Friday, September 5, 2014

Leadville Post-Morten; Becoming More Fat-Adapted

A lot has happened since my Leadville 100 race report.

Simply put, it was a rather traumatic experience from the standpoint that I feel like I trained hard and was ready mentally and physically and yet my stomach once again came unglued--worse than ever before. I have said this before and I'll say it again: It is amazing to me that I finished Leadville, especially after literally passing out/fainting at Twin Lakes. Few times have I ever dug so deep and, when you do go that far into the well, it takes a lot out of you. But, despite it all, I resolved to finish--I'd been to the depths before and knew I could get it done. And I did. So, from that standpoint, I couldn't be more proud.

In the wake of the race, I sought the advice of a professional nutritionist, specifically Abby McQueeney Penamonte, who was the top woman in the Grand Slam of Ultrarunning in 2013. Long story short: What we've found is that my body likes to burn carbs, not fat, while I run--not good for ultrarunners. We also found that I've been consuming too many calories at Leadville. I don't need 250-300 calories an hour, as I've tried to do over the past years (more is better, right? Wrong!). What I need is between 62-187 calories an hour. What that means is that I can get by on just 62 calories an hour (not ideal but doable), but my max caloric intake per hour is 187. As far as carbs, my current numbers have it that I need to keep my hourly carb consumption during races to between 9-36 grams.

What I've learned is that, even if I keep my calories under that 187 threshold, my stomach will still go to hell in a hand cart if I'm taking in too many carbs. A-ha!

In case you're wondering how we got those numbers, allow me to explain. Basically, I got on a treadmill and ran at 9:22 pace (a super easy pace I would run for much of Leadville, minus the big climbs) with an oxygen mask covering my mouth. It was an easy pace; my heart rate never got above 103 beats per minute. Meanwhile, Abby was measuring the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide, which produced the above data.

Do I think this data is 100% accurate? On the whole, yes. The data tell me what I need and do not need and where I need to go next with my training and diet. After years of struggling in Leadville, I feel like I finally have some answers.

Which brings me to fat-adaption.

I have always thought of myself as fairly fat-adapted. Every morning, except weekends, I go for my runs with zero calories in me. I can run for over three hours on nothing. Plus, I pretty much ran (and walked) the last 50 miles of Leadville this year on nothing but body fat since I couldn't keep anything down. Contrary to all of that, what the data show is that my body likes to use carbs over fat. Of the 623 calories I burn per hour while running, 360 are from carbs and and 263 are from fat. I need to more-than-reverse those numbers.

Why?

At any given time, you have between 1,500-2,000 calories in glycogen stores (sugar/carbs) you can burn. When you run out of glycogen, you slow up considerably and "hit the wall." Meanwhile, even the leanest athlete has tens of thousands of calories in fat they can burn. The key is teaching your body how to use those fat stores efficiently. That's where diet comes into play. If you eat too many carbs, your body gets addicted to carbs and they become the preferred fuel source. But if you eat fewer carbs and more healthy fats, along with proteins, veggies and fruits, your body will learn to use fat as its primary fuel.

What that means is that, if you are a good fat-burner, you need fewer and fewer calories during races, even 100-milers, meaning there's less of a strain on your stomach because it's not constantly getting bombarded with gels, sugary concoctions, etc. I know a fat-adapted athlete who ran a 2:50 at Boston on nothing--he took in not one calorie. That is incredible to me.

For reasons I wish not to go into on here, it will be impossible for me to adopt a truly fat-adapted diet across all meals of the day. Nor do I wish to do so--drinking spoons of oil and adding bacon to everything doesn't appeal to me. However, I believe I can become more fat-adapted through better training practices, more of an emphasis on MAF training (you know me; I'm a MAF disciple), and more careful planning around my breakfast and lunch (two meals every day that I have full control of). There are some things I can do during dinner, but ultimately I am unable and unwilling to impose this way of eating on my family. We like spaghetti and I'm not going to give that up. But there are other things I can do, and much of it I'm now starting to do.

All that aside, in looking back at Leadville, I believe pre-race stress was a major factor. All summer long, I worked my tail off directing an ad campaign, which launched the Monday before the race--as in five days before the big event. My cortisol was probably quite high. That might explain why my taper for Leadville was hideous--I had simply reached the point where I couldn't recover adequately and adapt from the hard training I'd been putting in all summer. I didn't share this with anyone at the time, but I also experienced a few bouts of vertigo the day before the race, including a horrible dizzy spell during the pre-race briefing. The altitude was kicking my ass from the second we arrived in Leadville. It was just one of those years. If I return in 2015, there are a few things I'll do to be ready for the altitude.

I am letting go of the sub-20-hour dream at Leadville. While I am confident I could still clock a fast 100 on a flat course, Leadville continues to vex me. At this point, Western States is my race of choice in 2015. If I don't get into Western, then I'll of course heavily consider a return to Leadville. Whatever happens, I'll be more fat-adapted and I'll be taking in the right number of calories--that's for sure!

Final word: Running ultras is important to me. But over the years I've learned not to take it too seriously. I don't get paid for this (thank God), and there are several other things in life that come before ultras. So, with that, I do want to improve and learn, but ultimately I'm trying not to take this stuff too seriously.

18 comments:

  1. Wow, this is a wealth of good information, thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, AJ. This is going to be an adventure and you've been a real inspiration. Looks like next week I'm going in for another test that will tell me what heart rates correspond with the different zones. This test will show me exactly what my MAF range is. Can't wait!

      Delete
  2. Great post, Wyatt.

    I'm very interested in this stuff as I too think my stomach-- not necessarily my fitness-- is my limiting factor in 100 milers. I had a rough go at Leadville this year due to many reasons, but primarily due to my stomach. It's frustrating. Feeling nauseated is absolutely no fun. I've never been able to make it farther than ~60 miles without stomach issues. I tried adjusting my water:calorie ratio this year, and I did last longer before running into stomach troubles, but everything went downhill after Winfield. I'm kind of at a loss. It's such a hard problem to solve because I have to run ~11-12 hours before it becomes a problem! And that usually only happens once a year!

    The two most likely remedies left that I can think of (and I've tried almost everything) are: 1) lower my caloric intake later in the race-- before I feel nauseated (I do try to consume a ton of calories: 300+/hour), and 2) measure and try to raise the pH of my energy drink to combat "acid stomach", a possible cause of nausea. Maybe by adding a little sodium bicarbonate to each bottle? Or maybe by taking Zantac? There's also 3) taking anti-nausea medication (e.g., Zofran), but I don't really like that idea and I'm doubtful it'll really work.

    It would be interesting to get some numbers like you did and see if they reveal anything. I'm a little skeptical about going nuts with fat-adaptation as I'm under the impression that it should just happen naturally as I train more and more (especially with long runs). I've never done the bonk run routine, so maybe that's an option to further encourage adaptation. It doesn't sound fun, though!

    Let me know how it goes! I'll be entering the Western States lottery again this year... Maybe we'll see each other there, if not at Leadville again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew -
      With all due respect to Wyatt, MAF is a great tool, but it will only take you so far. Fat adaption from training -- whether you do starvation runs, run in fasted state, run slow, etc... -- has limits. Wyatt has a wealth of experience and even won a 100, but these results show that gains are slow to come after a point. True fat adaption comes from what you eat. You are what you eat, as they say. (I guess, you burn what you eat!) If you listen to Dr Maffetone's podcast on Endurance Planet or read his work, you will see one thing very clearly -- no sugar, no processed foods, and no high glycemic foods of any kind (like GMO fruits). The diet he describes is more "paleo" than "LCHF", but it is very much a carb restriction diet.

      I applaud Wyatt for going through this process and sharing his results with us all. And I respect that a high fat diet doesn't work in his life (or anyone's), but it is the best way to get this done.

      AJ

      Delete
    2. Andrew: It's hard to say one diet will fix everything but I do think we eat way too many carbs these days. I also think we run too fast. Back in the 70s there was less intensity in training and more lower-intensity running, which allowed guys like Bill Rodgers to hammer it for 26.2 miles without any calories. I think definitely there's something to diet in terms of becoming fat-adapted. In actuality, fat adaption isn't new. As mentioned above, it was how guys back in the day fueled themselves.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the replies.

      I've certainly heard plenty of praise for the benefits of a paleo-style diet and MAF training. I tune in to Endurance Planet now and again, for sure. There's lots of good advice there and I think techniques like these certainly have there place.

      For me, it's all about moderation-- both in diet and in training. Certainly for the modern American diet moderation means reducing your carb intake (especially refined carbs), eating more fruits and veggies, and-- gasp!-- fat. That's more or less my nutrition philosophy. However, I'm still going to eat sandwiches, pasta, and drink beer! I'll eat whole grains when I can, but I'm not religious about it. I just don't see the benefits of taking it to the extreme. Maybe I'm wrong. But it would be my guess that fat adaption is more of an insurance policy than a guarantee of a trouble-free stomach when race day comes around. Ingesting carbs while racing is one of the few proven ergogenic aids. I can believe that I'm trying to take too many, too quickly. And I can certainly believe that being fat adapted would help me survive the periods of time when I have to dial back the carbs a bit. (I am curious to see how fat adapted I am. Some numbers would be interesting.) I dunno... Diet is very loaded subject. There are so many diet cults out there, I think my knee-jerk reaction to any diet is skepticism. I try to keep an open mind, and I'll keep experimenting... I just don't think I'm ready to jump on the paleo train quite yet.

      Delete
  3. Certainly sheds light for all of us non-fat adapted athletes. I love the idea of REDUCING the expectations of food intake during a run as opposed to increasing it. Thanks for sharing Wyatt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, Chuck. The key is consuming the least amount of calories in a race while still remaining adequately fueled. As Abby said to me, I over-filled my gas tank and that excess gas had to come out one way or the other.

      Delete
  4. Are you going to be trying the super starch/mct oil/MAP ect approach for fueling?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William: Right now I'm experimenting with UCan, which has superstarch. I might also try Vitargo. I actually think gels are OK--just not too many. The key for me, I think, is staying within my calories and carb ranges.

      Delete
  5. How much do you think the altitude or the heat jacks with the food - regardless of whether it is a ring ding or a piece of bacon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hard to say, GZ. I think this year I had a lot of issues with altitude. With me, the effects of altitude are very inconsistent. But I do know that if I'm taking in more calories and carbs than my body can handle, such over-consumption will be made worse by the 10,000+ feet! As for heat, I have always been pretty good in hot weather. It never really gets hot in Leadville though it was a tad bit warm around Winfield, for sure. It's a hard race, to put it mildly. You'll find that out when you line up next year!

      Delete
  6. Wyatt, one thing outside of all this was that you lost a ton of weight from deyhdration at LT. Every single race I've ever done at altitude I had problems with that too...must be a tough one to tackle when also balanced against caloric intake and so on.

    Also, what sort of fat and protein are you ingesting during races? The best results I've ever had was when I was eating as much 'real food' for as long as possible and not just pure sugar.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I re-read some of "The Art and Science of Low Carb Performance" tonight, I highly recommend it. They determined the average high-carb athlete only burns about 252 kcal per hour of fat (to your 263!). But, a fat-adapted (aka LCHF) athlete can burn as much as 810 kcals per hour of fat. Three times as much fat per hour...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also, don't forget there is a difference between measuring what you burn, and measuring what you can digest. They are not the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, Brett. No way to take in over 600 calories an hour and not spend the entire race puking!

      Delete
  9. That's what makes all of this so fun - so many variables that you can never figure it all out.

    Your point is correct in the long run, but not in the short run. Even though you may only burn 100 calories an hour, you could probably consume 1000 in the first 3 hours (or whatever the number is). Or later if you have a stretch where you don't consume any calories for a few hours, you could probably consume 3-500 and play catch up. And you will have stretches where you can't consume anything.

    ReplyDelete