# Buying running shoes



## canabiz (Apr 4, 2009)

Hey guys, I want to get into running (again) because I have high cholesterol and the doc told me to burn some calories and lose some weight (I am 5'11" and 190lbs so I am not terribly overweight but it's better to nip this in the bud)

I did run quite a bit when I was younger and before immigrating to Canada. Now I have calf pain when I run (shin splint, from what I understand, it could be because I didn't have the right shoes)

I did some research on Google and on RFD (I also cross-posted over there) and it looks like i should get a GAIT analysis done before heading out to purchase the right running shoes. Do you guys recommend going to places like the Running Room, as opposed to Sport Chek or Foot Locker, to get good advice on running shoes? I bought my first pair of skates at Canadian Tire and that was a big mistake as I had so much pain skating, i then went to a skate shop and got the right skates and that's all she wrote...

Being a guy who always likes to look for deals (don't we all?!), should I shop for shoes in the States/online for the best deal or is it better off for me to pay a bit more here but have the peace of mind knowing I didn't skimp on my health, so to speak.

Is there different type of running shoes e.g. one for road, one for trail or are there *universal* ones that can be used in any situation? We just moved to a new area with some trails and I'd like to take advantage of that.

Thank you guys and hope to see you on the road or the trail, wherever you are! I figure running is possibly one of the most frugal way (if not the most frugal) of exercising you can get.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Retail prices of running shoes are ridiculously high compared to US. I usually just buy my shoes off of ebay. Usually save about $50.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

I'm no expert but aren't the people working at places like sport chek kids who get paid min wage and know little or nothing about what they sell? I would be very surprised if you could walk into a store like that and get expert advice on shoes. That's not to say they wouldn't carry very good running shoes, just that you'd need to do your own research on the internet rather than expecting them to be able to offer any useful advice.

Personally I prefer biking over running.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

On the "gait-analysis", you can get that done at running room. You only need to do that once. They'd get you to run or walk around store, and watch how you run and walk and the amount of pronation. It's not very complicated, and it's not very scientific either.


----------



## mcoursd2006 (May 22, 2012)

Your shinsplints may be due to your body not used to running anymore, rather than the shoes. You might just want to cut back on the amount you're doing and build up your miles slowly. Some people swear by a certain brand/model/type of running shoe. Others it doesn't matter. And cost is no indication. I find out what shoes I like and then order them through Sporting Life when they go on sale, and they always go on sale.

BTW, running may not be the best way for someone to lose weight, if that's your goal.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

I will never again buy shoes online as the fit may not be exactly the same as the pair you are trying on in the store.
Sportcheck staff doesn't know anything, runningroom staff has a bit of training in doing some basic evaluation.
You also may want to look into proper inserts, some of them can be customized to your feet as you would heat them up before you put them on first time, this is a good solution since even decent shoes have very basic inserts.
Google is your friend ;-)


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

mcoursd2006 said:


> BTW, running may not be the best way for someone to lose weight, if that's your goal.


This. Exercise to feel good, not to lose weight.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> This. Exercise to feel good, not to lose weight.


I don't get it. Why should you not exercice if you are trying to lose weight?

Personally, I think a two pronged approach (exercice and diet) works the best to lose weight.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

No, that is not a corollary of what I wrote. Exercise is generally an ineffective way to lose weight, and running in particular (or any long, slow cardio) is not the most effective way to lose weight. This isn't controversial.


----------



## rusty_shackleford (May 18, 2012)

speaking from experience and based on some research i've done, diet is a majority of it. you can exercise all you want but if you aren't eating clean, you aren't going to be very effective in getting healthier. with that said, i would invest in good shoes since that will still be cheaper than a gym membership. definitely give the running room or something similar a try.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> No, that is not a corollary of what I wrote. Exercise is generally an ineffective way to lose weight, and running in particular (or any long, slow cardio) is not the most effective way to lose weight. This isn't controversial.


Caloric input - caloric output = Weight change

A person of 75 Kg running at 10 Km/H for 30 minutes will spend about 366 calories. If this persons runs 5 times per week while maintaining the same diet, he will lose roughly one pound of fat per week. Not too shabby.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Need Steve41 to come into this thread, or Brad. There is a huge range of evidence on this point.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

running isn't great exercise. 
Lift weights, build muscle..
muscle speeds your metabolism so you burn calories quicker. even at rest.
If you want cardio - get an elliptical for low impact movement.


----------



## canabiz (Apr 4, 2009)

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

I did lift weight before and while it makes me *look good* with big biceps and what have you, I found myself eating more red meat and stuff that contains high cholesterol (high protein as well mind you) as I feel the need to *bulk up*...maybe I wasn't doing it the right way but regardless, when the doc told me to change my diet and exercise, I am having more fruits and veggies and less meat overall...it's also easier on your wallet!

I don't want to join a gym or get a treadmill or any sort of cardio equipment or anything for 2 reasons

1. Cheaper to just step outside and run. Like i said in the first post, running is possibly the most frugal way to exercise. Just you and a good pair of shoes and off you go.

2. Enjoy the fresh air and the outdoors. I work in an office from 8-4 Monday through Friday and with our colder climate where you don't have much motivation to go outside, the more I stay out when I can, the better for me.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Guigz said:


> Caloric input - caloric output = Weight change
> 
> A person of 75 Kg running at 10 Km/H for 30 minutes will spend about 366 calories. If this persons runs 5 times per week while maintaining the same diet, he will lose roughly one pound of fat per week. Not too shabby.


The trick lies in "maintaining the same diet." Yes, you expend about that many calories, but you will be hungrier because you're exercising more, and unless you are extremely disciplined about counting calories you are likely to eat more than 366 extra calories per day. 

For example, if you consume just one 12-ounce soft drink in excess of your daily caloric needs, you would need to run 19 minutes at 5 miles per hour to burn it off. It's easier for many people to exercise more than it is to eat less, but it's easier than anything to eat more. You can exercise for an hour and in a five-minute snack gain back all the calories you lost.

Truly intense endurance exercise can make you lose weight. The cyclists in the Tour de France burn about 8,100 calories per day every day for 21 days. You'd have to eat a dozen big Macs every day to counterbalance a loss of that many calories. When my girlfriend and I biked from Toronto to Montreal a couple of summers ago we burned thousands more calories every day than we could eat. I lost a pound over the 10 days, although there was an "afterburn" effect and I continued to lose weight for a few weeks afterwards even though by that point I didn't want to go anywhere near the bike for a while and wasn't getting any exercise. The afterburn is estimated to amount to about 15% of the calories expended in the physical activity itself.

This is by no means an argument against running -- running is great for many reasons, as already pointed out by other commenters here, and exercise is almost certainly more important to your overall health than your diet is. It's just that eating less, or eating differently, has a bigger effect on weight loss than exercise does. I exercise for my health; I watch my diet in order to control my weight.


----------



## faline (Feb 10, 2011)

Hi Canabiz!

Fellow Ottawan here. I love running and we are so lucky in Ottawa with the network of trails in the Greenbelt and Gatineau park.

I was in a similar situation a few years ago - I wanted to get into running but I was a victim of too much too fast, pavement, not the proper shoes, and improper posture. I got a sore back and gave up for many years.

When I moved closer to the greenbelt I gave it another try on the trails and was more conscious of listening to my body. I got the proper shoes and made a conscious effort of engaging my core (imo strong core is key!). I now love running and it feels wonderful --- ESPECIALLY on some of my favourite trails in the greenbelt or the Gatineaus! Its somewhat less impact and a lot more fun. Yoga helps a lot too, I think. I agree with you 110% that it beats a gym membership and it is just one part of an overall healthy lifestyle. 

When it comes to shoes, I figure it is an investment in health and so I'm willing to pay a bit extra. I've had good experiences at Sports 4 on Bank St and I think prices are a bit more reasonable than Running Room. I bought my last pair at Running Room because I had a coupon, but I might again next time.

Another thing to consider is the Running Room's running programs. I've never done one myself, but I've heard great things about them. Not sure if they do trails though.

Happy running!


----------



## faline (Feb 10, 2011)

One more thing... because of the structure of my feet I ended up getting sasamoiditis in my foot in the Adirondacks (mountain climbing, not running) last summer so I ended up seeing a specialist for orthotics. 

If you do end up going this route (it was mostly covered under my gov't benefits so well worth it for me) I highly recommend Ryan at Solefit orthotics. I heard of him through a forum on the Running Room webiste and he came highly recommended. He does an analysis, films the way you run on a treadmill that you both review, and will give you a list of recommended shoes to buy. (on top of the orthotics). All follow up visits for the next year are included in the initial fee.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

brad said:


> *It's just that eating less, or eating differently, has a bigger effect on weight loss than exercise does*. I exercise for my health; I watch my diet in order to control my weight.


I challenge the bolded assumption. You mention yourself that cyclist in tour de France burn upwards of 8,100 calories per day. By not eating at all (i.e., diet) the maximum calorie deficit that you can hope to achieve is what, 3,000 cal? Therefore *exercise is* much more efficient at making you leaner much faster than diet.

What you are mentionning is that it is much harder not to eat more when you are exercising. This may be true, but it is about willpower and selfcontrol it does not affect the efficacy of exercice as a weight loss technique.

Much like saving $, there are two parts to the equation, reducing spending (i.e., dieting) and augmenting income (i.e., exercising). There is only so much you can do by reducing spending (can't reduce below 0) but income is unlimited. 

Tl;dr Exercicing makes you lose weight faster than diet. However, you need to have the selfcontrol not to overeat.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

People aren't math (or physics) equations. http://www.charlespoliquin.com/Blog...tion-Documentary-Sends-the-Wrong-Message.aspx

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2010/03/weight-aint-about-exercise.html

There are two recent evidence-based links for you - one Canadian, one American. 

Exercise is really REALLY important for overall well-being, but it just isn't that effective for weight loss (and it is nothing like as effective as you are suggesting). Read again what Brad wrote - he was burning so many calories in his 10-day ride that he found it difficult to physically eat enough to replenish them. How much weight did he lose? ONE POUND.

Promoting exercise as an effective technique for weight loss does people (and exercise) a disservice, because it leaves them disappointed and it doesn't produce the results they're hoping for.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I don't know if it's accurate to say that one of exercise or diet is more effective than the other.

I think from a time perspective - diet is far more efficient because it doesn't take any more time to eat smaller portions. In fact, it should take a bit less time to eat less. 

I think exercise is a perfectly valid way to lose weight, but you have to work hard and spend a lot of time doing the right type of exercise. Running, biking, swimming, walking etc etc. And Brad's point about increased hunger is true as well.

My opinion is that someone who wants to lose weight should start with their diet, but increase their exercise too (assuming they aren't already doing a lot of exercise).


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Guigz said:


> Therefore *exercise is* much more efficient at making you leaner much faster than diet.


The weight of scientific opinion goes the other way. Experts who vehemently disagree with each other on many matters agree on this -- for example, Marion Nestle (pronounced "nestle" as in a cat nestling comfortably among the pillows), one of the leading proponents of the calories in/calories out approach to diet and exercise, says in her recent book "Why Calories Count": "Balancing calorie intake with physical activity takes considerable effort. Unfortunately overeating calories takes hardly any effort at all. That is the principal reason why calorie intake dominates expenditure as the more critical factor in weight loss." Her nemesis Gary Taubes, who argues that the mainstream dietary establishment has it all wrong and not all calories are created equal, makes exactly the same point in a recent Newsweek editorial: "There are two obvious reasons why this idea that working out makes you skinny or keeps you skinny is likely to be just wrong. One is that it takes a significant amount of exercise to burn even a modest amount of calories. Run three miles, says Cornell University researcher Brian Wansink in the documentary, and you’ll burn up roughly the amount of calories in a single candy bar. And this brings up the second reason: you’re likely to be hungrier after strenuous exercise than before and so you’re more likely to eat that candy bar’s worth of calories after than before. (When the American Heart Association and the American College of Sports Medicine jointly published physical-activity guidelines back in 2007, they described the evidence that exercise can even prevent us from growing fatter as 'not particularly compelling,' which was a kind way to put it.)"


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> People aren't math (or physics) equations. http://www.charlespoliquin.com/Blog...tion-Documentary-Sends-the-Wrong-Message.aspx
> 
> http://www.weightymatters.ca/2010/03/weight-aint-about-exercise.html
> 
> ...


Poor them, they don't lose the weight because they don't put in the work? Let me shed a single tear for them. :'( 

If you have little self control, you will not achieve anything spectacular.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I know! It is JUST like investing. Just buy low, and sell high! It is SO simple. I don't understand why everyone is not a millionaire. Idiots, all of them.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

The main difference between investing and weight control is that in weight control, YOU control all the variables (with some exceptions) whereas in investing you don't control any variables (with some exceptions). 

You were likely sarcastic but I DO think that it is within everybody's reach to be relatively lean. People just have to be willing to work a little.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

You'd be surprised at how much I also think it is within everybody's reach to be relatively lean AND the extent to which I acknowledge that it takes work. I am quibbling with the weight loss math that you posted. 

I just wrote out a whole thing and deleted it - I lift weights at relatively elite levels and I am not lean. I have an inkling of what it might take for me to actually become lean and ... it is kind of staggering for me to comprehend, given the workload I already put in.


----------



## faline (Feb 10, 2011)

I think a huge piece of the puzzle comes down to genes. But I also think a lot of people use genes as an excuse to give up trying. 

RE eating more when exercising more: I find exercise often inspires healthier meal choices as that "runner's high" kicks in. You feel good so you make good choices. Works for me, anyway.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

I think, in a perfect world, it really does boil down to this math, HOWEVER in most situations, things are likely much more complicated when you take into account the mulitiple other factors (hormone levels, hunger, will power...etc).

I also lift weights at pretty good levels and I completely understand the factors involved in being lean. In fact, I am trying to get <10% BF from 13% and let me tell you that it is not easy.

Now, what we all want to know: how much do you bench?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I lift at beyond Intermediate levels (but not Advanced levels) using these standards: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/StrengthStandards.html


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Also: the last time I was doing an overhead press (just a few weeks ago) I was standing on a slight incline in my crowded gym and I lost my footing on the last rep and actually bonked myself in the nose with the bar. I'm still shocked I didn't break it, and I had to go to work for the entire next week looking like I'd lost a bar fight.


----------



## 44545 (Feb 14, 2012)

There is one place in town I can recommend:

http://www.solefitorthotics.com/

They will do a video gait analysis and send you away with a "shoe shopping list" - Running Room on Bank (both locations) know Sole-Fit as Ryan does free "injury prevention" seminars for them.

Buy and bring back the shoes on the list and you're back on the treadmill with the high speed video cameras watching. They'll even give you copies of the vids on a flash drive.

I had chronic foot problems for years. They solved them for me. Ryan Grant is the man.

Highly recommended.

Also: if you don't need orthotics, they aren't going to try to sell you on them.



MoneyGal said:


> Also: the last time I was doing an overhead press (just a few weeks ago) I was standing on a slight incline in my crowded gym and I lost my footing on the last rep and actually bonked myself in the nose with the bar. I'm still shocked I didn't break it, and I had to go to work for the entire next week looking like I'd lost a bar fight.


Pics or shens.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Geez. You think I allowed pictures to be taken? I had to go and get ice from the front desk, and a big bandaid, etc. That was enough embarrassment for one day, I wasn't going to add to it by posting pix. I'm sure I can find some gym mishap pix to post, I've had lots of them.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Just to add some more complexity - I do think it is a calorie in/out equation - and that people, like animals can be described by math/physics, the problem we have is that those measurements aren't accurate enough.

Calorimetry is typically used, the problem when it comes to physiology and specifically exercise physiology is that it is near impossible to accurately measurement caloric output during an activity. Both genes and phenotype (muscle architecture and energy use) is highly different in individuals and the proportion of different types of muscle fibres (e.g. white vs. red) can determine how easily an individual can perform either a constant activity.

Take walking for example, due to bone architecture, breakdown of muscle fibre types etc, humans are extremely efficient at walking type motions, so the amount of calories you'd hope to burn from these activities is probably much lower than you expect.

Whether it is easier to perform the effort to use calories, or restrict ones diet surely has something to do with genetic make up also. Just as addictive drugs can release endorphins and other transmitters in dopaminergic sensors, food can, and some will be more or less suceptable to food's allure.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Back in the 1970s, when I did a fair bit of running, (70 miles a week at one stage), and in the early 1980s, when I was training for my one and only marathon, (before my knees finally gave out), I used to consume, (as the old SNL 'Coneheads' used to say), "mass quantities".

This was mainly because I loved to eat, (and could do so with impunity at that time), rather than from unusual 'hunger'........in fact I've always found that I'm hungrier during periods of (enforced, due to injuries, etc), inactivity......which might serve to explain why perennially sedentary people are generally overweight.

Although I continued to exercise at a lower level of output I maintained my previous eating/drinking habits and the pounds insidiously crept up.......until I modified my diet.

Now I do approx 60-80 minutes a day on the elliptical, (at the Interval setting), eat more veggies, drink less alcohol, and I'm back to my 1984 marathon weight and have no feelings of being 'deprived' foodwise, so this is something I can maintain from here on in.

Increased age/metabolism changes are possible/probable factors, but overall I believe it's a combination of intake & output.....you have to find your own balance and stay with it.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Sampson said:


> Both genes and phenotype (muscle architecture and energy use) is highly different in individuals and the proportion of different types of muscle fibres (e.g. white vs. red) can determine how easily an individual can perform either a constant activity.


I think these differences are key, not only for exercise but for response to diet. It's a big mistake to take one's own personal experience and universalize it to the entire population, because only a proportion (in some cases a very small proportion) of people will respond to diet and exercise the same way you do. Give the exact same diet and exercise regime to 100 people and you will see a wide range of responses. Our responses change as we age as well.

Gary Taubes and his many followers believe that it's not really calories in/calories out, but instead certain types of foods (sugar and refined grains) cause the body to preferentially create fat. There are biological mechanisms to explain this, although the first part of the equation (consumption of simple carbs leads to insulin spikes) is on more solid scientific ground than the second part (an increase in insulin leads to an increase in fat); some researchers cite evidence that seems to demolish this argument (e.g. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/09/fat-tissue-insulin-sensitivity-and.html).

It seems the jury's still out on that question, but in general it's very clear that the causes of weight gain are complex (both psychologically and physiologically) and vary widely from person to person, and not everyone responds identically to diet and exercise.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

brad said:


> Gary Taubes and his many followers believe that it's not really calories in/calories out, but instead certain types of foods (sugar and refined grains) cause the body to preferentially create fat. There are biological mechanisms to explain this, although the first part of the equation (consumption of simple carbs leads to insulin spikes) is on more solid scientific ground than the second part (an increase in insulin leads to an increase in fat); some researchers cite evidence that seems to demolish this argument (e.g. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/09/fat-tissue-insulin-sensitivity-and.html).


Gary Taubes is an Aerospace Engineer and a Journalist by training, he has no credentials to give us biology or nutrition lectures. Calories intake / calories expenditure *is the only determinant of weight change*. Type of food, genes and phenotype are only factors affecting the caloric balance, they are not determinants by themselves.

10 grams of fat is 10 grams of fat. Whether you are Lance Armstrong or Joe Smith, the caloric content of 10 g of fat is still 90 calories. It does not matter if you have fat genes, train all day or eat only things that starts with an "M", the maximum intake for your body of 10 grams of fat is 90 calories. It doens't matter what your body wants to do with those calories, it's still 90 calories. 

Even though everybody is special, the rules of physics don't change for each person. Unless you are able to metabolize organic molecules further (if so, congrats on being able to do something that no other animal has been able to do) or suddenly gain the ability to photosynthesize your food (again, congratulations are in order), you will be bound by these limits.

On the expenditure side, sure, some people are "lucky to have fast metabolism" (i.e., their body is less efficient). I put that in quotations marks because even "metabolism" can be modified with training. Each pound of muscle one gains will increase their at rest metabolic rate (relative to one pound of fat). Unless you are suffering from very rare medical conditions, psychology >>> physiological variations when it comes to controlling one's weight.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

brad said:


> Gary Taubes and his many followers believe that it's not really calories in/calories out, but instead certain types of foods (sugar and refined grains) cause the body to preferentially create fat.


I totally agree with this. Our modern diet really is designed to make us fat. The reality is that humans and all organisms are quite well adapted to infrequent or 'missing' meals. The reserves, food stores, both complex sugars and fats in the body can tide one over quite well for weeks even without food. Once agriculture and other farming practices began, we lost this interest in slowing down food consumption.

I think it does largely come down to the physiological and psychological factors, and it is clear some find it much easier than others.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Guigz said:


> Whether you are Lance Armstrong or Joe Smith, the caloric content of 10 g of fat is still 90 calories. It does not matter if you have fat genes, train all day or eat only things that starts with an "M", the maximum intake for your body of 10 grams of fat is 90 calories. It doens't matter what your body wants to do with those calories, it's still 90 calories.


The difficulty arises because it may take one person 10 minutes to burn those 90 calories and another running on a treadmill for 30 mins.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Guigz said:


> Gary Taubes is an Aerospace Engineer and a Journalist by training, he has no credentials to give us biology or nutrition lectures. Calories intake / calories expenditure *is the only determinant of weight change*. Type of food, genes and phenotype are only factors affecting the caloric balance, they are not determinants by themselves.


Okay, but Taubes (who is one of the world's most respected science journalists and writes for Science and other leading journals) is far from the only person promoting the insulin hypothesis; he's got a bunch of researchers and MDs on his side. For example check out Peter Attia, MD (http://waroninsulin.com/start-here), who also has links to many studies, reports, and the blogs or websites of researchers who support this hypothesis. I'm skeptical myself, but am willing to accept that some percentage of the population may be particularly sensitive to insulin (Attia reckons 10-20% are insulin-tolerant, and 30-40% are extremely insulin-sensitive). I'm just not convinced that insulin sensitivity translates directly to increase in fat.

From a practical perspective, differences in metabolism matter a great deal. My 22-year-old stepdaughter has steadfastly refused to get any exercise since she was about 8 years old (she nearly failed high school due to skipping all her phys-ed classes), and eats a diet rich in salt, sugar, and fat. She went for an entire year eating nothing but poutine for lunch and supper; she also can eat a supper of a huge dish of mashed potatoes topped with half a stick of butter. She eats a green vegetable once or twice a year. With all that, she has trouble getting her weight above 85 pounds. If I ate a diet like that I'd be overweight in no time.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

There is a big difference between a Science Journalist and a Scientist. One writes to entertain, the other to disseminate his findings.

That being said, I am not arguing that some people do not gain weight (i.e., people with "fast metabolism" or poor digestion) I am arguing the notion that some people will miraculously become overweight by eating some type of food. There is a limited amount of calories contained within the food that one consumes, you can't miraculously get fat faster than the energy contained in the food that you eat. It is not rocket science.

A quick money analogy. Let's say you have a bank account with 0% interest (to make this analogy better, it should have negative interest since the fatter you are, the more energy you will spend while doing nothing). In this account, you deposit your pay. You also pay for your expenses from this same bank account. Each pay period, you get 100$ deposited in this account. If you do not spend anything, you will accumulate money at a maximal rate of 100$ per pay period. You cannot exceed this rate of accumulation since that is the theoretical maximum of the situation.

Tl;dr To be slimmer, eat less or spend more


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Guigz said:


> There is a big difference between a Science Journalist and a Scientist. One writes to entertain, the other to disseminate his findings.


As a former science journalist, I can say with some authority that the job of a science journalist is to communicate the findings of scientists so that non-scientists can understand them. That said, Gary Taubes has always been a provocateur (I've encountered him many times in the professional society of science writers to which we both belong) and he likes to stir the pot. That's partly why I'm skeptical.



Guigz said:


> I am arguing the notion that some people will miraculously become overweight by eating some type of food. There is a limited amount of calories contained within the food that one consumes, you can't miraculously get fat faster than the energy contained in the food that you eat.


No, but the type of food may in fact determine whether those calories get used to meet the body's metabolic needs or stored as fat. This is the point behind the insulin hypothesis, which you should read so you understand what you are arguing against instead of sticking with first principles. We have a daily metabolic rate that burns x number of calories. If you consume at or below x, those calories will be put to use to meet your daily needs. If you consume above x, those calories will be stored as fat, or they might be excreted. Carbohydrates do get preferentially stored as fat: From Marion Nestle's book "Why Calories Count": "The body's use of carbohydrates depends on calories. When two conditions are met -- the diet contains enough calories to meet energy needs AND enough carbohydrate to maintain blood glucose levels--the body uses hardly any fat to produce energy. Absorbed fatty acids go right into body fat. In contrast, when the diet contains too few calories to meet energy needs, the body uses all the available carbohydrates to fuel the brain. In that situation, fat stores break down to fatty acids, which the body uses to supply most of its energy needs."

The insulin hypothesis goes beyond this to claim that carbs (well, certain types of carbs, such as sugar and refined grains) provoke an insulin response that increase fat storage no matter how many calories you're consuming. It's still a minority view, but as we all know science isn't done by vote: one person who's right is worth 10,000 who are wrong. I don't think we know enough yet to know who's right.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

brad said:


> No, but the type of food may in fact determine whether those calories get used to meet the body's metabolic needs or stored as fat.


It doesn't matter whether those calories are stored as fat, to replenish your muscle glycogen or to regenerate your muscle cell's ATP stores. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. The theroy you mention* does not apply with weight loss since, by default, caloric intake will be < metabolic rate*. 

If your goal is to eat as much as possible and to minimize weight gains, I could see why this theory would interest you. If your goal is weight loss, it does not matter where the calories go...


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Guigz said:


> If your goal is to eat as much as possible and to minimize weight gains, I could see why this theory would interest you. If your goal is weight loss, it does not matter where the calories go...


Proponents of the insulin hypothesis argue that eating a low-carb diet leads to faster weight loss because eating carbs leads to more fat being stored, not less. And in fact studies comparing the success of a range of diets (low fat, low carb, etc.) confirm that weight loss is faster under low-carb, although the underlying mechanism is debated. Conventional wisdom is that the faster weight loss under low-carb diets is due to water loss, not fat loss). The initial weight loss experienced during the first week or two under most diets is due to water loss, and the water loss may be even greater under a low-carb diet.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

I take mixed martial arts classes and we get very good workouts every class. And you actually learn something useful too, practical self defense. Something you might want to look into.


----------



## canabiz (Apr 4, 2009)

Just a quick follow up on this: I visited a Running Room location in Ottawa and got some great tips from the staff. They observed the way I walked/ran and concluded it's normal and I don't need any special sole support. The guy did say I should not wear any cotton socks.

I also made an appointment at the previously-mentioned Sole Orthotics but will probably cancel it as it costs $140 and it is not covered under OHIP or my insurance plan.

I was at a local Winners earlier tonight with the wife and found a brand-new pair of Adidas running shoes for a fraction of the price at the Running Room and SportChek! Being a hard-core RFDer, it was a no-brainer to me, you just never know what you will find at Winners!


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

My brother-in-law is a runner. He buys a high end shoe-not sure which one.

But he always buys them in the US. He says pays anywhere from 1/3 - 1/2 less for the exact same shoe in the US than he pays in Vancouver. He likes to shop in Canada but that delta is too significant for him to swallow.


----------



## tombiosis (Dec 18, 2010)

I didn't read the whole thread...but on getting new shoes and orthotics etc...
I recently saw a tv show on nat geo about shoes. It said that buying expensive running shoes was bad! They said that a study showed that the more you spent on shoes, the more likely you were to be injured. They went on to explain that humans have evolved to run long distances. In fact, humans can out run any animal on earth...(over time). Even a cheetah will eventually tire, and will be caught by a human. Humans routinely run marathons, and no other creature on earth can come close to that kind of endurance. The show concluded that humans are designed to run bare foot...so never mind using shoes!


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Canabiz.....if you continue to have/get shin splints don't hesitate to visit your MD or physiotherapist just to ensure that there is nothing more going on.

I am sure that once you get back into running, you will figure out what shoes work and feel best for you. Perhaps even getting some orthotics to balance your step, and distribute the weight better will make a difference.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

tombiosis said:


> Humans routinely run marathons, and no other creature on earth can come close to that kind of endurance.


Many animals do much better. Birds migrate huge distances, marine life and near sear land animals also travel VAST distances.

Humans don't routinely run marathons, only a tiny sliver of the population even attempts to do so.


----------

