What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Healthy Person - Diet and Exercise - How Much Of Each? (1 Viewer)

A Healthy Body is:


  • Total voters
    95

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
In the Ozempic thread, there has been some discussion about whether Diet or Exercise is more important.

Like most things, the answer is probably both. But wondering what people thought.

And for sure, there are more things involved than Diet and Exercise. But for these two, how do you think they balance?

Which one of these is closest to what you think for getting to and maintaining a healthy body?

(Note: Our software only allows 10 options. If you think it's 0% Diet and 100% Exercise, vote for the 10% Diet / 90% Exercise option)
 
Last edited:
I think the discussion in the other thread was about how important each was for weight loss, which I think is a different inquiry than how important each is for being healthy. I assume this poll is about the latter question? For weight loss, I’d say it’s probably 70% diet. While for being a healthy person, I’d say 50/50.
 
I went 30% diet and 70% exercise. I'll acknowledge the older someone gets the more important diet is. When I was in my 20s I could out workout a poor diet and still have a great body composition. In my 40s now that is no longer the case. Easier to add pounds and harder to lose them. Harder to intense train 5-6 times a week as well.

The average American walks between 4,000-5,000 steps a day. That is roughly two miles. That really isn't very much when you think about it. Thats a 30-40 minute walk a day. If someone adds that simple change to their life their daily calorie expenditure may almost double. This is an easy and sustainable change. In my eyes there isn't as easy and as sustainable diet change that will have as much of an effect on body composition.
 
I think the discussion in the other thread was about how important each was for weight loss, which I think is a different inquiry than how important each is for being healthy. I assume this poll is about the latter question? For weight loss, I’d say it’s probably 70% diet. While for being a healthy person, I’d say 50/50.

Yes, probably for being a healthy person. Which I think could mean weight loss if you're overweight and then maintaining once you're at the desired weight. And for sure those are something different but didn't have time to make too complex a poll.
 
FWIW, and I don't know if people think it matters, but the MyFitnessPal app accounts for exercise in the calories.

If your target calories are 2000 and you walk enough to burn 200 calories, it adjusts your target calories accordingly.
 
Weight loss 80% diet

Living healthy 50/50
This makes sense. You cam lose weight by controlling your food intake but to be healthy, you need to move. Cardio such as walking, bike riding or running will help the heart health. Moving some weights or body weight is great for holding into muscle.

Eat less and move more is a simple concept. Likely most overweight people know what they should do or need to do to lose weight and become healthier. Unfortunately, it Iis too easy to sit on the couch and eat too much of the stuff that is horrible for our bodies.
 
Depends on age and goals. As you get older, diet matters more than exercise. Same if your primary goal is weight loss. If you're in maintenance, if we're talking just diet : exercise I'd suggest 60 : 40 is an optimum starting point. But I'd expand beyond just those 2 then add stress and sleep. Thinking something along the lines of...

Diet 30
Stress 28
Sleep 22
Exercise 20

...that^^^ as a baseline. If you're a poor performer with any of the first 3 items then it doesn't necessarily impact exercise, but it does make it more challenging. If you're weak with any of diet, stress, and sleep it certainly impacts the other areas though.
 
FWIW, and I don't know if people think it matters, but the MyFitnessPal app accounts for exercise in the calories.

If your target calories are 2000 and you walk enough to burn 200 calories, it adjusts your target calories accordingly.

I don’t think rewarding exercise with more calories is a great system, at least for purposes of weight loss.

I think it's more illustrating the balance between diet and exercise.

If you're looking to hit a calorie goal for the day for weight loss, I've found in my experience, it can show the effectiveness of exercise.

I know it's not all math, but in general, a 2,000 calorie day with no exercise is probably similar to a 2,200 calorie day with 200 extra calories burned through intentional exercise above normal. At least that's been my experience.
 
I was in between choosing 60% and 70% diet. Ended up going with 60%- but I would personally say 2/3 diet, 1/3 exercise. I think that if a person eats healthy and is reasonably active (doesn’t need to be a gym rat) - they have a very good chance of being relatively healthy (assuming no substance abuse issues, or environmental issues). I think that it is virtually impossible for people to completely disregard diet and still manage to be healthy. The level and amount of exercise needed to neutralize a completely undisciplined diet would not be possible for most. Just my 2 cents.
 
No 100/100 option?

There really isn’t an answer. If you’re ****ty in either, you’re probably not going to be healthy unless maybe you’re a teenager.
But if forced to choose, heathy diet is more important.
I was thinking the same.

Both are important, but it’s nearly impossible to outexercise a terrible diet, while a sedentary person with perfect nutrition can probably do just fine, until old age.

Exercise is more important for quality of life though, and compressing the period of suffering at life’s end.
 
I wish to introduce another dynamic to this discussion. What people define as 'healthy'. Is it a lifestyle of eating in moderation? Exercising regularly? Paying attention to both eating and exercise?

An aspect most don't consider until later in life(usually) is how eating affects the health of their arteries. I say too much emphasis is put on 'losing weight' and 'lean muscle to fat ratios'. Many diets focus on weight loss. Keto folks, for example, love to discuss the benefits of weight loss, but blatantly ignore the build up of plaque in the arteries.

The leading cause of death in America is heart disease. It is the #1 killer. Cancer is the #2 killer(^#@$ cancer). Heart disease dwarfs the next several causes of death. Google it. I’ll wait.

The goal, essentially, is to live longer with a better quality of life.

I point to Dr. Joel Fuhrman and Dr. Michael Greger. Both Doctors address the health of arteries(heart disease) with vigor. Follow their advice to decrease heart disease and weight loss is, dare I say, a by product.

Far for it for me to give away the main tenants of the philosophy of these Doctors books, but I will list both doctors book recommendations by me:

Reversing Heart Disease by Dr. Joel Furham

How not to Die(t) by Dr. Michael Greger

I wish to emphasis there are several factors to 'living healthy'. Terminalxylem has done some GREAT research on this subject, and will advise everyone to follow their advice. I only advise concerning the diet aspect of 'healthy living'.
 
Last edited:
No 100/100 option?

There really isn’t an answer. If you’re ****ty in either, you’re probably not going to be healthy unless maybe you’re a teenager.
But if forced to choose, heathy diet is more important.
I was thinking the same.

Both are important, but it’s nearly impossible to outexercise a terrible diet, while a sedentary person with perfect nutrition can probably do just fine, until old age.

Exercise is more important for quality of life though, and compressing the period of suffering at life’s end.
That’sa really good way of looking at it.
 
No 100/100 option?

There really isn’t an answer. If you’re ****ty in either, you’re probably not going to be healthy unless maybe you’re a teenager.
But if forced to choose, heathy diet is more important.
I was thinking the same.

Both are important, but it’s nearly impossible to outexercise a terrible diet, while a sedentary person with perfect nutrition can probably do just fine, until old age.

Exercise is more important for quality of life though, and compressing the period of suffering at life’s end.
Do you know anybody like this? I doubt any sedentary person is doing just fine.
 
No 100/100 option?

There really isn’t an answer. If you’re ****ty in either, you’re probably not going to be healthy unless maybe you’re a teenager.
But if forced to choose, heathy diet is more important.
I was thinking the same.

Both are important, but it’s nearly impossible to outexercise a terrible diet, while a sedentary person with perfect nutrition can probably do just fine, until old age.

Exercise is more important for quality of life though, and compressing the period of suffering at life’s end.
Do you know anybody like this? I doubt any sedentary person is doing just fine.
I do. Neither of my grandmothers were particularly active, but both lived to nearly 100 (98 and 99). They were highly functional until mid- to late 90s.

I also know a couple younger women who actively avoid exercise. One admitted she dislikes it because it "makes you look old". They're both Korean, beautiful and thin. And I bet they'll be fine until 80+, when things like osteoporosis set in.

I don't know any old sedentary guys though.
 
No 100/100 option?

There really isn’t an answer. If you’re ****ty in either, you’re probably not going to be healthy unless maybe you’re a teenager.
But if forced to choose, heathy diet is more important.
I was thinking the same.

Both are important, but it’s nearly impossible to outexercise a terrible diet, while a sedentary person with perfect nutrition can probably do just fine, until old age.

Exercise is more important for quality of life though, and compressing the period of suffering at life’s end.

If you think diet and exercise are equally important, than 50 - 50 is the best answer.
 
I wish to introduce another dynamic to this discussion. What people define as 'healthy'. Is it a lifestyle of eating in moderation? Exercising regularly? Paying attention to both eating and exercise?

An aspect most don't consider until later in life(usually) is how eating affects the health of their arteries. I say too much emphasis is put on 'losing weight' and 'lean muscle to fat ratios'. Many diets focus on weight loss. Keto folks, for example, love to discuss the benefits of weight loss, but blatantly ignore the build up of plaque in the arteries.

The leading cause of death in America is heart disease. It is the #1 killer. Cancer is the #2 killer(^#@$ cancer). Heart disease dwarfs the next several causes of death. Google it. I’ll wait.

The goal, essentially, is to live longer with a better quality of life.

I point to Dr. Joel Fuhrman and Dr. Michael Greger. Both Doctors address the health of arteries(heart disease) with vigor. Follow their advice to decrease heart disease and weight loss is, dare I say, a by product.

Far for it for me to give away the main tenants of the philosophy of these Doctors books, but I will list both doctors book recommendations by me:

Reversing Heart Disease by Dr. Joel Furham

How not to Die(t) by Dr. Michael Greger

I wish to emphasis there are several factors to 'living healthy'. Terminalxylem has done some GREAT research on this subject, and will advise everyone to follow their advice. I only advise concerning the diet aspect of 'healthy living'.

Sure. There are tons of layers and definitions.

For this general definition of healthy, I'd say it's being at a weight considered healthy and being able to be mobile and do things you want to do.
 
I don't know any old sedentary guys though.
One anecdote, but my grandfather lived to 95. He was 6'1" and I'd guestimate 250 lbs, even in old age. He ate my grandma's "country cooking" -- not a lot out of a box, but plenty of fried eggs, bacon, potatoes, white rice, meat-&-gravy, dumplings, fried fish, etc.

However: He spent the last ~20 years of his life more or less "chair bound" and later bedridden. Us kids were told that he had contracted polio as a youth, and that it some latter-day effects that caused his old-age condition ... but heck if we knew.

EDIT: My wife's grandfathers should perhaps be considered as well. One was sedentary, the other played golf until very close to his death (which I think was spurred by an infection). Sedentary grandpa made it into his mid-80s and had a typical diet for a person brought up in the 1930s-1940s (not a pig, but no self-denial, either). Golf grandpa made it to 89, and started paying attention to nutrition late in life (~age 70) -- not fastidiously, but noticeably better than most of his generation.
 
No 100/100 option?

There really isn’t an answer. If you’re ****ty in either, you’re probably not going to be healthy unless maybe you’re a teenager.
But if forced to choose, heathy diet is more important.
I was thinking the same.

Both are important, but it’s nearly impossible to outexercise a terrible diet, while a sedentary person with perfect nutrition can probably do just fine, until old age.

Exercise is more important for quality of life though, and compressing the period of suffering at life’s end.

If you think diet and exercise are equally important, than 50 - 50 is the best answer.
It depends how you define importance. For determining body weight, diet is more important than exercise. For healthspan/longevity, exercise is more important.

But at the extremes, a terrible diet is worse for you than no exercise imo.
 
I don't know any old sedentary guys though.
One anecdote, but my grandfather lived to 95. He was 6'1" and I'd guestimate 250 lbs, even in old age. He ate my grandma's "country cooking" -- not a lot out of a box, but plenty of fried eggs, bacon, potatoes, white rice, meat-&-gravy, dumplings, fried fish, etc.

However: He spent the last ~20 years of his life more or less "chair bound" and later bedridden. Us kids were told that he had contracted polio as a youth, and that it some latter-day effects that caused his old-age condition ... but heck if we knew.
Post-polio syndrome is a thing. Though vaccination makes it rare in the developed world, it's still probably more common than obese nonagenarians.
 
No 100/100 option?

There really isn’t an answer. If you’re ****ty in either, you’re probably not going to be healthy unless maybe you’re a teenager.
But if forced to choose, heathy diet is more important.
I was thinking the same.

Both are important, but it’s nearly impossible to outexercise a terrible diet, while a sedentary person with perfect nutrition can probably do just fine, until old age.

Exercise is more important for quality of life though, and compressing the period of suffering at life’s end.

If you think diet and exercise are equally important, than 50 - 50 is the best answer.
It depends how you define importance. For determining body weight, diet is more important than exercise. For healthspan/longevity, exercise is more important.

But at the extremes, a terrible diet is worse for you than no exercise imo.

Sure. It's hard to do a perfect poll question to cover all the nuances. Feel free to create one that fits more what you're looking for and we can vote there too.
 
I picked 70/30. After thinking on it, I probably would say closer to 60/40, for me. Having lost allot of weight with diet only (50+ lbs, hitting the plateau, adding exercise, losing another 75 lbs, I think its closer to 60/40.

I am not in weight loss mode anymore, just maintaining weight (just use a 2,000 calorie as a typical goal every day - making sure it mostly "clean" foods, not ultra-processed foods). I now exercise for the longetivity benefits. I do mostly cardio with a little weight lifting mixed in. Run 4-5 days week while throwing in another cardio workout or 2 (typically elliptical).
 
I’d say 80 /20. In terms of health. Not fitness, but reducing mortality, relatively moderate exercise (like walking) provides pretty much all the benefits that vigorous exercise does. Someone losing weight will typically achieve “health”, i.e. eliminating conditions like pre-diabetes, or high blood pressure, etc. well before you might consider that person “fit.”

I exercise very hard now. And increased muscle mass has probably helped me maintain healthy blood sugar and conferred other decent metabolic advantages. But most health improvements I made just by losing the 50 lbs without exercising.
 
No 100/100 option?

There really isn’t an answer. If you’re ****ty in either, you’re probably not going to be healthy unless maybe you’re a teenager.
But if forced to choose, heathy diet is more important.
I was thinking the same.

Both are important, but it’s nearly impossible to outexercise a terrible diet, while a sedentary person with perfect nutrition can probably do just fine, until old age.

Exercise is more important for quality of life though, and compressing the period of suffering at life’s end.

If you think diet and exercise are equally important, than 50 - 50 is the best answer.
It depends how you define importance. For determining body weight, diet is more important than exercise. For healthspan/longevity, exercise is more important.

But at the extremes, a terrible diet is worse for you than no exercise imo.
This is why I'm not too concerned (yet) about the added weight I've put on the last couple years. I could've done a short cut to course correct and only focus on diet, but there are long term consequences to reducing exercise. I need to figure out how to accomplish both and have it work for middle aged me. Once I do most of that weight will fall back off. The rest will depend on monthly alcohol consumption.
 
Exercise is more important for quality of life though, and compressing the period of suffering at life’s end.
Mobility is something I think about as I age into my 60s. I love to walk in my urban neighborhood and when I travel as a tourist to new cities and hiking destinations, mostly in California where my daughters live. Exercises like walking (I do about 9-10 hours per week) should extend my mobility independence. Several studies have shown that an exercise program even among people in their 80s can reduce the risk of falls.

I believe exercise is one of the best activities for the brain (cognitively and mood-wise) and heart. As a 95% vegan, 5% being an occasional quesdilla or pizza, I'm gonna vote 80/20 for exercise.
 
If you eat right most of the time and at least move vigorously 3-4 times a week for at least 30 minutes you will feel really good.

I am incorporating a lot more light weight training as I am in my 50’s now (54).

Use em or lose em.

I have made a conscience effort to not drink any soda anymore, no more chips, and I have really cut back on chicken wings and fries (my weakness along with Coke).

Lost 7 pounds in a month just cutting out that crap.

Once in a blue moon now….we will indulge in 10 wings with a coke.

Not once or twice a month.

I needed to drop a healthy 15 and we are half way there just cutting out that **** and moving more and more.

For most people who find themselves 15-20 pounds over weight all you need is a better diet and move more.

It happens….we indulge too much and boom 10-15 right on the waistline and chin.

Hell take a week cruise and you can gain 5-7 easy lol and my *** will jiggle for a month.

Once I hit 50 everything just changed as far as my ability to melt off weight quickly.

Now it’s work. So lifestyle choices have been changed. And hey it’s not easy but you have to be committed.
 
Last edited:
My brother eats tons of food and is also in tremendous shape. One of his hobbies is competing in half ironman's, however he is a big boy and probably could lose 20-30 pounds of fat.
 
Once I hit 50 everything just changed as far as my ability to melt off weight quickly.
Thanks for fueling my fear. 48 this summer. So far so good.
It varies a bit from person to person. I lost more weight last year than any in my adult life. Actually my entire life, and I did it at age 51.

Lower 50s have been pretty good to me - no real aches or pains, improving CV fitness, and better athletic performance than my younger years.

I've heard 55 is a wall though. And I can count all the 60+ year-olds I know who maintain a high level of fitness on one hand. I hope to join them, though by no means do I think it is a foregone conclusion.
 
Once I hit 50 everything just changed as far as my ability to melt off weight quickly.
Thanks for fueling my fear. 48 this summer. So far so good.
I felt great up until 51. Still heavy squatting and deadlifting. 52 it started the decline. Turn 57 this month. Stopped deadlifting and squats but pretty much everything else is in play, but in decline. Still going though with 3 full body workouts a week. Also average about 12 to 15k steps.
 
Once I hit 50 everything just changed as far as my ability to melt off weight quickly.
Thanks for fueling my fear. 48 this summer. So far so good.
It varies a bit from person to person. I lost more weight last year than any in my adult life. Actually my entire life, and I did it at age 51.

Lower 50s have been pretty good to me - no real aches or pains, improving CV fitness, and better athletic performance than my younger years.

I've heard 55 is a wall though. And I can count all the 60+ year-olds I know who maintain a high level of fitness on one hand. I hope to join them, though by no means do I think it is a foregone conclusion.

I started my lifestyle change when I was 55 (2021). Lost over 125 lbs. It can be done with the proper mindset. Diet and exercise are must's to make it work.
 
And I can count all the 60+ year-olds I know who maintain a high level of fitness on one hand.

How are you defining high level of fitness?
Good question. I don’t have objective criteria in mind, though I suppose something like a high vO2 max (like every 10K poster) would be a good place to start.

But I'm more interested in athletic performance. Maybe old dudes who can hang with guys a couple decades younger, and still be identified as good at what they do, without the “for your age” disclaimer.

I believe I meet those criteria now with my three main pastimes: hiking, skiing and rock climbing. I’ll be ecstatic if I can say the same at age 60. Of the three, climbing seems to be the toughest to maintain.
 
And I can count all the 60+ year-olds I know who maintain a high level of fitness on one hand.

How are you defining high level of fitness?
Good question. I don’t have objective criteria in mind, though I suppose something like a high vO2 max (like every 10K poster) would be a good place to start.

But I'm more interested in athletic performance. Maybe old dudes who can hang with guys a couple decades younger, and still be identified as good at what they do, without the “for your age” disclaimer.

I believe I meet those criteria now with my three main pastimes: hiking, skiing and rock climbing. I’ll be ecstatic if I can say the same at age 60. Of the three, climbing seems to be the toughest to maintain.

I do think it's interesting to define.

I'd define a 60 year old runner who can hang with a 40 year old runner as way beyond a high level of fitness though. That's exceptional.

I think most everything is relatively age related.

Some of it's a future thing too.

I've considered trying another Ironman. But there's some part of me that says an Ironman at 60 likely isn't the best thing for my 65 year old self.

So it becomes interesting.
 
And I can count all the 60+ year-olds I know who maintain a high level of fitness on one hand.

How are you defining high level of fitness?
Good question. I don’t have objective criteria in mind, though I suppose something like a high vO2 max (like every 10K poster) would be a good place to start.

But I'm more interested in athletic performance. Maybe old dudes who can hang with guys a couple decades younger, and still be identified as good at what they do, without the “for your age” disclaimer.

I believe I meet those criteria now with my three main pastimes: hiking, skiing and rock climbing. I’ll be ecstatic if I can say the same at age 60. Of the three, climbing seems to be the toughest to maintain.

I do think it's interesting to define.

I'd define a 60 year old runner who can hang with a 40 year old runner as way beyond a high level of fitness though. That's exceptional.

I think most everything is relatively age related.

Some of it's a future thing too.

I've considered trying another Ironman. But there's some part of me that says an Ironman at 60 likely isn't the best thing for my 65 year old self.

So it becomes interesting.
Yeah, I’ve decided long distance running is unnecessarily jarring to joints. So I stopped a couple years ago, in favor of walking hills and hiking. But I think the rest of the Ironman would be OK for future you.

I’ve also given up bouldering (climbing low elevation, without a rope), and am considering nixing skiing moguls soon. As I’m sure you’re aware, injury potential and rehab time are bigger issues with age.

How would you define a high level of fitness at age 60?
 
I've considered trying another Ironman. But there's some part of me that says an Ironman at 60 likely isn't the best thing for my 65 year old self.

:shrug: one of the 70+year old dudes that rides with us did I think his 10th 140.6 last year and is training for another one this year. He likes to ride right behind my rear wheel as we go 20-22mph on Tuesday nights.

A good buddy turns 65 in two years, the same year I turn 50 and one of the girls that trains with us turns 30 (fwiw, she kicks our tail). We’ll do a full to celebrate, we’re just deciding whether to go Chattanooga or travel further.
But even he acknowledges a fall off after 60, with more emphasis on yoga and other maintenance type activities.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top