Comment by Raidion
3 years ago
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.