Todd Moody writes:

>I think the stereotype of the emaciated runner is less applicable
>than it used to be.  More runners have learned that there is
>value in some form of cross-training, but there are still many
>who have not learned it, or don't want to hear it.  I live a
>short distance away from a park frequented by distance runners (a
>5-mile gravel trail through the woods) and I get to observe this
>phenomenon regularly.

What is going on here is that serious distance runners are not strictly, or
even primarily interested in health or appearance. They are interested in
ultimate performance. Or for those who are not so competitive, if not that,
then just the way running makes you feel while you are doing it, and the
pleasure you get from it. This "serious runner" approach is usually, or at
least often, somewhat at cross-purposes with health concerns.

Some people may get into distance running initially out of concern for
health. But if they get bit by the performance/ competition bug, health/
appearance concerns become secondary. The best runners in the world who
hold most of the world records, the Kenyans and Ethiopians, don't
cross-train much if any, and they are beating the pants off just about
everyone else other than the Moroccans/ Algerians. They focus on the
running and they are skinnier than most all the other runners. Some
individual runners at the elite level do cross-train, of course, but on
average, it just doesn't seem to make much difference. And if it makes you
gain weight, it will generally hurt performance.

Physiologically, if you look at how oxygen transport works, it is not
advantageous to carry any more weight around than absolutely necessary if
you are interested in best distance running performance. You want to find
the optimum power-to-weight ratio. Not only does extra unproductive weight
(Type II fast-twitch fibers above the waist) decrease one's power-to-weight
ratio (which in distance running has primarily to do with Type I
slow-twitch fibers in the legs), it negatively impacts VO2max. Oxygen in
high demand that could be going to the prime working tissues (legs) will
get siphoned off just to maintain tissue elsewhere (chest, shoulders, etc.)
that is not paying its way in helping you run faster or more efficiently
compared to what it "costs." This has actually been calculated out. Owen
Anderson, one of the better-known exercise physiologists, in his
publication Running Research News a few years ago, calculated that for
every excess pound of weight over one's ideal competitive performance
running weight, you lose 2-3 seconds per mile. That is a lot if you are
competing.

I was a serious distance runner for years, and I don't know that I ever met
another serious runner, at least one who took competition seriously--in
high school, college, or even past their prime in masters age-group
competition--who was in it primarily for health. But if one _is_ into
running strictly for health, then unless you are doing a well-planned
caloric-restriction diet I would agree that being at such a low weight is
most probably not as good as being at a higher one; not otherwise, though.
When I was competing in age-group competition a few years ago, it was
certainly true that more people then were into cross-training than in
earlier years, but the ones who had bulked up a bit above the waist weren't
the ones winning the majority of the races. It was the skinny, wiry types
with the chests with ribs showing through.

Eventually I ended up quitting age-group competition because the supreme
competitive efforts would leave my immune system trashed for too long
afterwards. I added some resistance training, filled out a bit in the chest
and arms, and gained about 10 lbs. It's a compromise I have been willing to
make for the sake of my health: I look better and don't get sick as often
from a depressed immune system. But I still find myself a bit ambivalent
about it at times, because on the other hand, I don't enjoy the running
quite as much as I used to, because I am now not as light on my feet; the
extra weight is harder on my legs than it used to be; and I run slower and
tire somewhat faster. Really it all depends on what your priorities are.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>