Distance running and skinny fat

FitAndLean_5738 wrote: »

Hello MFP I'm back with yet another question. I am a runner. I love running, have always loved running (well that's not true, I used to hate it and if I'm being honest I still hate it but it's a hate-love thing that only runners understand ) and I have no intentions of quitting. I've decided to start ramping up my distance running, which means running several miles a day 5 to 6 days a week. This means doing a ton of cardio, sometimes for an hour.

And this, from what I've read, leads to skinny fat.

The thing is, I don't want to be skinny fat. But I also dislike lifting weights. It's boring, painfully strenuous, and utterly miserable.

My question is if I can still run (as in running is my only form of exercise) lose weight, and NOT end up skinny fat? Would I have to eat a high protein diet? Because though I stay in a calorie deficit to lose weight I don't necessarily attempt to eat high protein. In fact I tend to eat whatever I want as long as it fits in my daily calorie intake.

Would bodyweight exercise videos (like the no equipment videos of fitness blender or even youtube) be sufficient to lose weight without ending up skinny fat?

Pretty much everything written using the term "skinny fat" is rubbish.

Having said that, runners do need to do at least two thirty-minute strength sessions a week to maintain all-over strength as we get older. And weight lifters need to do at least 150-300 minutes of aerobic exercise a week to maintain a healthy cardiovascular system.

All our organs, bones, tendons, and muscles need strength, balance, agility, and aerobic exercise to slow sarcopenia (muscle loss), and prevent falls, heart disease, and the perils of aging.

Orphia wrote: »

Pretty much everything written using the term "skinny fat" is rubbish.

This.

Impossible to say unless we know what exactly you mean by skinny fat. Post pictures of people/bodies as examples of what you mean, both good and bad.

sijomial wrote: »

" This means doing a ton of cardio, sometimes for an hour.

And this, from what I've read, leads to skinny fat. "


What the hell have you been reading as that's complete nonsense?

Being under-muscled is a result of the exercise you DON'T do.
FYI - about 330 hours of cardio so far this year for me and I don't think you would call me skinny fat.


Yes higher than usual levels of protein is a good idea when exercising a lot and also when losing weight.
Yes strength/weight training is a good idea whether you are losing, gaining or maintaining weight, it may well help your running too.

Bodyweight exercise routines can be good but progression can be more problematic but certainly a good start point.

It's probably from the school of thought that alleges too much cardio burns off muscle, something I don't agree with either. I've never seen a skinny fat endurance athlete.

I think running an hour is about average. You may lose weight. You won't get "skinny fat", whatever the heck that is. Most runners I know have nicely developed butts, thighs and calves. They seem to be height-weight proportionate. I haven't seen all of them naked, so I don't know for sure, but they look fit. If you hate the idea of weight lifting, you could always try a yoga or Pilates class. You'll get some more muscle definition and strength. And maybe even enough of a calmed mind not to worry about something as elusive and perhaps non-existent as "skinny fat".

1BlueAurora wrote: »

jseams1234 - you're right. I absolutely did not know this. It looks like the only way to deal with it is to eat a balanced diet, eat protein, exercise, do some strength training and get 6 to 8 hours of sleep. I apologize to the original poster for being so dismissive. Sorry, FitAndLean_5738.

@1BlueAurora - no need to apologize. It is an often misused term - but I'd contend that it's more common than people like to admit... especially with guys. I'll use myself as an example: I'm 6'1 and a few years ago I weighed about 180, which is a healthy BMI of 23. In my clothes I looked pretty normal - an average dude. You wouldn't mistake me for being muscular or anything, but you might mistake me for being "fit" just because I was relatively thin. However, I had the typical "dad bod belly", no chest to speak of and thin arms. My body fat was probably 28% or higher. I couldn't do a single pull-up, which is a great indication of body composition, or the lack of it in my case. This is what *I* personally mean when I say "skinny fat" - and I don't think it's uncommon. Frankly, I think it's very common with men in their 20's and 30's. Although I'm 48 now and men my age tend to be just fat.

jseams1234 wrote: »

I’m not sure why there is so much disbelief in the existence of “skinny fat” individuals. The medical definition is MONW - metabolically obese but normal weight or simply under muscled with too much fat. I was this way once and I see guys every day that fit this definition.

As a casual reader of this thread, I wasn't seeing a lot of disbelief in "skinny fat" in the sense of MONW - maybe I wasn't reading insightfully? The OP question was whether endurance cardio only, running specifically, would cause people to be "skinny fat".

I believe in MONW. I'm pretty sure I've known people who were MONW. I'm skeptical that there are very many committed, long-term endurance athletes who qualify as MONW.

It's certainly possible that runners/some types of cyclists/etc., who focus mainly on lower-body work, are going to have suboptimal upper body development, perhaps even have a pretty seriously weak upper body. That's not MONW.

I guess it's theoretically possible for someone to have done a good bit of lower-body-only CV exercise, eat enough to keep a good-sized gut or all-over subcutaneous fat, and come in just inside the normal weight category so be technically high in body fat overall, but it's not really something I think I've seen much "in the wild" among regular, committed runners (or what-have-you).

Further, MONW is about people who "when compared with control subjects, . . . display an altered insulin sensitivity, a higher abdominal and visceral adiposity, a more atherogenic lipid profile, a higher blood pressure, and a lower physical activity energy expenditure" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332780): It's not just about weight. That description isn't a characterization of any regular, committed non-newbie runner I can recall ever knowing. MONW seems (per research) to have certain genetic linkages, so perhaps some such people exist, but I have a hard time believing it's common.

I formerly fit much of that definition (specifically high abdominal (and maybe visceral, dunno) adiposity, an atherogenic lipid profile, higher blood pressure) before losing weight, despite having a higher physical activity energy expenditure (decade of near-daily rowing, spinning, more) . . . but I was obese at the time, per BMI. None of those other things were true once I hit normal weight.