6 ms·
It seems like the article is making exercise more mysterious than it is. From what I've read, scientists seem to be more knowledgeable than the state of confusi
by alexyim 17y ago
It seems like the article is making exercise more mysterious than it is. From what I've read, scientists seem to be more knowledgeable than the state of confusion this article is giving out.
The benefit of exercise in terms of weight loss is that it increases your resting metabolic rate (RMR). So the greatest caloric expenditure is often not during the exercise activity itself. I used to think that it's impossible to burn off the calories eaten from a burger. Now I know better.
Of course, exercise is only effective if your diet complements it. It's not either or, it's both. Both contribute to a net caloric deficit or surplus, creating weight change.
They also don't go into enough detail about the types of exercises. HIIT and weightlifting are particularly effective towards increasing RMR.
- c0riander 17y agoI think a great deal of the confusion the article is conveying is not so much about the effect of exercise on metabolism and body composition, but rather its effect on appetite. One of the reasons that we're starting to hear obesity specialists back away from advocating the "moderate-vigorous exercise" as part of a weight-loss plan is because of the things this article brings up: in some people (mostly women), starting an exercise regime spikes appetite and makes it extremely difficult to stick to a calorie-controlled/restricted diet. Thus, even if the RMR increases, it seems the body is insisting calorie intake increase as well -- and I think that's where the confusion they are portraying is mostly stemming from: is it responsible to advocate moderate-vigorous exercise to the obese as part of a weight-loss plan, or is that setting them up to fail? (It seems clear that exercise as part of a weight-maintenance program tends to be beneficial.)