You can't out train a crap diet.

[GoreSP]

This is just getting silly.....

 

Think abut this for a moment...

 

Take ALL of the first round picks in this years NFL draft...

 

DO you think for one moment that THEY trained the hardest and had better diets than everyone else? DId they know some secret that the others didnt?

 

Its silly...

 

Truth is most of the undrafted free agents probably worked their asses off and did EVERYTHING perfect---likley BETTER and more disciplined than the first rounders......Jadeveon Clowney doesnt train hard...He has been criticised by all of his coaches for it. Yet he was picked number one..

 

If all it took was work hard and eat right, then many of lower rung guys would be in the Hall of Fame..

 

Remember George Foreman...Big George managed to win the heavyweight championship at the late stages in his life, yet freely admitting his meal of choice was cheeseburgers..

 

TFY

 

 

You're right. This is getting silly. You are still trying to prove a false premise using a minority of people and exceptions.

 

I'm done here.

[Chocolat]

No argument....

 

The issue here is that No one can out train a bad diet...No one isnt some, a percentage or...No one is no one...

 

TFY

 

If what you are saying is that there are no absolutes, well, sure.

 

Some of life is a crap shoot.

 

Control what you can.

[RonaldS]

yes.

Do you understand basic research methods?

 

You can't conduct a study with just one group and say these athletes who eat crappy perform well - therefore you can out train a crappy diet - which is exactly what fool of theyear and yourself are doing ). At least compare them with athletes who don't perform well on a crappy diet and see what the numbers are.

 

At best compare performances of athletes who eat crappy diets VS athletes who eat a clean, sports nutrition diet and see which ones perform best.

 

Huh?

 

When compiling data for statistical analysis, you test or survey a sample population. Reasonable conclusions about a population can be drawn from analysis of the data drawn from a relatively small sample of a population.

 

If I know 100 high-level athletes, and only 7 of them are clean eaters, 9 of them eat like total crap, 10 of them eat junk food a couple of times a week, and 83 of them eat a certain amount of junk food everyday, what reasonable conclusions can I draw about the population of high-level athletes?

 

Sure, I could just happen to know the only 83 athletes in the world that eat some junk food every day. But realistically, this sample is representative of the population of high-level athletes (and these are not actual figures...just putting #s out there). That's the basis for statistics. Extrapolating information from a sample to a population.

 

I don't know the exact #s, but again, I know TONS of high-level athletes (far more than 100), and I actually only know one woman who is a clean eater, and she looks like Iggy Pop (in the face, too...which isn't good). Everybody else has junk food going into their bodies pretty frequently.

 

Sorry. It is what it is.

[RonaldS]

You're right. This is getting silly. You are still trying to prove a false premise using a minority of people and exceptions.

 

I'm done here.

 

I will absolutely guarantee you that TFY is not using the 'minority' of people. I don't have time to dig into the the research, but I'm sure there is plenty out there.

 

Be done if you must, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't have the #s to substantiate your claim.

[GoreSP]

Huh?

 

When compiling data for statistical analysis, you test or survey a sample population. Reasonable conclusions about a population can be drawn from analysis of the data drawn from a relatively small sample of a population.

 

If I know 100 high-level athletes, and only 7 of them are clean eaters, 9 of them eat like total crap, 10 of them eat junk food a couple of times a week, and 83 of them eat a certain amount of junk food everyday, what reasonable conclusions can I draw about the population of high-level athletes?

 

Sure, I could just happen to know the only 83 athletes in the world that eat some junk food every day. But realistically, this sample is representative of the population of high-level athletes (and these are not actual figures...just putting #s out there). That's the basis for statistics. Extrapolating information from a sample to a population.

 

I don't know the exact #s, but again, I know TONS of high-level athletes (far more than 100), and I actually only know one woman who is a clean eater, and she looks like Iggy Pop (in the face, too...which isn't good). Everybody else has junk food going into their bodies pretty frequently.

 

Sorry. It is what it is.

 

A study based on only 100 people is really ****ing bogus. It is what is it....

[RonaldS]

A study based on only 100 people is really ****ing bogus. It is what is it....

 

Don't be ridiculous, guy. It's actually not bogus at all. It's pretty representative, actually. What would validate it for you? If it was a million? A billion? Have you ever studied statistics? Data is almost always derived from a small sample relative to the population. When scientists are conducting research, how the hell do you think they set up their experiments? By testing everybody?! No, they have small control and experimental groups, and then they extrapolate the information across the population as a whole.

 

Do you have a lot of high-level athletes in your world? Doubt it....because if you did, you would be in agreement that many of them have pretty suspect diets.

[GoreSP]

Don't be ridiculous, guy. It's actually not bogus at all. It's pretty representative, actually. What would validate it for you? If it was a million? A billion? Have you ever studied statistics? Data is almost always derived from a small sample relative to the population. When scientists are conducting research, how the hell do you think they set up their experiments? By testing everybody?! No, they have small control and experimental groups, and then they extrapolate the information across the population as a whole.

 

Do you have a lot of high-level athletes in your world? Doubt it....because if you did, you would be in agreement that many of them have pretty suspect diets.

 

1- I'm not a guy.

 

2- If you are really willing to take this sample of 100 people you know and extend that to people of all gender, race, culture, lifestyle and age, be my guest. I'm not wasting any more time trying to explain how it's bogus to do that...

[RonaldS]

1- I'm not a guy.

 

2- If you are really willing to take this sample of 100 people you know and extend that to people of all gender, race, culture, lifestyle and age, be my guest. I'm not wasting any more time trying to explain how it's bogus to do that...

 

Can you explain how statistics are derived then? Please? Your insistence that sampling is an inadequate method to paint a statistical picture isn't cutting it for me. Sorry. Not a convincing argument. Try again.

 

If I think back across the composition of all of the people I know who are high-level athletes, I can assure you that both genders, a broad age range, and most races are represented. But what does culture and lifestyle have to do with anything? Those are meaningless metrics. The lifestyle is 'high-level athlete'. And what influence would culture have to do with what kind of diet athletes have? You're introducing elements into the discussion that only cloud it and are really probably just statistically insignificant anyway.

 

Admittedly, my evidence is anecdotal. I did not actually conduct an official survey. I'm just going by what I've seen with my own eyes over 30 years of playing sports. And to that point, that value is much larger than 100. If we want to shift away from high-level athletes to just say 'people with a body you would want to have', that value balloons up even further.

 

I'm really not even sure what you're trying to argue. Whatever your argument is, though, is not compelling. Feel free to offer some evidence a) that you can't 'out-train' a bad diet and b) that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from surveying a sample population of 100. Thanks.

 

I will grant you and the OP this. You can't out-train a bad diet if your bad diet pumps 4000 kcal/day into your body but you're only using 2500 kcal/day. And actually, that statement isn't even accurate, because if consumption > use, you're actually not 'out-training' anything.

[GoreSP]

Can you explain how statistics are derived then? Please? Your insistence that sampling is an inadequate method to paint a statistical picture isn't cutting it for me. Sorry. Not a convincing argument. Try again.

 

If I think back across the composition of all of the people I know who are high-level athletes, I can assure you that both genders, a broad age range, and most races are represented. But what does culture and lifestyle have to do with anything? Those are meaningless metrics. The lifestyle is 'high-level athlete'. And what influence would culture have to do with what kind of diet athletes have? You're introducing elements into the discussion that only cloud it and are really probably just statistically insignificant anyway.

 

Admittedly, my evidence is anecdotal. I did not actually conduct an official survey. I'm just going by what I've see.n with my own eyes over 30 years of playing sports. And to that point, that value is much larger than 100. If we want to shift away from high-level athletes to just say 'people with a body you would want to have', that value balloons up even further.

 

I'm really not even sure what you're trying to argue. Whatever your argument is, though, is not compelling. Feel free to offer some evidence a) that you can't 'out-train' a bad diet and b) that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from surveying a sample population of 100. Thanks.

 

I will grant you and the OP this. You can't out-train a bad diet if your bad diet pumps 4000 kcal/day into your body but you're only using 2500 kcal/day. And actually, that statement isn't even accurate, because if consumption > use, you're actually not 'out-training' anything.

 

And that's why your 'stats' are bogus....

 

I actually posted a google scholar portal full of scholar articles related to sports nutrition and performance.

 

I have yet to see any relevant studies confirming that athletes of any level can perform their best on a crap diet though...

Other than your 'survey' and the list of 25 known athletes who sometimes eat junk food.

 

So really, eat all the crap you want thinking you'll be able to out train this forever.

I really don't care anymore at this point.

[RonaldS]

And that's why your 'stats' are bogus....

 

I actually posted a google scholar portal full of scholar articles related to sports nutrition and performance.

 

I have yet to see any relevant studies confirming that athletes of any level can perform their best on a crap diet though...

Other than your 'survey' and the list of 25 known athletes who sometimes eat junk food.

 

So really, eat all the crap you want thinking you'll be able to out train this forever.

I really don't care anymore at this point.

 

Interesting. You're trying to bring 'performing at their best' (subjective) into the conversation. We're talking about general diets. We're not talking about what people eat immediately leading up to performing.

 

As I stated earlier with the anecdote about the trainer who does physique competitions....sure, for a period of time before a competition, he cuts way back. After, though? All bets are off. I know all kinds of people who do that, and so do most other people who know athletes.

 

Your body will store fat in 2 different scenarios. 1: you are starving and your body goes into emergency mode (rare). 2: you take in more energy than you use, and your body stores the extra (very common).

 

This is very simple, basic math. And since I can do math and have a pretty deep understanding of physiology, I don't 'think' I can out-train my diet.....I know I can out-train my diet. I've been doing it most of my life. It's just math.

[GoreSP]

Interesting. You're trying to bring 'performing at their best' (subjective) into the conversation. We're talking about general diets. We're not talking about what people eat immediately leading up to performing.

 

As I stated earlier with the anecdote about the trainer who does physique competitions....sure, for a period of time before a competition, he cuts way back. After, though? All bets are off. I know all kinds of people who do that, and so do most other people who know athletes.

 

Your body will store fat in 2 different scenarios. 1: you are starving and your body goes into emergency mode (rare). 2: you take in more energy than you use, and your body stores the extra (very common).

 

This is very simple, basic math. And since I can do math and have a pretty deep understanding of physiology, I don't 'think' I can out-train my diet.....I know I can out-train my diet. I've been doing it most of my life. It's just math.

 

This is pretty much what I've said in one of my first posts...

[RonaldS]

This is pretty much what I've said in one of my first posts...

OK, before this conversation gets sidetracked....

 

There is a difference between pre-performance/performance diets and overall diets.

 

What this conversation is about is overall diet. Overall, what do people eat Jan 1-Dec 31. Of course, athletes who need to perform are going to stop at McDonalds on their way to a big race or right before a game. That's obvious.

 

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about in general. So, of course, if somebody has a race, they're going to eat pretty well the day before and the day of the race. But what about after the race? Different story. Head to a restaurant and knock back a pizza or couple of plates of pasta. Or hot dogs and beers.

 

Overall, they are out-training their diets. They are able to eat things that a person who isn't training/working out at that level can't. And that's because the people who are gaining or not losing weight aren't actually out-training their diet. They're still in a state of consumption > use.

 

The formula is simple:

 

1. Caloric consumption < caloric demand = loss

2. Caloric consumption = caloric demand = stasis

3. Caloric consumption > caloric demand = gain

 

The physique competitor is a good example. Because he out-trains his diet (which is high calorie, and consists of at least some 'junk' food), when it comes time to prep for a competition, he can just scale back for a week or two and then lose any extra fat he has, because he doesn't have to lose much fat at all. Then, after the competition, he goes out and gorges at a restaurant, eats cupcakes, whatever.

 

Also, by saying that peoe eat junk food is not to state that their diet consists of junk food. But there's plenty of junk food consumed. The girl that I sorta hang out with is a runner. She's 35. She races in every 10k that comes around. Since I have known her, I've never seen her NOT finish 1st in her age group. Not only that, but she's always in the 99th percentile of ALL females, and usually in the 95th percentile overall (men and women). And these will be races with 2000-5000 people (or more) running them.

 

Those are hardly slouch numbers. And her diet is worse than mine.

[Charlie Harper]

The formula is simple:

 

1. Caloric consumption < caloric demand = loss

2. Caloric consumption = caloric demand = stasis

3. Caloric consumption > caloric demand = gain

 

 

Even if you have the crappies diet ever, the body will do what it has, you can't control what it takes, what it stores and how it converts it to fat, ATP, or other sugars.

Some people tend to keep fat store some others don't, but if your calorie intake is always lower than your expenditures, you wont gain any weight, maybe you wont get a perfect body, but you wont get fat.

 

Also what is true is that a junk food diet will clog your arteries real good

[GoreSP]

Actually, what I have argued here is that you can't use arguments like 'I know X number of people that do it my way, therefore I'm right'.

I still haven't seen links to studies supporting the premise that athletes can perform well on a **** diet.

 

I also argued that sure, some people/athletes can have a crappy diet and perform well but they are exceptions and don't support the premise stated earlier.

[thefooloftheyear]

Actually, what I have argued here is that you can't use arguments like 'I know X number of people that do it my way, therefore I'm right'.

I still haven't seen links to studies supporting the premise that athletes can perform well on a **** diet.

 

I also argued that sure, some people/athletes can have a crappy diet and perform well but they are exceptions and don't support the premise stated earlier.

 

Neither does what you are saying support that "you can NEVER out train a shyt diet"

 

 

TFY

[GoreSP]

Neither does what you are saying support that "you can NEVER out train a shyt diet"

 

 

TFY

 

I actually never said that either...

I'm not the OP here...

[Elias33]

I agree and have stated as much numerous times in these threads. Some people don't believe it, though.

 

The entire premise of this thread is that you can't out-train a bad diet, but most of us who are athletic and know athletes know that their diets are rarely great. Good overall, yes. But a lot of allowances are made. You raised the point I've made a thousand time....that it's a numbers game.

 

I did a professional diet analysis. Based on all of the metrics they test, I have a ~4000 kcal/day demand. Most days my diet is right around that value. How I get there is pretty much up to me. My meals tend to be balanced, not processed, etc. In other words, healthy and clean.....most of them. But then there will be pizza or going out for breakfast and getting huge pancake dishes w/sausage.

 

But most of my meals are pretty healthy overall. What I do, though, is snack pretty liberally, and most of the time, those snacks are candy bars, or Oreos. But, I play basketball 4x/week, lift a little, stack workouts, etc, so those deviations from healthy don't affect me. And I'm 40, not 20, so it's night like I'm just ripping through calories because I'm young.

 

My diet differ as well and I am 40 as you are. The thing is though that crappy diet needs to be the exception, not the norm. And it's just a numbers game until of course it doesn't work anynmore, there is a limit to where this numbers game needs to go into specifics. I know wrestlers that eat super clean when it is time to be on weight. It is no longer about calories for them but more about substance.

 

Which proves that if the numbers game doesn't work, and for some people it no longer does, it is all about cleaning up your diet, which of course differs greatly from person to person. We can debate about our own personal diet all we want, but we also need to except that a clean diet will always be better than the bulk diet for us who burn a lot of calories.

 

As for the premise, out training a crappy diet, yes it can be done, up to a point, then performance will suffer and results may be lesser. For a result that is sustainable, the cleaner diet always wins and should be encouraged over a crappy diet.

 

Also, if you have a history of obesity and you lost weight towards the "norm", your body is less forgiving on a crappy diet. Crappy diets will also increase carb cravings because of the possible high sodium, fat, and sugar dosage. Many variables come into play here. Good point though.

[PogoStick]

As a trainer I view it like this:

 

1. Exercise is for your health. People who are active and overweight are often healthier than people who are inactive with average weight.

 

2. Diet is for your weight and appearance. Obviously, being extremely over or underweight has health implications. But for most of the population, weight is an appearance issue.

 

If I had to pick only one for a client, it would be to exercise. In fact, most clients fail at controlling their diet even when they "try". The mental discipline simply isn't there. Yet without a doubt, they are happier and healthier by exercising several days per week.

[austyre]

simply message for you 1 fitness is for tone 2 diet is for health/weight loss