Which is worse, poor diet or lack of exercise?

[Flagg]

Obviously, a poor diet and not exercising is not going to be good for anyone in the long run, but does anyone know what is worse?

Part of this is because im having an infuriating debate with some "academics" that are claiming that reactions to fast food is "alarmist" at best, and others claiming you dont need to exercise to be healthier.

Im trying to find some information currently on the benefits of regular exercise, as well as comparisons of say, McDonalds chicken/beef to free range/lean chicken/beef, but anything from anyone who is better versed in this sort of thing than me, i'd appreciate some input, preferably with a credible source.

[Kawigirl]

I'm gonna go with poor diet personally

[lil_herc81]

I would opt for a poor diet being worse. Reason being; if you maintain a healthy diet and stay away from processed food and all of the terrible additives you can maintain a healthy lifestyle without fitness.

[DSM4Life]

If your talking about fast food then yes it is harmful to your health. Check out the movie "super size me" where all the guy eats is Mcdonalds for an entire month. His doctors follow him medically and his health takes a drastic turn for the worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Lkyb6SU5U

[dec11]

tough to answer, we all have different make ups. poor diet will lead the heart conditions etc though

[FireGuy]

I dont think anyone can provide a specific answer to such a general question. Exactly what defines a "poor diet" and a "lack of exercise"? There is a very wide range of diets, high calories, low calories, non nutrient dense, etc.. that could be on opposite ends of the spectrum yet still be labeled "poor". Same with exercise, what actually constitutes a lack of it? A person may have a labor intense job but never spend a day at the gym. I think the way your proposal is set up you are not going to be able to come to any conclusive agreement.

[Flagg]

Okay, well how about this:
You do a 9-5 desk job, Monday to Friday, come home and pretty much slouch in front of the TV for the rest of the evening, but you maintain a relatively good diet that consisted of lean cuts of meats, salad, water, free range products and you drank/ate alcohol and fast food rarely.

Or as you say, someone who works in a labour instensive job, but they play a sport or go to the gym say, 3 times a week, but they like to get hammered every weekend and generally pig out on whatever food they want (fried breakfasts, maybe a Maccas for lunch twice a week, etc...)

Im probably of the belief that a poor diet is worse than a lack of exercise, but I suppose the question beggars...is eating from fast food chains poor eating.

[SergeantCarbs]

I would say poor diet. You can work-out every day but it only takes a few bad food choices to nullify any calories you burned while exercising.

[Flagg]

Given both sceanarios, I'd still like to know if there is actual truth in maintaining both a good diet and exercise. I know that seems like a rhetorical question, and the diet questions seems easier to answwer, as fast food invariably has higher fat and sodium content, not to mention how it is prepared, but what health benefits does a fitness freak have over the regular joe?

[jimmyinkedup]

hmm - well you can control bodyfat - choleterol - triglycerides etc strictly by diet. Im not so sure you could eat whatever u wanted and control those factors nearly as easily by offsetting a horrible diet by exercising.
That being said Im sure we all agree a combo of goof diet and exercise is the best approach...

[38jumper38]

Diet for sure.

[Times Roman]

if you have a three legged stool and are considering which leg would be the worse if cut off......

you need all three for optimum health
Rest
Diet
Exercise

[MuscleScience]

I dont think anyone can provide a specific answer to such a general question. Exactly what defines a "poor diet" and a "lack of exercise"? There is a very wide range of diets, high calories, low calories, non nutrient dense, etc.. that could be on opposite ends of the spectrum yet still be labeled "poor". Same with exercise, what actually constitutes a lack of it? A person may have a labor intense job but never spend a day at the gym. I think the way your proposal is set up you are not going to be able to come to any conclusive agreement.

I would tend to agree.

One would argue that as the western world became more industrialized, food became more available and more energy dense from processing. However there is also an association with decrease in physical activity. Workers started less strenuous jobs than in the past. Its been fought over back and forth.

I would point out to other countries and the supply of food. It has been shown in the literature for a large majority of organisms, decrease in caloric intake increase life span. Other countries such as China had far less heart disease and diabetes compared to Western countries. Now that China is modernizing and western influence is in the culture more. You see more fast food restaurants in populated areas than in the past. There is now starting to be a increase in heart disease and diabetes in those areas.

[MACHINE5150]

Okay, well how about this:
You do a 9-5 desk job, Monday to Friday, come home and pretty much slouch in front of the TV for the rest of the evening, but you maintain a relatively good diet that consisted of lean cuts of meats, salad, water, free range products and you drank/ate alcohol and fast food rarely.

Or as you say, someone who works in a labour instensive job, but they play a sport or go to the gym say, 3 times a week, but they like to get hammered every weekend and generally pig out on whatever food they want (fried breakfasts, maybe a Maccas for lunch twice a week, etc...)

Im probably of the belief that a poor diet is worse than a lack of exercise, but I suppose the question beggars...is eating from fast food chains poor eating.

In this case the guy not working out will probably have less health problems, but will be skinny.. Pigging out and doing gym work will still get you muscle.. even though there will be a lot of fat along with it but if he is doing a physical job and a sport and working out he is burning through those calories.. as shitty as they may be. His cholesterol and Triglycorides might be higher than the healthy desk guy, but he will be more muscular.

I work out 4 times a week and play rugby 3 times a week.. but have a desk job.. I drink 5-7 liters of beer pretty much every weekend. Have fast food once or twice a week, but otherwise eat pretty healthy.. Since i do a lot of cardio in rugby and some when i work out my BF is 17-18%.. i weigh 245lbs squat 500 and bench 375... I have gotten my blood work done and my cholesterol is slightly above average but nothing to worry about, my liver values are in the normal to healthy range.

I know that if i didn't drink and completley staid away from fast food or pizz or whatever that i would have a much lower BF, but it is not worth the social sacrifice to me just to be that lean.

here is my pic.

[D3m3nt3d]

Poor diet, only because I said so.

[MuscleScience]

One other point I would make is that food is so energy dense now that one could literally eat a fulls day worth of calories in one sitting. Even if a person goes to the gym and puts in a full regime of weights and cardio. They could go home right after and have a 1000kcal snack post exercise, and basically negate in changes.

[Flagg]

In this case the guy not working out will probably have less health problems, but will be skinny.. Pigging out and doing gym work will still get you muscle.. even though there will be a lot of fat along with it but if he is doing a physical job and a sport and working out he is burning through those calories.. as shitty as they may be. His cholesterol and Triglycorides might be higher than the healthy desk guy, but he will be more muscular.

I work out 4 times a week and play rugby 3 times a week.. but have a desk job.. I drink 5-7 liters of beer pretty much every weekend. Have fast food once or twice a week, but otherwise eat pretty healthy.. Since i do a lot of cardio in rugby and some when i work out my BF is 17-18%.. i weigh 245lbs squat 500 and bench 375... I have gotten my blood work done and my cholesterol is slightly above average but nothing to worry about, my liver values are in the normal to healthy range.

I know that if i didn't drink and completley staid away from fast food or pizz or whatever that i would have a much lower BF, but it is not worth the social sacrifice to me just to be that lean.

here is my pic.

7 litres is about...14 pints i'd say? It sounds like you're super active, but do you never worry about high blood pressure, or your heart? Yeah I know anyone of us could get hit by a car tomorrow, but doesnt it give, excuse the pun, food for thought?

@Muscle, yes i've read before about that caloric/lifespan claim. Would you say that we eat far too much meat in the developed world? As you probably know, energy conversion in food changes as it goes through the trophic levels, like 90% is lost each time. And because of food conversion losses, converting plant calories into animal calories, for example, grain, is sub optimal. In other words, feeding a chicken grain, and then eating the chicken, you will get a lower amount of energy compared to having eaten the grain directly.

Protein, vitamins, minerals, fats, carbs can all be gotten from grain..its just that when its refined and the bran and germ is removed, we only have the carb left. I sometimes wonder if we'd have better diets if we decreased our meat consumption and increased our grain consumption. Especially in light of potential problems in feeding the population, 40 years from now.

[Tigershark]

I will say poor diet. I firmly believe diet is everything.

[yungone501]

Diet hands down.

You ARE what you EAT.

You eat healthy, you are healthy.

[l2elapse]

I would go with diet as well

[lifterjaydawg]

I would say poor diet is worse.

[SlimJoe]

Poor diet

[MuscleScience]

7 litres is about...14 pints i'd say? It sounds like you're super active, but do you never worry about high blood pressure, or your heart? Yeah I know anyone of us could get hit by a car tomorrow, but doesnt it give, excuse the pun, food for thought?

@Muscle, yes i've read before about that caloric/lifespan claim. Would you say that we eat far too much meat in the developed world? As you probably know, energy conversion in food changes as it goes through the trophic levels, like 90% is lost each time. And because of food conversion losses, converting plant calories into animal calories, for example, grain, is sub optimal. In other words, feeding a chicken grain, and then eating the chicken, you will get a lower amount of energy compared to having eaten the grain directly.

Protein, vitamins, minerals, fats, carbs can all be gotten from grain..its just that when its refined and the bran and germ is removed, we only have the carb left. I sometimes wonder if we'd have better diets if we decreased our meat consumption and increased our grain consumption. Especially in light of potential problems in feeding the population, 40 years from now.

We eat a very large percentage of our protein intake as red meats. What would be ideal is a omega3/6 ratio of 1:1 or as close as possible. Right now the typical Western diet is at a ratio of 1:20 which puts the body in a pro-inflammatory state all the time.

As far as food conversion goes. The food chain operates on the rule of 10's. This is an environmental ecology concept/term that means that at every level of the food chain energy conversion is only about 10% total of "net primary production."

This means that plants only absorb and use about 10% of the sunlight energy available to them at optimal efficiency. When a consumer comes along and eats the plant such as a cow. The cow only gets 10% of the energy stored in the plant matter as usable energy. When we come and eat the cow. We only get about 10% of the energy stored in the cow.

The 10% rule is assuming many things. In the tropics the percentage can be higher, but for ease of conversion I was always taught the 10% rule.

"Three hundred trout are needed to support one man for a year. The trout, in turn, must consume 90,000 frogs, that must consume 27 million grasshoppers that live off of 1,000 tons of grass."
-- G. Tyler Miller, Jr., American Chemist (1971)

[Twist]

From working with many clients (as I am sure Fire and MS have), I can honestly say that once someone puts their diet into check everything falls into place. Like Machine said (using himself as an example), you can exercise a lot, but you will remain high in the bf category. Staying high in bf almost always results in long term problems, especially when your poor diet is what got you there.

So I'm going with diet.