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
-
0 -
Good point, I think you may be on to something. This guy looks rail thin and kind of sickly, even though he is always wearing running shoes.
4 -
-
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/36374193/#Comment_36374193jofjltncb6 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I'm what ways is a reasonable diet of "junk" deficient where a "lean proteins*" diet is not? How extreme will your example have to be to make this point?
*what's with the continued hate for animal fat? It's remarkably nutritious.
Are you suggesting that a bag of Cheetos has the same nutritional value as baked chicken and vegetables? That's what I'm referring to. Calories matter for weight loss, but if you're going to get into actual health, that's a different story. You can hit your macros, too, by eating junk, but you're going to miss out on vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients your body needs. I'm not saying you can't have treats and junk once in awhile, but living off of it isn't healthy no matter what your weight is.
Ahhh the Cheetoh strawman. One of my favorites. Are there actually people who consider what to have for dinner, and say, "well I could have baked chicken and vegetables, but instead I think I'll have a bag of Cheetohs instead, it is still under my calorie alotment for the day, so *kitten* it, I'm going to just turn my fingers orange!"
You burn plenty of calories scrubbing the cheese dust off.
And what jof is referring to, I believe, is eating Cheetos is as nutritionally deficient as eating chicken and broccoli IF BOTH ARE ALL YOU ARE EATING. You're missing out on plenty of minerals and vitamins with both examples. Why don't people who argue this kitten understand that?
(I see I should have kept reading before posting because we've jumped ahead a few steps on my progression of dietary sufficiency enlightenment flowchart. I'll stop posting and catch up now.)
ETA: Okay, caught up...but I see the dialogue has stopped. So maybe someone else could craft this sample "junk" diet so I can better understand in which nutrients it is deficient....
...and then we can offer some simple solutions to tweaking that "junk" diet to cover those deficiencies to demonstrate that it isn't the "junk" that's the problem...but the quantity (in calories).
(While a calorie surplus was implicated, note the types of foods). Again, my point is that a diet of eating nothing but highly processed foods is not necessarily something that does NOT happen in the real world.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »rileysowner 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.....
A little late to this, but it is because you can eat far more calories in far less time than you could ever burn running.
But would you keep eating those calories for the length of time it would take you to burn them off?
Others have pointed out that they could consume 1000 calories in 15 minutes ... but it would take them 2-3 hours to burn that off. Yes, that's probably true. But would you continue to eat 1000 calories every 15 minutes during those 2-3 hours? Or would you be full after consuming those 1000 calories, and be off doing something else with your time for the next 2-3 hours?
Personally, if I do consume 1000 calories in one sitting (rare), I'm stuffed to the gills and don't want to look at food for the next 2-3 hours. So while it is true that I can consume those 1000 calories in a mere 15 min, it takes me about the same length of time to get process that consumption and feel hungry again as it would to burn off 1000 calories by going for a 2-3 hour bicycle ride.
Depends on what the meal is. A quarter pounder with cheese, medium fries, and a medium soda (regular, not diet) is right around 1000 calories. I could eat that in 15 min and not be "stuffed" at all. In fact I've btdt and been hungry just an hour or two later (one reason I don't eat fast food terribly often). So I could reasonably eat that same meal every 2-3 hours during my waking hours (let's call it 16 hours) easily consuming between 5000 and 8000 calories for the day. No problem. But I'm not sure I could work out at a high enough intensity, long enough to burn that many calories in the same 16 hour time frame... I kinda doubt it. I would think I would get fatigued a lot sooner and either would have to stop altogether, or would be at a very low intensity, therefore not burning nearly as many calories as I would need to in order to outrun that level of intake.
That, but with diet soda, was my normal fast food order when forced to do fast food (i.e., road trip). It was quite filling and I'd feel if anything sluggish (high fat) and not want anything more 'til my next planned meal. High cal if lots of meals were made up of that, but for an occasional meal, no. The reason I don't eat fast food is that I don't care for it, not because it's that hard to fit in.
Anyway, I agree with Machka. There are some foods I like where I can eat insane calories in a short amount of time (Indian), but even so that's great for hours. I can't imagine eating and eating. I now don't get Indian 3x/week but maybe 1 time/month around a half marathon or long bike or run, and allow myself to eat whatever I want. Works fine for maintenance. Is that outrunning a bad diet?
Fwiw, when I do occasionally get fast food, these days I get unsweetened iced tea (hate the taste of diet soda), skip the fries altogether (or sub a salad) and get a double burger, no bun. That fills me up for 3-4 hours, no sluggishness. But the meal I described? That used to be my go-to mickey d's meal and I would always be hungry an hour or two later. Not sluggish at all. Heck, I could do a double qpc, supersize fries (back in the day when they still offered that) and supersize regular soda, and be ready for my next meal in 3-4 hours. For me the carbs awaken my inner monster. And the monster is hangry, lol. Now, 1000 calories of steak and salad? Stuffed to the gills for hours. My point was, mcd's aside, I could easily consume 5000+ calories in a day, given the right food (or the wrong food depending on how you look at it, lol). I'd be hard pressed to be able to maintain a high enough intensity of cardio to burn that off in the same timeframe. I'd really have to train for it and work up to it. Wouldn't need to train for or work up to that level of intake. At. All. And I suspect that rings true for the average person (which is whom I believe that saying is directed at in the first place).
I just don't like fast food. McD's was something I'd get for a road trip, but not like, so I'm not a good example. I always found it filling, though, and would not be hungry early. (There is as much fat in that meal as carbs, FTR.) The idea of fast food burgers no bun is icky to me as I have the idea the meat isn't that good (probably unfair). I do burgers no bun at home all the time (I get ground beef from a farm I have a CSA with).
Yes, I find fast food filling too.
We rarely ate McD's because we don't particularly like it, but we'd stop at Hungry Jacks and get the $5 meal ... and I'd be full for the rest of the evening on that.
Whopper Junior: 1550 kj (370 cal)
Small Fries: 1120 kj (268 cal)
Small Chocolate Sundae: 1200 kj (287 cal)
Total: 925 cal
https://www.hungryjacks.com.au/media/20888/nutrition-guide-2016.pdf
More recently one of the bigger "fast food" meals we eat is a burrito from Zambreros which comes in at about 750 cal. I might have a little bit of yogurt much later in the evening after that, or sometimes not. It's just that filling.
Not me. For a long time I thought that McDonald's put out a "worst case" calorie count for their products because I found their food to be so much less filling that my homemade fare. Not sure why this is. Fiber? Sodium?0 -
This is still going?0
-
Maybe their food has more fat, which would inflate the calorie count as compared to yours.goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »rileysowner 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.....
A little late to this, but it is because you can eat far more calories in far less time than you could ever burn running.
But would you keep eating those calories for the length of time it would take you to burn them off?
Others have pointed out that they could consume 1000 calories in 15 minutes ... but it would take them 2-3 hours to burn that off. Yes, that's probably true. But would you continue to eat 1000 calories every 15 minutes during those 2-3 hours? Or would you be full after consuming those 1000 calories, and be off doing something else with your time for the next 2-3 hours?
Personally, if I do consume 1000 calories in one sitting (rare), I'm stuffed to the gills and don't want to look at food for the next 2-3 hours. So while it is true that I can consume those 1000 calories in a mere 15 min, it takes me about the same length of time to get process that consumption and feel hungry again as it would to burn off 1000 calories by going for a 2-3 hour bicycle ride.
Depends on what the meal is. A quarter pounder with cheese, medium fries, and a medium soda (regular, not diet) is right around 1000 calories. I could eat that in 15 min and not be "stuffed" at all. In fact I've btdt and been hungry just an hour or two later (one reason I don't eat fast food terribly often). So I could reasonably eat that same meal every 2-3 hours during my waking hours (let's call it 16 hours) easily consuming between 5000 and 8000 calories for the day. No problem. But I'm not sure I could work out at a high enough intensity, long enough to burn that many calories in the same 16 hour time frame... I kinda doubt it. I would think I would get fatigued a lot sooner and either would have to stop altogether, or would be at a very low intensity, therefore not burning nearly as many calories as I would need to in order to outrun that level of intake.
That, but with diet soda, was my normal fast food order when forced to do fast food (i.e., road trip). It was quite filling and I'd feel if anything sluggish (high fat) and not want anything more 'til my next planned meal. High cal if lots of meals were made up of that, but for an occasional meal, no. The reason I don't eat fast food is that I don't care for it, not because it's that hard to fit in.
Anyway, I agree with Machka. There are some foods I like where I can eat insane calories in a short amount of time (Indian), but even so that's great for hours. I can't imagine eating and eating. I now don't get Indian 3x/week but maybe 1 time/month around a half marathon or long bike or run, and allow myself to eat whatever I want. Works fine for maintenance. Is that outrunning a bad diet?
Fwiw, when I do occasionally get fast food, these days I get unsweetened iced tea (hate the taste of diet soda), skip the fries altogether (or sub a salad) and get a double burger, no bun. That fills me up for 3-4 hours, no sluggishness. But the meal I described? That used to be my go-to mickey d's meal and I would always be hungry an hour or two later. Not sluggish at all. Heck, I could do a double qpc, supersize fries (back in the day when they still offered that) and supersize regular soda, and be ready for my next meal in 3-4 hours. For me the carbs awaken my inner monster. And the monster is hangry, lol. Now, 1000 calories of steak and salad? Stuffed to the gills for hours. My point was, mcd's aside, I could easily consume 5000+ calories in a day, given the right food (or the wrong food depending on how you look at it, lol). I'd be hard pressed to be able to maintain a high enough intensity of cardio to burn that off in the same timeframe. I'd really have to train for it and work up to it. Wouldn't need to train for or work up to that level of intake. At. All. And I suspect that rings true for the average person (which is whom I believe that saying is directed at in the first place).
I just don't like fast food. McD's was something I'd get for a road trip, but not like, so I'm not a good example. I always found it filling, though, and would not be hungry early. (There is as much fat in that meal as carbs, FTR.) The idea of fast food burgers no bun is icky to me as I have the idea the meat isn't that good (probably unfair). I do burgers no bun at home all the time (I get ground beef from a farm I have a CSA with).
Yes, I find fast food filling too.
We rarely ate McD's because we don't particularly like it, but we'd stop at Hungry Jacks and get the $5 meal ... and I'd be full for the rest of the evening on that.
Whopper Junior: 1550 kj (370 cal)
Small Fries: 1120 kj (268 cal)
Small Chocolate Sundae: 1200 kj (287 cal)
Total: 925 cal
https://www.hungryjacks.com.au/media/20888/nutrition-guide-2016.pdf
More recently one of the bigger "fast food" meals we eat is a burrito from Zambreros which comes in at about 750 cal. I might have a little bit of yogurt much later in the evening after that, or sometimes not. It's just that filling.
Not me. For a long time I thought that McDonald's put out a "worst case" calorie count for their products because I found their food to be so much less filling that my homemade fare. Not sure why this is. Fiber? Sodium?
1 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I'm what ways is a reasonable diet of "junk" deficient where a "lean proteins*" diet is not? How extreme will your example have to be to make this point?
*what's with the continued hate for animal fat? It's remarkably nutritious.
Are you suggesting that a bag of Cheetos has the same nutritional value as baked chicken and vegetables? That's what I'm referring to. Calories matter for weight loss, but if you're going to get into actual health, that's a different story. You can hit your macros, too, by eating junk, but you're going to miss out on vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients your body needs. I'm not saying you can't have treats and junk once in awhile, but living off of it isn't healthy no matter what your weight is.
Ahhh the Cheetoh strawman. One of my favorites. Are there actually people who consider what to have for dinner, and say, "well I could have baked chicken and vegetables, but instead I think I'll have a bag of Cheetohs instead, it is still under my calorie alotment for the day, so *kitten* it, I'm going to just turn my fingers orange!"
You burn plenty of calories scrubbing the cheese dust off.
And what jof is referring to, I believe, is eating Cheetos is as nutritionally deficient as eating chicken and broccoli IF BOTH ARE ALL YOU ARE EATING. You're missing out on plenty of minerals and vitamins with both examples. Why don't people who argue this kitten understand that?
(I see I should have kept reading before posting because we've jumped ahead a few steps on my progression of dietary sufficiency enlightenment flowchart. I'll stop posting and catch up now.)
ETA: Okay, caught up...but I see the dialogue has stopped. So maybe someone else could craft this sample "junk" diet so I can better understand in which nutrients it is deficient....
...and then we can offer some simple solutions to tweaking that "junk" diet to cover those deficiencies to demonstrate that it isn't the "junk" that's the problem...but the quantity (in calories).
An all broccoli diet would be pretty junky.
(waits for the anti junkers to crawl out of the woodworks...)2 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I'm what ways is a reasonable diet of "junk" deficient where a "lean proteins*" diet is not? How extreme will your example have to be to make this point?
*what's with the continued hate for animal fat? It's remarkably nutritious.
Are you suggesting that a bag of Cheetos has the same nutritional value as baked chicken and vegetables? That's what I'm referring to. Calories matter for weight loss, but if you're going to get into actual health, that's a different story. You can hit your macros, too, by eating junk, but you're going to miss out on vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients your body needs. I'm not saying you can't have treats and junk once in awhile, but living off of it isn't healthy no matter what your weight is.
Ahhh the Cheetoh strawman. One of my favorites. Are there actually people who consider what to have for dinner, and say, "well I could have baked chicken and vegetables, but instead I think I'll have a bag of Cheetohs instead, it is still under my calorie alotment for the day, so *kitten* it, I'm going to just turn my fingers orange!"
You burn plenty of calories scrubbing the cheese dust off.
And what jof is referring to, I believe, is eating Cheetos is as nutritionally deficient as eating chicken and broccoli IF BOTH ARE ALL YOU ARE EATING. You're missing out on plenty of minerals and vitamins with both examples. Why don't people who argue this kitten understand that?
(I see I should have kept reading before posting because we've jumped ahead a few steps on my progression of dietary sufficiency enlightenment flowchart. I'll stop posting and catch up now.)
ETA: Okay, caught up...but I see the dialogue has stopped. So maybe someone else could craft this sample "junk" diet so I can better understand in which nutrients it is deficient....
...and then we can offer some simple solutions to tweaking that "junk" diet to cover those deficiencies to demonstrate that it isn't the "junk" that's the problem...but the quantity (in calories).
An all broccoli diet would be pretty junky.
(waits for the anti junkers to crawl out of the woodworks...)
But broccoli has so much protein!
0 -
The problem with exercising as the only method to lose weight is that eventually you will get injured or stop exercising to the intensity that kept you slim. Add the slowing metabolism and muscle loss and you will balloon up like a pig. Have you seen some of the pro athletes after they retire? I used to exercise six hours a day as a Triathlete and looked thin until I had to stop due to an injury. I gained 40 lbs in 4 months because I didn't realize that I consumed so much "healthy food" to feed an army. There is nothing more humiliating than going from Ironman shape to couch potato in 4 months! Like many people, I fooled myself in believing that I could eat all the "healthy food" to my heart's content and since I was still exercising a little that I could handle it. As my metabolism slowed down the fat gain revved up. The worst part was that I still thought of myself as a lean athlete until I caught a glimpse of myself in a photo. Ouch, reality sucks!1
-
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?
You can. There is a limit to how many calories can be ingested before your gastro-intenstinal system starts sliding into "bypass" mode. It is possible to burn more than that amount, but you'll need to be somewhere around a marathon and a half...a day...every day...
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I'm what ways is a reasonable diet of "junk" deficient where a "lean proteins*" diet is not? How extreme will your example have to be to make this point?
*what's with the continued hate for animal fat? It's remarkably nutritious.
Are you suggesting that a bag of Cheetos has the same nutritional value as baked chicken and vegetables? That's what I'm referring to. Calories matter for weight loss, but if you're going to get into actual health, that's a different story. You can hit your macros, too, by eating junk, but you're going to miss out on vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients your body needs. I'm not saying you can't have treats and junk once in awhile, but living off of it isn't healthy no matter what your weight is.
Ahhh the Cheetoh strawman. One of my favorites. Are there actually people who consider what to have for dinner, and say, "well I could have baked chicken and vegetables, but instead I think I'll have a bag of Cheetohs instead, it is still under my calorie alotment for the day, so *kitten* it, I'm going to just turn my fingers orange!"
You burn plenty of calories scrubbing the cheese dust off.
And what jof is referring to, I believe, is eating Cheetos is as nutritionally deficient as eating chicken and broccoli IF BOTH ARE ALL YOU ARE EATING. You're missing out on plenty of minerals and vitamins with both examples. Why don't people who argue this kitten understand that?
(I see I should have kept reading before posting because we've jumped ahead a few steps on my progression of dietary sufficiency enlightenment flowchart. I'll stop posting and catch up now.)
ETA: Okay, caught up...but I see the dialogue has stopped. So maybe someone else could craft this sample "junk" diet so I can better understand in which nutrients it is deficient....
...and then we can offer some simple solutions to tweaking that "junk" diet to cover those deficiencies to demonstrate that it isn't the "junk" that's the problem...but the quantity (in calories).
An all broccoli diet would be pretty junky.
(waits for the anti junkers to crawl out of the woodworks...)
But broccoli has so much protein!
0 -
Is an ounce of prevention really worth a pound of cure?1
-
Humans are actually very efficient runners. We must stop running to sleep and to actually have a bad diet. In the waking non-eating hours we cannot efficiently run enough to burn all the calories we consume in a "bad diet"0
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Humans are actually very efficient runners. We must stop running to sleep and to actually have a bad diet. In the waking non-eating hours we cannot efficiently run enough to burn all the calories we consume in a "bad diet"
I sleep for eight hours a night...if I spend an hour on each of three meals I spend 3 hours eating...that leaves 13 hours.
I could totally burn off an otherwise bad diet in 13 hours.
Now if only I could run for 13 hours...1 -
Just been pre-logging my food for tomorrow as I will be up early and off the net all day.
Adding up my sports energy drinks, peanut & chocolate bars, banana malt loaf, carb gels and a carb heavy breakfast I'm up to 2554 cals and 483g of carbs. Assume this would be a lot of people's idea of "a bad diet"?
By the time I've eaten lunch, dinner and snacks guess I will be over 4000 cals for the day?
But I will still in a sunstantial calorie deficit after 100 miles cycling.
It's about calorie balance and not CI or CO in isolation.2 -
Just been pre-logging my food for tomorrow as I will be up early and off the net all day.
Adding up my sports energy drinks, peanut & chocolate bars, banana malt loaf, carb gels and a carb heavy breakfast I'm up to 2554 cals and 483g of carbs. Assume this would be a lot of people's idea of "a bad diet"?
By the time I've eaten lunch, dinner and snacks guess I will be over 4000 cals for the day?
But I will still in a sunstantial calorie deficit after 100 miles cycling.
It's about calorie balance and not CI or CO in isolation.
Holy kitten, that is a whole bunch of "bad" food! Is the banana malt loaf banana bread?
Yep, it's about fueling your workouts and not the other way around.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Now if only I could run for 13 hours...
Precisely.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions