Obviously you can kind of but its extremely difficult (for those pedantic commentators I foresee)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 44 points 5 months ago (28 children)

I absolutely used to run enough to out run my bad diet!

It only became a problem when I got injured and couldn't run for several months :P

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [+] 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Yeah, I looked like a piece of leather wrapped around a stick when I was training that hard. And I pretty much just lived on takeout

    And yeah, 10 years later, older, no longer anywhere near that fit, and even as I train for a half marathon, it's hard to shift my weight to where I want it to be for my race

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, but the saying is usually told to fat people. It is very unlikely that a fat person has enough endurance to burn 4,000+ calories a day via physical activity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    It's still possible to build up endurance even while fat, if you never got completely sedentary or if you take the time to build it back up. But if you're too fat there comes a point where physical activity starts becoming dangerous without proper guidance - and if you have that then you're probably looking into your diet too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    Yeah, it works as a general rule of thumb but there are nuances. Running 2km or 1 mile burns roughly 100 calories.

    If you were burning 100 calories running per day, and consuming just as many calories each day as you were burning, the lack of running puts you at a 100 calorie daily surplus without a change in diet. That translates to an annual surplus of 36,500 calories, which will likely gain you about 10 pounds of body fat in that year.

    Simple solution in that situation is to eat 100 fewer calories per day, if you can (or however much else you estimate you were burning). 100 calories is half a candy bar, half a bottle of soda, skipping sugar in your coffee/tea, etc. If the injury was specifically a leg injury, can also supplement with cardio exercises that only work the upper body and don't require your legs, if desired.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    When I was marathon training I found that eating enough calories was a matter of meal timing, simply because I didn't have the stomach to be able to eat that much in a single sitting.

    With training a total of 50 miles (80 km) per week at a body weight of 190 lbs (85 kg), that's basically 6700 calories per week of direct energy expenditure, maybe another 1000 calories of excess post-exercise energy expenditure. That's 7700 calories per week from running, which allows you to add a whole 1100 calories per day to your diet, plus the amount you'd normally need for day to day.

    With intense exercise, there's a lot of room to work with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    That's one of the reasons I ended up eating like trash. Fatty foods are calories dense foods, and that made it easier to get enough calories in a single meal, rather than trying to eat enough food throughout the day that wasn't as calorie dense.

    I won't pretend that was the only reason I ate like trash, but it was definitely a part of it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Then you weren't eating enough ice cream 😉 on average a mile run is 100 to 150 calories burned. Eat one pint of Ben and Jerry's and you're looking at 10ish miles to burn that off if you're not in caloric defecit. Like I said it's technically possible but by disagreeing you're really just being pedantic. If your body's ideal caloric intake should be 2000 calories to maintain your weight, eating 3000 a day (which is easy) means ten miles run a day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I wasn't trying to be pedantic as such. It's just that I found fitness when I was on a path to trying to bring my body fat down to a level I was happier with. I had originally though "losing weight" was healthy, but then I read that being active is more beneficial than losing weight, so I thought I needed to include a bit of fitness training in there.

    And then when I started running, to my great surprise, I found out that I loved it, and I kept running. I ended up SUPER SUPER in to running. And one of the things that I discovered was that after a period of trying to watch how much I eat, when my training peaked, I was often struggling to get enough calories to match my burn.

    And I often joked to myself back then that if I'd have known I could have outrun my bad diet, I'd have started there :P

    But in all seriousness, as you said, it's not possible to sustain. Age, injury, decreased training levels, eventually, something happens and your calorie burn returns to more regular levels, and then you're not outrunning it anymore

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -17 points 5 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    It isn't. Bad diet can mean a lot of different things. If you are only eating a little extra kcal then exercise could compensate for that. Obviously unless you run a marathon a day you won't escape eating an entire cake every day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    If you’re being a pedant, sure. But of course everyone knows what “bad diet” actually means

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Eh, I look at it more as who you're going to be telling this to. Someone who is fat and starting exercise is never going to have the endurance to burn off their caloric intake. They need to reduce their caloric intake so that their body can physically handle exercise.

    But a lot of high caliber athletes have trash diets because caloric intake trumps nutrient needs. It is also the reason why a lot of athletes get fat if they stop exercising since they are used to the trash diets and can no longer burn it off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Eh, I look at it more as who you’re going to be telling this to. Someone who is fat and starting exercise is never going to have the endurance to burn off their caloric intake.

    It depends on your timing. In 18 months, I went from obese to able to run 5km in under 20 minutes.

    It is also the reason why a lot of athletes get fat if they stop exercising since they are used to the trash diets and can no longer burn it off.

    And that's exactly what happened to me when I got injured!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    But of course everyone knows what “bad diet” actually means

    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

    5000 calories a day of any food, any reasonable person with absolutely barebone nutritional education knows this. Idk if everyone is just trolling that other dude or what's happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    Damn, I didn't realize the definition of "bad diet" was 5,000 calories per day. I never studied nutrition, so is there some sort of book or organization where that's defined?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    No, its just obvious that you should not be consuming that amount unless you are a super athlete.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Right, the vast majority of people should not be consuming 5,000 calories per day.

    At the same time, a bad diet could be something else, including a 2,000 calorie-per-day diet. And it's perfectly reasonable to use the term to mean that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Correct. You're explaining the fact that a term like "bad diet" can be reasonably deduced. Weird that your initial statement was acting like that's impossible. Thanks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Wait, I think you've mixed up what my point was about.

    Someone said that a bad diet "actually" means something else. One commenter said they were able to outrun a bad diet and someone else said "no that's impossible because that's not what a bad diet means".

    They said everyone knows what "bad diet" means because obviously it's impossible to outrun a bad diet. But that's not true, because I didn't know what they meant.

    Someone can use nothing but "running" to burn off enough calories to counteract their "bad diet", particularly if weight is their general goal. Will that make them the peak of physical fitness? No. But conversations about running and diet are often focused around weight gain/loss.

    So yes, I know what people generally mean by "bad diet", but it's a very broad, general term. That one commenter acted like it has a fixed and specific definition that everybody knows.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Usain Bolt ate 100 chicken nuggets per day at the Olympics. Does 100 chicken nuggets sound like a good diet?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I think the point is about long term consequences, not short-term. Young bodies are good at adapting but, the abuse catches up in later years. It takes getting old to drive that point home for most people, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)