Intense workouts to outrun the fork

lkpducky

Larissa_NY wrote: »

Is it possible to outrun the fork? Sure.

Can you, Joe Average with an office job and 20 extra pounds around the middle, do it without giving yourself an overuse injury? Probably not. You don't have the fitness level required to expend that kind of energy for that long.

Generally speaking, the only people who can have pizza-and-beer blowouts once or twice a week and still stay lean are athletes. Usually young male athletes. If you were an athlete, you would have a performance-based nutrition plan, and rules of thumb that are meant to help ordinary sedentary people lose weight would not apply to you.

TL;DR: If you're on MFP asking if it's possible to outrun the fork, you are not fit or active enough to outrun the fork.

Need more data on the OP before assuming.

aokoye

Larissa_NY wrote: »

Is it possible to outrun the fork? Sure.

Can you, Joe Average with an office job and 20 extra pounds around the middle, do it without giving yourself an overuse injury? Probably not. You don't have the fitness level required to expend that kind of energy for that long.

Generally speaking, the only people who can have pizza-and-beer blowouts once or twice a week and still stay lean are athletes. Usually young male athletes. If you were an athlete, you would have a performance-based nutrition plan, and rules of thumb that are meant to help ordinary sedentary people lose weight would not apply to you.

TL;DR: If you're on MFP asking if it's possible to outrun the fork, you are not fit or active enough to outrun the fork.

How many athletes do you know? This includes middle and high school athletes. How many athletes do you know who have a performance-based nutrition plan. Being an athlete doesn't mean eating in a specific way.

CSARdiver

NorthCascades wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

French_Peasant wrote: »

I am in Indiana, and the Amish are a perfect example of people who, while not running per se, are most certainly out-pitchforking the fork. Most of them, men and women, are thin and muscular, and while you will see one or two occasionally who are pleasantly plump, they are nowhere near the grotesque levels of obesity one so commonly sees in an Indiana [or insert most states except Colorado here] Walmart.

Let me assure you, they eat all the food, and all the fat and sugar, with occasional fast food, Chinese buffet and pizza splurges, but they are mostly cooking from scratch and eating a very large amount of veg.

I got 6 hours of sustained hard core gardening--digging, flipping compost, splitting perennials, hauling crap around the yard) in on Saturday and Sunday, which pushes my calorie limit above 3000 in a cut (I am a 5'6" female working on losing 5 lbs from 150). Every May and June the weight just magically melts off *IF* I can spend an appropriate amount of time working outside and head all the time-sucks off at the pass so I can play in the dirt. But it gets back to what some of the bikers and hikers are saying on here--it needs to be long-term, sustainable, enjoyable, challenging activity that you can stick with.

I was putting together a post on just how little activity needs to be done to sustain life today and using the Amish as a comparative lifestyle, estimating 8-10 hours of physical labor/day and 20k steps/day.

We have evolved so rapidly over that past century that it is difficult to grasp just how easy we in the Western world have it to the point we may need to deliberately insert inefficiencies into our lives.

Rules are interesting things, and exceptions too. This ∆ is right 99% of the time. Exception to prove the rule: A car gets 30 miles to the gallon, with a gallon being the energy equivalent of 36,000 calories. A road bike gets 10 to 15 miles to the taco.

(You're talking about a slightly different thing, it's more efficient for people to outsource their inefficiency, turning money into a way to avoid burning calories.)

Time and money appear to be the two dominating factors at play in the Western world. Also explains much of the socio-political divide.

A 30 min daily commute in an automobile may take 4 hours on a road bike, but being conscious of a need for physical activity one can incorporate a deliberate time inefficiency for a health promotion.

aokoye

CSARdiver wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

French_Peasant wrote: »

I am in Indiana, and the Amish are a perfect example of people who, while not running per se, are most certainly out-pitchforking the fork. Most of them, men and women, are thin and muscular, and while you will see one or two occasionally who are pleasantly plump, they are nowhere near the grotesque levels of obesity one so commonly sees in an Indiana [or insert most states except Colorado here] Walmart.

Let me assure you, they eat all the food, and all the fat and sugar, with occasional fast food, Chinese buffet and pizza splurges, but they are mostly cooking from scratch and eating a very large amount of veg.

I got 6 hours of sustained hard core gardening--digging, flipping compost, splitting perennials, hauling crap around the yard) in on Saturday and Sunday, which pushes my calorie limit above 3000 in a cut (I am a 5'6" female working on losing 5 lbs from 150). Every May and June the weight just magically melts off *IF* I can spend an appropriate amount of time working outside and head all the time-sucks off at the pass so I can play in the dirt. But it gets back to what some of the bikers and hikers are saying on here--it needs to be long-term, sustainable, enjoyable, challenging activity that you can stick with.

I was putting together a post on just how little activity needs to be done to sustain life today and using the Amish as a comparative lifestyle, estimating 8-10 hours of physical labor/day and 20k steps/day.

We have evolved so rapidly over that past century that it is difficult to grasp just how easy we in the Western world have it to the point we may need to deliberately insert inefficiencies into our lives.

Rules are interesting things, and exceptions too. This ∆ is right 99% of the time. Exception to prove the rule: A car gets 30 miles to the gallon, with a gallon being the energy equivalent of 36,000 calories. A road bike gets 10 to 15 miles to the taco.

(You're talking about a slightly different thing, it's more efficient for people to outsource their inefficiency, turning money into a way to avoid burning calories.)

Time and money appear to be the two dominating factors at play in the Western world. Also explains much of the socio-political divide.

A 30 min daily commute in an automobile may take 4 hours on a road bike, but being conscious of a need for physical activity one can incorporate a deliberate time inefficiency for a health promotion.

Though on the other hand, in instances commuting by bike is faster than by car, especially depending on traffic. For example, I typically go to therapy from school. It's faster to bike there than it is to drive, especially when you take into account parking. It's also somewhat faster to take the streetcar than it is to drive, despite the fact that the streetcar doesn't take a route that is as direct. It's an issue of traffic and parking really. I can get through traffic faster at that time of the day on a bike than I can driving (yay bike lanes) and parking is a non-issue if I take the streetcar which is what I typically do (having driven to and parked at my university).

Noreenmarie1234

Hard to do when you are small and 90min on the elliptical or bike riding burns <500 calories.