Viewing the message boards in:
Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

If it's all CICO - why can't you outrun a bad diet?

1810121314

Replies

  • Posts: 15,357 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    I can't remember what language I should be using or simply can't spell. I meant giardiniera.

    http://chicago.seriouseats.com/2013/11/taste-test-the-best-giardiniera.html

    Oh, that stuff is awesome!!!
  • Posts: 934 Member
    I propose that an apple a day will not keep the doctor away.
  • Posts: 15,357 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    I propose that an apple a day will not keep the doctor away.

    Too late:
    auddii wrote: »

    An apple a day keeps the doctor away?
    Every cloud has a silver lining?
  • Posts: 382 Member
    parfia wrote: »
    This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?

    If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.

    begin.....

    It's not that you can't... It's just so much easier to pound a 120 calories soda in five minutes than to burn 120 calories running for a half hour.
  • Posts: 934 Member
    auddii wrote: »

    Too late:
    It was a reference to that post (and the one about changing the subject). I was just too lazy to go back and find it to quote it.
  • Posts: 15,357 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    It was a reference to that post (and the one about changing the subject). I was just too lazy to go back and find it to quote it.

    I'll allow it.
  • Posts: 2,468 Member
    oh man, these are soooooo cute! makes reading this whole wierd thread worth it.
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
  • Posts: 15,532 Member
    ybv5pxrpc0qm.jpg

    xvs3e80g2bmn.jpg



    I thought you hated gifs... Are you circling to the dark side? :wink:

  • Posts: 934 Member
    edited April 2016
    nutmegoreo wrote: »

    I thought you hated gifs... Are you circling to the dark side? :wink:

    Technically, those are .jpgs not .GIFs. >:)
  • Posts: 16,049 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »

    I thought you hated gifs... Are you circling to the dark side? :wink:

    Haha I KNEW someone was going to bring that up :mrgreen: I just had no words to convey my feelings..

    As for your last sentence.. Hmmmm maybe :blushing:
  • Posts: 15,317 Member

    Haha I KNEW someone was going to bring that up :mrgreen: I just had no words to convey my feelings..

    As for your last sentence.. Hmmmm maybe :blushing:

    Yes!
  • Posts: 16,049 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »

    Technically, those are .jpgs not .GIFs. >:)

    Oh sweet Jesus.. Don't confuse me any further :wink: I'm new to this, and i thought they were gifs :sad:
  • Posts: 21 Member
    I think that you can, it's just very difficult to do for several reasons that make it technically possible but practically impossible. You would also achieve your goals far faster if you just ate better and did the same amount of work.
  • Posts: 255 Member

    I get it! Someone who is eating over maintenance (therefore would most likely gain weight) and then exercising to put them at maintenance would be "outrunning a bad diet".
    In this case the "bad diet" would be eating more calories than they should be.

    Wouldn't that just be eating back one's exercise calories in order to maintain a desired weight? The person would need to make sure the excess calories and exercise matched up in order to maintain their weight.

    I don't think that is an example of what outrunning a bad diet means. I think it means attempting to lose weight through exercise alone, without changing caloric intake. I also do not think that the fact that it is easier to create a deficit by reducing calories in rather than increasing calories out somehow contradicts CICO, so I guess I'm failing to understand why the OP chose to frame the original post and title in that manner.

    The concept of not being able to outrun a bad diet reinforces CICO, it does not contradict it.

  • Posts: 567 Member
    edited April 2016
    ziggy2006 wrote: »

    Wouldn't that just be eating back one's exercise calories in order to maintain a desired weight? The person would need to make sure the excess calories and exercise matched up in order to maintain their weight.

    I don't think that is an example of what outrunning a bad diet means. I think it means attempting to lose weight through exercise alone, without changing caloric intake. I also do not think that the fact that it is easier to create a deficit by reducing calories in rather than increasing calories out somehow contradicts CICO, so I guess I'm failing to understand why the OP chose to frame the original post and title in that manner.

    The concept of not being able to outrun a bad diet reinforces CICO, it does not contradict it.

    exactly...that's what I said (see my my bolded statement and yours, click on "see previous quotes" if mine doesn't show up).
  • Posts: 934 Member
    ziggy2006 wrote: »

    Wouldn't that just be eating back one's exercise calories in order to maintain a desired weight? The person would need to make sure the excess calories and exercise matched up in order to maintain their weight.

    I don't think that is an example of what outrunning a bad diet means. I think it means attempting to lose weight through exercise alone, without changing caloric intake. I also do not think that the fact that it is easier to create a deficit by reducing calories in rather than increasing calories out somehow contradicts CICO, so I guess I'm failing to understand why the OP chose to frame the original post and title in that manner.

    The concept of not being able to outrun a bad diet reinforces CICO, it does not contradict it.

    *Sigh*
    Again, the goal wasn't maintenance. The goal was to lose 1lb a week. The intake was inferred to be at maintenance prior to any exercise (which I proposed wouldn't constitute "a bad diet").

    Regarding the bolded part, the concept, if taken at face value, would in fact contradict CICO because it would mean that one would be unable to burn the excess calories incurred by consumption of a bad diet. The example I gave of a diet 1000 calories above maintenance offset by a caloric burn of 1500 calories demonstrates how it is entirely possible for one to " outrun" a bad diet.
  • Posts: 934 Member
    How fast does a bad diet travel anyways? >:)
  • Posts: 255 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »


    Regarding the bolded part, the concept, if taken at face value, would in fact contradict CICO because it would mean that one would be unable to burn the excess calories incurred by consumption of a bad diet. The example I gave of a diet 1000 calories above maintenance offset by a caloric burn of 1500 calories demonstrates how it is entirely possible for one to " outrun" a bad diet.

    If you mean it is theoretically possible to outrun a bad diet, then I would agree with that in the same way that I would agree that it is theoretically possible to win the lottery. Lots of things that are theoretically possible aren't likely to result in success for the majority of people.

    And it is a whole lot more practical to achieve a calorie deficit by modifying your diet. Trying to outrun a bad diet is unlikely to result in success for most people because it is so difficult to maintain the necessary activity level to eliminate the caloric surplus AND create a deficit.

    There are exceptions in extreme cases, but the general principle holds true and in no way contradicts CICO. If outrunning a bad diet doesn't work, it is because of CICO - it is because keeping the CO high enough to account for the CI plus create a deficit requires a level of activity that is not consistently achievable for that individual. If it works for an individual, that is great, but I believe those people are a small minority of those here at MFP trying to achieve a healthy weight.

  • Posts: 5,132 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »

    *Sigh*
    Again, the goal wasn't maintenance. The goal was to lose 1lb a week. The intake was inferred to be at maintenance prior to any exercise (which I proposed wouldn't constitute "a bad diet").


    Regarding the bolded part, the concept, if taken at face value, would in fact contradict CICO because it would mean that one would be unable to burn the excess calories incurred by consumption of a bad diet. The example I gave of a diet 1000 calories above maintenance offset by a caloric burn of 1500 calories demonstrates how it is entirely possible for one to " outrun" a bad diet.

    She wasn't responding to your example...
  • Posts: 7,724 Member

    Jason Romero currently logs about 45 miles a day average.
    Oh, yeah, he does that while being legally blind.

    http://www.denverpost.com/running/ci_29662436/blind-faith

    His strava:
    https://www.strava.com/athletes/13823509
    His website:
    http://www.visionrunusa.com

    He's clearly burning a lot of calories. A LOT. (eating about 200 Cals per hr while running plus meals)

    That... is pretty cool. And we also have the michael phelps example (hey, is this just during training or like all the time? Does he train all year? Is he even still competing?) so we know some people need that level of calorie intake. However the previous poster was referring to "everyone" not having the time or willpower to run 30+ miles per day. That is not needed at all for most people interested in using exercise as a calorie control measure. Maybe he meant per week??
  • Posts: 772 Member
    Hint: It's CICO.
  • Posts: 15,532 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    I propose that an apple a day will not keep the doctor away.

    I will counter that proposal with undeniable proof:

    zw1gmjnvskos.jpg
  • Posts: 515 Member
    It is a lot of time and work to outrun a high calorie diet.

    It takes me 5 minutes to eat 1000 cals worth of food but to burn that same 1000 cals it would take 100 minutes running.
  • Posts: 934 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »

    She wasn't responding to your example...
    Doreena replied to my post...
  • Posts: 934 Member
    ziggy2006 wrote: »

    If you mean it is theoretically possible to outrun a bad diet, then I would agree with that in the same way that I would agree that it is theoretically possible to win the lottery.
    Well both have distinct and measurable possibilities. Depending on the lottery system, you could derive an expected value of it. Face value of the statement would mean it "can't" be done. I agree that the statement isn't intended to be understood in those absolute terms, but the OP obviously didn't take it that way. Plus, sometimes I like to entertain the what ifs.
    Lots of things that are theoretically possible aren't likely to result in success for the majority of people.

    And it is a whole lot more practical to achieve a calorie deficit by modifying your diet. Trying to outrun a bad diet is unlikely to result in success for most people because it is so difficult to maintain the necessary activity level to eliminate the caloric surplus AND create a deficit.
    Yep, totally agree. That's the message conveyed by the saying/cliché/statement/whatever you want to call it. I agree with that and I have expressed that elsewhere in this thread.
    There are exceptions in extreme cases, but the general principle holds true and in no way contradicts CICO. If outrunning a bad diet doesn't work, it is because of CICO - it is because keeping the CO high enough to account for the CI plus create a deficit requires a level of activity that is not consistently achievable for that individual. If it works for an individual, that is great, but I believe those people are a small minority of those here at MFP trying to achieve a healthy weight.
    I get what you're saying, but if it is saying it "can't" be done then, if taken at face value, it is saying that regardless of the CI:CO ratio you will not be successful. The fact that the activity level is not consistently achievable has more to do with logistics than CICO.

  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    I keep wanting to define the terms as such:

    "bad diet" -- diet where the calories in are higher than your actual TDEE
    outrun -- eat fewer calories than you burn.

    Therefore, we can rephrase: "You can't have a diet where the calories in are higher than your TDEE and still eat fewer calories than you burn."

    So, a truism. ;-)
This discussion has been closed.