This reminds a little of Usain Bolt famously having chicken nuggets before his final at the Beijing Olympics. Although hardly indicative of a bad diet that he may or may not have had.

I think as well there is some difficulty with variability between people that isn't clear or maybe doesn't matter at scale. The article linked study was across 43 nations with 4213 adults. Yet there may still be individuals who can argue differently. CICO (calories in vs calories out) must apply to us all, but the composition has an affect on what the body chooses to store vs how energised or hungry/satiated we feel. A bad diet could perhaps me we feel we have less enthusiasm for running or other activities. Age, lifestyle, and even cultural factors are massive in affecting metabolism (more the foremost) and of course what we consume (the latter two).

I run a fair amount (over 2000km/1200 miles in 2025) and find that once I start doing above ~70km/43 miles in a week whatever eating habits I have are indeed outcompeted by my running and weight loss is inevitable. Even so it does slow around a BMI of 23 for me for longer than I am able to be consistent with the running to observe further effects. Still my point is that my diet isn't anything to write home about and I anecdotally I feel that as far as weightloss is concerned I can very much outrun it.

▲

SeanAnderson 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The chicken nugget thing is to avoid food poisoning though, right? It's because McDonald's food logistics results in hyper-consistent food irrespective of where you're at in the world and the last thing an Olympic competitor wants is to risk getting food poisoning from eating foreign food. I don't think Usain eats chicken nuggets on the reg.

▲

71153750 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know the reason and think your reasoning is probably sound. Although at the same I wonder if chicken nuggets were really the only option? I'll make a grand assumption that most athletes weren't on the chicken nugget diet.

▲

pqtyw 2 days ago | parent [-]

Chickens nuggets aren't necessarily that unhealthy even? They have about as much saturated fat as generic chicken thighs. Inherently food at Mcdonalds isn't that bad for you as long as you don't overeat and take a few supplements.

▲

bamboozled a day ago | parent [-]

Whenever I eat Mcdonalds it's the coke that makes me feel guilty, and the super salty fries, the burger or nuggets I'm usually not that fussed about.

	▲	PleasureBot a day ago \| parent [-]
		Salt isn't particularly bad unless you already have hypertension. There's a reason electrolyte (aka salt) dietary supplements like LMNT are becoming popular. Of course if you are already consuming lots of processed, salty foods you wouldn't need those supplements. But if you eat mostly whole foods, exercise regularly, and drink coffee you really do need to go out of your way to intake extra electrolytes.

▲

0xbadcafebee 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A Snickers bar might have been better strategically. Safe to eat and lots of energy.

▲

mytailorisrich a day ago | parent | prev [-]

"Food poisoning" implies contaminated food, which is as unlikely in McDonald's food as it is in the Olympic village's food. This is more to avoid upsetting their stomachs with unfamiliar food (broadly similar effect but very different cause).

▲

ourmandave 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I always found it strange McDonalds was an Olympics sponsor and seeing their ads for Big Macs, etc.

Like I wonder what the Grimace's 400 meters time is.

▲

justinmarsan 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do bouldering and I eat fast food multiple times a week, I can definitely outclimb my poor diet... I probably helps that I don't eat breakfast though...

It's well known though that as you build muscle, your rest calorie consumption increases, so probably if you build/maintain enough muscle, then you can just outrun your intake, since you consume more without doing anything to start with...

▲

kelnos a day ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think we're talking about "unhealthy diet" solely in the sense of eating unhealthy foods. The real issue is calorie intake. If you are taking in an unhealthy amount of calories -- regardless of the source -- you are unlikely to be able to outrun that diet.

And you're kinda agreeing with that point: you eat fast food a few times a week, but you don't eat breakfast. So perhaps your caloric intake is still at a reasonable level for your body, regardless of the source of those calories.

▲

71153750 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree. Also age and other activities factor in I'm sure. I suspect you carry your bouldering mat and do some walking to and from boulders.

I think it stands to reason that if we took an overweight person and trained them to eat what you or I eat and then move like you or I move, they'd end up losing weight.

For me though, I know that I can be running say 50km/31 miles a week regularly and that if there is weight loss, it is impercetible to me. But up it with just two more runs and I believe I do start outrunning my diet. Again, this is an n=1 and ignores pretty much every other factor in my life.

▲

snozolli 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I eat fast food multiple times a week

This doesn't mean anything. Just like improving your climbing, what matters is consistency. Count your calories and macros and you'll see that your total intake is reasonable. The processed vs unprocessed argument is negligible when you're only partaking occasionally.

When I was younger, I couldn't understand why I was thinner than my friends. We'd go out to eat and I'd stuff down a huge meal with the best of them. Turns out that they were eating like that at every meal, while I was having cereal for breakfast and a less calorie-dense lunch or dinner.

as you build muscle, your rest calorie consumption increases

The difference is tiny. Yes, you can outrun or out-muscle a bad diet at the extremes, but that's like saying BMI isn't a useful metric. You're not 1970s Schwarzenegger or Phelps.

	▲	pqtyw 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> BMI isn't a useful metric People these days are generally also significantly taller than malnourished Belgians were back in the 1840s. That skews it a bit since the formula itself is still the same. I guess it's still a marginally useful metric in some case but now that when can accurately measure body fat, muscle weight etc. there is no point paying attention to it that much.

▲

kelnos a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Yet there may still be individuals who can argue differently.

Of course! There are always outliers. But I think it is fair to say, as a general statement, that to lose or maintain weight, you have to focus on your diet, and exercise is not going to cut it. Sure, 1% of people might be able to "outrun their unhealthy diet", but that's not really useful information for the staggeringly vast majority of people out there. (Making up a percentage there; I think my point is still valid at 10%.)

1200 miles per year is a lot of running. That's 23 miles a week, or let's say ~6 miles, 4 days per week. Very few people are going to be able to -- or just flat out want to -- commit to that regimen.

▲

chistev 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What's wrong with chicken nuggets?

▲

71153750 2 days ago | parent [-]

Perhaps a poorly picked example but generally they're not considered a healthy food item as they exist in the category of both fast and fried food. The implication being that they're more processed resulting in less good fasts and are higher in calorie per gram. Like most foods the dose determines the poison I suppose.

▲

pqtyw 2 days ago | parent [-]

But nutritionally they are about the same as non lean chicken?

▲

rufus_foreman 2 days ago | parent [-]

Chicken McNuggets Ingredients: Boneless skinless chicken breast, Water, Liquid vegetable oil shortening (canola oil, corn oil, hydrogenated soybean oil), Wheat flour, Yellow corn flour, Modified corn starch, Rice starch, Salt, Seasoning (wheat starch, yeast extract, salt, natural flavour), Spices, Baking powder, Sodium aluminum phosphate, Canola oil, Baking soda, Sugars (dextrose), Wheat starch, Corn starch. Cooked in vegetable oil (high oleic low linoleic canola oil and/or canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, citric acid, dimethylpolysiloxane).

-- https://www.mcdonalds.com/ca/en-ca/product/4-chicken-mcnugge...

▲

pqtyw 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes but the macros are more or less comparable? It's chicken breast with extra saturated fat and stuff.

	▲	kelnos a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think you are unfairly overly minimizing the impact of the "extra saturated fat and stuff".
	▲	quesera 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is precisely the point of the article. Macronutrient profiles are, apparently, not the relevant axis of differentiation.