"You can't out-train a bad diet"

[EliKoehn]

This is a common aphorism. While the literal truth of that is subject to some debate, the general principle that fat loss is only possible in a caloric deficit and that one should set this lower rather than higher without attempting to rely on activity level to drive the gap is completely agreeable to me.

However, the contention that activity level itself is only a minor factor strikes me as curious. Notwithstanding the recent mega-threads about down-regulation and the strange claim that TDEE doesn't budge much regardless of what you do, how could you not simply increase activity level more or less at any given calorie allocation and consequently "train up to" or "out-train" this?

Where does this thinking come from? We're all familiar with CICO and so it's not really necessary to illustrate the various ways someone could meet their TDEE with junk food, but why would it not be theoretically possible for someone to eat not only poorer choices but also a higher overall amount (a "bad diet"), and simply train very hard or be constantly active, and still lose weight/gain strength/build muscle (consequently, "out-training" this)?

Mr Pb appears to have made good on his word to leave so there may not be the same lively debate as before, but I still fail to see how you could down-regulate something like several hours of medium intensity exercise. Even if we're just averaging things out, being in a 180+ bpm heart rate for multiple hours cannot be compensated with down-regulation unless the person in question goes comatose or something... Also doubtful that neglecting to pace around or bounce your knees while you sit adds up to anything that holds a candle to this.

My TDEE is about 3400-3500 calories with only resistance training. How come I can't eat a large pizza every day and simply go for a run or take a hike and effectively "out train" that?

Disclaimer: not going to deviate from the deficit I've set. This is purely theoretical curiosity.

[Heisman2]

I posted this review in the last thread but it was deleted and I don't think enough people saw this as this goes over this topic in depth: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...94DAE63B5024BB

[EiFit91]

This is a common aphorism. While the literal truth of that is subject to some debate, the general principle that fat loss is only possible in a caloric deficit and that one should set this lower rather than higher without attempting to rely on activity level to drive the gap is completely agreeable to me.

However, the contention that activity level itself is only a minor factor strikes me as curious. Notwithstanding the recent mega-threads about down-regulation and the strange claim that TDEE doesn't budge much regardless of what you do, how could you not simply increase activity level more or less at any given calorie allocation and consequently "train up to" or "out-train" this?

Where does this thinking come from? We're all familiar with CICO and so it's not really necessary to illustrate the various ways someone could meet their TDEE with junk food, but why would it not be theoretically possible for someone to eat not only poorer choices but also a higher overall amount (a "bad diet"), and simply train very hard or be constantly active, and still lose weight/gain strength/build muscle (consequently, "out-training" this)?

Mr Pb appears to have made good on his word to leave so there may not be the same lively debate as before, but I still fail to see how you could down-regulate something like several hours of medium intensity exercise. Even if we're just averaging things out, being in a 180+ bpm heart rate for multiple hours cannot be compensated with down-regulation unless the person in question goes comatose or something... Also doubtful that neglecting to pace around or bounce your knees while you sit adds up to anything that holds a candle to this.

My TDEE is about 3400-3500 calories with only resistance training. How come I can't eat a large pizza every day and simply go for a run or take a hike and effectively "out train" that?

Disclaimer: not going to deviate from the deficit I've set. This is purely theoretical curiosity.

Just posting a graph for now that mrpb shared in the earlier thread.

https://m.imgur.com/qAfdQy6

The graph to the left is based on older science, the graph on the right more updated science.

I think there are diminishing returns. The more activity you add, the greater the downregulation.

I think of this as similar to the relationship between volume and muscle gain; the more volume you add the smaller the gains from the last unit of volume added.

For some people the graph to the left may be a better fit; people are not atoms and there is heterogeneity in how people respond to exercise. For me the graph to the right is an excellent description.

[AdamWW]

What do you mean by 'out train' and what do you mean by 'bad diet'?

Are you talking about mitigating fat gain, or mitigating negative health measures? The two are different things....

By 'bad diet', do you mean the individual food choices or do you mean the degree of a calorie surplus?

[Strawng]

Check out our former fellow nut miscer nut Eriktheelectric on Youtube, OP. He’ll show that you can indeed out-train a bad diet. Srs. It’s just really hard to.

The paper just shows that there’s a point of diminishing returns when it comes to adding activity on top of exceptionally high activity levels. What’s more, sedentary people often overestimate their exercise calorie burn. Throw in the fact that they down-regulate their activity levels too when they get more active & try to “reward” themselves for moving, & you have the fact that exercise is an “ineffective primary fat loss strategy for most people compared to diet”. Unfortunately, people love catchy phrases and hate nuance, so they throw around that bullchit about not being able to out-train a bad diet. I’ve seen my own TDEE fluctuate by almost 1k calories going back to my own very high activity level after being sedentary following an injury, & we all know the hs or college athlete that blew up when they stopped doing their sport but kept eating like they were playing.

[air2fakie]

You can certainly burn significant calories by doing a high level of activity. In winter I know I can eat significantly more on days that I snowboard all morning and ski all afternoon. But a “bad diet” as I think you mean it would mean an extremely high amount of calories that most people aren’t going to burn by hitting the treadmill or going for a run.

And IRL people who regularly eat like s*** usually aren’t going to out-train anything.

[AdamWW]

does CICO account for chemistry or chemical reactions in the body...

other wise it's laughable that you would lose weight... you will get fat from it as the metabolism would crash hard

Obviously it does. Calorie Out is the sum total of all metabolic processes with an energy demand.

You can't 'crash' your metabolism... moron.

[AdamWW]

you can't out run dough it has Zero nutritional value and 272 carbs

…wtf does that mean

[Strawng]

you can't out run dough it has Zero nutritional value and 272 carbs

Repped.

& by “repped”, I of course mean “reported & negged”

[AdamWW]

forgot the comma, I implied pizza dough has zero nutritional value and 272 carbs for a pizza hut large pizza

You are such a waste of forum space

You are ruining this section for people who actually want information.

[EliKoehn]

Good thoughts, all, and thanks for the info Heisman and EiFit. Will read the study and check in later. As for the graph, the downregulation seems to have a lower and diminishing slope relative to the activity level; tentatively I want to say downregulation shouldn't be regarded significantly enough to warrant the claim that activity doesn't significantly effect TDEE, but I'm going to hold that thought fully until I've read the reference.

What do you mean by 'out train' and what do you mean by 'bad diet'?

Are you talking about mitigating fat gain, or mitigating negative health measures? The two are different things....

By 'bad diet', do you mean the individual food choices or do you mean the degree of a calorie surplus?

Right; I think it colloquially is intended in the context of body composition, not long-term health, and I'm going on a limb, but when I hear people say this, they're probably referring to some combination of both poor quality and excessive portions. Usually I hear or read this in response to the position of someone fairly new with high expectations who intends to eat ad libidum: in that case - as I hope my OP caveated - the general point that a bad diet is a bad idea anyway is more significant than the technicality. Either way the question does stand and I am curious about the actual technicality.

[AdamWW]

Good thoughts, all, and thanks for the info Heisman and EiFit. Will read the study and check in later. As for the graph, the downregulation seems to have a lower and diminishing slope relative to the activity level; tentatively I want to say downregulation shouldn't be regarded significantly enough to warrant the claim that activity doesn't significantly effect TDEE, but I'm going to hold that thought fully until I've read the reference.



Right; I think it colloquially is intended in the context of body composition, not long-term health, and I'm going on a limb, but when I hear people say this, they're probably referring to some combination of both poor quality and excessive portions. Usually I hear or read this in response to the position of someone fairly new with high expectations who intends to eat ad libidum: in that case - as I hope my OP caveated - the general point that a bad diet is a bad idea anyway is more significant than the technicality. Either way the question does stand and I am curious about the actual technicality.

Well the short answer is: it depends.

It depends how poor the food choices are, how long you do it, and how many calories you’re consuming.

Eventually you won’t be able to burn enough in a day to function and negate calorie intakes of say 10k calories without becoming fat.

Similarly, if all you eat is fried twinkies… you’re not going to remove the health risks by doing more cardio….

It’s a spectrum.

What I will say is that the more active you are up until the point of not recovering, activity will certainly HELP… but there’s only so much it can do.

We would need more context.

It’s basically asking ‘how long is a piece of string?’

[EliKoehn]

Well the short answer is: it depends.

It depends how poor the food choices are, how long you do it, and how many calories you’re consuming.

Eventually you won’t be able to burn enough in a day to function and negate calorie intakes of say 10k calories without becoming fat.

Similarly, if all you eat is fried twinkies… you’re not going to remove the health risks by doing more cardio….

It’s a spectrum.

What I will say is that the more active you are up until the point of not recovering, activity will certainly HELP… but there’s only so much it can do.

We would need more context.

It’s basically asking ‘how long is a piece of string?’

Good point, it is somewhat ambiguous by default...

What I have in mind is the "bro" who eats McDonald's cheeseburgers for lunch and pizza for dinner, 3 or 4 days out of the week, and also indulges ice cream as many times, with nevertheless something like a fairly decent base of nutrition, besides. Say they're a teenager still living at home/young adult whose wife cooks for them and they still eat a decent portion of quality produce (notice the choice of word, since it may fly over the radar) with their fairly regular home-cooked meals with the family, amounting to... 3,500-4,000 calories every day.

That diet would get booed and hissed at if they flaunt it as the basis of an awesome bulk, but to me it doesn't sound especially bad, either. That is the sort of thing I have in mind with this question; 500-1000 calories over a normal TDEE with basic activity level and resistance training. If someone really was serious about their training and maintained a consistently high level of activity, following this kind of diet shouldn't necessarily prevent one from maintaining their weight even as low as 15-18% probably. If not, I fail to see why and am genuinely curious, just based upon the basic principles driven home on this forum all the time.

EDIT: And just to reiterate the purpose, "you can't out-train a bad diet" tends to be the retort when said bro is still aware he needs to keep his surplus in check and not go ham, but whose immediate goal is simply to get bigger and stronger. For that purpose, even for a year or two, it sounds like B- move to me: good for its stated purpose, but still obviously less than ideal. In that regard, this is not really helpful advice for the bro in question.

[AdamWW]

Good point, it is somewhat ambiguous by default...

What I have in mind is the "bro" who eats McDonald's cheeseburgers for lunch and pizza for dinner, 3 or 4 days out of the week, and also indulges ice cream as many times, with nevertheless something like a fairly decent base of nutrition, besides. Say they're a teenager still living at home/young adult whose wife cooks for them and they still eat a decent portion of quality produce (notice the choice of word, since it may fly over the radar) with their fairly regular home-cooked meals with the family, amounting to... 3,500-4,000 calories every day.

That diet would get booed and hissed at if they flaunt it as the basis of an awesome bulk, but to me it doesn't sound especially bad, either. That is the sort of thing I have in mind with this question; 500-1000 calories over a normal TDEE with basic activity level and resistance training. If someone really was serious about their training and maintained a consistently high level of activity, following this kind of diet shouldn't necessarily prevent one from maintaining their weight even as low as 15-18% probably. If not, I fail to see why and am genuinely curious, just based upon the basic principles driven home on this forum all the time.

EDIT: And just to reiterate the purpose, "you can't out-train a bad diet" tends to be the retort when said bro is still aware he needs to keep his surplus in check and not go ham, but whose immediate goal is simply to get bigger and stronger. For that purpose, even for a year or two, it sounds like B- move to me: good for its stated purpose, but still obviously less than ideal. In that regard, this is not really helpful advice for the bro in question.

Well I think the answer remains the same…

You can negate and/or mitigate up to a threshold and that threshold depends on a number of variables.

In terms of bodyfat% it’s a matter of calorie balance as you know…

So yes, you can definitely gain zero fat or even lose fat eating 4000 calories of really ‘bad’ food

[desslok]

I posted this review in the last thread but it was deleted and I don't think enough people saw this as this goes over this topic in depth: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...94DAE63B5024BB

Wow, 3 whole weeks! just enugh to cover most new year’s resolutionists!

[air2fakie]

What I have in mind is the "bro" who eats McDonald's cheeseburgers for lunch and pizza for dinner, 3 or 4 days out of the week, and also indulges ice cream as many times, with nevertheless something like a fairly decent base of nutrition, besides. Say they're a teenager still living at home/young adult whose wife cooks for them and they still eat a decent portion of quality produce (notice the choice of word, since it may fly over the radar) with their fairly regular home-cooked meals with the family, amounting to... 3,500-4,000 calories every day.

Oh, I thought you meant more excessive than this, like if we all indulged in eating whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, and as much as we wanted. As a teenager I prob did eat almost that much (used to eat 3 lunches), burned it off, and was super lean.

I thought you meant something like 5,000-8,000+ range as a working adult with a life, and then thinking you could lift weights and do enough cardio to burn it off.

As an adult, if you can handle that, it's not "out-training" a "bad diet", you'd be an athlete, that'd be your "everyday training", and all that food would just be "fuel".

[paulinkansas]

I used to have a quarter pounder with cheese, a cheese burger, large order of fries, and a large Dr. Pepper for lunch when I wrestled. I was able to lose weight. I don't wrestle anymore, but there are some women wrestlers in the olympics that I would like to tangle with.

[desslok]

I used to have a quarter pounder with cheese, a cheese burger, large order of fries, and a large Dr. Pepper for lunch when I wrestled. I was able to lose weight. I don't wrestle anymore, but there are some women wrestlers in the olympics that I would like to tangle with.

your diet wasn’t bad, Michael Jackson was.

[Strawng]

your diet wasn’t bad, Michael Jackson was.

Allegedly

[Xpiro]

“Exercise doesn’t influence TDEE much” Sorry what? My 5’2” 140 lb ass would not burn close to 3000 calories per day if I weren’t physically active. My BMR is estimated to be around 1500. Unless it really was my anxiety lighting the fire behind my metabolism all along...

[EiFit91]

“Exercise doesn’t influence TDEE much” Sorry what? My 5’2” 140 lb ass would not burn close to 3000 calories per day if I weren’t physically active. My BMR is estimated to be around 1500. Unless it really was my anxiety lighting the fire behind my metabolism all along...

There is some good science behind this claim.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32176862/

Sedentary adults added a large amount of exercise yet the authors failed to detect a significant effect on their TDEE.

[EiFit91]

As for the graph, the downregulation seems to have a lower and diminishing slope relative to the activity level; tentatively I want to say downregulation shouldn't be regarded significantly enough to warrant the claim that activity doesn't significantly effect TDEE

I think you maybe misinterpreted the graph. It’s not the downregulation but other activity. So the interpretation is the opposite - the more exercise you add the greater the downregulation. And that leads to the overall shape of the relationship between TDEE and exercise depicted in the second graph.

Mathematically I think of it like this:

TDEE = EAT + NEAT + other components

If we take the derivative wrt EAT we get that the change in TDEE as you increase EAT by 1 unit is

1 + dNEAT/dEAT

That derivative is negative, and if it is strong enough it can completely override the effect of added exercise.

Since humans are different, there will be differences in how large that dNEAT/dEAT effect is. For me it is large, for Adam and Strawng it seems to be substantially weaker. The effect will also vary with the overall activity level of the individual.

Calorie calculators found online probably assume that the derivative is zero, which would lead to the graph on the left.

[MrCarrot]

Where does this thinking come from? We're all familiar with CICO and so it's not really necessary to illustrate the various ways someone could meet their TDEE with junk food, but why would it not be theoretically possible for someone to eat not only poorer choices but also a higher overall amount (a "bad diet"), and simply train very hard or be constantly active, and still lose weight/gain strength/build muscle (consequently, "out-training" this)?

I don't think it's impossible, just highly unlikely. I think most people assume exercise burns mega amounts of calories when in reality usually it doesn't. I would guess killing yourself on a treadmill for half an hour perhaps burns 400 calories max. An intense weight session perhaps only burns 200 or so. These are my own guesstimates, but it's not like your "average" workout is going to burn 1,000 calories no matter what you do.

But it's really easy to eat thousands of calories in a day. A typical large pizza is probably 2,000 calories along with a side of fries at 400 calories. That could be lunch, followed by a 1,500 calorie dinner, an 800 calorie desert, perhaps a large bar of chocolate later in the evening at 700 calories... you get the idea. Someone with a sweet tooth and big appetite could easily get through 5,000 calories in a day by eating "junk" and anyone who isn't a professional athlete most likely wouldn't have the time, let alone the will power and motivation, to do enough exercise to compensate.

[Sophus]

See how elastic our prejudices grow when once love comes to bend them.

[desslok]

There is some good science behind this claim.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32176862/

Sedentary adults added a large amount of exercise yet the authors failed to detect a significant effect on their TDEE.

yeah thats thr problem with these short term studies on long term mechanisms. people think “oooh science”! when in actuality, in real world conditions its a small slice of whats going on. it may kind of help explain why it can take a year or 18 months or so to change a set point, though.

[AdamWW]

See how elastic our prejudices grow when once love comes to bend them.

Da fuq?

[EiFit91]

yeah thats thr problem with these short term studies on long term mechanisms. people think “oooh science”! when in actuality, in real world conditions its a small slice of whats going on. it may kind of help explain why it can take a year or 18 months or so to change a set point, though.

That study lasted for 26 weeks.

[desslok]

That study lasted for 26 weeks.

exactly!

[EiFit91]

exactly!

That is IMO more than enough time to study this question. What is a sufficient time span in your opinion for such a study? And is there any reason why you would expect the results to differ if the study had an even longer duration?

[desslok]

That is IMO more than enough time to study this question. What is a sufficient time span in your opinion for such a study? And is there any reason why you would expect the results to differ if the study had a longer duration?

ok, lets forget the “science” and use some logic. most people in the know are aware of a “set point” that usually takes around a year to 18 months or so to meaningfully change. so how would a study that is half or 1/3 of that time really be of any use? its kind of like having people smoke for 6 months and then claim cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.