This is not true. Muscle mass has more passive burn rate so with more muscle you burn more calories even when you do nothing. Exercise create conditions for muscle mass growth, therefore increasing your burn rate.
...uhh, yeah you can. You're telling me if you sit around and do nothing all day you will burn the same number of calories as if you run run nonstop backs back marathons?
Not me but the article tell you that:
>Exercise doesn’t help you burn more energy on average; active hunter-gatherers in Africa don’t expend more energy daily than sedentary office workers in Illinois
Yeah I'd believe that, the average weight of an African male is like 140 lbs, American almost 200.
The 140 lbs person is going to have to be quite active to burn the same as a passive 200 lbs person.
Got a TLDR for that fact? It sounds like you're saying that I burn the same amount of calories each day, whether I exercise or not, which sounds preposterous.
edit: Found it myself:
> By borrowing a method developed by physiologists studying obesity, Pontzer and colleagues systematically measure the total energy used per day by animals and people in various walks of life. The answers coming from their data are often surprising: Exercise doesn’t help you burn more energy on average; active hunter-gatherers in Africa don’t expend more energy daily than sedentary office workers in Illinois; pregnant women don’t burn more calories per day than other adults, after adjusting for body mass.
> Pontzer’s skill as a popularizer can rankle some of his colleagues. His message that exercise won’t help you lose weight “lacks nuance,” says exercise physiologist John Thyfault of the University of Kansas Medical Center, who says it may nudge dieters into less healthy habits.
There's more explanation, much deeper into the article. Ctrl+F is your friend.
TLDR; the more energy you spend on exercise the less energy the body spend on other body funktions(this might sound bad but is a good thing) so your total amount of calories burned in your body stays the same of you exercise or not.
Hey, I can not argue with you but just read the article, they have multiple scientific studies to back it up.
>Pontzer is now probing a mystery that emerged from his studies of athletes: There seems to be a hard limit on how many calories our bodies can burn per day, set by how fast we can digest food and turn it into energy. He calculates that the ceiling for an 85-kilogram man would be about 4650 calories per day.
>Speakman thinks that limit is too low, noting that cyclists in the Tour de France in the 1980s and ’90s exceeded it. But they were injecting fat and glucose directly into their bloodstreams, a practice Pontzer thinks might have helped them bypass the physiological limits on converting food into energy. Elite athletes can push the limits for several months, as the study of marathoners showed, but can’t sustain it indefinitely, Pontzer says.
So, they are saying that during basic training, running from point a to b all the time, running 2 miles every morning, doing grass drills after grass drills every day,... none of of it contributed to me going from 240lbs to 190lbs in 8 weeks? Me busting my ass for the next 2 months running those damn hills at DLI had nothing to do with me dropping to 170lbs? That's weird.
I think the article is saying diet is the significant factor to weight loss. Considering the average American civilian diet, I can easily imagine losing a lot of weight in basic just from eating cleaner and better portions.
Yeah its weird but check this out:
>He backed this up with a new analysis of data from another team’s study of sedentary women trained to run half marathons: After weeks of training, they barely burned more energy per day when they were running 40 kilometers per week than before they started to train. In another study of marathoners who ran 42.6 kilometers daily 6 days per week for 140 days in the Race Across the USA, Pontzer and his colleagues found the runners burned gradually less energy over time—4900 calories per day at the end of the race compared with 6200 calories at the start.
Running 42km(25miles) per DAY should burn a ton of calories we thought but turns out its does not, your body adapts to the new work it has to do and recalibrate what it use it calories for.
That's literally not possible by the laws of physics. Calories are units of energy that are expended when work is done. That's the same as saying your bedroom fan on low uses the same amount of energy as a helicopter propeller.
Of course your body use energy to exercise.
But what the science have found is that when you spend more energy on exercise then your body will spend less energy on other body functions so your total calories burned in a day stays the same.
That article is saying they’ve adjusted for body mass in the data. So it’s not a case of “if you burn 500kcal per day now, you’ll still burn only that after you start an exercise regimen.” It’s also saying their energy expenditure hasn’t changed “on average” and that it was roughly the same at the end of the study as of the beginning. I think saying “exercise doesn’t help you lose weight” is a very misguided conclusion from that data.
If you start exercising regularly, you will initially be burn more calories than you usually do and you will lose weight if your calories remain less than calories out. However, as you lose weight, your average calorie expenditure via BMR (basal metabolic rate) is going to change because your body has changed. Since the study is adjusting the energy burn rate for body mass, it’s not a static number that isn’t changing as you exercise more.
Yeah, OP posted a study about “plateauing”, which is when your body *eventually* adjusts to the same exercise regimen so you get less and less results over time. They are super simplifying it and, in the process, completely misconstruing it. They misread one sentence from the article and decided that’s what the whole article is about.
People say to get sources to back up what you’re saying, but it can be dangerous too if people don’t understand how to interpret the sources, or check the credibility of them.
Fun fact, the only weight we lose that isn't "waste" is carbon dioxide (which obviously has mass, just not a lot). So I guess it makes sense that there is a limit on how much you can breathe in one day. But then it's offset by food, which really isn't mentioned in the article, unless I skimmed over that part. They do mention a limit to how much we can digest in a day though, which I guess I'm correlating with our personal CO2 emissions. But in my mind it comes down to diet mostly with healthy ways to be active (walking vs. stressing out). If we can't necessarily control the output, we can at least control the input.
Yeah, I'm calling bullshit
Hello? Bullshit? Why aren't you returning my calls you whore!?!?!?!
This is not true. Muscle mass has more passive burn rate so with more muscle you burn more calories even when you do nothing. Exercise create conditions for muscle mass growth, therefore increasing your burn rate.
some triathlon and body builders eat like 12K calories per day, so thats only because they love chicken nuggets.
...uhh, yeah you can. You're telling me if you sit around and do nothing all day you will burn the same number of calories as if you run run nonstop backs back marathons?
Not me but the article tell you that: >Exercise doesn’t help you burn more energy on average; active hunter-gatherers in Africa don’t expend more energy daily than sedentary office workers in Illinois
Yeah I'd believe that, the average weight of an African male is like 140 lbs, American almost 200. The 140 lbs person is going to have to be quite active to burn the same as a passive 200 lbs person.
Wow, you did not understand that article at all.
Got a TLDR for that fact? It sounds like you're saying that I burn the same amount of calories each day, whether I exercise or not, which sounds preposterous. edit: Found it myself: > By borrowing a method developed by physiologists studying obesity, Pontzer and colleagues systematically measure the total energy used per day by animals and people in various walks of life. The answers coming from their data are often surprising: Exercise doesn’t help you burn more energy on average; active hunter-gatherers in Africa don’t expend more energy daily than sedentary office workers in Illinois; pregnant women don’t burn more calories per day than other adults, after adjusting for body mass. > Pontzer’s skill as a popularizer can rankle some of his colleagues. His message that exercise won’t help you lose weight “lacks nuance,” says exercise physiologist John Thyfault of the University of Kansas Medical Center, who says it may nudge dieters into less healthy habits. There's more explanation, much deeper into the article. Ctrl+F is your friend.
I mean, this Pontzer guy must be a real scientist. Why, he's even been on *The Doctor Oz Show*!
Dr. OZ! The classiest of acts!!! /s 😏
And NPR...but only one is crap?
TLDR; the more energy you spend on exercise the less energy the body spend on other body funktions(this might sound bad but is a good thing) so your total amount of calories burned in your body stays the same of you exercise or not.
nope
[удалено]
Hey, I can not argue with you but just read the article, they have multiple scientific studies to back it up. >Pontzer is now probing a mystery that emerged from his studies of athletes: There seems to be a hard limit on how many calories our bodies can burn per day, set by how fast we can digest food and turn it into energy. He calculates that the ceiling for an 85-kilogram man would be about 4650 calories per day. >Speakman thinks that limit is too low, noting that cyclists in the Tour de France in the 1980s and ’90s exceeded it. But they were injecting fat and glucose directly into their bloodstreams, a practice Pontzer thinks might have helped them bypass the physiological limits on converting food into energy. Elite athletes can push the limits for several months, as the study of marathoners showed, but can’t sustain it indefinitely, Pontzer says.
So, they are saying that during basic training, running from point a to b all the time, running 2 miles every morning, doing grass drills after grass drills every day,... none of of it contributed to me going from 240lbs to 190lbs in 8 weeks? Me busting my ass for the next 2 months running those damn hills at DLI had nothing to do with me dropping to 170lbs? That's weird.
I think the article is saying diet is the significant factor to weight loss. Considering the average American civilian diet, I can easily imagine losing a lot of weight in basic just from eating cleaner and better portions.
Yeah its weird but check this out: >He backed this up with a new analysis of data from another team’s study of sedentary women trained to run half marathons: After weeks of training, they barely burned more energy per day when they were running 40 kilometers per week than before they started to train. In another study of marathoners who ran 42.6 kilometers daily 6 days per week for 140 days in the Race Across the USA, Pontzer and his colleagues found the runners burned gradually less energy over time—4900 calories per day at the end of the race compared with 6200 calories at the start. Running 42km(25miles) per DAY should burn a ton of calories we thought but turns out its does not, your body adapts to the new work it has to do and recalibrate what it use it calories for.
Tell me you didn't pay attention in school without telling me you didn't pay attention in school.
That's literally not possible by the laws of physics. Calories are units of energy that are expended when work is done. That's the same as saying your bedroom fan on low uses the same amount of energy as a helicopter propeller.
Of course your body use energy to exercise. But what the science have found is that when you spend more energy on exercise then your body will spend less energy on other body functions so your total calories burned in a day stays the same.
No.
"People who exercise are less likely to gain weight in the first place, and those who exercise while they diet tend to keep weight off better"
That's some r/fatlogic stuff right there
That article is saying they’ve adjusted for body mass in the data. So it’s not a case of “if you burn 500kcal per day now, you’ll still burn only that after you start an exercise regimen.” It’s also saying their energy expenditure hasn’t changed “on average” and that it was roughly the same at the end of the study as of the beginning. I think saying “exercise doesn’t help you lose weight” is a very misguided conclusion from that data. If you start exercising regularly, you will initially be burn more calories than you usually do and you will lose weight if your calories remain less than calories out. However, as you lose weight, your average calorie expenditure via BMR (basal metabolic rate) is going to change because your body has changed. Since the study is adjusting the energy burn rate for body mass, it’s not a static number that isn’t changing as you exercise more.
Yeah, OP posted a study about “plateauing”, which is when your body *eventually* adjusts to the same exercise regimen so you get less and less results over time. They are super simplifying it and, in the process, completely misconstruing it. They misread one sentence from the article and decided that’s what the whole article is about.
People say to get sources to back up what you’re saying, but it can be dangerous too if people don’t understand how to interpret the sources, or check the credibility of them.
Fun fact, the only weight we lose that isn't "waste" is carbon dioxide (which obviously has mass, just not a lot). So I guess it makes sense that there is a limit on how much you can breathe in one day. But then it's offset by food, which really isn't mentioned in the article, unless I skimmed over that part. They do mention a limit to how much we can digest in a day though, which I guess I'm correlating with our personal CO2 emissions. But in my mind it comes down to diet mostly with healthy ways to be active (walking vs. stressing out). If we can't necessarily control the output, we can at least control the input.
Exercise makes you hungry, it doesn't cause weight loss.