calories in, calories out. Use more than you eat and weight goes down. Eat more than you use and weight goes up. It’s an oversimplification, but it’s not wrong.
Comment on Anon travels overseas
Psythik@lemmy.world 4 days agoYou can’t outrun your diet.
glitchdx@lemmy.world 4 days ago
xep@discuss.online 4 days ago
It’s very wrong, if only for the simple reason that not all calories are the same. Eating 1000 calories worth of protein will not have the effect as eating 1000 calories of HFCS.
Please stop parroting this piece of misinformation that was used to sell us ultra-processed foods.
glitchdx@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
What you said is an explanation of why what I said is an oversimplification. It’s an efficiency variable, just makes the math slightly more complicated, doesn’t change the formula.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
I mean, you can, but it takes a lot of running to expend the calories taken in with a pretty typical American diet, especially when you account for the increase in appetite exercise typically brings.
But it is possible. If you can burn 2000 calories on a single run, that’s a lot of room to maneuver to fit your macros while eating a significant amount of junk food.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 days ago
you’d have to run over 3 hours to burn 2000 calories.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
It’s not that simple, if you are healthier with regular exercise your hunger is also better regulated and your diet will be better.
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 4 days ago
To me, no one really needs to be told that being fit and healthy is better than not being fit and healthy. It’s more that, as a society, we’ve been convinced over eating can be repaid with excersise, to sort of balance it out (an idea pushed by food lobby groups). I’m not saying that you disagree with any of that.
We evolved as persistence hunters. Being able to run off our winter fat reserves would’ve made us poor persistence hunters and we would’ve died out.