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.
Depends on weight and speed, of course. According to the standard calculators floating around, a 200 lb (91 kg) person running a 10k in an hour is burning about 960 calories per hour. And that’s a casual/comfortable pace for runners.
People aren’t gonna be able to get off the couch and suddenly be able to burn 1000 calories per hour, but that’s probably a pace within reach for most people within a few months of training.
There are easier ways to control weight, but for people who enjoy running, those calories give a lot of flexibility in how to eat.
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.
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 reductionist misinformation that is used to sell us ultra-processed foods.
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.
You can’t outrun your diet.
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.
you’d have to run over 3 hours to burn 2000 calories.
a 20m run usually burns like 200-300.
Depends on weight and speed, of course. According to the standard calculators floating around, a 200 lb (91 kg) person running a 10k in an hour is burning about 960 calories per hour. And that’s a casual/comfortable pace for runners.
People aren’t gonna be able to get off the couch and suddenly be able to burn 1000 calories per hour, but that’s probably a pace within reach for most people within a few months of training.
There are easier ways to control weight, but for people who enjoy running, those calories give a lot of flexibility in how to eat.
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.
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 reductionist misinformation that is used to sell us ultra-processed foods.
It’s not that simple, if you are healthier with regular exercise your hunger is also better regulated and your diet will be better.
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.