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?
Replies
-
I think of this phrase as applying to both the calorie intake and the quality of the diet. IMO, if someone is eating an appropriate amount of calories but from largely nutrient poor sources, I would still consider that a bad diet. No amount of exercise can "make up" for the lack of a proper intake of micronutrients.2
-
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.....
Huh? I've always used it and seen it as a comment on calories. You can't exercise enough to overcome eating too much.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »If you are looking for debate, you may want to post this in the debate section.
I've never really understood that saying personally, but to answer your question I think you'd have to first define what is meant by a bad diet. Are we talking about a diet that creates a caloric excess, or a diet that is nutritionally deficient?
I meant a diet that is nutritionally bad - if I eat 2,000 calories worth of cheeseburger a day (I don't!) and burn 3,000 calories in a day with exercise - surely that's outrunning a bad diet?
You actually can out run a bad diet. That is a little quip with no basis in fact. In your example, you would be losing two lbs a week.
My diet currently is nowhere near 'healthy' or 'clean'. But my calculations are good and I make sure my activity is high enough so I net a 1 lb loss every week. 8 weeks in 10 lbs down. While I can't run right now due to an ankle injury I am in fact 'out cardioing' a 'bad' diet.1 -
Put your headphones on and start your running app. Run until it says "you have burned 1000 calories", for me between 7 and 8 miles. Now go straight to McDonalds and eat a big mac & fries. Tell me which one takes longer to do, there you will find the answer.
But you're not going to keep eating big macs and fries as soon as you've finished one ... you probably won't want to eat anything for a couple hours. So it balances out.
I go for long bicycle rides on the weekends ... then I come home and eat a Dominos pizza. And I've still burned more calories than I've consumed. That pizza is just replenishing things.
(BTW - I lost 55 lbs during 2015 doing that ^^ )1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »If you are looking for debate, you may want to post this in the debate section.
I've never really understood that saying personally, but to answer your question I think you'd have to first define what is meant by a bad diet. Are we talking about a diet that creates a caloric excess, or a diet that is nutritionally deficient?
I meant a diet that is nutritionally bad - if I eat 2,000 calories worth of cheeseburger a day (I don't!) and burn 3,000 calories in a day with exercise - surely that's outrunning a bad diet?
You actually can out run a bad diet. That is a little quip with no basis in fact. In your example, you would be losing two lbs a week.
My diet currently is nowhere near 'healthy' or 'clean'. But my calculations are good and I make sure my activity is high enough so I net a 1 lb loss every week. 8 weeks in 10 lbs down. While I can't run right now due to an ankle injury I am in fact 'out cardioing' a 'bad' diet.
that's where the confusion comes in...imo it's not talking about the value of the nutrients in the food you are eating it's the amount of calories you are consuming.Put your headphones on and start your running app. Run until it says "you have burned 1000 calories", for me between 7 and 8 miles. Now go straight to McDonalds and eat a big mac & fries. Tell me which one takes longer to do, there you will find the answer.
But you're not going to keep eating big macs and fries as soon as you've finished one ... you probably won't want to eat anything for a couple hours. So it balances out.
I go for long bicycle rides on the weekends ... then I come home and eat a Dominos pizza. And I've still burned more calories than I've consumed. That pizza is just replenishing things.
(BTW - I lost 55 lbs during 2015 doing that ^^ )
you are missing the point tho...how many people do 24hour bike trials?
Most people eat too much food for the activity they do but feel if they "have a killer session at the gym" then they can eat all the foods and they can't...why because in fact the maybe burned 500 calories and are consuming 1000 and that's puts them over maintenance.4 -
Agreed, it's not talking about nutrients in my opinion, seeing as the only time I hear that phrase used is in relation to wait. Never heard "you can't outrun a bad diet" referring to a potassium deficiency.5
-
WinoGelato wrote: »If you are looking for debate, you may want to post this in the debate section.
I've never really understood that saying personally, but to answer your question I think you'd have to first define what is meant by a bad diet. Are we talking about a diet that creates a caloric excess, or a diet that is nutritionally deficient?
I meant a diet that is nutritionally bad - if I eat 2,000 calories worth of cheeseburger a day (I don't!) and burn 3,000 calories in a day with exercise - surely that's outrunning a bad diet?
You actually can out run a bad diet. That is a little quip with no basis in fact. In your example, you would be losing two lbs a week.
My diet currently is nowhere near 'healthy' or 'clean'. But my calculations are good and I make sure my activity is high enough so I net a 1 lb loss every week. 8 weeks in 10 lbs down. While I can't run right now due to an ankle injury I am in fact 'out cardioing' a 'bad' diet.
that's where the confusion comes in...imo it's not talking about the value of the nutrients in the food you are eating it's the amount of calories you are consuming.Put your headphones on and start your running app. Run until it says "you have burned 1000 calories", for me between 7 and 8 miles. Now go straight to McDonalds and eat a big mac & fries. Tell me which one takes longer to do, there you will find the answer.
But you're not going to keep eating big macs and fries as soon as you've finished one ... you probably won't want to eat anything for a couple hours. So it balances out.
I go for long bicycle rides on the weekends ... then I come home and eat a Dominos pizza. And I've still burned more calories than I've consumed. That pizza is just replenishing things.
(BTW - I lost 55 lbs during 2015 doing that ^^ )
you are missing the point tho...how many people do 24hour bike trials?
Most people eat too much food for the activity they do but feel if they "have a killer session at the gym" then they can eat all the foods and they can't...why because in fact the maybe burned 500 calories and are consuming 1000 and that's puts them over maintenance.
The long rides I'm referring to in the post above aren't 24-hour rides. I used to do 24-hour rides a number of years ago and I'm building up to that again (I hope), but for right now, a long ride might be a little 100 km (5-6 hour) jaunt. Enough for a pizza.
And yes, you do have to be realistically aware of what you're burning and what you're consuming.
I've been counting calories since the mid-1980s ... used to be, I counted to get my calorie count up enough to fuel what I was doing. Last year I counted to lose some weight I put on when *life* stepped in and I couldn't exercise as much as I wanted. This year, I'm counting to maintain, in light of my gradually increasing exercise load.0 -
Put your headphones on and start your running app. Run until it says "you have burned 1000 calories", for me between 7 and 8 miles. Now go straight to McDonalds and eat a big mac & fries. Tell me which one takes longer to do, there you will find the answer.
But you're not going to keep eating big macs and fries as soon as you've finished one ... you probably won't want to eat anything for a couple hours. So it balances out.
I go for long bicycle rides on the weekends ... then I come home and eat a Dominos pizza. And I've still burned more calories than I've consumed. That pizza is just replenishing things.
(BTW - I lost 55 lbs during 2015 doing that ^^ )
wanna make a bet?
To the OP, there is no debate if you interpret the "bad diet" to mean excess calories (which I do). If you interpret "bad diet" as a cheese burger that's debatable. I have lost 55lbs eating cheeseburgers as well as pizza, ice cream, chocolate, etc. (I don't mean I solely ate these items but they are incorporated in my diet)
1 -
I eat like 10 minutes after a big ride and beer...lots.1
-
Alluminati wrote: »Put your headphones on and start your running app. Run until it says "you have burned 1000 calories", for me between 7 and 8 miles. Now go straight to McDonalds and eat a big mac & fries. Tell me which one takes longer to do, there you will find the answer.
But you're not going to keep eating big macs and fries as soon as you've finished one ... you probably won't want to eat anything for a couple hours. So it balances out.
I go for long bicycle rides on the weekends ... then I come home and eat a Dominos pizza. And I've still burned more calories than I've consumed. That pizza is just replenishing things.
(BTW - I lost 55 lbs during 2015 doing that ^^ )
I have lost 55lbs eating cheeseburgers as well as pizza, ice cream, chocolate, etc. (I don't mean I solely ate these items but they are incorporated in my diet)
Me too!!
1 -
Why are cheeseburgers always the bad guys? Lean ground beef to help hit the protein macro, whole grain bread or ezekiel bread, jack cheese, avocados or guac, a lot of lettuce and tomatoes and onions, some salsa...dang it. Now I'm hungry.
Also, might I suggest we next debate "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or possibly "a stitch in time saves 9."8 -
To recap:
Bad ≠ Poor nutritional value. Bad = excess
Outrun ≠ Actual running. Outrun = keep ahead of
6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »If you are looking for debate, you may want to post this in the debate section.
I've never really understood that saying personally, but to answer your question I think you'd have to first define what is meant by a bad diet. Are we talking about a diet that creates a caloric excess, or a diet that is nutritionally deficient?
I meant a diet that is nutritionally bad - if I eat 2,000 calories worth of cheeseburger a day (I don't!) and burn 3,000 calories in a day with exercise - surely that's outrunning a bad diet?
If you ate 2000 calories and burned 3000 calories, you would lose weight. If those calories were just cheeseburger, you'd lose weight, yes, but you'd be pretty starved nutritionally.0 -
Put your headphones on and start your running app. Run until it says "you have burned 1000 calories", for me between 7 and 8 miles. Now go straight to McDonalds and eat a big mac & fries. Tell me which one takes longer to do, there you will find the answer.
But you're not going to keep eating big macs and fries as soon as you've finished one ... you probably won't want to eat anything for a couple hours. So it balances out.
I go for long bicycle rides on the weekends ... then I come home and eat a Dominos pizza. And I've still burned more calories than I've consumed. That pizza is just replenishing things.
(BTW - I lost 55 lbs during 2015 doing that ^^ )
You probably don't want to exercise for another 1000 calories either for a while and I'd almost bet money that the refractory period between "wanting to eat again" is smaller than the one between "being ready for another intense workout" in almost everyone.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Put your headphones on and start your running app. Run until it says "you have burned 1000 calories", for me between 7 and 8 miles. Now go straight to McDonalds and eat a big mac & fries. Tell me which one takes longer to do, there you will find the answer.
But you're not going to keep eating big macs and fries as soon as you've finished one ... you probably won't want to eat anything for a couple hours. So it balances out.
I go for long bicycle rides on the weekends ... then I come home and eat a Dominos pizza. And I've still burned more calories than I've consumed. That pizza is just replenishing things.
(BTW - I lost 55 lbs during 2015 doing that ^^ )
You probably don't want to exercise for another 1000 calories either for a while and I'd almost bet money that the refractory period between "wanting to eat again" is smaller than the one between "being ready for another intense workout" in almost everyone.
Depends on the day ... sometimes I'm ready to just keep going and going and going ... other days not so much ...
But if I eat a lot (or what I think is a lot), I really don't want to look at food for a while. I had a Zambrero's burrito for dinner last night (approx. 750 cal) and I didn't touch anything else for about 3.5 hours. Too full.0 -
My opinion:
CICO is about losing weight. Nutrition and exercise are about improving the health and appearance of your body.
It would take me nearly 4 hours of running to burn 3000 calories. I have better things to do with my time so those cheeseburgers start looking like more trouble than they are worth.3 -
I don't think I could eat 3000 calories in cheeseburgers, so there's that.
In my teens and early 20s, I could outrun a bad diet, in the sense that I never thought about what I ate and yet did not gain weight.
By my 30s, I could not do that -- I needed to at least be a little mindful, even at my most active.Also, might I suggest we next debate "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or possibly "a stitch in time saves 9."
Heh, this.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think I could eat 3000 calories in cheeseburgers, so there's that.
In my teens and early 20s, I could outrun a bad diet, in the sense that I never thought about what I ate and yet did not gain weight.
By my 30s, I could not do that -- I needed to at least be a little mindful, even at my most active.Also, might I suggest we next debate "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or possibly "a stitch in time saves 9."
Heh, this.
3000 calories would be approximatly 6.5 McDoubles0 -
Wickedfaery73 wrote: »3000 calories would be approximatly 6.5 McDoubles
Urg!1 -
For me, CI<CO comes down to this ...
I will consume fewer calories than what I burn in a day. However, how I go about accomplishing that may vary.
During the week, for example, I don't exercise a whole lot, so therefore I eat less. On the weekends, I exercise a lot more, so I eat more. This means that during the week, I might stick to a lot of veggies and lower calorie things ... but on the weekend I might have pizza, fish and chips, or something higher calorie (Interestingly, as an aside, now that I think about it, it has been ages ... almost a year ... since I've had a hamburger. For some reason they don't appeal.)
And that approach has helped me stick with it because I've got variety and flexibility. 0 -
Wickedfaery73 wrote: »3000 calories would be approximatly 6.5 McDoubles
Urg!
LOL - heck I could eat 3 of those tiny things at once0 -
For me, CI<CO comes down to this ...
I will consume fewer calories than what I burn in a day. However, how I go about accomplishing that may vary.
During the week, for example, I don't exercise a whole lot, so therefore I eat less. On the weekends, I exercise a lot more, so I eat more. This means that during the week, I might stick to a lot of veggies and lower calorie things ... but on the weekend I might have pizza, fish and chips, or something higher calorie (Interestingly, as an aside, now that I think about it, it has been ages ... almost a year ... since I've had a hamburger. For some reason they don't appeal.)
And that approach has helped me stick with it because I've got variety and flexibility.
Even when my my mileage is crazy I still need to track. One year, during the five months I trained for a 12 hour race, I gained about 7 pounds. It wasn't enough for me to notice until I under-performed during the race (187 miles).0 -
Wickedfaery73 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think I could eat 3000 calories in cheeseburgers, so there's that.
In my teens and early 20s, I could outrun a bad diet, in the sense that I never thought about what I ate and yet did not gain weight.
By my 30s, I could not do that -- I needed to at least be a little mindful, even at my most active.Also, might I suggest we next debate "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or possibly "a stitch in time saves 9."
Heh, this.
3000 calories would be approximatly 6.5 McDoubles
So you are agreeing with me? ;-)1 -
McDoubles have been brought up in this discussion on burgers, and I think that's probably what a lot of people think of first. What you described as a cheeseburger is not even close nutritionally to a McDouble.jmbmilholland wrote: »Why are cheeseburgers always the bad guys? Lean ground beef to help hit the protein macro, whole grain bread or ezekiel bread, jack cheese, avocados or guac, a lot of lettuce and tomatoes and onions, some salsa...dang it. Now I'm hungry.
0 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »Why are cheeseburgers always the bad guys? Lean ground beef to help hit the protein macro, whole grain bread or ezekiel bread, jack cheese, avocados or guac, a lot of lettuce and tomatoes and onions, some salsa...dang it. Now I'm hungry.
Also, might I suggest we next debate "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or possibly "a stitch in time saves 9."
Even a McDouble has a good macro breakdown.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think I could eat 3000 calories in cheeseburgers, so there's that.
In my teens and early 20s, I could outrun a bad diet, in the sense that I never thought about what I ate and yet did not gain weight.
By my 30s, I could not do that -- I needed to at least be a little mindful, even at my most active.Also, might I suggest we next debate "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or possibly "a stitch in time saves 9."
Heh, this.
3000 calories would be approximately 6.5 McDoubles
So you are agreeing with me? ;-)
I don't know I bet you probably could, physically at least, eat 6.5 Mcdoubles in a day. LOL They are tiny little things ( to me at least
) I could eat 3 at a time
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
McDoubles have been brought up in this discussion on burgers, and I think that's probably what a lot of people think of first. What you described as a cheeseburger is not even close nutritionally to a McDouble.jmbmilholland wrote: »Why are cheeseburgers always the bad guys? Lean ground beef to help hit the protein macro, whole grain bread or ezekiel bread, jack cheese, avocados or guac, a lot of lettuce and tomatoes and onions, some salsa...dang it. Now I'm hungry.
Why on earth would you assume that most people think of a McDouble? Cheeseburgers are not some obscure food that most only run into in a fast food restaurant, let alone a McD's (let alone a specific type of McD's burger). Making a cheeseburger at home cannot be an unusual happening, eating cheeseburgers at a cookout, so on.2 -
"You can't outrun a bad diet." - This fails because it is a simple answer to a complex set of circumstances that cannot be boiled down into such a simple answer. It is a terrible saying because it fails to define the terms used; it fails to acknowledge the complexity of physiological differences; and it ignores the possibility of individual differences for appetite, satiety, and many other things.
It is just not that simplistic.2 -
Wickedfaery73 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think I could eat 3000 calories in cheeseburgers, so there's that.
In my teens and early 20s, I could outrun a bad diet, in the sense that I never thought about what I ate and yet did not gain weight.
By my 30s, I could not do that -- I needed to at least be a little mindful, even at my most active.Also, might I suggest we next debate "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or possibly "a stitch in time saves 9."
Heh, this.
3000 calories would be approximately 6.5 McDoubles
So you are agreeing with me? ;-)
I don't know I bet you probably could, physically at least, eat 6.5 Mcdoubles in a day. LOL They are tiny little things ( to me at least ) I could eat 3 at a time
I dislike McD's burgers, so I doubt it. Don't know about the McDouble as I don't think it existed yet last time I was at a McD's, but research demonstrates that it is .75 the size of a Quarter Pounder (which I can't imagine eating more than one of at a time), so I doubt I could without making a real effort and feeling sick and overstuffed, even over the course of a day. And, of course, that contradicts the idea that people would just consume these calories quickly and without thinking (as with the "it would take me 4 hours to burn off 3000 calories and then I'd eat that back with a cheeseburger" claim I was responding too).
I seriously doubt that thoughtless eating plus a cheeseburger would result in me normally eating anywhere near 3000 calories in a day, and I'd never think to order multiple cheeseburgers. I just don't know why people hypothesize such odd and unusual behavior in these discussions.
Most people gain weight relatively gradually over time, after all.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Wickedfaery73 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think I could eat 3000 calories in cheeseburgers, so there's that.
In my teens and early 20s, I could outrun a bad diet, in the sense that I never thought about what I ate and yet did not gain weight.
By my 30s, I could not do that -- I needed to at least be a little mindful, even at my most active.Also, might I suggest we next debate "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or possibly "a stitch in time saves 9."
Heh, this.
3000 calories would be approximately 6.5 McDoubles
So you are agreeing with me? ;-)
I don't know I bet you probably could, physically at least, eat 6.5 Mcdoubles in a day. LOL They are tiny little things ( to me at least ) I could eat 3 at a time
I dislike McD's burgers, so I doubt it. Don't know about the McDouble as I don't think it existed yet last time I was at a McD's, but research demonstrates that it is .75 the size of a Quarter Pounder (which I can't imagine eating more than one of at a time), so I doubt I could without making a real effort and feeling sick and overstuffed, even over the course of a day. And, of course, that contradicts the idea that people would just consume these calories quickly and without thinking (as with the "it would take me 4 hours to burn off 3000 calories and then I'd eat that back with a cheeseburger" claim I was responding too).
I seriously doubt that thoughtless eating plus a cheeseburger would result in me normally eating anywhere near 3000 calories in a day, and I'd never think to order multiple cheeseburgers. I just don't know why people hypothesize such odd and unusual behavior in these discussions.
Most people gain weight relatively gradually over time, after all.
Appetite and hunger are individual differences, which are ignored by such a simple statement.
Personally, I've never actually eaten more than 4 McDoubles at a single time, but I'm sure I could have had more if I didn't have anything else along with it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions