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
-
Because most people don't have 4-6 hours a day to devote to running and our bodies aren't meant to handle that much punishment. Toenail clipper manufacturers would go out of business and nail polish companies would see a 50% decrease in sales almost overnight. Don't even start me on the chafing... Also even if everyone did have the time, maaaybe 0.005% of the population would have the willpower to even attempt 30+ miles daily.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.....
Exactly. Michael Phelps eats 8-10K calories a day. Saw a story on it a while back. The dude literally shoves in Big Macs with both hands in between workouts, but how many people work out like him? To burn even 2000 calories in a 24 hour period is far beyond the capacity of almost everyone. Even 1000 per day has to be worked up to over months/years. And relatively few people have the desire and/or time to exercise that much.
I ran or an hour this morning and burned ~600 calories. I could cancel that out with food soooooo easily.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.2 -
0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Excellent article. Thanks for sharing it.
1 -
I have an idea! Let's start saying "It is difficult (for most) to outrun a bad diet" =D0
-
-
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »To me a 'bad diet' means a Way Of Eating that gives me worse health.
A 'good diet' means a WOE that leads to better health.
One could find a WOE that would lead to a 50 pound weight loss yet have increased their risk of a premature death.
I think the only one that qualifies for everyone would be starvation.
Why do you say that?
Plenty of people don't have 50 lbs to lose. Plenty don't have 1 lb to lose. Only way for those people to drop weight is starvation. As it happens, starvation also guarantees an increased risk of premature death.
People with weight to lose would have more options.1 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Awesome article, thanks for sharing.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.1 -
1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.
Harvard gives 400 cal/hr for a power push mower (as opposed to a reel push mower, which is the 488, from what I can determine). I definitely agree, the burn will be higher for up and down hills for either, and also higher if you are heavier than 185 lbs. Sounds like a really good workout! (but dangerous--be careful!)0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It wouldn't be a bad diet if you were at maintenance.Christine_72 wrote: »Ok what if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
Huh?
How is it only okay at maintenance?
It would actually be a terrible diet at maintenance....because it would be 500 daily calories too little.
How would it be 500 calories too little if you were maintaining? If we are talking about "outrunning a bad diet", wouldn't you have to start with a bad diet? I would say a diet at maintenance is at least neutral, if not desired.
ETA: To be clear, I am of the camp that understands the saying to be an expression of an idea vs an actual factual statement.
Because maintenance minus 500 calories = 1 pound lost per week. Thus, if the goal is maintenance, the goal is not met because weight is lost and not maintained.
The diet is the starting point.
My answer is that it would not be outrunning a bad diet because the diet wasn't bad to begin with.if you eat at maintenance everyday, but burn off 500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
If her question was:
my answer would be "Yes, probably".if you eat at 1000 calories above maintenance everyday, but burn off 1500 calories through exercise to lose 1lb a week. Would this be classed as outrunning a "bad" diet?
ETA: There's some ambiguity as to what constitutes a bad diet, hence the "probably".
....right......so if the goal of the dieter is to maintain their weight (as you said...if they're in maintenance)......and the starting point is a maintenance diet........but that diet is offset by 500 calories of exercise, resulting in a pound lost per week.......it is not a good diet for their goal.
They would need to be eating 500 more calories per day than they are. The diet is insufficient.
A diet doesn't have to be excessive to be bad. A 500 calorie diet could be as bad (or worse) as a 5,000 calorie diet.0 -
What people mean when they say "You can't outrun a bad diet" is actually "You probably can't exercise long enough or hard enough before getting hurt to balance the CICO equation when you're stuffing your face with "7000" calories a day" Or perhaps simply that "even if you can exercise enough to lose weight while eating poorly, that doesn't mean your body will have the right nutrition to be healthy".
People don't always mean "Can't" when they say it. "Won't" is very commonly what they mean to say.3 -
I have an idea...let's take a cliche, apply it as a scientific principle while leaving it's meaning open to any interpretation and then debate it's merits in relation to scientific fact, using nothing but our own opinions, anecdotes and emotions as the basis for our positions!
That'll be fun!!!!
(seriously, this whole conversation is mind numbingly pointless)9 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I have an idea...let's take a cliche, apply it as a scientific principle while leaving it's meaning open to any interpretation and then debate it's merits in relation to scientific fact, using nothing but our own opinions, anecdotes and emotions as the basis for our positions!
That'll be fun!!!!
(seriously, this whole conversation is mind numbingly pointless)
An apple a day keeps the doctor away?
Every cloud has a silver lining?2 -
Yeah, but it's fun.Carlos_421 wrote: »I have an idea...let's take a cliche, apply it as a scientific principle while leaving it's meaning open to any interpretation and then debate it's merits in relation to scientific fact, using nothing but our own opinions, anecdotes and emotions as the basis for our positions!
That'll be fun!!!!
(seriously, this whole conversation is mind numbingly pointless)
0 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Well you do burn at least a thousand calories just going about your normal day. A lot of the posts stating how difficult it is to burn off X000 calories seem to be ignoring that. Personally i dislike the statement in the title - I think it tends to be limiting to individuals who could utilize exercise as their primary weight control tool. Depending on "how bad" my diet is, a bit of exercise just might be exactly what I need to get my weight to where I want it.
No one's claiming that you can't burn 1000 calories in a couple hours of intense exercise. But I often see stuff like:
'Mowing the lawn 45min. 750 calories....'
Wow, really? (ok, maybe with a push mower).
I don't burn more than 400 cal in an hour run according to my HRM, but yes, I know that other people can burn much more. (and I would die if I ran more than an hour).
But I see so often people post that they can't lose weight, and then post 2000-3000 calorie burns for walking, some aerobics, etc.
Not even for a push mower (I assume this is a reel mower, no power)...Harvard Medical School gives that 488 calories an hour for a 185 lb person. Maybe they were super heavy and then mowing uphill both ways.
I don't mow often, but occasionally will mow a relative's place that has a short hill (maybe 20-25 feet at the highest) with about 200% grade and is very wide (about 150 feet). A 2nd similar hill on the other side of the property is almost as steep, taller, but not as wide. When I mow that, it is using a push mower (gas powered) and it is difficult. A riding mower would be dangerous, though I've actually seen it done on the less steep of the hills (I would not try this). The guy would sit with his body hanging off of the mower on the uphill side to balance the weight so it wouldn't flip.
That's not a push mower.
We had one of these growing up too... at the same property.
Still, I know there are a lot more than 488 cal/hr. burned pushing (or holding back, but still against the groud on the downhill side) a gas or electric powered mower up and down a 200% grade.
ETA: Technically, it is still a push mower as long as it doesn't move its own wheels. Gas power for the blade doesn't mean it doesn't need to be pushed by someone. The ones that roll by themselves and someone needs to guide their direction are not push mowers, but the ones I'm talking about with a gas motor for the blade only are still considered push mowers.
Harvard gives 400 cal/hr for a power push mower (as opposed to a reel push mower, which is the 488, from what I can determine). I definitely agree, the burn will be higher for up and down hills for either, and also higher if you are heavier than 185 lbs. Sounds like a really good workout! (but dangerous--be careful!)
The real question is "Why isn't this hill being mowed horizontally?"
You can go up and down a ~63 degree incline for about 80-90 rows or you can just guide it across the hill for 12-15 rows...2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions