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
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »DoreenaV1975 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »My favorite fish-based burger (or sandwich, if one is a purist) is tuna steak with a spicy jardiniere on a whole-wheat bun. A lunch place near my (former) office used to make them, and I started doing them at home. So good.
IDK what "jardinière" is but I love spicy and tuna so I'm sure it's delish!
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!!!0 -
I propose that an apple a day will not keep the doctor away.0
-
I propose that an apple a day will not keep the doctor away.
Too late: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?0 -
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.3 -
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 propose that an apple a day will not keep the doctor away.
Too late: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?
0 -
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 propose that an apple a day will not keep the doctor away.
Too late: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?
I'll allow it.1 -
8 -
-
oh man, these are soooooo cute! makes reading this whole wierd thread worth it.1
-
-
0
-
0
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »
Haha I KNEW someone was going to bring that up
I just had no words to convey my feelings..
As for your last sentence.. Hmmmm maybe :blushing:0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Haha I KNEW someone was going to bring that up I just had no words to convey my feelings..
As for your last sentence.. Hmmmm maybe :blushing:
Yes!1 -
Oh sweet Jesus.. Don't confuse me any further
I'm new to this, and i thought they were gifs :sad: 0 -
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.0
-
DoreenaV1975 wrote: »
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.
0 -
DoreenaV1975 wrote: »
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.
exactly...that's what I said (see my my bolded statement and yours, click on "see previous quotes" if mine doesn't show up).0 -
DoreenaV1975 wrote: »
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.
*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.0 -
How fast does a bad diet travel anyways?
1 -
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.
0 -
DoreenaV1975 wrote: »
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.
*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...0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
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.....
30 miles daily? So I can eat a total of 4500 to 5000+ calories per day? Really???
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??0 -
Hint: It's CICO.0
-
I propose that an apple a day will not keep the doctor away.
I will counter that proposal with undeniable proof:
3 -
5
-
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.1 -
Doreena replied to my post...Carlos_421 wrote: »DoreenaV1975 wrote: »
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.
*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...
0 -
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
0 -
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. ;-)1
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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