks into your hike. Lobster with butter is some good eatin!

Ender
10-26-2005, 17:28
What about the fight with gravity when you are going slow. It seems to me to be easier speed walking the steeper pitches. When you don't rock back onto your heels you aren't having the gravitational issues. Just step quickly off the toes!

Just like riding a bike up hill. Once you stop pedaling, you are gonna go backwards.

since you can't coast while hiking, don't think the comparison is applicable. Also, the effect of gravity is the same, no matter how fast you're going.

JoeHiker
10-26-2005, 17:33
to obtain the "best" combination of cardio, strength, flexibility, coordination, mental focus, etc. that will allow individuals to hike long distances day after day without becoming injured or too physically tired to keep going without reducing their output?
I find training for a marathon works wonders

rickb
10-26-2005, 17:37
You burn more calories running a given distance than walking it. anywhere.

Are you sure? :D

http://my.webmd.com/content/pages/1/3079_883

Not saying that you aren't right (you may well be), just that some smart people would say otherwise. FWIW, I think they are wrong and agree that running a mile does burn more calories than walking it.

chris
10-26-2005, 17:45
Despite what the article says, I do think my assertion is correct. Consider the following: Marathoners run 26 miles are really tired after it. No one runs a marathon every day for 100 days. I can walk 26 miles in a day and feel just fine. I can do it 100 days in a row (at least on average).

As another example, take an infinitely slow pace to walk a mile (i.e, you just sit down and do nothing). You'll burn no additional calories. If you run for the mile, you'll burn more calories than if you simply sat still. Walking is more efficient than running, which is why we generally walk instead of run.

A calorie is a measure of heat. If you look at cold blooded animals, they move (for the most part) very slowly in order not to lose too much heat. If, instead, rapid motion burned fewer calories than slower motion, it would stand to reason, it seems, that cold blooded animals move in quick motions, rather than in slow ones. Of course, I could be completely wrong about this.

rickb
10-26-2005, 17:52
I was doing my "edit" while you were composing.

My gut said that you were right, but I have seen the "both equal" argument for some time, and it never sat right with me. I was being a trouble maker.

Of the three points (all good), your second one sold me. I'll probably steal it for another thread some years from now, and claim your logic for my own. :D

Seeker
10-26-2005, 18:07
Hiking. Duh.
i gotta second this...

different activities all help you get 'in shape'... running and weight training will help you get in shape. but they help you run and lift weights.

i look at my dad when he was in his 50s and i was in my 20s and in peak physical shape... he could outwork my sorry a$$ all day long, if it was carpentry, yardwork, or roofing... i could run 5 miles in about 30-35 minutes back then... he couldn't. but he worked hard all day... and was in better shape than i was-to work all day.

i had fat old sergeants like that too... (ok, 30-35 years old. i was 22... they just seemed ancient). they ran a standard 2 mile PT test in about 15-18 minutes, just barely making it in time... i could do it in about 12-13 minutes... but in the field, when i was losing weight on 4 MREs a day, they were doing just fine on their four food groups... nicotine, sugar, fat, and caffeine... a cigarette, black coffee, and a donut would get them from breakfast to a late night dinner... when there was heavy lifting to be done, they could outwork my spry young behind any day... and i was glad to have them around.

nothing can substitute for 'practice' hikes with heavier weights, on hilly terrain, with wet feet... ok, skip the wet feet part... you don't need to practice being miserable...

but my vote is for hiking to get in shape to go hiking...

gravityman
10-26-2005, 18:19
To actually answer your question, no it is not easier to go up fast than slow. Think about it this way: You burn more calories running a given distance than walking it. The slower you move, the less calories you burn. Going up hill slowly is going to be less taxing than going up fast. However, going up slowly can be tiring mentally as you never seem to get anywhere.

This isn't quite true. The number of calories you burn is ESSENTIALLY the same, independent of how fast you cover the distances. At least to the first cut. There might be a very minor higher calorie burn due to ineffencies at higher heart rate, but it aint much. It's simple physics - it takes so much energy (calories) to move so much mass so far. For a 150 lb person, that is about 100 calories per mile. However, with running you will burn more calories, mainly because of the arm pumping.... Here's a good chart : http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm

Interesting... 4 mph seems to be the sweetspot for least calories burned per mile... This is all on flat ground... You have to add in additional calories for hills...

Gravity

chris
10-26-2005, 18:19
I meant to edit my above post to correct a logical error. However, my ex-girlfriend showed up and delayed me from editing within the 15 minute limit.

So, here is an addition:

Interested, I went to http://www.caloriesperhour.com

According to their calculators, a 200 lbs man burns 100 calories by walking 1 mile in 20 minutes (3 mph pace). He burns 153 calories by running a mile at a 8 mph pace.

Mags
10-26-2005, 18:42
For those of you who run, there is yet another open source Google app, this one for runners:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/

Can even save your route. I have my after work run. It is not as accurate for trail running, but for roads it works great.

http://tinyurl.com/akgap

lobster
10-26-2005, 19:46
If you are out of shape and walk up hill with a heavy pack, note how much effort it takes to keep making each step. There is a hesitation between the stepping on the ground and pushing off for the next step. In this time the heel falls back and there is a slight drop in elevation of you and your pack. Not to mention the fact that there is a slight bounce in the body that can't be the best for the joints. It seems to me that there is more effort (calories) required to climb the hill as well as wear and tear on the body.

smokymtnsteve
10-26-2005, 19:51
the knees are very important in hiking,,therefore exercising and toning the knees is of utmost importance,,,

Every morning I do my one legged deep knee bends..to do this ..


stand erect

lift one leg up in front of you

using the other leg do your deep knee bend. going down very slowly then pushing yourself up keeping the other leg extended in front of you

alternate legs and repeat,

Moxie00
10-26-2005, 22:06
If you are out of shape and walk up hill with a heavy pack, note how much effort it takes to keep making each step. There is a hesitation between the stepping on the ground and pushing off for the next step. In this time the heel falls back and there is a slight drop in elevation of you and your pack. Not to mention the fact that there is a slight bounce in the body that can't be the best for the joints. It seems to me that there is more effort (calories) required to climb the hill as well as wear and tear on the body.Good point. Another thing that would help is to get a 6500 to 7000 expedition pack. Put only 10 pounds of gear in it like some of the ultra lite freaks. Fill the ballance of the pack with helium gas. You could then just float uphill, When you get to the summit breath a little helium and entertain your fellow hikers by talking weird. When your feet touch the ground stop letting out helium and float down the trail saving your knees. When the wind comes up take a zero day so tou don't get blown off the trail.

Clark Fork
10-26-2005, 23:40
to obtain the "best" combination of cardio, strength, flexibility, coordination, mental focus, etc. that will allow individuals to hike long distances day after day without becoming injured or too physically tired to keep going without reducing their output?After recently finding my knee pain was not related to any internal knee injury, I was sentenced to 18 sessions of physical therapy to strenghten my ham strings and the other muscles that help the knee work. After a few weeks, I came to learn that before doing my daily run/walk I needed to do my exercises and when I returned do some stretches.

I also found out how important it is to hydrate before exercising. I am sold on this regimen. It struck me that there is a lot of stooping and crawling around when setting up and breaking camp. Perhaps that is enough warm up and stretching but I have now started doing more than that on each end of a hike. I am convinced fewer hikers would have debilitating injuries on the trail if in advance they not only hiked but integrated both strengthening exercises and cool down stretching into their training routine and also had a routine before and after hiking.

In the 1960's I used to do a set of exercises listed in a book called. "The Canadian Air Force Exercises." They helped my in my training for the NY Marathon in '79. I had forgotten how important those exercises were to my being able to train a run marathons. Now I have a set of exercises and stretches that were set out by my PT therapist. These I hope will put in good stead for the trail and perhaps a 5K or 10K.

My physical therapist also commented that it is relatively easy to bring to body up to good cardio-vascular level for distance hiking but not so easy to bring up the important muscle groups that support the shins, ankles and knees. That is why it is critical to work on those muscle groups when getting ready for a long hike.

Here is some good information and rational on this subject:

http://www.thewalkingsite.com/stretching.html

Regards,

Clark Fork in Western Montana "Where seldom is heard a discouraging word."

Teatime
10-27-2005, 04:53
Yes, if you're thru-hiking, getting fit on the trail is an option. Everything I've read states that after about 3 weeks of hiking, everyone is at about the same level anyway (correct me thru-hikers if I'm wrong on this). Only in the first several weeks did those who were fit have an advantage. However, as a Section Hiker, I need to try to stay fit year around because I'm not out on the trail long enough to hike myself fit. As I'm preparing for my upcoming section in November, I am running 30 minutes every other day, which includes some hilly sections, and doing 20+ minutes on the Nordic Track Skier on non-running days (I renamed this thing the Nordic Track Torture Machine, as it is a very intense and demanding workout for me). Also, I've been lugging around a 40 lbs. pack on a 4.5 mile local trail once a week. With my new trail shoes, I have been turning in 1:23 for for 4.5 miles. I have lost about 25 lbs. since August, which sure makes walking, running, etc. much easier. I'm anxious to test my new self on the trail.:banana

V8
10-27-2005, 09:29
The best conditioning plan is the one you actually DO.

lobster
10-27-2005, 10:36
Just guessing, but many likely drop out with injuries before that "3 week conditioning period" is up if they come to the trail physically unprepared.

What's the thoughts on the importance of upper body strength in long distance hiking? Especially ABS!

chris
10-27-2005, 15:36
A few comments.

It is true that many people are in about the same shape after 3 weeks on the trail. They are capable of standard 8-12 mile days. However, they are also, in general, still tired at the end. On the other hand, people who get in shape before hand, can hike the standard 8-12 mile without tiring. Indeed, those in good shape can rumble on for 20 a day without tiring, if they want. Why want to do 20? Well, perhaps you're slack and spend an entire day lounging by a lake that you happened to find and didn't expect. Now, you've got to make up some ground before your food runs out. No problem if you are fit. It is if you are not.

On something like the AT, I don't think abdominal strength is super important. However, when I thrashed through serious snow in Glacier and north of Yellowstone this summer, I found that my abs were slightly sore at the end of the day. I had spent the previous year building up some ab strength and think it helped quite a bit. When you post hole (knee, hip deep) repeatedly, your body torques alot in strange ways. Having strong abs helped keep me upright, I think.

SGT Rock
10-27-2005, 15:41
But speaking of abs. If you have problems with sore lower back, working your abs and lats to help support weight may help with these issues since those trunk muscles could help with some of the lower trunk support.

JoeHiker
10-27-2005, 16:28
Despite what the article says, I do think my assertion is correct. Consider the following: Marathoners run 26 miles are really tired after it. No one runs a marathon every day for 100 days. I can walk 26 miles in a day and feel just fine. I can do it 100 days in a row (at least on average). The reason that no-one runs a marathon every day for 100 days is not because they burn more calories running a mile than walking it. They don't. The reason is that they are generally running a marathon to cover the distance as fast as possible. This leads to using different energy systems than those who walk it. More accurately, it leads to the body drawing more of its energy from less abundant energy stores.

At slower paces, the body primarily burns fat. Fat burning is great in that your body has enough of it to cover many, many marathons. Unfortunately, it has the disadvantage of requiring a great deal of oxygen. As the pace gets faster and faster, the energy demand rises until the body cannot consume enough oxygen to meet the increase by by burning more fat. In order to continue to meet the demand, the body must draw additional energy from an alternative source; one which does not require so much oxygen. That source is glycogen, stored in the muscles.

Unfortunately, your body only stores enough glycogen to cover roughly two hours of running at your fastest pace. (When you run out of glycogen, there's the famous "wall"). The faster you run, the higher a percentage of your fuel comes from glycogen and therefore the sooner you deplete your glycogen stores. It takes days to replenish the glycogen you lose.

Further, the faster paced running does far more physical damage to your muscles than walking in the form of microscopic tears to the muscle fibres. This damage can take weeks to fully heal.



As another example, take an infinitely slow pace to walk a mile (i.e, you just sit down and do nothing). You'll burn no additional calories. If you run for the mile, you'll burn more calories than if you simply sat still. Walking is more efficient than running, which is why we generally walk instead of run. Probably true. Walking probably is more efficient than running. And I'll grant you that the heat generated by running probably results in the body burning slightly more calories during and after running a mile than walking it. But the difference is negligible. Eat a cracker and you've probably accounted for it.

Teatime
10-28-2005, 01:33
A good book that addresses this question and many others that show up on Whiteblaze is "Long-Distance Hiking, Lessons Learned from the Appalachian Trail" by Roland Mueser. Roland thru-hiked in 1989, and gathered a lot of data from other thru-hikers and section hikers via questionaires. He then gathered all this information he got from other thru-hikers an section-hikers and put in the book. A very good and informative read. Roland recently died but he is not forgotten. Granted, some of the information in the book may be dated, but most of it is generally still applicable.

chris
10-28-2005, 09:52
At slower paces, the body primarily burns fat. Fat burning is great in that your body has enough of it to cover many, many marathons. Unfortunately, it has the disadvantage of requiring a great deal of oxygen. As the pace gets faster and faster, the energy demand rises until the body cannot consume enough oxygen to meet the increase by by burning more fat. In order to continue to meet the demand, the body must draw additional energy from an alternative source; one which does not require so much oxygen. That source is glycogen, stored in the muscles.


Interesting. It would seem to support the notion that long distance hikers (outside of the desert) should try to get more fat calories than they normally do. However, I'm not sure why it implies that walking a mile at a 3 miles per hour pace burns off more calories than running a mile at a 8 mile per hour pace. Given that the human body breaks down and uses simple sugar based calories quicker than something like a fat calories, wouldn't running (which would burn simple sugars first as they require less oxygen) burn up more calories (as the body is burning easy fuel) than walking (which would burn up harder fuel)?

Not being a physiologist, I really would like to know the answer to this.

V8
10-28-2005, 09:57
Walking a mile takes 20 minutes or so, running takes 10. More effort for less time, or less effort for more time, they come out about equal.

JoeHiker
10-28-2005, 11:26
Interesting. It would seem to support the notion that long distance hikers (outside of the desert) should try to get more fat calories than they normally do. However, I'm not sure why it implies that walking a mile at a 3 miles per hour pace burns off more calories than running a mile at a 8 mile per hour pace. Given that the human body breaks down and uses simple sugar based calories quicker than something like a fat calories, wouldn't running (which would burn simple sugars first as they require less oxygen) burn up more calories (as the body is burning easy fuel) than walking (which would burn up harder fuel)?

Not being a physiologist, I really would like to know the answer to this.
I'm not a physiologist either. I just have a lifetime interest in it from running and a pretty decent library on the topic. I'm a dilettante though, regardless of all that, so I generally stick to the most accepted basics whenever I open my mouth on this subject.

I'm not sure what you mean by "easy" fuel vs "harder" fuel. Fuel is fuel. Your body generally prefers fat over glycogen, probably because it has so much more fuel stored in the form of fat than it does in the form of glycogen. But that doesn't change the basic energy equation.

Covering a mile requires a given amount of energy. Whether that energy comes from fat (plus a great deal of oxygen) or glycogen (plus not nearly as much oxygen) doesn't affect the energy requirement.

There is not much need to eat more fats though. Your body is very good at converting excess calories consume to fat.

lobster
10-28-2005, 11:26
Ignoring for a second the calorie burnage, if we are talking about a speed hike where the hiker is traveling 35-55 miles per day, mixing in running can drop the time on trail from 11-13 hours where fast walking only usually takes 13-16 hours to complete the days mileage. Thus, time for sleep increases when you get to your destination earlier. Does this make up for the added wear and tear caused by jogging? It would also seem to be mentally easier to decrease your time in traveling each day.

Whistler
10-28-2005, 12:09
I'm not sure what you mean by "easy" fuel vs "harder" fuel. Fuel is fuel. Your body generally prefers fat over glycogen, probably because it has so much more fuel stored in the form of fat than it does in the form of glycogen. I don't think that's accurate. Your body prefers to burn glycogen over fat, as they are more easily metabolized and more readily available. In time of immediate need, what does the body turn to?--carbs. It's quicker and easier. If we eat more carbs than we expend, they are stored as fat, not vice versa. Fat is the back-up.

Interestingly, at lower exertions [reduced immediate energy demand] there is a greater proportion of fat burned. At moderate exertion, say 60-70% of max heart rate, the fat/carb burn ratio is something like 70-30. At high exertion, in the 80-100% MHR range, it flips to closer to 15-85. The body can 'afford' to use a less efficient metabolic process at lower exertion, because demand is low. On the other hand, sustained sprinting doesn't work--because carbs deplete rapidly, and turning over to only fat-burning after carbs are gone is a slow, clumsy, awkward process that makes you feel like crap [unless you specifically train for it, as many endurance athletes do].

Over a mile, a run will burn more carb-calories, a walk will burn more fat-calories. Over a given period of time, a run will burn more calories total--and the ramped-up metabolism will last longer after the exertion is done.

At least that's my understanding. I don't even remember what the original question was.:eek:
-Mark

Whistler
10-28-2005, 12:11
Oh, I guess the take-away for the thru-hiker from all that is to moderate your exertion [to reduce total volume of calories needed] and protect your fat stores by eating more carbs more frequently.
-Mark

Mags
10-28-2005, 13:54
Less calories in...more calories out.
Eat less..exercise more.

Everything else is just the fine details. :-)

chris
10-28-2005, 14:17
I'm not sure what you mean by "easy" fuel vs "harder" fuel. Fuel is fuel. Your body generally prefers fat over glycogen, probably because it has so much more fuel stored in the form of fat than it does in the form of glycogen. But that doesn't change the basic energy equation.

Covering a mile requires a given amount of energy. Whether that energy comes from fat (plus a great deal of oxygen) or glycogen (plus not nearly as much oxygen) doesn't affect the energy requirement.



The first question I think has been answered by a previous post. I would add to it that converting fat to simple sugars requires more water than converting carbohydrates to simple sugars. This is why in high heat environments (i.e, hiking in the desert on the PCT) it is good to get as many calories from carbohydrates as you can.

I've put the question to a local health/fitness/physiology instructor here and when (if) he gets back to me, I'll report back.

orangebug
10-28-2005, 14:18
Mags, would you just shut up!

I'm wanting to make my first million on a diet book, and you've just stole all my thunder!

:dance

JoeHiker
10-28-2005, 14:39
I don't think that's accurate. Your body prefers to burn glycogen over fat, as they are more easily metabolized and more readily available. In time of immediate need, what does the body turn to?--carbs. It's quicker and easier. If we eat more carbs than we expend, they are stored as fat, not vice versa. Fat is the back-up."I don't think we disagree so much on content as terminology. I'm probably going into way more detail than anyone cares but this is a subject I read and think about almost every day.

But "immediate need" you are referring to short bursts of activity. Sprints, mile races and the like. However what we are talking about (and most of what one does when running or hiking) is not like this at all.

When I say the body "prefers" fat, I mean that fat is the source to which it turns for most of its energy over the course of a day. Whether you are a couch potato or incredibly active, your body will burn draw the vast majority of its calories from fat.

On a distance run certainly. Even if I go out and race a 5k road race as hard as I can, 70-80% of the energy I use is aerobic. Running a marathon -- even racing one -- takes the percentage to something like 95-98% aerobic.

Now it's true that calling something "aerobic" does not strictly limit the energy source to fat. Glycolysis can be aerobic too and anaerobic. Both processes occur simultaneously at almost all intensities. But fat is by far the major player here. It still the source from which the body draws the vast majority of its calories.

In short, the body had 3 pathways for energy:

1. phosphates (the immediate source of non-oxidative energy)
2. Anaerobic glycolysis (i.e. burning glycogen without much oxygen)
3. Aerobic (i.e. burning fat)

Phosphates are the immediate source of energy for bursts of activity lasting a few seconds (i.e. sprinting). Anaerobic glycolysis is the primary source of energy for activities lasting 30 seconds to, perhaps 4 minutes. Aerobic pathways (primarily fatty acid oxidation) are the primary source for activies lasting longer.



The body can 'afford' to use a less efficient metabolic process at lower exertion, because demand is low. On the other hand, sustained sprinting doesn't work--because carbs deplete rapidly, and turning over to only fat-burning after carbs are gone is a slow, clumsy, awkward process that makes you feel like crap [unless you specifically train for it, as many endurance athletes do].Sustained sprinting doesn't work for 2 reasons. First of all you only have enough phosphates in your muscles for a few seconds. Second, after anaerobic glycolysis (i.e. glycogen burning with minimal oxygen) becomes primary, the byproduct of the process -- lactate -- begins to accumulate in the blood and muscles (we call it "lactic acid" in the muscles). Runners refer to this as "having the bear on your back". If you ever want to feel it, go down to your high-school track and run 400 meters as hard as you can. About 3/4 of the way into it, you'll feel it all right.

The acidity of the lactate interferes with the chemical reactions necessary for further converting energy stores to ATP. But lactate itself is a source of energy too. After you stop running, the body clears it fairly rapidly. It generally takes a few hours of fast running to completely deplete your muscles of glycogen. This is generally accepted as the point at which a marathon runner "hits the wall"

JoeHiker
10-28-2005, 14:41
I would add to it that converting fat to simple sugars requires more water than converting carbohydrates to simple sugars. This is why in high heat environments (i.e, hiking in the desert on the PCT) it is good to get as many calories from carbohydrates as you can.

The water is stored in the muscles along with the glycogen. That's why when you eat a lot of carbs (or when a marathoner carbo-loads) you can put on a lot of weight very rapidly. Most of it is the water stored with the glycogen in your muscles. But in order to store that glycogen, you need to consume the water as well.

soulrebel
10-28-2005, 16:55
plyometrics, weights, and going long. (going long=walking, biking, swimming, running for 1-5 hour session on the weekends)

To recover-stretch, yoga, pilates , rest, ice, compression, elevation aka rice, massage, 20 minute walks.

So many fun things to do...so little time.

Glycemic Index is the best indication of how quickly you will absorb and utilize sugars.

Lone Wolf
10-28-2005, 17:04
Just run. I just got back from running 6.5 miles in 45 minutes and held a conversation the whole time. That's an ideal fitness routine.

lobster
10-28-2005, 17:25
Did you stop at Dots to reward yourself?

Lone Wolf
10-28-2005, 18:18
Nope. Continued past Dot's to home, showered up then went back for a few. Daily routine. :jump

neighbor dave
10-28-2005, 18:50
trail work will do it. or hitch hikin' to the moon usually gits me all worked up!!!:bse :jump :bse :jump

lobster
10-28-2005, 19:02
Jogging on the Creeper?? You were making pretty good time for conversation? I know you got a speed hike in the back of your mind!

Lone Wolf
10-28-2005, 20:19
Yuppies jog. I run. A speed hike isn't challenging enough. Unsupported yes.

lobster
10-28-2005, 21:26
Do you think an "unsupported" speed record would hold more esteem in the hiker trash community???

Whistler
10-28-2005, 22:19
I don't think we disagree so much on content as terminology. I'm probably going into way more detail than anyone cares but this is a subject I read and think about almost every day.Thanks for your post. Could you recommend some good books or other resources related to what we're talking about?
-Mark

JoeHiker
10-29-2005, 10:12
There are countless excercise physiology textbooks out there but they tend to be a bit dry.

"Better Training for Distance Runners" by Coe and Martin (Human Kinetics Press) had a very good discussion of this.

"The Lore of Running by Tim Noakes" is a popular book which has a thorough discussion as well. Unfortunately it also devotes a great deal of text to the author's own pet theory (something he calls the "Central Governor Theory" without much to back it up.

Whistler
10-29-2005, 13:06
"Better Training for Distance Runners" by Coe and Martin (Human Kinetics Press) had a very good discussion of this.

"The Lore of Running by Tim Noakes" is a popular book which has a thorough discussion as well. Unfortunately it also devotes a great deal of text to the author's own pet theory (something he calls the "Central Governor Theory" without much to back it up.
I actually have LoR, but kinda skipped those sections.:datz I'll check out that and Better Training... Thanks!
-Mark

chris
11-01-2005, 10:52
Ok, I heard back from the instructor here and sort of understand what he said. We're supposed to talk sometime this week at more length. But, here, roughly is what he said. I've broken things up with his responses a bit.

----------------------
In order to really answer your question regarding exercise and fuel consumption, we would need to address issues like exercise intensity and exercise duration, both of which impact fuel type and fuel consumption, (Kcalories consumed). Ultimately these all impact ATP production during exercise and as well as which raw nutrient, (carbs or fat) is used as the substrate for the ATP.

But basically, Intensity and Duration of exercise impact both calories consumed and from which fuel tank, (carbs or fat) they are consumed from. Generally speaking, higher intensity - higher caloric consumption (with an increase in calories burned from blood glucose and muscle/liver glycogen stores rather than from fat).

I would argue against the statement, "However, several of the people assert that it would take the same amount (in an ideal setting) of calories. That is, they assert that what matters is the distance, rather than the time spent achieving it" Partially because I don't know what the "ideal setting" would be and the fact that "distance" is always impacted by Duration and Intensity. Ultimately, fuel consumption and performance is a multi-faceted concept.

The other statement, "when walking, the body burns fat. When running, the body has to switch to glycogen as it needs less oxygen to convert to energy than fat.", is correct. But we can talk more about that later after you've had a chance to check out the PowerPoint stuff.


-----------------------

So, it seems calorie expenditure (amount) would be affected by speed.

Nean
11-01-2005, 13:19
I fondly remember the time when my routine was work, rest, relax- recover and eat, hoping to put on a little fat, spend some quality couch time.
These days might require Lone Wolfs advice, mind if I jog along with you LW? Just serious, inspired, I'm logging off and going out on a run.:D

lobster
11-01-2005, 19:10
Chris,

So in other words, your teacher never said anything???

chris
11-01-2005, 19:32
Chris,

So in other words, your teacher never said anything???

No, he seemed to say that caloric expenditure and type of calorie used depends on intensity and duration. High intensity burns things like carbs, low intensity things like fat. High intensity burns more calories more calories, but a higher percentage of them come from carbs. Lower intensity burns fewer calories, but more of them come from fat.

Therefore, if you want to burn fat, it is more efficient to exercise at a lower intensity, like walking or hiking, than running (even though running will burn more calories over a given distance).

He gave me some lectures to look over so that we can talk more extensively.