> Exercise is great, but I found it was not enough.

I just want to reach through the screen and shake you while screaming. This is what I'm talking about, with every mention of exercise being dismissively pivoted back to diet hacks!

Exercise is not a substitute for eating better, it is a tool for helping you eat better. Of course you should cut out sugary soft drinks and eat smaller portions! It's just that a minimum amount of exercise helps that happen naturally, rather than requiring herculean amounts of focus and discipline and constantly feeling miserable while trying.

That simply hasn't been my experience. When I'm getting exercise regularly I get hungrier for worse types of food. Lifting makes me want fried chicken, fatty brisket, and chocolate. When something theows menoff my lifting habit, job change, kid etc. I continue to gain for a bit then I start eating much less and at least a little better. When I find time for lifting again, its almost subconsciously that I find myself stuffing my face with blocks of hard cheese and think "when did I come into the kitchen? How did I get here?" Despite my cravings being mostly for fat, I think under regulated blood sugar plays a part but no tests have shown that.

I've had the same experience. When I start a weight-lifting regimen, my appetite grows like crazy, and I start bulking up immediately (good and bad weight).

Exercise is not a substitute for the health aspects of eating (e.g. cholesterol, heart health, "feeling" good, etc.), absolutely. But losing weight is 100% calories in/calories out, and you can "outrun a bad diet" as they say provided you're physically able to exercise for long enough or at a high enough intensity. It's certainly much easier if you put the garbage food in the trash and eat reasonably, but it's not a prerequisite. A big caveat though is that if you're already 350 pounds, you almost certainly don't have the cardiovascular stamina to lift heavy weights in the morning and do a high intensity workout in the evening.

In my 20's I was completely sedentary, weighed nearly 200 pounds / 91kg at 5'9" / 175cm, and had basically no muscle mass. I could barely press an empty 45#/20kg barbell overhead. 8-9 months of high intensity workouts, without any dietary changes, and I was down 50# with a lot of strength gains. I absolutely could have lost the weight faster, and gotten stronger faster, if I stopped eating fast food multiple times a week, but at the end of the day if you're physically able to do the work it's not a necessity.

You are talking completely past him and ignore his points. At no point he said that "outrun a bad diet". You are arguing against strawman.

Thanks for the downvote, but that's not what a strawman is and not what I'm doing. I largely agree with them, and "outrun a bad diet" is an extremely common expression. You'll even see I said "as they say" - because it's not the person I'm replying to who I'm quoting.

I do understand what "outrun a bad diet" means and that it is common expression. What makes you think I dont?

I'm, sorry I came across as dismissive of exercise, I did not intend to be. Like you, I think both are important — exercise and diet.

Your comment seemed (to me) to be too dismissive of diet.

The benefits of exercise for me were better, more restful sleep, more energy, improved emotional well-being, time afforded for setting my priorities for the day, etc. But weight loss was not one of the benefits, nor did I see a significant change in my dietary habits.

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

It's much easier to eat better than it is to try to burn those cookies off through exercise.

They aren't saying you can out run a bad diet- parent post I thought made themselves exceedingly clear that they suggest exercise as a way to help someone eat healthier because of its effects on cravings/etc. The two things can work together.

I say this as someone that knows how much easier it is to cut calories than to burn them- but I know if I was a bit more active, it would be easier to cut the calories

I don't understand how most replies to multiple of parent's posts keep completely missing their point. It's like the replies didn't even read the post they're replying to

A lot of people either read or listen just long enough to catch a general point, and then immediately switch over to thinking of a response. Whether or not they've caught the actual gist of the other person's point or not. Kind of the "responding to the headline, without reading the article" phenomenon.

Other people are just the "ACTUALLLLLLY..." types, who have to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian no matter what.

Either way, I knew with 100% certainty when posting the original comment that I would see a handful of "can't outrun a bad diet!" replies, from people who completely missed the point.