Food > activity, always.

My take is that activity can compensate for crap food—for a while and to some extent. But, to paraphrase John Tuld, it sure is hell of a lot easier to just eat well.

Fit bodies are built in the kitchen. Fast food is typically loaded with sugar and cooked in seed oils, and they hardly ever make you feel satiated. Yuck.

I guess it is possible either way. When I first started on my health kick, I was eating burger king once a day and fasting the rest of the time. Once that become ineffective, that's when I switched to healthy meals.

Since ancient times, human beings have sought ways to avoid unnecessary efforts by creating technological mechanisms, however; I still prefer physical activity, despite the regrets of unhealthy eating. Even if we fight valiantly to avoid exercise, our bodies are not designed to sit still.

I pick the second one because if you only eat fast food, you're going to be very unhealthy and overweight regardless of your physical activity.

Need to exercise

Protein is protein

They are both pretty unhealthy. Fast food has so many additives. Being inactive causes the body a lot of harm.

If forced to choose between these two, the second scenario might be slightly healthier due to the meal quality.

Mix and match? It's not necessary to always take one of the two bad decisions. Or is it?

A friend of mine always say that one needs to satisfy both the mind and the body, to which I tend to agree.

False dichotomy? 🤔😁