Exercise v. Diet

[TylerDurden]

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.

[Raw Kyle]

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.

[TylerDurden]

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

[luis]

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.

[TylerDurden]

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

[luis]

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.

[KD]

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.

[luis]

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

[TylerDurden]

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.

[klowcarb]

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).

[Fermenter Zym]

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

[achillezzz]

everything is important...

[pioneer]

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.

[Abner]

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....

[Aria320]

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.

[mikkael]

I'd go with option C......Both are very important for over-all health.

[PrimiFit]

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 .

[PaleoPhil]

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.

[KD]

Here is the answer to this debate.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100902191946AAaESmk

[PaleoPhil]

Here's Mark Sisson's view on the topic:

> 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

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.

[Duke]

Diet is the most important; training / exercising complements a diet. It's 70:30 or 80:20 ratio imo.

[HIT_it_RAW]

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.

[aLptHW4k4y]

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.

[PaleoPhil]

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).

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.

[Darwinian Fitness]

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.