Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Exercise / Bodybuilding => Topic started by: Satya on October 24, 2008, 12:15:07 am

Title: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Satya on October 24, 2008, 12:15:07 am
Maybe it is an individual thing.  Perhaps it even changes with age, but I have always felt that regular exercise was at least as important to health as good food. 
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Raw Kyle on October 24, 2008, 12:49:33 am
I used to feel that way but after seeing so many athletes and people in great shape dying of cancer, heart disease and all the other modern ailments I've realized that exercise doesn't do a darn thing to prevent those kinds of diseases. I'm pretty sure if you ate an RAF diet but did no exercise you'd be better off than someone who ate a SAD diet and exercised regularly.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: ezekiel on October 24, 2008, 12:58:58 am
I don't know about them equal. But thats what I voted for.

You'll never reach your full potential with one without the other.

You can eat unhealthy and train like crazy, but health problems will still become more of a risk.

You can eat very healthy and train not at all and have healthy organs and low chance of illness. But your body will still be fairly weak and unconditioned compared too if you exercised more often.


Combine them both and reach your own unique potential.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: igibike on November 01, 2008, 05:36:00 am
Maybe diet is a bit more important re ealth.
But exercise is a bit more important re shape.

I believe that mixing both is the best strategy.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: JustAnotherExplorer on November 01, 2008, 05:47:56 am
I'm not sure which option to vote for, but I think that they are both very important to different aspects of health.
Title: Exercise <> Diet
Post by: coconinoz on November 01, 2008, 12:01:50 pm

could 1 say they feed each other?

Title: Re: Exercise <> Diet
Post by: ezekiel on November 05, 2008, 03:47:02 am

could 1 say they feed each other?


In a way, I believe they do.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: JaX on November 14, 2008, 01:56:46 am
I have to say diet might be slightly more important but exercise is really also a must and can often keep people in good health even though their diet is crappy. Think about Michael phelps, he supposedly eats 12000 calories per day, most of them coming from white enriched flour (pasta, pizza) and other grains. He eats one pound of pasta and an entire pizza plus some energy drinks at a single meal (out of his 3 daily meals). Yet his physical shape and performance in swimming are at the top level, no doubt about it.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Raw Kyle on November 14, 2008, 07:01:26 am
I have to say diet might be slightly more important but exercise is really also a must and can often keep people in good health even though their diet is crappy. Think about Michael phelps, he supposedly eats 12000 calories per day, most of them coming from white enriched flour (pasta, pizza) and other grains. He eats one pound of pasta and an entire pizza plus some energy drinks at a single meal (out of his 3 daily meals). Yet his physical shape and performance in swimming are at the top level, no doubt about it.

What does physical shape and swimming performance show about health? There have been plenty of world class athletes just up and die from heart attacks, get cancer (Lance Armstrong) etc.

I don't believe you guys that voted they are equal truly believe that. If you do then you're saying someone who eats candy all day every day but works out hard will be equally healthy to someone who eats RPD and doesn't exercise at all? That's ridiculous. In fact diet can be considered eating at all, and obviously that is more important than exercise, which is use of the body above and beyond your needs in order to produce fitness results. Clearly eating, and eating foods digestible and healthy for humans, is more important than the use of the body above your needs in order to produce fitness results.

Michael Phelps will pay the price just like all other athletes that have crappy diets. Either he'll die young like a lot do, or when he stops training (or hormone levels drop off) he'll get really fat and *all of a sudden* just *become* unhealthy. I put those terms in between *'s because I'm saying in reality he is already unhealthy, setting the grounds for future terrible health, and you just cannot see it like you cannot see a smokers black lungs and only know they have cancer when the doctor diagnoses it.

Furthermore I think diet is more important for shape (looks of the body) than exercise as well. We all should know that exercise doesn't really cause weight loss in any significant manner, definitely not compared to cutting out carbs and other non paleo foods. About the only thing exercise can do that diet cannot is build muscle and aerobic endurance, although natural hormone levels in some take care of the former. A woman, for example, will have a more pleasing body if she was raised on RPD and allowed to develop the proper bone structure and shape than if she was raised on crap and just sweats it out in the gym every day for a flat stomach that she can hardly keep flat because of her diet. A lot of tribal people do very little of what we consider exercise and have pleasing and fit bodies.

That is not to say I am against exercise, I love exercise, but to say it's anywhere near equal to diet in health is absurd imo. Anyone who challenges would perhaps be willing to eat McDonald's every day for 5 years while working out every day and I'll eat RPD every day for 5 years and do no exercise and we'll see what happens. And giving McDonald's is a gift, I could have said just lettuce or something that would result in your death within a month.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: JaX on November 14, 2008, 10:19:16 pm
Wow never looked at it that way, thanks. I guess you are right, diet is the basis for everything, while exercise is a supplementation. I think I forgot the meaning of the word diet and took it to mean eating in a specific way but actually no matter what you eat is your diet as you mention. And if you eat nothing you die, while if you don't exercise doesn't mean you are going to die. So yes looking at it that way diet is much more important.

I think the people who said exercise/diet were equally important, were looking at diet in smaller variations. Diet like being on a specific, strict diet. For example a diet with some grains vs. strict paleo diet.
Most people today "watch" to some extent what they eat. Not that it's very intelligent according to our standards. But most rational people restrict their intake of what they know is really bad, such as fast food. I don't know anyone who eats only McDonalds like the guy from the supersize me movie did. People know that fast food is unhealthy but they either don't know HOW unhealthy it really is or they just don't care.

About Michael Phelps I don't agree with you completely. It's easy for you to sit and condemn his diet and say that his health is terrible, but you haven't won olympic gold medals.  :P  You just have a theory. Nobody has a guarantee for lifelong health, no matter how perfect their diet is.

And, the rate of cancer in people considered athletes is something like 1 in 7, while it in the general population is 1 in 3. It might be because athletes are more conscious about what they eat, but I also think exercise is a factor for good health. Obviously not many athletes today eat low carb/no grain.
If you put two people on the same diets, the one that exercises will be healthier and feel much better.
Sure Michael Phelps diet might not be perfect for health according to our standards, but he sure has made some results in his sport and is very physically fit - those things count for something too.
And Lance Armstrong supposedly cured himself of his cancers by exercising as much as he could.




Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: TheWayCreatesTheWarrior on November 29, 2008, 01:46:54 am

i used to preach about the 3 pillars of health being; 33% Diet/33% exercise/33%Rest&Recovery.
All Equal.

but i find that Diet reigns supreme, at least as the foundation.

so now i find a 40%/30%/30% approach may be more accrurate.

ive been extremely blessed with excellent physical genetics, i can literally eat like crap for a month straight with no exercise and stay in (actualy, more like just "appear to be in") really good shape. but i find if my diet is dialed in tight, then exercise is more "extra" than nessecary, albeit over the long run maybe nessecary. i do really love exercising and i feel it brings me above and beyond "healthy" to "optimal being".

and on rest, ask me now and id say that its very important, ask me 4 hours into a deep sleep and ill probably punch you in the face.  >:

 :)
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Raw Kyle on November 29, 2008, 02:01:31 am
Seeker, my reply to the Phelps thing would be to google "world class athlete" or "runner" and "heart disease" or "death." There are plenty of people who could, up to the time of their death via heart attack, finish a marathon with a respectable time.

Athletes get a lot of performance out of their body, but do not confuse that with health. The way I would put it would be that their bodies work very well until they don't. That is to say that their bodies appear in perfect form and they get the performance they want out of them, but they have no guarantee to not drop dead of heart disease like a normal sedentary person, even though it would appear that their heart is giving them such spectacular performance and therefore must be healthy. I'm not much of a car guy, but maybe a sports car fed very poor grade gasoline for years would run faster than a sedan given premium over the same length of time, until the engine just blew up or something.

There are more reasons to not equate physical performance with health, most in the form of drugs that give temporary or even permanent (until they die or are hobbled by them) physical performance enhancement. Steroids, amphetamines, etc...I don't know about the athlete cancer rate but isn't the athletic average life span somewhere in the late 50's of years compared to the average lifespan of 70's of years for the entire USA population?
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Furion on December 12, 2008, 12:26:07 pm
This is interesting because just this week I saw on the news that dual Commonwealth Games marathon gold medalist Kerryn McCann died of breast cancer at 41.

Marathon runners have very low body fat and it made me think about how Aajonus Vonderplanitz said that when body fat is low, toxins do not have a place to go so they get stored in other areas.

Some people also have a predisposition to being able to handle high carbohydrate diets better than others.  Elite athletes use drugs too, making diet less important.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: wodgina on December 12, 2008, 12:54:10 pm
I was sorry to hear she died. Elite athletes are not always healthy. Strenuous activity like marathon running is very tough on the body and can be as bad as eating chips and coke. Professional sport is littered with fine athletes battling cancers/diabetes etc.

I myself am involved with endurance sport so I'm not writing off people who spend their free time involved in these types of sports.

I agree with Aajonus on the fat issue although you maybe able to get fat on the Primal Diet it's impossible to be fat on raw paleo. People store their toxins in different areas, some people get bags under their eyes, some get fat, some store them in their organs. Storing them in fat seems the best place.

Mine go to my liver because sine raw paleo it shrunk.

Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Raw Kyle on December 12, 2008, 01:12:24 pm
How do you know that your liver shrunk?
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: wodgina on December 12, 2008, 01:27:28 pm
All my stomach organs shrank when I first went 95% rvaf. I could just feel them.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Raw Kyle on December 12, 2008, 01:32:12 pm
Hmm that's interesting. Something I noticed was when I first started with raw foods as a vegan my stomach seemed to stick out more when I ate than when I ate SAD or cooked vegetarian. I always had a very flat stomach even after eating a lot, and with raw vegan foods it stuck out a little after eating, which I attributed to either the huge fiber content or bad food combinations that I sometimes ate. With RAF I seem to not get that anymore, but I think bad combinations can still do it. So maybe it has something to do with the organs in my stomach area.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: wodgina on December 12, 2008, 01:48:46 pm
I used to get serious bloating on SAD, I swear I looked pregnant sometimes. It was definitley organs shrinking not bloated stomach. It was one of the first improvements I noticed after my skin going soft and healthy.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Guittarman03 on December 12, 2008, 02:04:46 pm
It could have been a backed up digestive system in general.  SADers tend to eat alot of carbs in combo with meats, which is bad news for digestion.  The stomach never fully breaks down both before they pass into the intestines, where they will often sit for a rather long time, I think anywhere from 48-72 hours before passing through completely.  You can often see this in men that have very round and protruding bellies looking almost pregnant.  I have read that it's possible for them to lose 3-5 pounds and an inch or two off the waist in a few days solely from clearing a clogged digestive system (that is, if they move to a propoer diet).  But only you know your body best, so it's entirely possible that your organs did shrink.  If that's the case, I wonder what is the mechanism behind it. 
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Satya on February 16, 2009, 10:07:03 pm
It could have been a backed up digestive system in general.  SADers tend to eat alot of carbs in combo with meats, which is bad news for digestion.  The stomach never fully breaks down both before they pass into the intestines, where they will often sit for a rather long time, I think anywhere from 48-72 hours before passing through completely.  You can often see this in men that have very round and protruding bellies looking almost pregnant.  I have read that it's possible for them to lose 3-5 pounds and an inch or two off the waist in a few days solely from clearing a clogged digestive system (that is, if they move to a proper diet).  But only you know your body best, so it's entirely possible that your organs did shrink.  If that's the case, I wonder what is the mechanism behind it. 

The mixing of meat and starchy carbs is really bad news.  And really, mixed with chemically-unstable vegetable oils (as is common in most sad meals too), this type of eating will not only cause poor digestion like Jason says, but it could well cause inflammation of various organs.  When I was a vegan, I noticed that my liver was large - I could feel it, but I never had issues per se.  Once I began eating animal foods again and giving up grains, it shrunk.  Now that I am limiting plant foods, it again feels smaller still.  Perhaps it is the plant toxins/antinutrients.  In my case, I always loved big salads, lots of vegetables.  So even limiting vegetables and fruits to the role of condiments in my diet has been a huge switch.  Maybe all this fibrous plant matter was just too much for my system.

I still say that exercise is important for health.  Not steady state cardio to excess.  It could be that it is similar in diet in that individuals have different needs within the scope of a basic rpd.  But bones, muscles and reflexes do not improve that much with diet alone.  Use it or lose it.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: ezekiel on February 26, 2009, 04:11:41 am
I have something to say...It was probably mentioned already or now off topic as far as what people are mentioning currently in the post.

Exercise vs diet doesn't make sense....In order for paleo people to have a diet at all they had to exercise
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: raw on November 11, 2009, 02:33:06 am
if you think that you're on hunters' diet, than you should consider some level of physical movement that hunters used to do in old days (climbing, jumping and running after a dear all day long...etc.) . the bottom line is, we should work hard for our food to get it. we should depend on our own instead of buying those products from internet web or going to the whole food or farmers. go back to simple life, go back to the nature.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: PaleoPhil on November 11, 2009, 10:38:37 am
I don't believe you guys that voted they are equal truly believe that. If you do then you're saying someone who eats candy all day every day but works out hard will be equally healthy to someone who eats RPD and doesn't exercise at all? That's ridiculous....
Correct. The nonexercising RPDer will generally be healthier than the candy-eating exerciser. I enjoy exercise and I used to think exercise was more important than diet. Now I think that if exercise worked just as well as or better than RPD, why would we bother with such a restrictive diet? We could eat whatever we want and just burn it off, which is the dream that the exercise gizmo companies sell to people. It would be fun to be able to reverse digestive problems, sinusitis, MS, Parkinson's, poor vision, arthritis, diabetes, skin cancer, etc., just by playing tennis, canoeing or jogging in a park.

If you're eating RPD it's probably a moot point anyway, because the diet tends to give people enough energy that they want to get moving (with some exceptions, like Lex ;) ). Lex is a good example of someone who's health improved dramatically with just dietary change and no exercise. The reverse is also possible, but seems to be much rarer, especially in the long run (such as with the athletes whose poor diets eventually catch up with them, as was mentioned).

I only do a modest amount of exercise, but I have the blood pressure, heart rate, lipid profile, body fat %, etc. of an amateur athlete. All these numbers became more athletic-like when I went VLC Paleo (and then more so when I went RPD) despite the fact that I decreased the amount of exercise I do. Plus, we can have the best of both worlds and maintain both healthy eating and exercise.

Maybe the problem some people are having is with the word "diet" (which has gathered some negative baggage over the years)? Would more people recognize that exercise is not equal or more important if the word "nutrition" was used instead?
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Raw Kyle on May 03, 2010, 01:26:14 am
I have something to say...It was probably mentioned already or now off topic as far as what people are mentioning currently in the post.

Exercise vs diet doesn't make sense....In order for paleo people to have a diet at all they had to exercise

Good point, also from Paleophil. The modern connotations of the words diet and exercise sometimes obscure this kind of discussion. Exercise in the healthy, paleo sense could be as simple as long walks, gardening, building something etc. And of course diet to us does not mean a temporary thing to lose weight but rather a lifestyle. Indeed both rpd and moderate exercise would be the two main pillars of a paleo lifestyle in modern times.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: aladamapee on May 21, 2010, 10:08:09 am
A balancing diet with exercise are essential for good health. I care of both item, to keep me healthy.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: TylerDurden on May 21, 2010, 04:25:14 pm
Since palaeo peoples had bones equivalent to Olympic athletes, it is reasonable to assume that they had extremely high levels of physical activity, far higher than any modern peoples experience. I personally don't think even our modern Olympic athletes can compare to some peoples a few thousands of years ago, for example. I remember 1 study which showed that modern Olympic athletes in a reconstructed trireme could not compete, time-wise, with the efforts of Athenian trireme-rowers from 2,500 years ago.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Raw Kyle on May 27, 2010, 08:17:21 am
I remember 1 study which showed that modern Olympic athletes in a reconstructed trireme could not compete, time-wise, with the efforts of Athenian trireme-rowers from 2,500 years ago.

I'd like to see that. To me it seems like performance in most sports is going up. I'd put my money on a wrestler today than one of the original Greek wrestlers, or a marathon runner.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: TylerDurden on May 27, 2010, 09:35:26 pm
I'd like to see that. To me it seems like performance in most sports is going up. I'd put my money on a wrestler today than one of the original Greek wrestlers, or a marathon runner.

Here's some info:-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070208100643.htm

Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: luis on May 27, 2010, 11:46:04 pm
I totally disagree with the conclusions ofthe study for 2 reasons:
- the ancient triremes would  be much faster than this modern times replica. The old people were masters at optimizing the existing technology of the time.
- the rowers would be much better at rowing and specially at working together in a coordinated way than the persons who attempted to row for the short time that the experience took

Drawing conclusions from such a simple experience is in my opinion totally incorrect.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: TylerDurden on May 28, 2010, 03:45:46 am
I totally disagree with the conclusions ofthe study for 2 reasons:
- the ancient triremes would  be much faster than this modern times replica. The old people were masters at optimizing the existing technology of the time.
- the rowers would be much better at rowing and specially at working together in a coordinated way than the persons who attempted to row for the short time that the experience took

Drawing conclusions from such a simple experience is in my opinion totally incorrect.
The above is clearly wrong. For one thing, this was an accurate modern reconstruction of the standard ancient trireme. Also, since that trireme was completely new and made with the assistance of modern technology(far in advance of what the Ancient Greeks had) despite using the same materials, the  newly reconstructed trireme would have had a major edge over the standard ancient triremes and be able to go slightly faster. The ancient triremes are mentioned as going at breakneck speed on trips to the island of Salamis etc. despite being old, subject to weathering effects etc. etc.

The 2nd suggestion means nothing as  the Athenians had so much higher daily physical activity that they could beat any modern rowers with ease even when just starting training on those ships.

More to the point, historical records show distances travelled that would put modern rowers to shame. An example is :- "For example, one account talks of the Athenians quelling a revolt in Mytilene on the island of Lesbos in the eastern Aegean. The Athenian assembly ordered all Mytiline’s men to death, and despatched a trireme to carry out this command. The next day, the assembly relented and sent a second trireme to halt the massacre. According to the records of Thucydides, this second trireme would have made the journey in about 24 hours, rowing in shifts and eating while they rowed, so the ship could travel non-stop.

Says Dr Rossiter: “From these details we can estimate the average sustainable ship speeds. Then, using the reconstruction we measured the metabolic demands of the human engine required to sustain these speeds. If the historians are correct, we would struggle to find enough people at that level of fitness today to power the ships at those speeds.” taken from:-

http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/press_releases/current/ancient_greece.htm (http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/press_releases/current/ancient_greece.htm)
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: luis on May 28, 2010, 10:09:53 pm
Tyler,  you are underestimating the know-how of the ancient Atenians in ship building. Even though we have much greater theoretical knowledge, modern scientists could never build a trireme that would be as fast as the ancient greek ones at their first try. When you go from theory to practice,there is a very great leap and optimization takes a long time.

Let me give you an example: the turks used to make the best bows before firearms replaced this weapon, using horn from sheep, sinew and various types of wood. Their record distance for shooting an arrow was almost 900m. Even though we know what materials they used, when modern historians and bow makers try to replicate their old bows,they cannot come close to that distance. Why? Because there are too many detais that will afect the performance. The same principle should apply to the trireme case.

Regarding the fitness levelof the Athenians, you are problably correct that they had much higher fitness levels than today normal people.

The most famous case is problably when after the battle of the Marathon, a foot messenger was sent to Sparta and he arrived there the day after he departed from Athens. His name was Pheidippides and the distance that he travelled is around 250 km. For many years, this was thought to be just legend, because nobody believed that it would be possible for a human being to run a distance of 250 km continuosly ( in less than 36 hours). But in 1982 a team of 3 lead by John Foden was able to run from Athens to Sparta in less than 36 hours proving that the story was true. Following this result an organized event was created, called the SPARTATHLON and every year athletes try to complete the same distance in less than 36 hours.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: KD on May 28, 2010, 10:51:16 pm
I'm confused what side you are coming down on luis, contemporary or ancient athelte?

250 km, thats 'only' (ha) a little over 150 miles in 36 hours

In the US alone:

The 24 Hour Road American Record Holder - Mark Godale- is 162.4 Miles.

The 100 mile track record is (12:27:01) - Bernd Heinrich

-
I think the Chinese gymnasts in the past Olympics had pretty dam impressive, almost superhuman feats. Of course we have no idea, but I'd venture to vote contemporary.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: luis on May 29, 2010, 12:26:08 am
In terms of ATHLETES, I vote for contemporary athletes. After all, contemporary athletes have much better training facilities, better medical care and devote their entire time to athletic performace.

However the fitness level of a normal Athenian would be far superior obviously. The type of work people used to perform at those times was mainly physical. No desk jobs at that time
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: TylerDurden on May 29, 2010, 12:41:26 am
Tyler,  you are underestimating the know-how of the ancient Atenians in ship building. Even though we have much greater theoretical knowledge, modern scientists could never build a trireme that would be as fast as the ancient greek ones at their first try. When you go from theory to practice,there is a very great leap and optimization takes a long time.

Let me give you an example: the turks used to make the best bows before firearms replaced this weapon, using horn from sheep, sinew and various types of wood. Their record distance for shooting an arrow was almost 900m. Even though we know what materials they used, when modern historians and bow makers try to replicate their old bows,they cannot come close to that distance. Why? Because there are too many detais that will afect the performance. The same principle should apply to the trireme case.
I thought it was the Mongolians, not the Turks. My point, however, is that we have thousands of additional years of technological experience in shipbuilding than the Ancient Greeks, so even if we are using the same materials, then there is a huge likelihood that we would be making a more streamlined ship capable of slightly greater speeds etc.

As for performance of modern athletes, the use of performance-enhancing drugs is now so all-pervasive that one can see that, without their use, modern athletes would perform far worse than they do now.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: klowcarb on June 10, 2010, 09:01:49 am
I think exercise is much better than diet because it boosts calorie burning by adding more calorie burning muscle in your body. Its also use for loss weight.Exercise is better  but you also need to pal for dieting because its really very helpful for reduce calories. 

Completely false. Diet is 90% of results. I exercise and am very active, but you cannot out-train a bad diet. Your leanness has a lot to do with diet, as does health. I lift for strength and to some degree muscle burns more than fat, but it is highly overrated. You also don't need to reduce calories a lot if you are eating proper food (i.e. not insulin-producing).
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Fermenter Zym on February 19, 2011, 03:38:15 pm
What does physical shape and swimming performance show about health? There have been plenty of world class athletes just up and die from heart attacks, get cancer (Lance Armstrong) etc.

I don't believe you guys that voted they are equal truly believe that. If you do then you're saying someone who eats candy all day every day but works out hard will be equally healthy to someone who eats RPD and doesn't exercise at all? That's ridiculous. In fact diet can be considered eating at all, and obviously that is more important than exercise, which is use of the body above and beyond your needs in order to produce fitness results. Clearly eating, and eating foods digestible and healthy for humans, is more important than the use of the body above your needs in order to produce fitness results.

Michael Phelps will pay the price just like all other athletes that have crappy diets. Either he'll die young like a lot do, or when he stops training (or hormone levels drop off) he'll get really fat and *all of a sudden* just *become* unhealthy. I put those terms in between *'s because I'm saying in reality he is already unhealthy, setting the grounds for future terrible health, and you just cannot see it like you cannot see a smokers black lungs and only know they have cancer when the doctor diagnoses it.

Furthermore I think diet is more important for shape (looks of the body) than exercise as well. We all should know that exercise doesn't really cause weight loss in any significant manner, definitely not compared to cutting out carbs and other non paleo foods. About the only thing exercise can do that diet cannot is build muscle and aerobic endurance, although natural hormone levels in some take care of the former. A woman, for example, will have a more pleasing body if she was raised on RPD and allowed to develop the proper bone structure and shape than if she was raised on crap and just sweats it out in the gym every day for a flat stomach that she can hardly keep flat because of her diet. A lot of tribal people do very little of what we consider exercise and have pleasing and fit bodies.

That is not to say I am against exercise, I love exercise, but to say it's anywhere near equal to diet in health is absurd imo. Anyone who challenges would perhaps be willing to eat McDonald's every day for 5 years while working out every day and I'll eat RPD every day for 5 years and do no exercise and we'll see what happens. And giving McDonald's is a gift, I could have said just lettuce or something that would result in your death within a month.

great points. Can I change my vote? haha
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: achillezzz on February 19, 2011, 09:04:46 pm
everything is important...
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: pioneer on March 30, 2011, 08:49:41 am
My friends and I used to argue about this topic all the time and we came to this conclusion: Diet is the foundation of health, exercise is just a tool used to gain a particular physical advantage. You cannot have successful workouts without successful dieting, but you can successfully diet without working out. Diet should always come first.

Diet and sleep prepare us for working out. Exercise should actually come last and should be considered the least importane. Exercise wont cure you of disease. People give exercise too much credit. Every smart strength athlete I know works out less and eats/rests more. The smart trainer emphasizes all parts of their life in order to achieve success. IMO it is a 3 part process: Diet, Exercise, Rest/recoup.

We should also compare sleep, but then everyone knows that is essential.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Abner on February 13, 2012, 07:12:35 pm
Cardio exercise:

I think cardio exercise is best way to get good results in natural way and be fit,
i also doing cardio exercise in morning....
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Aria320 on February 15, 2012, 04:12:08 am
My dad's father (my grandfather obviously) died of a heart attack when he was 51 years old. He ate a pretty bad diet, i'm assuming. Even though he lived in Iran, i'm pretty sure the main staples of his diet were white rice and a bunch of meat stews with factory farmed meat. Of course, i'm not positive, though i am positive that he did not exercise and was overweight as a result.  My father, however exercises daily, even though he technically eats a sad diet. He is 63 years old and in great shape. I hope that gives a good outlook on the benefits of exercise. I'm pretty sure my dad eats worse than my grandfather ate, considering my grandfather probably ate home cooked with wholesome ingredients. I'm not gonna sit here and bash my dad's eating habits because he does eat a big bowl of salad everday (non-organic lettuce,bunch of non organic vegetables, and evoo). He does indulge in desserts like german chocolate and commercial ice cream because he likes to treat himself. He doesn't eat fast food, but he doesn't eat the healthiest food either, even though my mom does a lot of cooking for him. (she uses vegetable oils, sugar,flour etc) lol sorry but i'm just trying to paint a good picture of what kind of lifestyle my father has with exercise incorporated and he is 63 and in good health, looking very fit, even though aesthetics aren't always a great indicator of health.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: mikkael on February 18, 2012, 04:57:17 pm
I'd go with option C......Both are very important for over-all health.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: PrimiFit on February 25, 2012, 01:41:04 pm
I think it's like asking which parts of the car are more important: the wheels or the engine? Of course  you can live with very little exercise but also be quite sick and weak, but some people have shown that they can live quite a long time with a completely crappy diet, also being sick and weak :).
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 26, 2012, 02:02:28 am
I'd go with option C......Both are very important for over-all health.
Option C is that "Both diet and exercise are equally important for health". Is that what you meant to select? One could view both as very important and choose options A or B.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: KD on February 26, 2012, 02:13:45 am
Here is the answer to this debate.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100902191946AAaESmk (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100902191946AAaESmk)
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 26, 2012, 02:51:32 am
Here's Mark Sisson's view on the topic:
Quote
> 80 percent of your genetic potential for body composition is determined by what you eat. You’ve probably heard me say this in the past. Eat Primal and you’re almost there.

> Five more percent of your body composition can be further influenced by how much sleep and leisure time you get and how you moderate your stress levels. Lifestyle stuff.

> 10 more percent of your genetic potential for body composition will come from smart exercise: Lifting Heavy Things, Sprinting, and Moving Frequently at a Slow Pace.

....

> The final five percent of your potential body composition/physical performance is achieved with more advanced training and highly specialized athletic goals. We’re getting into hours-long gym session, pain and punishment territory.

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/simplified-fitness/#ixzz1nQAFvjMP (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/simplified-fitness/#ixzz1nQAFvjMP)
I think Mark is talking about average people here, not professional body builders, who have the time to dedicate to more extensive exercise than people who have other careers.

I have no idea what the precise percentages are, but I do find diet to be the biggest factor in my own overall health. I'm not saying exercise isn't very important, just not as much for me as diet/nutrition.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Duke on February 26, 2012, 09:55:59 pm
Diet is the most important; training / exercising complements a diet. It's 70:30 or 80:20 ratio imo.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: HIT_it_RAW on February 27, 2012, 08:35:04 pm
Mark scisson clearly doesn't have clue about exercise. According to that quote pp provided you will get big and strong to 80% of you max genetic potential just through diet... Really? Individual potential varies off course but it is almost always a lot larger than people think. Most people can achieve a very impressive physique with an apropiate exercises regiment and a half decent diet.

Rest (sleep) is at least 50% of the results, no amount of nutrition and/or exercises will produce any results without rest.

So according to MS, on avarage, bodybuilders wil only have a 20% physical advantage over the general populations whereas primal/paleo dieters wil have an 80% physical advantage. That would probably mean that this forum houses the world best physiques.

Spent your days sitting on your ass eating large quantities of fat, meat and fruit/honey(thus paleo) and you will get fat. Spent them eating low cal SAD and exercise heavy and you will get lean/muscular. This obviously has very little to do with health. Stress the body into adaptation by means of exercises and the body will, if resources can be spent without dying and rest is provided, adapt.

Oh and Phil results from exercise do not depent upon time spent but rather on effort spent.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on February 27, 2012, 09:02:56 pm
For me exercise has more impact on health and general well being, at least short-term. Even very light exercise, like walking for 5-6 km per day is sufficient to maintain good health.
Diet has a more of a long-term effect I'd say, and I guess becomes more and more important as you get older.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: PaleoPhil on February 28, 2012, 04:03:06 am
Mark scisson clearly doesn't have clue about exercise. According to that quote pp provided you will get big and strong to 80% of you max genetic potential just through diet... Really?
I already anticipated this criticism by pointing out that Mark was likely directing his message to his average readers with a health orientation rather than a serious body-building orientation. If you doubt that, you could ask him about it, as he tends to be relatively good about answering questions, though he's pretty popular now and may be overwhelmed, IDK. Either way, I do think his point applies better to level of health than to bodybuilding, as I've seen some bodybuilders eat crappy diets and still build big muscles (though steroids could have something to do with that).

Quote
Oh and Phil results from exercise do not depent upon time spent but rather on effort spent.
By extensive exercise I meant both time and effort, as well as effective technique. All three are factors. Sorry for the unclear language.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Darwinian Fitness on February 28, 2012, 09:37:08 am
The original question is:

Which is more important for over all good health?

I think there is absolutely no question that it is diet.

100%

Even the example HIT_it_Raw gave of the person who sits on their ass and eats meat, fruit and honey and gets fat, I would still say is healthier than almost any "bodybuilder".

That fat paleo person will probably live longer and not be as likely to succumb to any weird diseases.

However, exercise is more important for building the shape of the body. That's what most people want, since we are kind of wired to think superficially and short-term.





Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: HIT_it_RAW on February 28, 2012, 04:20:21 pm
Even the example HIT_it_Raw gave of the person who sits on their ass and eats meat, fruit and honey and gets fat, I would still say is healthier than almost any "bodybuilder".

That fat paleo person will probably live longer and not be as likely to succumb to any weird diseases.
I fully agree. although I don't like using the word bodybuilder as it's synonomous with a steroid abusing, protein powder drink sipping lunatic. Most of them are of course but not all. there are a good bunch who live healthy don't do drugs and are just interested in building their body in a healthy natural way.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Darwinian Fitness on February 28, 2012, 06:01:17 pm
I fully agree. although i don't like using the word bodybuilder as synonomous with steroid abusing, protein powder drink sipping lunatic. most of them are off course but not all. there are a good bunch who live healthy dont do drugs and are just interested in building their body in a healthy natural way.

Good point, maybe I shouldn't have used bodybuilders as an example, because I wasn't even thinking about the steroid abusers.

Because even if we take "health-conscious fitness fanatics" as a group, most of them are eating rubbish like cooked chicken breasts, rice, milk, legumes, cooked vegetables.

I would still say that the fat raw paleo person is healthier - they aren't bombarding their body with as much bad stuff. 
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: aLptHW4k4y on February 29, 2012, 01:05:25 am
It's really individual. Whether I eat the "rubbish" or the "healthy" food (according to your labeling) doesn't make that much of a difference for me, as exercise vs. no exercise does.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Darwinian Fitness on February 29, 2012, 02:06:31 am
It';s really individual. Whether I eat the "rubbish" or the "healthy" food (according to your labeling) doesn't make that much of a difference for me, as exercise vs. no exercise does.

Is it possible that although it doesn't feel like much of a difference, those unnatural cooked foods could be slowly causing damage on the inside that may not become apparent until later in life?
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Rawr on April 15, 2012, 04:27:08 am
I voted Diet because I presupposed these meanings:

Diet = all you eat and drink
Exercise = what you do ON TOP of heartbeat/breathing/other "unconscious" movement

--

If you defined "Exercise" as ANY muscle movement, then those 2 would be of the same importance, because you can't live without "exercising" your heart and lungs.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: achillezzz on April 24, 2012, 09:53:40 pm
Jack lalane used to preach how effective exercise is for detoxification. He always pointed out what some athletes eat and how they get away with it.  We are mostly water hardcore exercise will make you sweat sick imagine how much toxins can be flushed that way! Exercise and diet both have enormous value for human to have quality lifetime.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: Chris on July 21, 2012, 04:05:16 pm
Nutrition is always your foundation. It will give you energy, health, and vitality. Not saying exercise isn't important. It is! They go hand in hand. You can't have one and not the other. In order for your body to get stronger, you need to break it down. Recuperation is just as important. I see a lot of people who workout, and never see the results there looking for. It's VERY important to eat some high quality protein and fat within an hour of working out. Your body is craving the nutrients it needs, in order to repair the damage that was done to your muscles. I can't emphasize how important this step is. Your body will absorb much more nutrients in this time frame. Remember, you need to replace all those calories that you just burned. So eat right, workout right (very important), recuperate, and repair (rest). If you stick to this formula you will see results I promise you. One more thing for the Ladies, strength train (I'm not talking low reps., and heavy weight either)! It will lean you up, and protect your bones, not to mention all those additional calories you'll burn in the process.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: bachcole on July 21, 2012, 08:06:13 pm
I also did not see my choice available.  I would have voted 90% diet and 10% exercise and 100% genetics and epigenetics.  You can feed an autistic child paleo and fermented veggies until hell freezes over, and he will always be autistic, although I think that doing so would improve his autism dramatically.

I notice that the more posts a commenter has, the more important they think diet is.  The longer I stay on paleo and fermented foods, the more important that I think diet is.  And I am typing this after just having run 20 minutes.   (:->)
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 23, 2012, 08:58:25 am
I also did not see my choice available.  I would have voted 90% diet and 10% exercise and 100% genetics and epigenetics.  You can feed an autistic child paleo and fermented veggies until hell freezes over, and he will always be autistic, although I think that doing so would improve his autism dramatically.
Some parents report that their children's autism diminished so much via healthy diet & lifestyle that ALL symptoms were resolved. In other words, effectively a "cure," though I don't like the word "cure," because some people bizarrely take it to mean that their children can go back to eating junk food--and perhaps it's that which you are warning against?

Quote
I notice that the more posts a commenter has, the more important they think diet is.  The longer I stay on paleo and fermented foods, the more important that I think diet is.  And I am typing this after just having run 20 minutes.   (:->)
This is a diet forum, so it may actually reveal how much the exercise meme is pushed in the popular media that even in a forum dedicated to diet, like this one, we find exercise being promoted so strongly (or maybe it really is that much more important--time will tell). Exercise is very beneficial, yes, maybe especially the sort of natural outdoor exercise our ancestors did for millions of years, but I suspect that diet is even more important. For some reason, if you say that, some people seem to get angry and assume that you don't think exercise is important, which is not my intention at all.

In my personal experience, I have found diet to be somewhat more important, as have many others, but that doesn't somehow cancel out the importance of exercise.
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: wodgina on July 25, 2012, 05:18:50 pm
I thought spammers couldn't put links in GS?
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: PaleoPhil on July 29, 2012, 03:49:44 am
An article came out on this topic:

Hunter gatherer clue to obesity: The idea that exercise is more important than diet in the fight against obesity has been contradicted by new research. By Helen Briggs, 25 July 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18985141 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18985141)
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: panacea on October 16, 2012, 08:24:54 pm
The truth to this is unequivocally that diet and proper physical activity are very close to equally important.
By 'physical activity' I don't necessarily mean exercise. Many people sit for long periods of time and in furniture that is designed to let you be lazy and not keep your spine upright on your own, shoes etc affect our posture, laying down in soft beds prevents healthy turning/tossing during sleep to prevent static positions, all of that stuff violates our natural physical activity regimen which would be one of moving about, walking, mostly upright, barefoot, grounded to the earth electrically, etc.

Exercise is a specific branch of physical activity and it can be both good and bad just like with different versions of the same food (grain fed beef vs grass fed). For example, exercising while panting with your mouth open is going to severely starve your body of oxygen, cause your muscles to ache, cause you to feel like crap over extended periods of time and do pretty much nothing for you unless the only alternative was to be hospital bed-ridden or stuck in a wheel chair to let some part of your body atrophy from non-use, like legs+wheelchair.

On a grander scale, just about everything affects our health - toxic or healthy air, temperatures can affect health too (too cold vs too warm), electrical insulation or EMF pollution, toxins like lead pipes or BPA, all the way to things as simple as posture or breathing with the mouth instead of the nose, talking too much in real life can cause this if you do it improperly (people who give speeches are known to be very exhausted afterwards for example because they are in effect starving their body of oxygen).

It's usually the weakest link in this 'grand' scale that mostly decides what our health is like. For example someone who eats an ideal diet, and exercises the ideal amount, but only gets an hour of sleep each night, is not going to have a properly functioning body, but will recover much quicker than someone who is obese and sleeps enough each night (with the fat cells storing toxins from fast food).

So, in reality, Diet vs Exercise importance will shift as one or the other becomes the weakest link for the individual. The real mystery is what exactly is the best diet, and not just WHAT foods but HOW, WHEN, QUANTITY, etc. Same thing for exercise. I think it's pretty obvious that walking, jogging, or running are the ideal human exercises but factors like barefoot vs tennis shoes can be just as important as the WHAT. Factors like how you breathe when exercising, same story. Other factors like temperature and medium of exercise too (for example, swimming would be the most ideal exercise medium for people who have joint problems if it wasn't for the extremely toxic effect of chlorinated pools).
Title: Re: Exercise v. Diet
Post by: LePatron7 on October 17, 2012, 12:12:49 am
I'm pretty confident a healthy diet like RPD w/ no exercise is better than a SADiet w/ lots of exercise.

How ever I think exercise is a healthy thing. And someone on a SADiet exercising will be healthier than someone on a SADiet not exercising.

RPD + exercise leads to some pretty awesome health.

I lost like 80 lbs on a cooked paleo diet/the SCD. I had trouble keeping weight on on raw paleo at first because I didn't realize the importance of upping fat.

I notice the easier to absorb the foods are, raw meat, raw fats, simple carbs, the more I need to eat to maintain a lean physique without getting too  skinny.