rojo wrote:
So I'm doing the homepage today and looking for Thanksgiving themed articles. I come across one on RW that is entitled, "Stop Worrying About “Running Off” Thanksgiving Dinner"
I like that idea. Don't obsess about one day. Healthy attitude.
But then I start to tread the article and come across the line.
RW wrote:
"The idea that if you run more, you can eat more, or if you run less, you should eat less is totally false. "
What? I think that line is actually false.
Isn't that sentence just incorrect? Someone running 100 mpw would burn something like at least 8000 more calories a week and someone running 20 mpw (I read it's roughly 100 calories per mile)? When i was training a lot, I could eat WAY more than I do now when I barely run.
https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20837494/how-many-miles-should-you-run-to-offset-thanksgiving/
It's not incorrect, you just need to decode it. The key word in that sentence is "should".
I.e, if you're overweight and you run more, and think you should eat more, that's not necessarily the best relationship. Otherwise nothing really changes. You may want to eat the same and run more.
So it depends on what your motives are. On this site, most people are probably pretty trim, so there's more of a requirement to eat more to sustain an increase in exercise output without negative consequences.