Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do we even know that? Starting to wonder about all those myths about exercise now.
I'd say that's pretty hard to refute. Do swimmers have saggy and undeveloped lats/deltoids? Does a bricklayer not have big forearms? Do runners have wimpy calf muscles? Wrestlers have muscular necks and shoulders. Football players have big glutes. That's from training for their sports.
Actually I went ahead and got this guy's book, a preview of it is free on google... and you know what is amazing... he originally got on to this by comparing orangutans. It appears Total Daily Energy Expenditure is an evolutionary *budget* based on various factors including environment, reproduction, and consistent food availability. It can change but it will take generations to do so.
Quote:
Using the doubly labeled water method, we measured daily energy expenditure (kCal/d) in orangutans living in a large indoor/outdoor habitat at the Great Ape Trust. Despite activity levels similar to orangutans in the wild, Great Ape Trust orangutans used less energy, relative to body mass, than nearly any eutherian mammal ever measured, including sedentary humans. Such an extremely low rate of energy use has not been observed previously in primates, but is consistent with the slow growth and low rate of reproduction in orangutans, and may be an evolutionary response to severe food shortages in their native Southeast Asian rainforests. These results hold important implications for the management of orangutan populations in captivity and in the wild, and underscore the flexibility and interdependence of physiological, behavioral, and life history strategies in the evolution of apes and humans.
Nonetheless, results from doubly labeled water studies over the past two decades, measuring TEE during normal daily life, have come to challenge the view that high levels of habitual physical activity result in correspondingly high TEE. Human populations around the globe have similar TEE regardless of lifestyle . For example, Luke and colleagues demonstrated that women in a physically active farming community in Nigeria and a more sedentary urban community in the U.S. had similar TEE and activity energy expenditure (AEE; kcal/day), the portion of TEE not attributable to basal metabolic rate (BMR; kcal/day), or digestion costs (20). My colleagues and I have shown that TEE and AEE among physically active Hadza hunter-gatherers in northern Tanzania and Tsimane forager-farmers in Bolivia are similar to more sedentary populations in the U.S., Europe, and Asia
Actually I went ahead and got this guy's book, a preview of it is free on google... and you know what is amazing... he originally got on to this by comparing orangutans. It appears Total Daily Energy Expenditure is an evolutionary *budget* based on various factors including environment, reproduction, and consistent food availability. It can change but it will take generations to do so.
Where is he claiming that exercise does nothing or is not needed? He's basically saying that diet is much more important than exercise than originally thought, Not that exercise is not needed.
Where is he claiming that exercise does nothing or is not needed? He's basically saying that diet is much more important than exercise than originally thought, Not that exercise is not needed.
Not to mention, he routinely refers to "urban office workers," specifically NYC...I've never lived in NYC but I have in a couple other urban centers and I'll tell you that I was much more active there than living in the suburbs. I'd walk three blocks to the grocery store, walk to the bus stop, walk to get a bite to eat. I drove to work but many friends biked during nice weather or took a bus. NYC isn't as sedentary as one might think.
Where is he claiming that exercise does nothing or is not needed? He's basically saying that diet is much more important than exercise than originally thought, Not that exercise is not needed.
He just says that because that is the "line" not to upset people
But he says "the TDEE for hunter gatherers in Africa is the same as anyone in the modern world" thus, exercise WILL NOT increase your TDEE.
I have quoted it for you several times, it seems you just refuse to read.
Quote:
It has long been assumed that increased physical activity leads to corresponding increases in total energy expenditure.Nonetheless, results from doubly labeled water studies over the past two decades, measuring TEE during normal daily life, have come to challenge the view that high levels of habitual physical activity result in correspondingly high TEE. Human populations around the globe have similar TEE regardless of lifestyle
It is damming.
The only possibly support he gives to exercise is that people who don't exercise a lot might see short term TEE increases but they won't stay up there is his point.
Quote:
I'd walk three blocks to the grocery store, walk to the bus stop, walk to get a bite to eat. I drove to work but many friends biked during nice weather or took a bus. NYC isn't as sedentary as one might think.
It wasn't only NYC is was modern people in the USA, Europe and Asia. I know it is sad to be made a fool out of, and we all have been, but there is no difference between hunter gatherers in Africa and modern people. The other study shows there is no difference between wild animals and captivity animals.
He just says that because that is the "line" not to upset people
But he says "the TDEE for hunter gatherers in Africa is the same as anyone in the modern world" thus, exercise WILL NOT increase your TDEE.
I have quoted it for you several times, it seems you just refuse to read.
It is damming.
The only possibly support he gives to exercise is that people who don't exercise a lot might see short term TEE increases but they won't stay up there is his point.
It wasn't only NYC is was modern people in the USA, Europe and Asia. I know it is sad to be made a fool out of, and we all have been, but there is no difference between hunter gatherers in Africa and modern people. The other study shows there is no difference between wild animals and captivity animals.
No, he doesn't say it because that's not his claim. Again, his claim is that exercise should not be used solely to control weight. Ponzter himself said directly that knowledge of this energy expenditure pattern does not excuse us from taking exercise. Exercise has many well documented health benefits – improving cardiovascular function, immune system and brain function, assisting psychological wellbeing and promoting healthy ageing. The message is exercise to stay healthy and manage your diet to control your weight.
You are interpreting his study incorrectly.
And if you don't believe what he says or you are unable interpret what he said correctly then why don't you read his own actual study where it states: The metabolic costs and health benefits of physical activity are well-established. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803033/
Last edited by Diesel350z; 03-10-2021 at 12:19 PM..
The only possibly support he gives to exercise is that people who don't exercise a lot might see short term TEE increases but they won't stay up there is his point.
But of course. If you sit on your couch for a decade, then begin to run a mile a day, the mile will in the short term cost you much more energy. After a year of running your mile your body will be much better adapted to it.
If you start doing curls with a 20lb dumbell, you will initially find it makes you sore, then you will become stronger, and expend less energy lifting the dumbell.
This is pretty simple stuff here, not rocket science or brain surgery.
IF your lifestyle involves "x" food and "y" exercise...
AND IF your weight remains stable...
then maintaining your lifestyle will result in neither loss nor gain, no matter how little exercise Y is, and no matter how much food X is.
BUT IF
you discover one day that you are gaining weight, and nothing has changed in your lifestyle...
THEN
you might try eating less, OR exercising more, OR both - and see if the weight doesn't start coming off.
As long as your input of calories is the same as the output of calories, the weight should remain the same. People have changes in hormones, people have changes in physical needs. A person with a fever is burning more calories simply by virtue of the fact that he has a fever. His lifestyle might not change at all, but he might find he's lost a couple of pounds after a week or being feverish. If he eats a little more, he'll put the weight right back on.
Conversely, a person whose idea of "exercise" is walking to the mailbox to get his mail, who isn't especially overweight, who eats a variety of foods in a variety of quantities throughout the day, might discover that if he suddenly takes up bicycle riding, he's losing a pound or two every week. Because he's burning up more calories than his body requires, to maintain the weight he has enjoyed up until this point.
There's no TDEE homeostasis intermittant metabolic blah blah blah pseudo-science necessary to understand this.
If you normally weight THIS MUCH by doing THIS amount of work and eating THAT type/amount of food, and you suddenly CHANGE the amount of work and/or amount of food, then your weight will change accordingly.
This is pretty simple stuff here, not rocket science or brain surgery.
Yep, and the whole premise of this thread was started with a misnomer (that exercise plays a significant role in weight loss).
Shy of any underlying medical issues (and those are such an outlier that I don't bother with it... even though everyone always seems to want to claim they have a thyroid issue), it's typically calories in versus calories out. I've been in this industry for over 20 years and anytime someone comes to me with a weight loss goal, my first comment is that they need to see a dietitian first, since you can't outrun a fork. In my observations, the vast majority of people that go to gyms and do resistance training tend to really only burn off around 300 calories on their workouts. If they're walking, they're looking at roughly 100 calories for every mile they walk (so 3 miles gets you to that 300 calories). If that person is working out three times a week, it's only 900 calories of output And that's not even 1/2 lb of weight loss (It takes a deficit of 3,500 calories to lose 1 lb). Counter that with a person that puts themselves into a 500 calorie per day deficit by food intake and you can clearly see the difference. The latter is going to take off 1 lb per week. Using this example, the food intake portion ends up being 75% of the equation, and the exercise is only 25%. Typically, people are using resistance training as a way to change body composition, not necessarily weight loss (or at least that is what their mindset should be).
These types of conversations have been going on in exercise forums for years. You'll always find some thread that claims a study has disproven "x", or some other underlying reason as to why someone has been unable to lose weight. People tend to look for confirmation bias to anything that pacifies their mind as to why they can't achieve results in losing weight. Often tmes it's nothing that a piece of duct tape over the mouth won't solve. For the vast majority of people, it will always be calories in versus calories out.
Typically, people are using resistance training as a way to change body composition, not necessarily weight loss (or at least that is what their mindset should be).
These types of conversations have been going on in exercise forums for years. You'll always find some thread that claims a study has disproven "x", or some other underlying reason as to why someone has been unable to lose weight. People tend to look for confirmation bias to anything that pacifies their mind as to why they can't achieve results in losing weight. Often tmes it's nothing that a piece of duct tape over the mouth won't solve. For the vast majority of people, it will always be calories in versus calories out.
I exercise to be healthy. I try to eat healthy but I'm not very good at it. As a result I'm overweight. But I don't fool myself into thinking that dieting is the end-all be-all to being svelte, nor do I equate being thin with being healthy. I need to eat less junk, more good food, and continue making sure I stay mobile, by exercising regularly.
It's not a diet. It's just being aware of, appreciating, and striving for good health.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
