Exercise doesn't make you lean?

That is what science wants me to believe. Or rather, exercise burns those calories your body would need for tissue repair and staying alive, just like in lab animals:
>In lab animals, increased daily exercise has no effect on daily energy expenditure but instead results in fewer ovulatory cycles and slower tissue repair. And extremes may lead some animals to eat their own nursing infants. Humans and other creatures seem to have several evolved strategies for keeping daily energy expenditure constrained.
Isn't that crazy? That would mean that exercise isn't just not "not healthy", it's actively unhealthy.

You see, some time ago, scientists had the theory that the global obesity pandemic is caused by modern life - we don't move a lot anymore compared to stone age tribes, so we burn less calories, so we get fat. However, when they started tracking the actual daily caloric expenditure of people from modenr Europe to stone age Africa, it turned out that there is a literl hard limit to caloric burn. If you do nothing all day, you burn the same amount as a marathon runner - only the marathon runner spends his daily calories on exercise and not on tissue repair, satying healthy, etc.

And that's why modenr science claims you should eat less and exercise doesn't really do anything for weight loss. However, they also claim that exercise is healthy, something that is definitely not shown by the data.

Opinions?

my opinion is that calories are the wrong unit to look at since reality obviously disagrees with any of this. More movement = leaner. Sitting all day = fatter. Unless of course you stop eating. But what if eating less isn't about the calories, but some other factor X? Would explain everything.

Also, did you know Orang Utans and humans can have higher lean mass than Gorillas?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So Michael Phelps eating 12k calories a day training and not getting fat was what then?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      genetics

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's a myth, he only ate 8-10k calories a day. As does Caleb Dressel.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Among those compared we also see that although there is a theoretical limit, there also seems to be a wide enough gap of calories, e.g. the highest caloric needs per day come from a man with 50kg lean mass, meaning there are other factors than lean mass as to why metabolism differs so much. Heat production, NEAT and of course exercise.

    Also our targeted group are overweight and obese people which questions your argument about the marathon runner, since the scarce energy which would lead to slower tissue repair can be compensated by fat.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Drop the name of the study so we can read it ourselves. I bet you 10:1 you've misunderstood or intentionally explained it poorly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-exercise-paradox/
      there you go

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks for sharing this. For once a serious thread on /fit

        I read the article and can only say as someone who has desperately fought body fat for at least 20 years of adult life (this is important, idgaf about being right, I am desperate to succeed by all means necessary) that experience taught me that exercise is irrelevant for losing bf unless it’s pushed to the extreme which only athletes may do sometimes. Exercise has other benefits but losing bf is about diet for the most part

        What I learned from that study is that I can’t even „buy“ myself cheat days by walking 20 km because apparently my body doesn’t care and caps total energy expenditure. Ok, I will adapt. This could explain as OP says why cico doesn’t work if you bank on increasing the CO part

        Drop the name of the study so we can read it ourselves. I bet you 10:1 you've misunderstood or intentionally explained it poorly.

        He linked an article, not a study.
        Here's the study.
        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22848382/
        But yes, he's misrepresenting it.

        Literally all it says is that this one subgroup of hunter gatherers expects similar amounts of energy on average per day to westerners. The rest is pure speculation by the article and OP.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >pure speculation
          no it is stuff currently getting researching. he is mentioning it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, he's speculating and misrepresenting the actual research.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              where does he misrepresenting it?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Read what he wrote and then read the actual paper. There is only the barest correlation.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                his paper is not about finding the root cause for why they expend less when doing physical activity. it is about stating that they do indeed get limited in energy expenditure. his statements (since it is a pop sci article) are there to give readers who have no idea some context of the constrained TEE model that people are currently researchign on

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But that isn't supported in what they cite, as far as I can tell they more or less made it up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                well maybe this paper sparked the TEE model I wouldn#t know. What I do know is that people are researching on this idea and are finding things where the body decreases energy expenditure

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >that isn't supported in what they cite
                this is basically a chunk of the scientific community
                they're speculating on a low basis or over a spurious correlation

                pure guesswork witchdoctor shit

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This isn't the scientific community.
                This is one paper showing one narrow finding, then it gets butchered by a shitty article, and further butchered by OP.

                Basically almost nobody on IST has even a high school understanding of science.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >pure guesswork witchdoctor shit
                he is giving his thoughts on what research could be interesting based on his findings.
                >it could be that people with high activity levels change their behavior in subtle ways that save energy
                they found out that something in this way or form happens as stated in the paper linked here

                >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91750-x
                >he model predicts that, within low-to-moderate physical activity (PA) levels, increases in PA lead to increases in TEE
                >my body doesn’t care and caps total energy expenditure
                this is straight up false

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That isn't what that paper shows either

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >In conclusion, we have shown that a compensatory reduction in arm movements may be involved in the constrained TEE model in adults
                works as intended in adults but not in children. though the children might not have done enough physical activity

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This has almost nothing to do with what OP posted

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This has almost nothing to do with what OP posted
                yes because OP is making shit
                >he is giving his thoughts on what research could be interesting based on his findings.
                >they found out that something in this way or form happens as stated in the paper linked here
                it has also nothing to do with what OP said because I was explaining the thought process of this researcher in making the statements in the pop science article that OP never sourced.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this phrase is grammatically incorrect
                I'm assuming various negative things about you solely on this

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                just assume that i am tired and originally wrote the sentence with misuse instead of misrepresent
                >I'm assuming various negative things about you solely on this
                no worries anon. i do the same about you

  4. 1 month ago
    I ignore women

    Yes, there is a natural soft limit that is determined by appetite and willpower. For example, when I was a beginning 140lbs highschool lifter, I could not gain weight nor increase my lifts without major changes in my eating habits and researchers have seemed to determined that humans can only focus on a task for 30mins at a time for a total of 6hrs/day. This limit, however, is a soft limit that can be extended in extreme cases of stress or through sheer determination but eventually returns to average by experiencing a period of burnout. And when it comes to individuals that we relate with a high amount of discipline like monks and priest, it turns out that their minds have rewired to making ascetic choices into habits that no longer require willpower to maintain; similar to how exercising becomes an inertial habit that requires little effort to maintain for serious ISTizens.

    Simply put, humans are not perfect flesh automatons that can toil for hours doing laborious work. The whole hustle and grind culture is artificial and made to sell self-help books or a brand, they used to call it "productivity culture."

    Trying to exceed this built-in limit is going against nature like trying to remember every detail from a month ago but your brain revolts and discards everything irrelevant to its immediate survival.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    cico is a mental illness and you need to be clinically moronic to believe calories can be applied to diet

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Guess all those career athletes that can accurately predict a cut based on programmed caloric intake were just lucky to make weight, huh?

      Please tell us about how your niche diet is actually the only correct one.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >my opinion is that calories are the wrong unit to look at since reality obviously disagrees with any of this. More movement = leaner. Sitting all day = fatter. Unless of course you stop eating. But what if eating less isn't about the calories, but some other factor X? Would explain everything.
    It doesn't. I know many people that lost meaning amounts of fat pirely by dieting. You're just a lazy and dumb slob that refuses to hold soome accountability for your poor macro management.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Opinions?
    My opinion is that OP is a humongous homosexual utterly incapable of sanity checking even the most obviously moronic claims.
    > If you do nothing all day, you burn the same amount as a marathon runner - only the marathon runner spends his daily calories on exercise and not on tissue repair, satying healthy, etc.
    IOW this is simply not true.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i can't keep reading this board, its getting dumber day by day

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the x axis says lean body mass which implies healthy weight aka muscle

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's probably true to some degree. Excessive exercise does impair health. There is an optimal balance for health between eating too little/too much, exercising too little/too much, and expending energy too little/too much.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6619827/pdf/pone.0219563.pdf
    >Based on duration and intensity of supervised exercise activities (12-week aerobic and resistance periods), Calculated change in total energy expenditure was +1.08(+/- .10) MJ/day compared to control.
    >Resting energy expenditure mildly elevated (0.2-0.4 MH/day) for days with strength training
    >REE elevated for up to 12 hours with aerobic exercise
    >1 MJ = 239 kcal

    Just the act of exercise can help manage fat, strength training can elevate even your resting energy expenditure for several days afterwards. Strength training also builds muscle mass, which further increases metabolic rate.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Thanks for sharing this. For once a serious thread on /fit

    I read the article and can only say as someone who has desperately fought body fat for at least 20 years of adult life (this is important, idgaf about being right, I am desperate to succeed by all means necessary) that experience taught me that exercise is irrelevant for losing bf unless it’s pushed to the extreme which only athletes may do sometimes. Exercise has other benefits but losing bf is about diet for the most part

    What I learned from that study is that I can’t even „buy“ myself cheat days by walking 20 km because apparently my body doesn’t care and caps total energy expenditure. Ok, I will adapt. This could explain as OP says why cico doesn’t work if you bank on increasing the CO part

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91750-x
      >he model predicts that, within low-to-moderate physical activity (PA) levels, increases in PA lead to increases in TEE
      >my body doesn’t care and caps total energy expenditure
      this is straight up false

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the researchers actually said that exercise takes away calories from detrimental processes like cancer growth, inflammation and fat production.

    in other words, any and all exercise is pure upside, whether you happen to be in a calorie deficit or not

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Read it when it came out and read it again today. Yes, people who do the same exercise will roughly burn the same amount of calories. Wild. Furthermore, your graphic is unsupportive of your claim. Have ChatGPT translate the article for you so you aren't confused by big science words because you've missed the big caveat of the article

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm convinced that the only real way to lose weight is to not want to eat.
    My dog never loses or gains weight regardless of how often we feed him, he just doesn't eat when his body tells him that's enough. He eats only raw food and vegetables, nothing delicious in his life except occasional treats.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >My dog never loses or gains weight regardless of how often we feed him
      Basically the same situation as in my house. I'm the dog, and my mom is you.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *