AIBU to think you CAN outrun a bad diet?

[HotLatteontherunplease]

Well, am I? Runners? Have you been able to keep eating whatever you want aslong as you run enough to burn it off. All advice I have read has been that obese people cannot outrun a bad diet but I know many people whose story is just that. They were obese or overweight, did couch to 5k, got hooked on running and lost half their body weight through running!

Can this really happen or are all the before and after pictures lying?!

It takes me a half marathon to out run a pack of mince pies. It takes over two hours to run a half marathon and far less than two hours to chomp through 6 delightful parcels of soft fruits in pastry.

I can't outrun a bad diet, but regular exercise does buy me more flexibility in maintaining my weight without too much scruitiny.

What is meant by a bad diet though - a diet too high in calories or too low in essential nutrients? I don’t think you can outrun the latter.

I actually put weight on when I did C25K even though I ate the same.

My legs are more toned but look chunkier than ever before. I really don't like that side effect but I like feeling healthier.

I don't know. I run 40km a week approx, Fitbit estimates I burn 2600 cals a day as I am active generally as well. I do strength and body weight hiit type exercises every few days so I am fairly toned. I have to actively cut calories, low - eg below 1000- to lose weight now (I lost 3 stone last year) and eat a fairly low carb diet too. I want to lose around 7lbs more and it just won't go. I have been the same weight now for a year. My bmi is 21 (approx) but I do have actual visible areas which are still hanging on to some fat (ie. I'm not trying to lose something that's not there)

So: my current running vs food intake is evidently perfect for maintenance. However, I can't eat few enough calories to lose weight, because of the amount of exercise /fuel I need, and if I stop running I'll need even fewer calories. It's catch 22. But, I'm very toned, slim for the first time ever, very physically/cardio fit; that is though a combination of a good clean low carb, calorie counted diet and running shit loads in all weathers/on holiday/ at 6am.

I can't.

I do personally find it is easier to diet when I’m also exercising regularly. I am more motivated to stick to a diet

Depends how much you eat. A small bag of chocolate buttons or the whole snack aisle in the supermarket.
However if you work then go for a 3hr run in the evening, it doesn't leave much time for snacking.

I can out-exercise a bad diet, in that I can eat all manner of sugary empty carbohydrate-y rubbish without putting on weight, but I think actually I am less healthy than someone who is a bit heavier but eats an actual meal containing vegetables and protein for lunch rather than a couple of packets of Hula Hoops and 3 cereal bars to pick an example entirely at random.

So I guess ‘yes’ in that if you genuinely burn more calories then you take in you will lose weight, but ‘no’ in terms getting your body into optimum condition.

I always thought it was far easier to run 5 miles per day than cut out 500 cal. Then I had an injury followed by 2 children, and I realise that it's going to be a long time before I have the time or inclination to be excersising anywhere near as much as I used to. Unfortunately, I'm still eating like I'm marathon training.

So yes, but it takes quite a lot.

I did. After both my kids I just started running again and lost the weight, no changes to my diet. I'll freely admit my diet is crap but if I run 3-4 times a week I maintain a size 8. I gained four stone in my first pregnancy, for reference.

I do run relatively long distances though, 10-12 miles once a week and then a few runs of 5-8 miles. So quite a bit more than couch to 5k I suppose.

If you've ever used a calorie calculator to diet you will understand the meaning of this phrase. It takes an insane amount of exercise to offset a trivial amount of food.

I wouldn't say that food control is 80% of what it takes to lose weight, as someone implied up-thread, I'd say it's 95%, maybe 99%. You might as well call it 100% and treat the contribution of exercise as a bonus.

Do the exercise for general health-and well-being benefits, the direct contribution to weight-loss is likely to be trivial and unsustainable.

And don't forget, you will have to stop exercising enough to make any difference when you're ill, or injured, or just weak from aging. So it doesn't make any sense to rely on it as a primary means of calorie control, even if it worked for that.

You absolutely can outrun a bad diet. I think people just underestimate how much exercise is required to do it.

But thwn you'll be in condition to do a trathlon if you've got six pints a sausage suooer and a gateaux sloshing round tour stomach.

Petty you are totally right, I'm pregnant just now and not running - I'm piling on weight as a result.

The other side of that coin is that a good diet will not address the damage done by a sedentary lifestyle

I'm afraid this isn't true on many levels.

All other things being equal, you are going to better off sedentary and a healthy weight, than doing a lot of exercise while maintaining a state of obesity.

Obviously the diabetes etc risks, but exercise puts additional strain on joints already struggling under extra weight is a terrible idea and costs the NHS a fortune in avoidable surgery.

A slim, but sedentary lifestyle in itself does no damage at all, it just makes it a lot more likely that the person will struggle to maintain their healthy weight.

My diet is crap if I’m honest. Lots of takeaways and quick easy meals as I work late and I’m rarely at home. I also love chocolate and crisps.

However, I never stop moving. I have horses that are ridden everyday, dogs to walk, a toddler to chase and a very physical job where breaks are non existent and lunch is often skipped and so I am slim.

Not healthy in the fruit and veg sense, but slim.

...to answer the question, yes you can maintain a calorie deficit even if you consume a lot of calories, but it will be very difficult and time consuming to do so.

Your body tends to adjust to cardio very quickly though and you need to do more and more (and spend more time doing it ) to see the same calorie burn.

High impact exercise is very bad for your skin in terms ageing too, lots of running (skin flapping around) will age you very quickly.

To be honest, I look at a cake and wonder if it is worth the hassle of trying to burn off the calories - it usually isn't tbh.

No, you can’t outrun a bad diet.
Many years ago three friends and I took up running to get fit and lose weight.
We ran five or 6 times a week and managed a few 10ks.
We did not lose a single pound between us!
I don’t think I ate more

You can only lose weight by consuming less calories than your body uses up. Calorie deficit .

I can’t speak for running but I know when I was swimming 30 mins a day, 5-7 days a week and still eating my pretty crap diet I lost loads of weight. All of my clothes got baggy around my waist and I looked great.

Now I am 20 months postpartum, still eat a crappy diet and have no time for swimming, and I look like a burst couch

Depends how bad the diet is. For the vast majority of people, losing weight will be 80% diet, 20% exercise.

No amount of exercise will give you the nutrients your body needs to run properly. You won't get vitamin c and fibre from running a 5k.

If you're slightly overweight and your not-perfect-but-average diet only gives you a calorie surplus of 100-200 a day, then yes, you probably could outrun it, assuming you ran regularly enough and for long enough.

If your calorie surplus runs to the multiple hundreds or even thousands a day, or if you eat no fresh produce and subsist only on ready meals, chocolate, and takeaways, no realistic amount of exercise will help.

I have been trying to do this for 10 years but I haven't succeeded and when I did a trail marathon a few years ago I gained half a stone.

I have decided it cant be done because I have a 40 hour a week desk job, I'm a lone parent and had an early menopause.

I have a friend who has an active job and her children have left home. She runs 30-40 miles a week plus other exercise classes. She eats constantly and worries her weight is too low.

So yes it can be done if you are prepared to commit at least a couple of hours a day, with some 4 or 5 hour runs thrown in plus weights (and you don't get injured, need to earn a living or look after children )

Not possible for someone like me - big appetite so means I eat a lot generally but also binge periods where I can eat 1000+ calories ABOVE my regular day's intake. You don't get to be 4.5 stone overweight without some serious calorie excess!
I burn over 500 calories on a 5k run which is great - but to lose weight on that I'd have to do it every day, which isn't practical or healthy.
For me, fixing the food addiction is crucial. I'm still going to run and I'm working on getting faster and running longer but to lose weight I have to eat a lot less.
I believe that for someone who is only a stone or so overweight they may lose weight slowly if all they did was a decent run 3 times a week. That could burn them 1500 extra calories so assuming zero extra food consumption they could lose 0.5lbs a week. I guess that applies to fatter people too, but fatter people tend to not only eat more but have weird relationships with food that lead to serious over eating.

High impact exercise is very bad for your skin in terms ageing too, lots of running (skin flapping around) will age you very quickly.

Off topic, but is true? I had assumed that exercise was antiaging because of increased blood circulation to the face? Or was it just trying to justify my tomato complexion?

Depends how overweight you are, how many calories you overeat by and how many calories you burn running! I'm hoping I can out exercise my binges but I doubt it...

I think running helps me maintain my weight rather than lose it.