4 ms·

You're using a veiled humblebrag to disprove a generally correct statement. 150 kilometers per weeks puts you directly into the top 1% of the population, meanin

by drcross 11y ago

You're using a veiled humblebrag to disprove a generally correct statement. 150 kilometers per weeks puts you directly into the top 1% of the population, meaning you are a complete outlier, as if you didnt know this.

_Wintermute 11y ago
The point is you can outrun a bad diet. Anyone who puts serious miles/time into an endurance sport knows this. Though as a weight loss strategy it's definitely not ideal.
- elbigbad 11y ago
  Well, the comment "you cannot outrun a bad diet" is clearly referencing the bottom 95% of the population in this case, especially when followed by referencing "thirty minutes of jogging." Clearly exercise burns calories so it follows that there is some amount of exercise that will allow a person to "outrun a bad diet," so pointing out some edge case isn't helpful or instructive.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    And then we wonder why even the simplest statements in advertising need a paragraph of fine print asterisked onto them....
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  So the statement should be 'it is easier to not eat a bad diet than to out run one for most people, including those who over eat for more complicated reason than hunger'. But you lose the sound bite quality. It is like pointing out the grammatical mistake in a punchline.
wavefunction 11y ago
I don't see what's so crazy about that claim, it's 13 miles a day assuming the poster is running every day. I walk that much on the weekends when I have the time with my dog.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mapt 11y ago
  Are you sure you know how long a mile is? At an average walking speed of 2.8mph, that's 4.6 hours of walking. The average American adult walks around 2.5 miles per day, mostly indoors trips between rooms. The American knowledge-worker or automobile-dependent suburbanite will tend to have a lower average. Jogging / long-distance-running tends to be about twice that fast, or 2.3 hours of activity. Per day. Ten percent of their lives, running. Most people don't come anywhere close.
- fredophile 11y ago
  That's a half marathon every day. Not only is that far more time than most people could spend it's also far more activity than most people could do without injuring themselves. That kind of distance takes years to build up to safely.
emcq 11y ago
I think what is being highlighted here is the rather strong statement "you cannot outrun a bad diet" followed by "it isn't realistic to achieve substantial weight loss through exercise" and "base metabolic rate is the primary means of weight loss". It suggests that exercise is not important to weight loss. Let me try to describe why this is a bit misleading even for the 99-95% of the population who werent student athletes in college. What the grandparent's post is highlighting is the physics of this system is that the difference in weight is proportional to calories in - calories out. It's important for people to reduce calories in by modifying their diet. No one is disagreeing with this. However individuals committed to reducing weight can put in some time to increasing calories out (often by cardio activities such as jogging/running/cycling/swimming). It just doesnt follow to say "you cannot outrun a bad diet" followed by "the base metabolic rate is the primary means of weight loss". There is tons of evidence that exercise is exactly what increases your base metabolic rate! Here is just one study: "Resting metabolic rate (RMR) is the largest component of the daily energy budget in most human societies and, therefore, any increases in RMR in response to exercise interventions are potentially of great importance" [0] If RMR is the most important thing to reducing weight, exercise is the most straightforward way to improve RMR and reducing weight. But I wont make this reductionist claim; clearly diet is also important. Exercise can be very helpful in reducing weight; it's simple physics of increasing calories out. My most successful friend losing weight changed both his diet and increased exercising to about an hour a day. He not only shredded 30-40 pounds, but gained from the additional benefits of higher resting metabolic rate, increased cardio health benefits, reduced stress, and felt like he had more energy with fewer coffees. The quick weight loss he felt meant he didn't have to have a yearlong slog waiting to see results, making the process all the more rewarding which significantly helps for some people's psychology. Sure it sucked in the beginning, but his life was unbalanced and he committed to making big changes. It's almost cheating to exercise with improved diets; imagine if you were keto eating salads and still able to remove "chocolate bar debt" from the past by 30 minutes to an hour of activity a day followed by increased RMR for the next 24 hours. Bad diets are bad. Complemented with exercise you can improve your metabolic rate which will give you long term weight loss and health benefits. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692598 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692598
tallanvor 11y ago
No, it was citing personal experience. I could just as easily cited Michael Phelps' diet when he was training, but that's definitely not something most people can relate to.

by drcross 11y ago

_Wintermute 11y ago

The point is you can outrun a bad diet. Anyone who puts serious miles/time into an endurance sport knows this. Though as a weight loss strategy it's definitely not ideal.

elbigbad 11y ago
Well, the comment "you cannot outrun a bad diet" is clearly referencing the bottom 95% of the population in this case, especially when followed by referencing "thirty minutes of jogging." Clearly exercise burns calories so it follows that there is some amount of exercise that will allow a person to "outrun a bad diet," so pointing out some edge case isn't helpful or instructive.
- mikeash 11y ago
  And then we wonder why even the simplest statements in advertising need a paragraph of fine print asterisked onto them....
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
So the statement should be 'it is easier to not eat a bad diet than to out run one for most people, including those who over eat for more complicated reason than hunger'. But you lose the sound bite quality. It is like pointing out the grammatical mistake in a punchline.

wavefunction 11y ago

I don't see what's so crazy about that claim, it's 13 miles a day assuming the poster is running every day. I walk that much on the weekends when I have the time with my dog.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mapt 11y ago
Are you sure you know how long a mile is? At an average walking speed of 2.8mph, that's 4.6 hours of walking. The average American adult walks around 2.5 miles per day, mostly indoors trips between rooms. The American knowledge-worker or automobile-dependent suburbanite will tend to have a lower average. Jogging / long-distance-running tends to be about twice that fast, or 2.3 hours of activity. Per day. Ten percent of their lives, running. Most people don't come anywhere close.
fredophile 11y ago
That's a half marathon every day. Not only is that far more time than most people could spend it's also far more activity than most people could do without injuring themselves. That kind of distance takes years to build up to safely.

emcq 11y ago

I think what is being highlighted here is the rather strong statement "you cannot outrun a bad diet" followed by "it isn't realistic to achieve substantial weight loss through exercise" and "base metabolic rate is the primary means of weight loss". It suggests that exercise is not important to weight loss. Let me try to describe why this is a bit misleading even for the 99-95% of the population who werent student athletes in college. What the grandparent's post is highlighting is the physics of this system is that the difference in weight is proportional to calories in - calories out. It's important for people to reduce calories in by modifying their diet. No one is disagreeing with this. However individuals committed to reducing weight can put in some time to increasing calories out (often by cardio activities such as jogging/running/cycling/swimming). It just doesnt follow to say "you cannot outrun a bad diet" followed by "the base metabolic rate is the primary means of weight loss". There is tons of evidence that exercise is exactly what increases your base metabolic rate! Here is just one study: "Resting metabolic rate (RMR) is the largest component of the daily energy budget in most human societies and, therefore, any increases in RMR in response to exercise interventions are potentially of great importance" [0] If RMR is the most important thing to reducing weight, exercise is the most straightforward way to improve RMR and reducing weight. But I wont make this reductionist claim; clearly diet is also important. Exercise can be very helpful in reducing weight; it's simple physics of increasing calories out. My most successful friend losing weight changed both his diet and increased exercising to about an hour a day. He not only shredded 30-40 pounds, but gained from the additional benefits of higher resting metabolic rate, increased cardio health benefits, reduced stress, and felt like he had more energy with fewer coffees. The quick weight loss he felt meant he didn't have to have a yearlong slog waiting to see results, making the process all the more rewarding which significantly helps for some people's psychology. Sure it sucked in the beginning, but his life was unbalanced and he committed to making big changes. It's almost cheating to exercise with improved diets; imagine if you were keto eating salads and still able to remove "chocolate bar debt" from the past by 30 minutes to an hour of activity a day followed by increased RMR for the next 24 hours. Bad diets are bad. Complemented with exercise you can improve your metabolic rate which will give you long term weight loss and health benefits. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692598 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692598

tallanvor 11y ago

No, it was citing personal experience. I could just as easily cited Michael Phelps' diet when he was training, but that's definitely not something most people can relate to.