   |
|
 |
|||||||||||||
|
Newsletter Archives: Volume20, August 2000
"I feel better, at age 78, than I have felt in my 45 years of running. Slower, yes, but much happier with my running." I met a runner recently, after a 10-mile race, who was 93 years old. He was mentally alert and just as fired up about finishing as any of the other runners. The number of runners is growing, but the segment of those over 80 is grown faster. I'm proud to say that my father is one of them. These folks are clearly showing that the joys of running continue at any age if you're more conservative and use walk breaks. Yes, you must add more rest, run slower and put strategic walk breaks into your runs. But the endorphins are the same at 80 as they are at 20. And the benefits of extra vitality and a positive attitude cannot be derived from any pills or any other activity I know. An 86-year-old man who ran 30 miles a week told me that his sedentary wife got on him constantly for not settling down and acting his age. He said the problem was mostly solved when he started running during her regular naps. His mileage actually increased and she didn't know any better. No Bone and Joint Damage After More Than 40 Years of Running! Twenty five years ago, many well-meaning doctors (who didn't run) told me that if I continued to run I could expect to be using a cane to walk by the time I reached the age of 55. I'm proud to say that I've passed that barrier now and am averaging over 60 miles a week, enjoying every one of them. I'm actually part of a study. In the early 70s, the labs of David Costill, Ph.D. (physiologist) and Dr. Kenneth Cooper (Aerobics Institute founder) joined resources in a landmark study of world-class athletes. I was proud to be invited as a subject of this study. Over the past decade, these two labs have started bringing us back to see how we've deteriorated. After doing bone scans, CAT scans, and X-rays of all major joint areas, I received a clean bill of orthopedic health. I'm not alone. Two studies have been done on runners over 40 and 50-year periods. Both showed less incidence of arthritis and other joint problems among the runners. Other experts have told me that runners who are genetically predisposed to arthritis will get it but later in life and with less severe symptoms. If running could destroy joints and cartilage, I would have done it. During my competitive years, I pushed the edge, going over it into injury about every three weeks. I was so obsessed with performance that I continued to run, as hard as possible, until I could not. In dozens of cases, I had to take weeks or months off from running because I refused to take a day or two off at the first symptoms. Needless to say, I've had hundreds of injuries. Fortunately, our bodies are programmed to adapt to running and walking and make adjustments. One X-ray specialist told me that I had the knees of a healthy 18-year-old. So now I want to pass on the adjustments I've made which not only have made running more enjoyable but also have kept me from having an overuse injury for over 14 years.  Question: Hi, Jeff, I was hoping you could answer a running-related question for me. I've participated in your training programs here in Boston (training for the Dublin Marathon with the Arthritis Foundation) and am a big fan of your philosophy on running. I just turned 32 and with a good number of races behind me, I've realized of late that the Olympic team ain't calling. I've decided that while I want to continue racing occasionally (half-marathon or less), my real goal is to keep running for the next 50 years. Hard training is fine and I like to improve like everyone else (I currently run 4 to 6 days a week and have one long day, one hill day and one interval day when I can squeeze it in. The rest of my workouts are easy runs and two days of strength training), but not if costs me my knees and running in my 80s. It just doesn't seem worth it. I'm in good health, but I have the usual aches and pains. My doctor keeps telling me that I'm not built for athletics and should take up sauntering. Like most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. This brings me to my question. How should I train to keep running for the next fifty years? What does your experience point to? Would you only do long runs every other week? Would you only do one hard run a week and not two? Would you cut hard days out all together and just enjoy the fitness benefits of easy runs? Would you take a few extra few days off every month? Would you only run four days instead of six? I'm really curious what your answer would be. I have a few of your books and have read all your articles in Runner's World, but I don't think you've answered this question specifically. If you could direct me to an article I missed or comment briefly I would appreciate it very much. I respect your opinion greatly. Regards, Joe Waters Answer: Joe, thanks for your great question, which is more often asked every year, mostly by those over the age of 30. I think that when we're in our 20's we just assume that we'll live forever. Assuming that you're not one of the one tenth of one percent of the population that has structural damage due to football, car accident, etc., the odds are with you that you'll be running strong into your 80's. During my 20's and 30's I did just about everything you can do to damage my joints through running. Recent x-rays, bone scans and cat scans have turned up nothing. I'm now 54, averaging about 60 miles a week. The activities that seem to cause more aggravation are speed training, and pushing yourself too far on long runs. Conversely, if you run every other day, cut down on speedwork, and put walk breaks into all long runs from the beginning, you'll be running strong past the 80 year barrier. I will confess that I take only one day off of running per week, because I enjoy it so much. The enjoyment increased when I started slowing down all of my runs, from the beginning. I start all of my runs at 9-10 min/mi, even on the days when I may finish at 5 min/mi pace. Those fast days are getting fewer and fewer, because they require more rest, they decrease the enjoyment from the runs later in the week, and they produce most of the injuries. At your age, I see no major problem with doing speed training once a week. Just be sure to back off at the first sign of problems in your "weak links." I definitely recommend that long runs be done every other week and even less frequently when they get longer than 18 miles, as noted in my MARATHON book. By running at least two minutes per mile slower than you could run that distance on that day, and inserting walk breaks from the first mile, you reduce the chance of damage. Since I talk to about 10,000 runners a year, I hear of just about every ailment that running can bring. The good news is that almost none of them cause major layoffs. I can count on one hand the people I've talked to over the past 20 years who legitimately damaged their joints from running. We were designed to run. Our bodies make thousands of adjustments to help us run and repair any damage that occurs. Your body responds creatively and positively to running. The key is to keep having fun, and adjust before you get injured. I haven't had a running overuse injury in over 14 years. I wish you the best of running--over the next 70 years or so! Jeff Galloway (reprinted with permission from Joe Henderson's Running Commentary, http://www.joehenderson.com) Time is precious to any runner. It's how we keep score in this sport so we glory in every second saved and worry about each one lost in the race against our goal pace. Phil Uglow from Toronto likes the idea of taking walk breaks during his long runs. But he wrote after reading "Every Minute Counts" (September RC), "Could you talk about how to calculate run-walk times into minutes per kilometer or mile? I train with a number of run-walkers and they are all baffled, as am I, on how to set various paces." Uglow and friends were training for a four-hour marathon. They worried, as most new walk-breakers do, about falling behind their intended pace while walking -- or at least having the breaks play havoc with their splits. Another good reason for letting the time "run" on during walks is that it simplifies split-taking and pacing, I told Uglow. If you think it's a complication to include walk breaks in total time, think how confusing it becomes if you punch out during the breaks. I recommended that he not check his pace at the usual one-kilometer or one-mile intervals. Some Ks and miles might include two breaks and others none. Instead, take splits at longer intervals such as ever 5K to five miles. This equalizes the number of walks per timing period and gives a truer picture of how the pace is going. Despite the walking, or maybe because of it, the pace holds up better than you might think. Brief breaks cost less time than you might imagine. If you walk for one minute in every mile, how much time do you think you'd lose against someone who runs nonstop? Your first guess might be a minute per mile. That would be the right answer only if you screeched to a dead stop during the breaks. But remember that you're still moving at about half your running pace so this cuts your overall slowdown to about 30 seconds per mile (slightly more for the fastest runners, slightly less for the slowest). Realize too that the walks affect your running pace in two good ways: 1. Run-walkers tend to go slightly faster in the run segments than if they tried to run without pause. Notice the people beside you who don't stop as you take your break. You're likely to catch right back up to them as you resume running...and to leave them behind as the distance adds up. 2. Run-walkers tend to hold their pace longer (or even increase it), while nonstop runners are more likely to meet a wall sooner. The walks also act as leg-savers and energy-extenders, which help you avoid a time-wasting slowdown late in a run or race. The longer the distance, the less the difference in pace between run-walking and run-every-stepping. A four-hour marathoner like Philip Uglow might lose no time at all by taking his breaks. he might even save some precious seconds per mile -- which multiply into minutes in a marathon. The Athlete's Kitchen "My body must have a metabolic defect-I'm always hungry." "I don't know if I need to see a nutritionist or a psychologist. I often devour a box of crackers in the blink of an eye. I feel like I'm binge-eating...and that scares me." "I try not to keep cookies in the house, because when they're there, I eat them--too many of them." For many active people, food is a feared enemy. Runners, skaters, and rowers alike try to stay away from it. They endure hunger all day. When they do succumb to food, their eating tends to be a fast and furious frenzy that's seemingly out-of-control. Some of these clients have a full-blown eating disorder, but the majority are simply hungry. Too hungry. Being hungry all the time is not a personality quirk. Rather, hunger is the body's request for fuel. Hunger is a very powerful physiological force that creates a strong desire to eat. Unfortunately, in our thin-is-in society, many active people fail to honor this simple request because they fear food as being fattening. The thought of eating elicits a sense of panic: "Oh no, if I eat, I'll get fat." Not the case. Most athletes eat without getting fat! Food, after all, is fuel. But problems do arise when food is denied and deprived (as happens with a strict reducing diet), when hunger becomes the norm. The result is an abnormal physiological state that is known as starvation. Starvation has been inflicted upon many people, including third world natives suffering from famines, poverty-stricken people at the end of the month when no food money is left, and victims of the World War II concentration camps. Starvation is also common among athletes who are intent on losing weight. These include wrestlers, light-weight rowers, jockeys and others who participate in sports with weight limits, as well as the athletes who simply believe thinner is better and diet themselves to (supposed) perfection. The question arises: What's the cost of starvation? What happens to the body and the mind when food is restricted and body weight is abnormally low? In 1950, Ancel Keys and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied the physiology of starvation. They carefully monitored 36 young, healthy, psychologically normal men who for 6 months were allowed to eat only half their normal intake (similar to a strict reducing diet or anorectic eating). For 3 months prior to this semi-starvation diet, the researchers carefully studied each man's behaviors, personality, and eating patterns. The men were then observed for three to nine months of refeeding. As their body weight fell to 25% below baseline, the researchers learned that many of the symptoms that might have been thought to be specific to anorexia or bulimia were actually the result of starvation. The most striking change was a dramatic increase with food preoccupation. The subjects, similar to people with anorexia, thought about food all the time. They talked about it, read about it, dreamed about it, and even collected recipes. They dramatically increased their consumption of coffee and tea, and chewed gum excessively. They became depressed, had severe mood swings, experienced irritability, anger and anxiety. They became withdrawn, had little sexual interest, and lost their sense of humor. They had cold hands and feet, felt weak and dizzy, and their hair fell out. Their basal metabolic rate (the amount of food needed to exist) dropped by 40% as the body adapted to conserve energy. (Do these changes sound familiar to anyone you know?) During the study, some of the men were unable to maintain control over food; they would binge eat if the opportunity presented itself. During the refeeding period, many of the men ate continuously--big meals followed by snacking. Several ate until they were uncomfortably full, became nauseous, and then vomited. These abnormal eating behaviors lasted for about 5 months; by 8 months, most of them regained their standard eating behaviors. On average, they initially regained 10% more than their original weight, but then gradually lost that excess and returned close to their baseline weight. So what can we learn from this starvation study? 1. Preoccupation with food is a sign your body is too hungry. Hunger creates a very strong physiological drive to eat. 2. Binge eating stems from starvation. If you worry about being unable to stop eating once you start, you have likely gotten too hungry. 3. Weight is more than a matter of will power. That is, if you lose weight, your body will fight to return to a genetically normal level. 4. Dieters who restrict to the point of semi-starvation are likely to regain the weight they lost--plus more. Hence, if you want to permanently lose weight, you simply need to push yourself away from the dinner table when you are content but not stuffed, when you can say to yourself, "I've had enough to eat. I could have more but I'd rather not because I'd rather be a little leaner." You might find it helpful to know how many calories you are supposed to eat to maintain or to lose weight. To do this, simply--
The next time you get into an eating frenzy and wonder if you are borderline bulimic, calculate your day's intake. You'll likely see a huge discrepancy between what you have eaten and what your body deserves.Recognize hunger's power--and stop getting too hungry! Nancy Clark, MS, RD is nutrition counselor at Boston-area's SportsMedicine Brookline and author of Nancy Clark's Sports Nutrition Guidebook, 2nd Edition. To order this best-selling book, send $20 to Sports Nutrition Materials, 830 Boylston, St #205, Brookline MA 02467 or visit http://www.nancyclarkrd.com. Questions about slow marathons (from Jeff Galloway's Marathon! - revised February 2000) "I've tried to run a marathon slowly, and I became more sore than I was after a fast one." Jeff: If you're getting sore or feeling more effort when going slowly, then you're running inefficiently. By shortening your stride and keeping the feet low to the ground, you incur very little exertion. In this very efficient running mode, your main running muscles are mostly resting. I've talked to several fast runners who seem to be running correctly, yet still became sore after a marathon. After a few more questions, however, I learned that they went into the marathon with a long run of only 19, 16, or, in one case, 12 miles. Whenever you ask your body to go that much further than you have gone in the recent past, you can predict that there will be some muscle retribution afterward. To reduce the chance of soreness under any long run mileage increase, don't run with the same form every step of the way. By taking walking breaks early and often you'll accomplish this. "Why should I waste a marathon by running slowly? I don't understand how you can run a slow marathon. You have to train for six months and I want to make the most of this once, or twice, a year, challenge." Jeff: I understand where you're coming from. For my first 60 marathons, I was the competitor. When the gun fired, the force of my being was directed at reaching the finish line as I would in any race: with nothing left. While I ran some fast times including a 2:16, I did not enjoy these experiences. When I placed well, such as a win in Honolulu and fifth and seventh place finishes at Boston, the afterglow was compromised by weeks of healing: soreness, tiredness, blisters and ego (which always told me, even when I ran well, that I could have run faster). Injury of the Month: Shin Splints I've not found that an extended layoff speeds up the healing of shin splints. Here are my suggestions. There's some info on shin splints in my original book: Galloway's Book on Running. 1. Make sure that your shoes are right for your feet, and that you're not pronating so much that you could use an orthotic. Even if you over pronate, a good arch support will often give you enough correction, but make sure. 2. Put much more walking into your long runs. If you've been doing a one-minute walk break every 4 minutes, do a 1 minute every 2 minutes. 3. Try to stay below the threshold of irritation. If running 3 miles every other day makes it hurt, then drop to 2 miles and put walk breaks into each. 4. Don't race or do speedwork until the shin splints go away. 5. You can run through shin splints, as long as you don't have a stress fracture or other more serious shin problem. Get Over That Hill: Next time you ponder walking (instead of running) up a hill, consider this: That hill probably isn't as steep as you think. According to a series of experiments done at the University of Virginia, people often overestimate the steepness of a hill, especially when tired. In fact, most people estimated hills to be three times as steep as they really were. (from "Health and Fitness" by Alisa Bauman, Runner's World, March 2000, p. 19, www.runners world.com) Did you know . . . Researchers have learned that the activity involved in chewing gum can burn extra calories. The added energy expenditure amounts to about 11 calories an hour, say investigators at Minnesota's Mayo Clinic. But a dieter would have to chew calorie-free gum every waking moment for a year to lose 11 pounds. (from Special Supplement to the Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter: February 2000, www.healthletter.tufts.edu)
Home | Site
Map | Contact Us Copyright © 2003, JFG, Inc. |
Training Programs
Newsletter
Archives