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?
Options
Replies
-
1) OMG WE HAVE LIKES!!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.....
That's right. I do routinely outrun a bad diet. But I do generally do some kind of sport or exercise for at least 1 hour a day everyday. #smug2 -
I was referring to micronutrients, not macros. Sure, if one makes eats plenty of salads at fast flood restaurants then micros would be a bit better, but I didn't think it was unrealistic to think that there are a lot of people out there eating a nutritionally poor diet like this.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
The thing is this tho...I've done checks and you can easily fill decent macros (mine) eating at fast food places...so to your argument...it's not crap.
AS well the biology teacher who ate at Micky D's for a month, lost weight and blood tests/numbers/bp all got better...1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I was referring to micronutrients, not macros. Sure, if one makes eats plenty of salads at fast flood restaurants then micros would be a bit better, but I didn't think it was unrealistic to think that there are a lot of people out there eating a nutritionally poor diet like this.
I'm sorry, but its actually difficult to not get all your nutrients from a Western diet. (even fast food).
And all it takes is a vitamin to balance any deficiencies.
People improve their health markers a great deal more by just losing weight, then by trying to stop eating all processed foods.3 -
Here's a really good discussion of the topic: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories
By really good, I don't mean that I agree with everything -- I don't.* But worth reading. (I need to spend some more time with it.)
One issue is that there's probably a distinction between people who become overweight and those who don't and between those engaged in different levels of activity. In one of his books, Matt Fitzgerald (who has written a lot about weight-control in endurance athletes focused on food choices, so clearly sees food as a key) discusses one of the "exercise doesn't help" studies, and points out it focused on people who are basically sedentary and adding what for them was "work" (a tedious walk on the treadmill exercise) that nevertheless did not burn all that many calories. That likely set up a pretty unsurprising dynamic where they felt like they deserved to eat more, despite not really having burned that much more than usual.
People seem to vary quite a bit on how physical activity affects appetite, and as I said above, those who can "outrun a bad diet" are those who don't get fat in the first place. People who get fat either can't or else had some interference in their usual level of activity that led to weight gain, perhaps.
*Specifically, although I think focusing on food is the best way for MOST to lose weight, I don't think that means that we should not prioritize activity and public policy that might make activity (including walking in daily life vs. having to drive everywhere, biking accessibility, etc.) more commonplace. Those things are really important apart from the effect on obesity, including for health.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I was referring to micronutrients, not macros. Sure, if one makes eats plenty of salads at fast flood restaurants then micros would be a bit better, but I didn't think it was unrealistic to think that there are a lot of people out there eating a nutritionally poor diet like this.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
The thing is this tho...I've done checks and you can easily fill decent macros (mine) eating at fast food places...so to your argument...it's not crap.
AS well the biology teacher who ate at Micky D's for a month, lost weight and blood tests/numbers/bp all got better...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905334/
according to this study those choosing "diets" made popular by infomercials are more likely to be deficient in Micro nutrients...as well vegans with B12
As well the CDC did a study and found it was based on race (probably due to their standard diet)
But all in all I doubt very much that we are deficient as the vitamin companies want us to believe.1 -
kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
Is crap in the MFP database? What is the nutritional profile of crap? Also, it seems unhealthy to eat crap. You should probably seek professional help for the compulsion that is leading you to eat crap instead of food. That sounds like a serious and potentially dangerous problem.4 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I was referring to micronutrients, not macros. Sure, if one makes eats plenty of salads at fast flood restaurants then micros would be a bit better, but I didn't think it was unrealistic to think that there are a lot of people out there eating a nutritionally poor diet like this.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
The thing is this tho...I've done checks and you can easily fill decent macros (mine) eating at fast food places...so to your argument...it's not crap.
AS well the biology teacher who ate at Micky D's for a month, lost weight and blood tests/numbers/bp all got better...
I just don't understand why you think it's valuable to continually speculate about how some unidentified "lots of people" eat. It always sounds to me like you are making unwarranted assumptions about how others here eat.
Anyway, the cliche is referring to weight gain, not nutrition. It wouldn't make sense at all if it referred to nutrition, since obviously no one thinks that you can get adequate protein or omega-3s or potassium or whatever by exercising more. (Running outside in the sun could help with D, however!)5 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
Specifically which micronutrients would one be deficient in eating your example diet? Have you actually analyzed it or are you just parroting what you've heard others say?2 -
annaskiski wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I was referring to micronutrients, not macros. Sure, if one makes eats plenty of salads at fast flood restaurants then micros would be a bit better, but I didn't think it was unrealistic to think that there are a lot of people out there eating a nutritionally poor diet like this.
I'm sorry, but its actually difficult to not get all your nutrients from a Western diet. (even fast food).
And all it takes is a vitamin to balance any deficiencies.
People improve their health markers a great deal more by just losing weight, then by trying to stop eating all processed foods.
(I should have kept reading before posting. I see you have this covered so I'll step back into the shadows and let you continue the good fight.)0 -
Tweaking_Time wrote: »It is much easier to put too many calories in your mouth than it is to exercise them off.
When I cycle as hard as I can for an hour - I can only burn off about 1,000 calories - max
So when I am done with that hard ride
I can eat a mess of smoked chicken wings with ranch dip washed down with a nice IPA and undo all of that good and then some in under 15 minutes - 10 if no one is looking
But this assumes that you would be more likely to eat the post workout food IF you worked out, and wouldn't be eating it otherwise. That's really the question. Does exercise cause people (or some people, but not others) to be more likely to eat high calorie foods.
For me, mostly not -- I tend to eat better when I am most active, and am more likely to ignore nutrition and calories when I'm more sedentary. (But if I do use exercising a lot as an excuse to eat everything I want, yes, I certainly can outeat my exercise burn, even if that exercise includes a century ride or a marathon. It's just usually easier not to when I'm active vs. when I'm sedentary.)0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »(I should have kept reading before posting. I see you have this covered so I'll step back into the shadows and let you continue the good fight.)
No, it was a great question. Exactly what nutrients are we missing out on if we don't eat 'clean' (or whatever)?
I liked the quote someone posted before that went something like "Once your nutritional needs are met, you don't get extra credit for eating 'clean' ".
If you take a vitamin and don't need the nutrients, you just pee it out. The same thing happens with food...0 -
Since "clean" seems to be about avoiding stuff, I never get why it's supposed to be how to get in all the nutrients. Seems to me that eating adequate nutrients would involve making sensible choices as to what you do eat (picking foods with protein, healthy fats, fiber, vegetables, a good variety, stuff like that). It basically follows from what is traditionally thought of as a healthy diet and doesn't require overthinking or careful tracking or avoiding all just for fun foods. If humans were that delicate, we'd have died out ages ago.0
-
annaskiski wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »(I should have kept reading before posting. I see you have this covered so I'll step back into the shadows and let you continue the good fight.)
No, it was a great question. Exactly what nutrients are we missing out on if we don't eat 'clean' (or whatever)?
I liked the quote someone posted before that went something like "Once your nutritional needs are met, you don't get extra credit for eating 'clean' ".
If you take a vitamin and don't need the nutrients, you just pee it out. The same thing happens with food...
Someone once posted a great site that analyzes the micronutrient content of food. (Hopefully someone else here remembers which one it is because I don't.) I ran several sample diary days through it and was surprised by how well I was covered regardless of whether my food was whole, free range, wild caught, from scratch or entirely convenience foods. And on the days where I was short on one or two (selenium, or chromium, or one of those iums), it would be fine on average over a week.
And of course, if I ate nothing but French fries, then it was missing several...but the same was true if I comprised a diet entirely of brussel sprouts. The key, not surprisingly, was a variety of foods.5 -
Magnesium would top the list IMO.jofjltncb6 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
Specifically which micronutrients would one be deficient in eating your example diet? Have you actually analyzed it or are you just parroting what you've heard others say?
I don't feel like taking the time to add up how much of it or other micros one would get by eating (for example) donuts, pastries, cereal for breakfast, fast food burgers/fries for lunch, and steak/potatoes from a restaurant for dinner. But I know one would fall short on calcium, magnesium, and vitamin K, at least.
In this situation I was not talking about people on MFP; I'm referring to the general population.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I was referring to micronutrients, not macros. Sure, if one makes eats plenty of salads at fast flood restaurants then micros would be a bit better, but I didn't think it was unrealistic to think that there are a lot of people out there eating a nutritionally poor diet like this.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
The thing is this tho...I've done checks and you can easily fill decent macros (mine) eating at fast food places...so to your argument...it's not crap.
AS well the biology teacher who ate at Micky D's for a month, lost weight and blood tests/numbers/bp all got better...
I just don't understand why you think it's valuable to continually speculate about how some unidentified "lots of people" eat. It always sounds to me like you are making unwarranted assumptions about how others here eat.
Anyway, the cliche is referring to weight gain, not nutrition. It wouldn't make sense at all if it referred to nutrition, since obviously no one thinks that you can get adequate protein or omega-3s or potassium or whatever by exercising more. (Running outside in the sun could help with D, however!)
I didn't say anything about eating "clean". IMO, there's a huge difference between eating a diet centered around nutrient dense foods with some additional low nutrient dense foods (what some of us would refer to as junk), vs eating a diet that's mostly centered around junk food. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the former case, and I do that myself.annaskiski wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »(I should have kept reading before posting. I see you have this covered so I'll step back into the shadows and let you continue the good fight.)
No, it was a great question. Exactly what nutrients are we missing out on if we don't eat 'clean' (or whatever)?
I liked the quote someone posted before that went something like "Once your nutritional needs are met, you don't get extra credit for eating 'clean' ".
If you take a vitamin and don't need the nutrients, you just pee it out. The same thing happens with food...
I know from working in the fast food industry as well as what I have observed in other places that a lot of people simply aren't eating much nutritious food in the first place.
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Magnesium would top the list IMO.jofjltncb6 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
Specifically which micronutrients would one be deficient in eating your example diet? Have you actually analyzed it or are you just parroting what you've heard others say?
I don't feel like taking the time to add up how much of it or other micros one would get by eating (for example) donuts, pastries, cereal for breakfast, fast food burgers/fries for lunch, and steak/potatoes from a restaurant for dinner. But I know one would fall short on calcium, magnesium, and vitamin K, at least.
In this situation I was not talking about people on MFP; I'm referring to the general population.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I was referring to micronutrients, not macros. Sure, if one makes eats plenty of salads at fast flood restaurants then micros would be a bit better, but I didn't think it was unrealistic to think that there are a lot of people out there eating a nutritionally poor diet like this.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
The thing is this tho...I've done checks and you can easily fill decent macros (mine) eating at fast food places...so to your argument...it's not crap.
AS well the biology teacher who ate at Micky D's for a month, lost weight and blood tests/numbers/bp all got better...
I just don't understand why you think it's valuable to continually speculate about how some unidentified "lots of people" eat. It always sounds to me like you are making unwarranted assumptions about how others here eat.
Anyway, the cliche is referring to weight gain, not nutrition. It wouldn't make sense at all if it referred to nutrition, since obviously no one thinks that you can get adequate protein or omega-3s or potassium or whatever by exercising more. (Running outside in the sun could help with D, however!)
I didn't say anything about eating "clean". IMO, there's a huge difference between eating a diet centered around nutrient dense foods with some additional low nutrient dense foods (what some of us would refer to as junk), vs eating a diet that's mostly centered around junk food. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the former case, and I do that myself.annaskiski wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »(I should have kept reading before posting. I see you have this covered so I'll step back into the shadows and let you continue the good fight.)
No, it was a great question. Exactly what nutrients are we missing out on if we don't eat 'clean' (or whatever)?
I liked the quote someone posted before that went something like "Once your nutritional needs are met, you don't get extra credit for eating 'clean' ".
If you take a vitamin and don't need the nutrients, you just pee it out. The same thing happens with food...
I know from working in the fast food industry as well as what I have observed in other places that a lot of people simply aren't eating much nutritious food in the first place.
Analysis paralysis...4 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »(I should have kept reading before posting. I see you have this covered so I'll step back into the shadows and let you continue the good fight.)
No, it was a great question. Exactly what nutrients are we missing out on if we don't eat 'clean' (or whatever)?
I liked the quote someone posted before that went something like "Once your nutritional needs are met, you don't get extra credit for eating 'clean' ".
If you take a vitamin and don't need the nutrients, you just pee it out. The same thing happens with food...
Someone once posted a great site that analyzes the micronutrient content of food. (Hopefully someone else here remembers which one it is because I don't.) I ran several sample diary days through it and was surprised by how well I was covered regardless of whether my food was whole, free range, wild caught, from scratch or entirely convenience foods. And on the days where I was short on one or two (selenium, or chromium, or one of those iums), it would be fine on average over a week.
And of course, if I ate nothing but French fries, then it was missing several...but the same was true if I comprised a diet entirely of brussel sprouts. The key, not surprisingly, was a variety of foods.
Probably cron-o-meter. I did the same thing and noticed the same.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Magnesium would top the list IMO.jofjltncb6 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
Specifically which micronutrients would one be deficient in eating your example diet? Have you actually analyzed it or are you just parroting what you've heard others say?
I don't feel like taking the time to add up how much of it or other micros one would get by eating (for example) donuts, pastries, cereal for breakfast, fast food burgers/fries for lunch, and steak/potatoes from a restaurant for dinner. But I know one would fall short on calcium, magnesium, and vitamin K, at least.
In this situation I was not talking about people on MFP; I'm referring to the general population.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I was referring to micronutrients, not macros. Sure, if one makes eats plenty of salads at fast flood restaurants then micros would be a bit better, but I didn't think it was unrealistic to think that there are a lot of people out there eating a nutritionally poor diet like this.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
The thing is this tho...I've done checks and you can easily fill decent macros (mine) eating at fast food places...so to your argument...it's not crap.
AS well the biology teacher who ate at Micky D's for a month, lost weight and blood tests/numbers/bp all got better...
I just don't understand why you think it's valuable to continually speculate about how some unidentified "lots of people" eat. It always sounds to me like you are making unwarranted assumptions about how others here eat.
Anyway, the cliche is referring to weight gain, not nutrition. It wouldn't make sense at all if it referred to nutrition, since obviously no one thinks that you can get adequate protein or omega-3s or potassium or whatever by exercising more. (Running outside in the sun could help with D, however!)
I didn't say anything about eating "clean". IMO, there's a huge difference between eating a diet centered around nutrient dense foods with some additional low nutrient dense foods (what some of us would refer to as junk), vs eating a diet that's mostly centered around junk food. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the former case, and I do that myself.annaskiski wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »(I should have kept reading before posting. I see you have this covered so I'll step back into the shadows and let you continue the good fight.)
No, it was a great question. Exactly what nutrients are we missing out on if we don't eat 'clean' (or whatever)?
I liked the quote someone posted before that went something like "Once your nutritional needs are met, you don't get extra credit for eating 'clean' ".
If you take a vitamin and don't need the nutrients, you just pee it out. The same thing happens with food...
I know from working in the fast food industry as well as what I have observed in other places that a lot of people simply aren't eating much nutritious food in the first place.
Would they? Cereal is fortified with vitamins and minerals many times, eaten with milk which contains calcium. That's just one of the things you listed that would refute your claim. Potatoes have micronutrients including non-trivial amounts of magnesium and a restaurant meal comes with salad pretty much always.2 -
I'm fairly sure one can live healthily on oatmeal, potatoes and milk. If I get down and out that's what I do and it seems filling and healthy enough to me. Add salt, that makes it more possible over the long term.0
-
TV shows like the Biggest Loser give people the idea that you can exercise your fat away. I am lazy so it fascinates me how these people who are overweight and out of shape exercise intensely for hours. I don't know where their endurance comes from. While my endurance has increased greatly, it isn't nearly like that.
To burn 1000 calories via exercise it would take me more hours of walking than I am willing to do.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions