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
1121315171820

Replies

  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    ybv5pxrpc0qm.jpg

    xvs3e80g2bmn.jpg



    I thought you hated gifs... Are you circling to the dark side? :wink:

  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    edited April 2016
    Options
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    ybv5pxrpc0qm.jpg

    xvs3e80g2bmn.jpg



    I thought you hated gifs... Are you circling to the dark side? :wink:

    Technically, those are .jpgs not .GIFs. >:)
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    ybv5pxrpc0qm.jpg

    xvs3e80g2bmn.jpg



    I thought you hated gifs... Are you circling to the dark side? :wink:

    Haha I KNEW someone was going to bring that up :mrgreen: I just had no words to convey my feelings..

    As for your last sentence.. Hmmmm maybe :blushing:
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    ybv5pxrpc0qm.jpg

    xvs3e80g2bmn.jpg



    I thought you hated gifs... Are you circling to the dark side? :wink:

    Haha I KNEW someone was going to bring that up :mrgreen: I just had no words to convey my feelings..

    As for your last sentence.. Hmmmm maybe :blushing:

    Yes!
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    moe0303 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    ybv5pxrpc0qm.jpg

    xvs3e80g2bmn.jpg



    I thought you hated gifs... Are you circling to the dark side? :wink:

    Technically, those are .jpgs not .GIFs. >:)

    Oh sweet Jesus.. Don't confuse me any further :wink: I'm new to this, and i thought they were gifs :sad:
  • Eboniii
    Eboniii Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ziggy2006
    ziggy2006 Posts: 255 Member
    Options

    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.

  • DoreenaV1975
    DoreenaV1975 Posts: 567 Member
    edited April 2016
    Options
    ziggy2006 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).
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    ziggy2006 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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    How fast does a bad diet travel anyways? >:)
  • ziggy2006
    ziggy2006 Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    moe0303 wrote: »


    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.

  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    moe0303 wrote: »
    ziggy2006 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...
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    yusaku02 wrote: »
    parfia wrote: »
    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.....
    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.

    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??
  • DonM46
    DonM46 Posts: 771 Member
    Options
    Hint: It's CICO.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    moe0303 wrote: »
    I propose that an apple a day will not keep the doctor away.

    I will counter that proposal with undeniable proof:

    zw1gmjnvskos.jpg
  • mommarnurse
    mommarnurse Posts: 515 Member
    Options
    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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    ziggy2006 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...
    Doreena replied to my post...
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    ziggy2006 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »


    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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. ;-)