Comment by djtango
3 years ago
Which is laughably ridiculous when you start considering the extremes like Michael Phelps eating 10kcal for breakfast.
The issue is the uptick in energy burn is unintuitive especially in the world energy dense high-processed food
As an ex once put "you have to run 5 miles to earn a cupcake - totally not worth it!"
> Which is laughably ridiculous
We're glad you're here to poke fun at the research of at least two people with PhD's centered on this topic.
> when you start considering the extremes
When you start considering the extremes, you often find that they can't tell you much about the middle ground.
I think everyone is talking past each other here. From the article:
> As the athletes’ ran more and more over weeks or months, their metabolic engines cut back elsewhere to make room for the extra exercise costs
You clearly burn extra calories when exercising, but the thesis of the article is that it doesn't matter in terms of weight loss because your body will adjust to burn the mean level of calories. The obvious exception are athletes whose energy expenditures simply can't be averaged away.
This leads to the conclusion that it's not just exercise that drives weight loss, but diet and exercise (shocking!) that makes a difference, as you have to run at a net loss over the day.
Most people who want to lose weight (aka mostly unfit/untrained) are not going to be able to exercise the amount would take to truly force a calorie deficit.
> Most people who want to lose weight (aka mostly unfit/untrained) are not going to be able to exercise the amount would take to truly force a calorie deficit.
This is well known and true even if the claims made better happened to be entirely false. I’m not dismissing your point, here. I agree fully.
Exercise just doesn’t burn enough calories to really matter. Especially in the face of a poor diet. Running burns ~100 calories per mile (yes, varying based on weight and a little bit based on speed but it’s a close enough rule). A can of soda has ~150 calories. There’s just no competition. Someone trying to lose weight can skip a soda or a candy bar and it’s more effective than running an extra mile.
> Which is laughably ridiculous when you start considering the extremes like Michael Phelps eating 10kcal for breakfast
I think you are missing the fundamental part of the article about the calorie expenditures being adjusted based on non-fat body mass.
So, yes Michael Phelps eats a lot of calories, but him (and other pro athletes) have spent their lives building muscle and keeping fat reserves down. Michael Phelps I think is at a 5% body fat, while the average American is 18%+. He needs more calories for that extra body mass that most people the same height don't have.
> Michael Phelps I think is at a 5% body fat
No way. 5% is well below optimal for athletic performance. At 5% you’re looking at developing health problems. This is the range bodybuilders aim for on stage because they care about looking shredded more than they care about having joints that work.
Phelps was reportedly 8% when he won all those medals in Beijing.