Diet May Be More Important Than Exercise for Long-Term Weight Control (2021)(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Diet May Be More Important Than Exercise for Long-Term Weight Control (2021)
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-exercise-may-not-help-you-lose-weight-diet-healthy-2021-4
19 comments
Was there some study in the past that said otherwise? As thought it was common knowledge that diet is of course more important long term for having a healthy weight. Since you can eat well, and do no exercise and have your weight under control. If you eat terrible but workout "alot" that will work in the short term but working out a lot consistently forever is quite impractical.
I hiked about 500 miles on the Pacific Crest Trail and lost 5 pounds. I went low carb for a month and lost 30 pounds. Diet is just a far more effective weight loss lever than exercise. IMHO that's because it's far more about hormones than calorie balance. It's very hard to out-walk insulin pushing fatty acids into your adipocytes.
For years, I was a moderately competitive bike racer. I was pretty trim. Without changing my diet, I had kids, and had to give it up due to time constraints. (I'll pick it back up one day, I swear...) Now I have a pretty standard dad-bod. Probably +25lbs.
I was in a cycling collision a decade ago, and suffered a broken leg. This led to a 2 year period, really the first period in my life longer than a few months where I was largely sedentary. +25 pounds of fat slowly but steadily accumulated around my midsection in that time.
Then I got serious about rehab and corrected the issues in my leg, started cycling again, and I was back to my desired weight in about 6 weeks, and without putting any particular effort into controlling my calories. Everyone else in my immediate family is obese and sedentary excepting my uncle who is also a cyclist.
Someone in r/cycling the other week tried to suggest that "abs are made in the kitchen" and they were laughed out of the thread. In most forums, however, exercise is a 4 letter word, and Dr. pontzer is very popular.
After following the subject for years, I've come to believe rising sedentarism is the primary culprit in the obesity epidemic.
Then I got serious about rehab and corrected the issues in my leg, started cycling again, and I was back to my desired weight in about 6 weeks, and without putting any particular effort into controlling my calories. Everyone else in my immediate family is obese and sedentary excepting my uncle who is also a cyclist.
Someone in r/cycling the other week tried to suggest that "abs are made in the kitchen" and they were laughed out of the thread. In most forums, however, exercise is a 4 letter word, and Dr. pontzer is very popular.
After following the subject for years, I've come to believe rising sedentarism is the primary culprit in the obesity epidemic.
I don't get why calories in/calories out is so hard to believe. There's a lot of sort of optimizations you can do within it like playing with macronutrient ratios or timing and looking at aspects of food like glycemic load or satiety, but at the end of the day, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose weight. You can either eat less or exercise more, but given the relative difficulty of those two things, eating less is probably easier.
Exercise also has benefits beyond weight management, so you should also probably find something that works for you.
It might not be easy to do, but it's not really much more complicated than that.
Exercise also has benefits beyond weight management, so you should also probably find something that works for you.
It might not be easy to do, but it's not really much more complicated than that.
> It might not be easy to do, but it's not really much more complicated than that.
"Might not be easy to do" is an extreme underestimate of the difficulty in fixing this by willpower alone. It is very hard to do for the long term. I was a chronic yo-yo dieter that did it over and over again ... until I couldn't. After enough of that my body just demanded to eat, and I could no more refuse than I could refuse to breathe. I became a bulimic binge eater.
If I could have just said no, forever, I assume you're right and it would have worked, uncomplicated. But having lost 100+ pounds multiple times, dude, I tried really fucking hard, and failed. Nothing worked until I gave my body the nutrition that it was trying to get by binging on junk. Then it became easy to do with my hormones no longer working against me.
"Might not be easy to do" is an extreme underestimate of the difficulty in fixing this by willpower alone. It is very hard to do for the long term. I was a chronic yo-yo dieter that did it over and over again ... until I couldn't. After enough of that my body just demanded to eat, and I could no more refuse than I could refuse to breathe. I became a bulimic binge eater.
If I could have just said no, forever, I assume you're right and it would have worked, uncomplicated. But having lost 100+ pounds multiple times, dude, I tried really fucking hard, and failed. Nothing worked until I gave my body the nutrition that it was trying to get by binging on junk. Then it became easy to do with my hormones no longer working against me.
I’m not sure I understand your last statement there. It sounds like ultimately it did become easy, but it took awhile to figure out what worked for you. That’s the thrust of my point actually; you have to figure out what works for you within the context of calories in / calories out.
They are saying that once they worked out a good balance of nutrient rich foods, rather than the pizza/pasta/etc managing weight became easier. i.e. that the body is after nutrient x and will force you to consume as many calories as is necessary to obtain the desired nutrient
I think that for someone out of condition and sedentary the idea of starting up some kind of sustainable fitness practice is quite a bit more intimidating than the idea getting on some kind of diet plan. It can be hard to picture oneself thinking of exercise as something that can be fun and rewarding beyond the health benefits, it is however possible for it to be a thing you love to do and look forward to.
Diets fail 95% of the time. Calories in/calories out isn't wrong, obviously. From a physics perspective it is clearly less effort to sit still and not eat than it is to go do physical work of some sort. Once you introduce human psychology into the equation, however, everything changes.
Diets fail 95% of the time. Calories in/calories out isn't wrong, obviously. From a physics perspective it is clearly less effort to sit still and not eat than it is to go do physical work of some sort. Once you introduce human psychology into the equation, however, everything changes.
>It might not be easy to do…
Understatement of the year. Which is why people who preach CICO and “just eat less” can set off those folks who have been down the diet rabbit holes.
I can only relay my own experience. It’s not CICO that is important, that’s just a formula. The important thing is satiety. You need to get to a point of eating less by activating your satiety center with less calories than before. If you are constantly hungry on any diet trying to eat less calories, you will ultimately fail without an external factor preventing you from eating more.
Understatement of the year. Which is why people who preach CICO and “just eat less” can set off those folks who have been down the diet rabbit holes.
I can only relay my own experience. It’s not CICO that is important, that’s just a formula. The important thing is satiety. You need to get to a point of eating less by activating your satiety center with less calories than before. If you are constantly hungry on any diet trying to eat less calories, you will ultimately fail without an external factor preventing you from eating more.
I did mention satiety. My own experience includes obesity that probably bordered on morbid and disability subsequent to a childhood disorder. Basically, if you have two working legs, count yourself lucky that you can do exercises that I can’t. But I still have to figure out how to eat right and exercise within my own limitations, there is no other way to maintain a healthy weight.
I am not a biologist, but what about calories that just go through your body without being absorbed?
Or maybe there are calories that do not turn into get but muscle? You still getting weight, but good weight?
Of course, if you need x calories and get less that x, your body will need to burn something. Maybe brain or muscles and not fat?
Again, I do not know much about that but it just may be more complicated than just cals in vs cals out.
Or maybe there are calories that do not turn into get but muscle? You still getting weight, but good weight?
Of course, if you need x calories and get less that x, your body will need to burn something. Maybe brain or muscles and not fat?
Again, I do not know much about that but it just may be more complicated than just cals in vs cals out.
I'd wager that if you started riding the same amount, at the same HR, you wouldn't lose that 25.
(I say this as someone who rides a lot, somewhat competitively, and has directly observed that weight loss comes in the kitchen, not from riding. And if you try to cut back on nutrition during the ride, you'll feel so awful you won't be able to ride.)
(I say this as someone who rides a lot, somewhat competitively, and has directly observed that weight loss comes in the kitchen, not from riding. And if you try to cut back on nutrition during the ride, you'll feel so awful you won't be able to ride.)
Prior to getting into biking, I was generally pretty sedentary and was maybe +15 over my eventual racing weight.
But I must admit that you could be right. Maybe it was just age or something. I guess I'll find out when I make my glorious return.
But I must admit that you could be right. Maybe it was just age or something. I guess I'll find out when I make my glorious return.
There was a point, 2017 or so, where I was riding a ton and being mindful of what I ate. I think I dropped ~10 pounds and gained a bunch of muscle.
Since then I've backed off riding a bit, and am definitely not as aware of what I eat (snacking because of stress, mostly) and am up maybe 5-10 pounds from that time.
Since then I've backed off riding a bit, and am definitely not as aware of what I eat (snacking because of stress, mostly) and am up maybe 5-10 pounds from that time.
Same here, I quickly picked 10kg after having kids and giving up intensive martial arts trainings. But, those would be way more if I didn't pay close attention at the calories intake (as exercise is very moderate nowadays, so to say) - I noticed what happens when I let it slip for like a week, bang 1 kg (2 pounds). So it's both.
Most of that 30 pounds you lost on low carb was probably water weight which you'd gain right back if you start eating carbs again.
ADDENDUM: this is because a drop in carb consumption causes a decline in glycogen, and a corresponding decline in water
ADDENDUM: this is because a drop in carb consumption causes a decline in glycogen, and a corresponding decline in water
This certainly could have a lot to do with it, not sure why you're being down-voted. I've seen fighters at my muay thai gym in heavier weight classes drop 20 pounds to make weight for a fight in a month. You'll usually cut salt and carbs and manipulate your water weight to make weigh-in. It's certainly not at all healthy, but not uncommon. I've even had days after training where I'm 4-5 pound lighter after class from all the sweating and I'm only in the low 150s range.
Not sure why you are being downvoted but this is absolutely true. A diet can only be looked back after a couple month of rests
Haven't we known this for a very long time? The addage is that abs are made in the kitchen.
Agreed. Although the saying I have always heard is that you can't outrun a bad diet.
GLP-1 agonists demonstrate that intervention is more effective than will power.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2024-03-...
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2024-03-...
It's well known by bodybuilders and celebrity trainers etc. But basically everyone else you talk to doesn't believe it and thinks exercise is the way to lose weight. There are many conflicting interests: the exercise companies want to keep selling exercise, the food companies want to keep selling food and the consumer is addicted to food and wants an excuse to enable it. It's no wonder this knowledge is so buried.
It takes me 2 hours to burn 1000 calories. That is just a single foot long Subway sandwich and a cookie. You can undo hours of hard work in minutes.
Only thing I've ever found that works is fasting. Especially since my base metabolic rate has been about 1500 calories after hitting 35 years old.
Only thing I've ever found that works is fasting. Especially since my base metabolic rate has been about 1500 calories after hitting 35 years old.
Okay, but if I go run 6-8 miles, I can burn it in an hour. Cookies are very optional.
I wonder if people swapped their foods with non-sugar/non-oiled foods, and they ate like nature would direct them, if they'd actually become obese.
Can a sane person eat enough carrots to become overweight?
I wonder if people swapped their foods with non-sugar/non-oiled foods, and they ate like nature would direct them, if they'd actually become obese.
Can a sane person eat enough carrots to become overweight?
Carrots actually have a LOT of sugar. It's part of what makes carrot cake so delicious. They almost taste like candy after a long fast. I've tried just eating enough roughage like carrots and lettuce to fill myself up but I just end up ravenously hungry from the sugar. Same with if I try to "Out run the kitchen"
The best way to lose weight is to reduce insulin levels. This involves changing what you eat and when you eat.
The best way to lose weight is to reduce insulin levels. This involves changing what you eat and when you eat.
Please man, if people were chewing carrots instead of frozen meals, it would make a difference.
You even basically had to use carrot extract to make it unhealthy.
I'm not sure I'm okay with blenders/food processors for vegetables/fruits as they artifically make it too easy to consume food. (liquid calories)
You even basically had to use carrot extract to make it unhealthy.
I'm not sure I'm okay with blenders/food processors for vegetables/fruits as they artifically make it too easy to consume food. (liquid calories)
I went through a generation of people saying to "Eat Healthy" and recommending various odd stuff like just eating carrots or only meat. In the end I've found that the best solution has been to stop eating. If I eat anything, I'll want to eat more. Time restriction seems to be the best option of a lot of horrible options.
Our food is just way too palatable right now. Even the fruits and veggies have been bred to be full of sugar.
Our food is just way too palatable right now. Even the fruits and veggies have been bred to be full of sugar.
A few hundred calories per pound means that there isn't "a LOT" of anything other than water.
That doesn't mean that your point about them not being satisfying is wrong, but you probably aren't going to persuade people with ludicrous relative comparisons.
That doesn't mean that your point about them not being satisfying is wrong, but you probably aren't going to persuade people with ludicrous relative comparisons.
The thing is, it doesn't really matter. If you spike insulin from sugar, it doesn't matter that you aren't eating enough calories. You will feel ravenously hungry, feel sick as heck, and not lose weight. Eventually you break, start gorging, and then feel horrible because "I wasn't strong enough!"
People act like they can just use their mind to overpower their endocrinology. But you can't. You have to focus on low insulin index foods. Carrots are okay for this, but not great. They have a medium insulin index on the order of corn or milk.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3127522/#:~:tex...
People act like they can just use their mind to overpower their endocrinology. But you can't. You have to focus on low insulin index foods. Carrots are okay for this, but not great. They have a medium insulin index on the order of corn or milk.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3127522/#:~:tex...
I think this is somewhat misleading. Walking is one of the least strenuous forms of exercise. I could walk all day on a treadmill, no sweat (literally). When I was playing singles tennis almost every day, on the other hand, it was exhausting, I was in the best shape of my life, and I could eat as much as I wanted. Indeed I had to eat more, because my body demanded it. And elite athletes eat a ton of food, an obscene amount of food, but they also have the best bodies. Walking is fine for people who can't do anything else, such as the elderly, but otherwise it's simply not enough exercise.
In general, weight is not really a great measure. You can lose weight by losing muscle. I "measure" my own body by looking at it in a mirror.
In general, weight is not really a great measure. You can lose weight by losing muscle. I "measure" my own body by looking at it in a mirror.
I used to feel this way too. It turns out the mirror test is not a good measure. Hard metrics are much better. Weight alone isn't the best, but it is a good place to start.
> It turns out the mirror test is not a good measure.
How so?
Of course if you're exercising regularly and strenuously, there are some athletic metrics: how long you can run until exhaustion, how much weight you can lift, etc.
How so?
Of course if you're exercising regularly and strenuously, there are some athletic metrics: how long you can run until exhaustion, how much weight you can lift, etc.
Because "a good measure" does not change based on how you feel.
> because my body demanded it
Are you sure it wasn't because you were younger then? Despite not doing any exercise other than walking I could eat any amount of anything until I was over forty when the weight started creeping up.
Are you sure it wasn't because you were younger then? Despite not doing any exercise other than walking I could eat any amount of anything until I was over forty when the weight started creeping up.
> Are you sure it wasn't because you were younger then?
Yes, because my weight—or visible body fat, anyway—has fluctuated over my entire life, including then and now, depending on how much exercise I get.
Yes, because my weight—or visible body fat, anyway—has fluctuated over my entire life, including then and now, depending on how much exercise I get.
Under normal circumstances one's metabolism doesn't change much between age 20 and 60. Most adults are just less active than when they were younger.
The fitness advice I've heard is that higher intensity cardio can increase your appetite, causing you to compensate for the calories burned. Low intensity cardio like walking doesn't have the same effect.
> higher intensity cardio can increase your appetite
True.
> Low intensity cardio like walking doesn't have the same effect.
That's short-term thinking though. Long term, higher intensity cardio builds muscle and endurance. The more strenuously you exercise now, the more strenuously you'll be able to exercise in the future. If you're not pushing yourself, then you'll remain stuck at the lower level forever. The extra calories now are an investment in your future body.
True.
> Low intensity cardio like walking doesn't have the same effect.
That's short-term thinking though. Long term, higher intensity cardio builds muscle and endurance. The more strenuously you exercise now, the more strenuously you'll be able to exercise in the future. If you're not pushing yourself, then you'll remain stuck at the lower level forever. The extra calories now are an investment in your future body.
>Long term, higher intensity cardio builds muscle
Where? It's understood in the fitness community that you have to load a muscle within a particular range in order to build muscle. It won't happen through highly repetitive motions, such as the ones that occur in cardio (running, cycling, etc). The load isn't great enough.
I believe cardio benefits the heart. But nobody does cardio to build muscle.
Where? It's understood in the fitness community that you have to load a muscle within a particular range in order to build muscle. It won't happen through highly repetitive motions, such as the ones that occur in cardio (running, cycling, etc). The load isn't great enough.
I believe cardio benefits the heart. But nobody does cardio to build muscle.
> But nobody does cardio to build muscle.
The heart is a muscle. ;-)
Cardio certainly isn't the best way to bulk up muscles; ideally you want to combine cardio with strength training. Nonetheless, it does build some muscle, and there are various ways to add resistance to cardio, such as with machines, carrying weights, running uphill, etc. In any case, cardio does increase your endurance.
The heart is a muscle. ;-)
Cardio certainly isn't the best way to bulk up muscles; ideally you want to combine cardio with strength training. Nonetheless, it does build some muscle, and there are various ways to add resistance to cardio, such as with machines, carrying weights, running uphill, etc. In any case, cardio does increase your endurance.
> And elite athletes eat a ton of food, an obscene amount of food, but they also have the best bodies.
The thing to bear in mind is, most discussions of diet are in the context of weight loss - and the kind of exercise regime that allows eating loads of food is generally only accessible to people who are already extremely fit.
If you're running a 4 hour marathon every weekend, you can pretty much eat whatever you like and not gain weight.
But if my 240 lbs buddy wants to lose weight? Dude would be doing well to jog 5km. He's not going to be running any marathons.
So the fact he could maintain his current diet if he burned an extra 2500 calories every weekend doesn't help him, because he can't.
The thing to bear in mind is, most discussions of diet are in the context of weight loss - and the kind of exercise regime that allows eating loads of food is generally only accessible to people who are already extremely fit.
If you're running a 4 hour marathon every weekend, you can pretty much eat whatever you like and not gain weight.
But if my 240 lbs buddy wants to lose weight? Dude would be doing well to jog 5km. He's not going to be running any marathons.
So the fact he could maintain his current diet if he burned an extra 2500 calories every weekend doesn't help him, because he can't.
> the kind of exercise regime that allows eating loads of food is generally only accessible to people who are already extremely fit.
Of course. And I'm not suggesting that people ignore or go crazy with their diet. I'm personally very strict with mine, though I'm not counting calories at all but rather trying to mimimize salt, saturated fat, and added sugar (which perhaps naturally restricts calories somewhat, since the highest calorie foods also tend to have high salt, saturated fat, and added sugar).
> But if my 240 lbs buddy wants to lose weight? Dude would be doing well to jog 5km. He's not going to be running any marathons.
Of course. What I would say is that in fact it's a (metaphorical) marathon, not a sprint. The goal, I think, should be health, not simply weight loss, which is only one aspect of health. You shouldn't be afraid to exercise strenuously just because it might make you a little hungrier. In the long run, you want to control your diet and also get your body into shape, which requires investment in exercise.
My dispute is with the idea that "we burn calories within a very narrow range: nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level." That's simpy not true in general. It may be true for a relatively sedentary activity level, but it's not true for people who are at higher levels of vigorous activity, and I don't mean just elite athletes. A normal person can build up to becoming quite physically active if they commit to it long term. Of course nobody can just run a marathon right away, but almost anybody could run a marathon eventually. The author was examining people who walk all day, but I don't think that's a good baseline for measurement of "maximum" physical activity, because walking is generally not very strenous.
Of course. And I'm not suggesting that people ignore or go crazy with their diet. I'm personally very strict with mine, though I'm not counting calories at all but rather trying to mimimize salt, saturated fat, and added sugar (which perhaps naturally restricts calories somewhat, since the highest calorie foods also tend to have high salt, saturated fat, and added sugar).
> But if my 240 lbs buddy wants to lose weight? Dude would be doing well to jog 5km. He's not going to be running any marathons.
Of course. What I would say is that in fact it's a (metaphorical) marathon, not a sprint. The goal, I think, should be health, not simply weight loss, which is only one aspect of health. You shouldn't be afraid to exercise strenuously just because it might make you a little hungrier. In the long run, you want to control your diet and also get your body into shape, which requires investment in exercise.
My dispute is with the idea that "we burn calories within a very narrow range: nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level." That's simpy not true in general. It may be true for a relatively sedentary activity level, but it's not true for people who are at higher levels of vigorous activity, and I don't mean just elite athletes. A normal person can build up to becoming quite physically active if they commit to it long term. Of course nobody can just run a marathon right away, but almost anybody could run a marathon eventually. The author was examining people who walk all day, but I don't think that's a good baseline for measurement of "maximum" physical activity, because walking is generally not very strenous.
All of these studies are severely limited. Show me one that had study participants running an hour a day 6 days a week. I lost 40 pounds doing that and I've kept it off because I kept running. It burns so many calories I actually need to make sure i eat more.
I think we have enough real world case studies now with previously stubborn fatties whom (allegedly) tried everything but finally lost weight on ozempic due to appetite suppression.
6 hours of running is 4000-8000 calories / 1-2lb week depending on body size. That's your basic 1-2% of BW deficit for weight loss. Except it's a much harder behaviour change to adopt.
6 hours of running is 4000-8000 calories / 1-2lb week depending on body size. That's your basic 1-2% of BW deficit for weight loss. Except it's a much harder behaviour change to adopt.
That an unreasonable level of exercise for 90% of people.
Unreasonable by what standards? I suspect we evolved with a regime more rigorous than this. Perhaps our society has become unreasonable in how people are prevented from having the time to use their bodies to even a fraction of their full extent.
Once you lose the weight you only need to run 30 minutes a day for maintenance.
I think running 6 hours a day is not very representative of (or practical for) the vast majority of people. You can find plenty of studies on cases like that. IIRC there was a good one about Michael Phelps and his ~10,000 calories per day. But those sorts of extreme studies aren't going to be helpful for determining broad applicability.
Edit: Please disregard, my reading comprehension skills failed me today. I read 6 hours a day but it was actually 6 hours a week
Edit: Please disregard, my reading comprehension skills failed me today. I read 6 hours a day but it was actually 6 hours a week
> I think running 6 hours a day is not very representative of (or practical for) the vast majority of people.
The OP said 6 hours a week (1 a day), not 6 a day.
The OP said 6 hours a week (1 a day), not 6 a day.
Oh whoops, my mistake, thank you! (Unless it was edited, which is possible, especially given the sibling comment, but I don't remember well enough)
At the risk of being reductive…has this not been a known fact for a really, really long time?
No amount of gym time can counteract a terrible diet. But you can easily lose weight by simply eating fewer calories than your body burns day to day.
No amount of gym time can counteract a terrible diet. But you can easily lose weight by simply eating fewer calories than your body burns day to day.
Yes but there are a lot of people out there (like me) who live to eat and don't want it to be true that diet is important. We humans are masters at subconsciously dismissing facts that don't fit our agenda, even when we're trying to be open minded and scientific. It also doesn't help that even simple "cheats" on a diet can render it ineffective, which we then tend to interpret as "diets don't work for me" rather than "you can't 'cheat' on your diet"
This is largely in reference to research showing that the body seems to burn about the same amount of calories regardless of what you do. The point is not that someone is surprised that you can't outrun your mouth. This is related to some of the misunderstood/misreported "metabolic damage" from the "biggest loser" folks who were exercising ferociously but not burning "as many calories" as conventional wisdom would indicate, and such. Etc.
You know, if you can go beyond the headline.
You know, if you can go beyond the headline.
> The point is not that someone is surprised that you can't outrun your mouth.
Last year I was running for 60 minutes per day + weight lifting. I was likely spending 3500-4000 calories per day. On long runs it could be 5000 calories per day.
I lost a ton of weight, and I was feeding myself too. Once I lost the weight, I have basically kept it off.
I'm not sure what the point of these bad scientific studies are when you can look out your window and see clear contradictions everywhere.
Last year I was running for 60 minutes per day + weight lifting. I was likely spending 3500-4000 calories per day. On long runs it could be 5000 calories per day.
I lost a ton of weight, and I was feeding myself too. Once I lost the weight, I have basically kept it off.
I'm not sure what the point of these bad scientific studies are when you can look out your window and see clear contradictions everywhere.
Much of the point of these "bad scientific studies" is that humans overwhelmingly believe nonsense to be true.
Solid and liquids go in - carbon dioxide gas comes out.
As an analogue - When water evaporates, it expands 1600 times larger in volume to become steam.
That's a LOT of breathing.
As an analogue - When water evaporates, it expands 1600 times larger in volume to become steam.
That's a LOT of breathing.
I think this is fairly well known and uninteresting. The unhealthy food the average American (or urban resident globally) consumes is much higher in calories than most think. If you calorie count it’s easy to spot over consumption. And it would require an hour of intense exercise daily for people to undo, which most people cannot commit to.
[deleted]
This has long been codified in the online fitness community as 'you can't outrun a bad diet'.
Good to see the meme being validated.
Good to see the meme being validated.
This has been true since the beginning of humanity.
Even if you do manage to stay lean with exercise, burning through more calories will shorten your life. Calorie restriction is the way to go.
(2021) do better OP
I don't think you need to patronize someone with "do better", especially when the year doesn't matter all that much here and people are encouraged to not touch the title.
Well yeah, you can eat 1k+ calories in 30 minutes easy. But to "lose" the same amount of weight you'd need rigorous exercise over multiple hours.
[deleted]
A year ago, if I had seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1cqNDDG4aA&pp=ygUdcGxhbnRzI...
I would have thought it was totally crazy. In the space of a year:
* one friend went carnivore, and their apple devices stopped recognizing them since they had lost so much weight
* another friend went carnivore who was high normal bmi, and is now ideal bmi, off of blood pressure meds, no longer has fibromyalgia, no longer has arthritis pain, and has had so many other medical issues resolve and much better quality of life. a walking, talking ad for that video.
* I went carnivore and feel 10 years younger
It's not an easy diet to transition to, but is easy to maintain. If you're interested, here's advice on how to start:
https://youtu.be/r3wzDWW1MdI?si=5aC8gd_sbDRLmrNC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1cqNDDG4aA&pp=ygUdcGxhbnRzI...
I would have thought it was totally crazy. In the space of a year:
* one friend went carnivore, and their apple devices stopped recognizing them since they had lost so much weight
* another friend went carnivore who was high normal bmi, and is now ideal bmi, off of blood pressure meds, no longer has fibromyalgia, no longer has arthritis pain, and has had so many other medical issues resolve and much better quality of life. a walking, talking ad for that video.
* I went carnivore and feel 10 years younger
It's not an easy diet to transition to, but is easy to maintain. If you're interested, here's advice on how to start:
https://youtu.be/r3wzDWW1MdI?si=5aC8gd_sbDRLmrNC