Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
Great find.

There is a lot more to learn from the Kalenjin and Nandi tribes as well. In addition to their genetics, they also lead lives which are far more conducive to recovery. One quote I have seen about the great running tribes, which have been studied extensively, is "it is not so much how they train, but how they recover." They don't bother themselves with the stresses of the world and busy lives when they train.

I find it really interesting that they get 2/3 of their protein from plant sources. It looks to me like key lessons are that they eat natural foods (not processed stuff), eat meat but not a lot, and also that the timing of their meals appears to be of such importance.
 

·
but thinking about it
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
Gatorback said:
Great find.

I find it really interesting that they get 2/3 of their protein from plant sources. It looks to me like key lessons are that they eat natural foods (not processed stuff), eat meat but not a lot, and also that the timing of their meals appears to be of such importance.
I thought the key lesson was, be super skinny without giving up a complete diet. Seriously, they're eating ~3,000 calories/day at 130 pounds, and only running 75 minutes/day? Either their metabolisms are so different from what's considered to be the norm that their diets are irrelevant to the rest of us, or the article doesn't tell anything like a complete story.
 

·
Anti-Hero
Joined
·
10,343 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I wouldn't try to look too deep into it... the general picture here is that they're timing their meals well after their training, they're eating all "natural" foods, and function perfectly well without any type of supplements.
 

·
waterproof*
Joined
·
41,608 Posts
I suspect their gene pool is so good, they would dominate on a diet of cheetos and pop-tarts.

"athletes from just one collection of Kenyans, the Kalenjin tribe, had won approximately 40 percent of all major international middle- and long-distance running competitions in the 10-year period from 1987 to 1997.1

In addition, approximately half of all of the male athletes in the world who have ever run the 10K in less than 27 minutes hail from Kenya. "
 

·
waterproof*
Joined
·
41,608 Posts
this thread is making me hungry.

I goggled "ugali" and it looks like grits.

mmmm grits. Headed to Waffle House for lunch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Undecided said:
Seriously, they're eating ~3,000 calories/day at 130 pounds, and only running 75 minutes/day? Either their metabolisms are so different from what's considered to be the norm that their diets are irrelevant to the rest of us, or the article doesn't tell anything like a complete story.

One burns calories by the mile. Pace actually doesn't make much difference in calories/mile save for one important point -- it can tell us the miles covered if we know the time.

These guys run a bit faster than most.

They're probably averaging better than 5:00/mile. But, at only 5:00/mi. pace, they'll run 15 miles in ONLY 75 minutes!

If we figure around 120 kcal/mile, that's 1800 kcal per day expended just running, and that's in addition to their basic daily caloric expenditure apart from running.

Owen tells us that sometimes they're running at around 4:00/mile pace. They may be covering even more than 15 miles per day.

3000 kcal/day no longer seems like much; in fact it seems inadequate.

There are not many humans who can run a single mile flat out and break the five-minute barrier. These amazing guys string together sub-five-minute miles back-to-back for just over 26 miles. The world marathon record (26 miles, 385 yards) is around a 4:45 pace, if I recall correctly.

Amazing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,270 Posts
al0 said:
Any proof? As for me this statement looks very dubious.
AFAIK it's more-or-less true, i.e. running a mile means performing a certain amount of work (mostly against gravity), irrespective of the rate at which its performed. It doesn't hold true for cycling because much more of the work is performed against air resistance, which increases non-linearly with speed.

OTOH it requires more work for a heavier person to run a mile than a lighter person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
I would gladly see a proof (measurement results) and not merely reasoning.

pretender said:
AFAIK it's more-or-less true, i.e. running a mile means performing a certain amount of work (mostly against gravity), irrespective of the rate at which its performed. It doesn't hold true for cycling because much more of the work is performed against air resistance, which increases non-linearly with speed.

OTOH it requires more work for a heavier person to run a mile than a lighter person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,270 Posts
al0 said:
I would gladly see a proof (measurement results) and not merely reasoning.
*audible sigh*

Just one of many:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/870783
"[T]he rate of increase in Vo2 for a given increase in running speed could be represented as a straight line[.]"

If you search pubmed you'll find lots of papers on the exact relationship but the overall concept (i.e. roughly and within bounds, energy expenditure per mile running does not depend on speed but does depend linearly on subject weight) holds up.
 

·
but thinking about it
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
Ryder321 said:
One burns calories by the mile. Pace actually doesn't make much difference in calories/mile save for one important point -- it can tell us the miles covered if we know the time.

These guys run a bit faster than most.

They're probably averaging better than 5:00/mile. But, at only 5:00/mi. pace, they'll run 15 miles in ONLY 75 minutes!

If we figure around 120 kcal/mile, that's 1800 kcal per day expended just running, and that's in addition to their basic daily caloric expenditure apart from running.

Owen tells us that sometimes they're running at around 4:00/mile pace. They may be covering even more than 15 miles per day.

3000 kcal/day no longer seems like much; in fact it seems inadequate.

There are not many humans who can run a single mile flat out and break the five-minute barrier. These amazing guys string together sub-five-minute miles back-to-back for just over 26 miles. The world marathon record (26 miles, 385 yards) is around a 4:45 pace, if I recall correctly.

Amazing.
Yes, amazing. I'd seen a much lower number of calories/mile for a 130 pound runner on a web-based estimator when I posted earlier, but I don't have any particular reason to believe it was accurate. In retrospect, though, 3,000 seems plausible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
Sorry, but I do not see how you came to your conclusion from that abstract.
And e.g. here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1560747 is stated
"but when expressed in ml.km-1.kg-1 there are no gender differences at similar relative intensities of running. ". Which clearly hints that a dependency on running intensity do exist.

Moreover, the article to which you refer is based not on the real running, but on the thread-mill tests (" Each subject was given a series of treadmill tests") - and they are not the same, see e.g . here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6390604

pretender said:
*audible sigh*

Just one of many:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/870783
"[T]he rate of increase in Vo2 for a given increase in running speed could be represented as a straight line[.]"

If you search pubmed you'll find lots of papers on the exact relationship but the overall concept (i.e. roughly and within bounds, energy expenditure per mile running does not depend on speed but does depend linearly on subject weight) holds up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
al0 said:
Sorry, but I do not see how you came to your conclusion from that abstract.
And e.g. here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1560747 is stated
"but when expressed in ml.km-1.kg-1 there are no gender differences at similar relative intensities of running. ". Which clearly hints that a dependency on running intensity do exist.

Moreover, the article to which you refer is based not on the real running, but on the thread-mill tests (" Each subject was given a series of treadmill tests") - and they are not the same, see e.g . here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6390604
Ryder321 is absolutely correct.

The distanced covered is a very good way to determine calories burned and 125 calories per mile is a standard estimate based on the "average" person--just check the treadmills at your local YMCA and you'll see they've got the 125 per mile programmed in as the default number. The actual number of calories burned will vary from person to person depending largely on their weight, and factoring in metabolism and efficiency, but distance covered is the best way to measure it for any person in particular and is a good way to estimate it across the board for everyone. A person will essentially burn the same number of calories whether they run 10 miles in 2 hours or 10 miles in one hour.

If you want to read up on the issue for some scientific proof, I'd suggest The Lore of Running and Daniel's Running Formula. Those two books contain more than you'd ever want to know. I'm not sure Ryder321 owes anyone a scientific explanation, however, and if you don't want to believe his info you don't have to do so. (But he is right and I can guarantee you I know what I'm talking about).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
How you may guarantee that?

Treadmill is not proof for actual running. And estimations are that - estimations. The same way as some bike computers (e.g Polar) estimate power without a real measurement. They provider some numbers - that are correct BOM - but no better.

Article to which he refers does not support his point (as well as does not contradict it(, at least as far as may be concluded from the abstract.

Nobody owes me scientific proof, but I am not obliged to believe to anybody who does not provide such proof and have each and every right to question his statements.

Gatorback said:
Ryder321 is absolutely correct.

The distanced covered is a very good way to determine calories burned and 125 calories per mile is a standard estimate based on the "average" person--just check the treadmills at your local YMCA and you'll see they've got the 125 per mile programmed in as the default number. The actual number of calories burned will vary from person to person depending largely on their weight, and factoring in metabolism and efficiency, but distance covered is the best way to measure it for any person in particular and is a good way to estimate it across the board for everyone. A person will essentially burn the same number of calories whether they run 10 miles in 2 hours or 10 miles in one hour.

If you want to read up on the issue for some scientific proof, I'd suggest The Lore of Running and Daniel's Running Formula. Those two books contain more than you'd ever want to know. I'm not sure Ryder321 owes anyone a scientific explanation, however, and if you don't want to believe his info you don't have to do so. (But he is right and I can guarantee you I know what I'm talking about).
 

·
RoadBikeReview's Member
Joined
·
5,505 Posts
Undecided said:
I thought the key lesson was, be super skinny without giving up a complete diet. Seriously, they're eating ~3,000 calories/day at 130 pounds, and only running 75 minutes/day? Either their metabolisms are so different from what's considered to be the norm that their diets are irrelevant to the rest of us, or the article doesn't tell anything like a complete story.
What's so hard to figure about that? BMR of a 25 year old, 130lb, 5ft10 male is 1600. Assuming they're engaging in strenuous exercise, and conventional wisdom is a multiplier of 2.5. However, they're only doing it for 75 minutes... so let's make that more like 1.25 (1.25 is pulled out of my ass, but still). Net calories is now 2000. So 75 minutes of running... 1000kcal, that's 800kcal/hr, which works out to something in the neighborhood of 220w. On a bike, averaging 220w for 75 minutes wouldn't be hard at all. Where my knowledge runs dry is running - I have no idea what wattages runners generate. But for an elite runner, I'm going to guess that 220w isn't really that big of a deal.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top