4 ms·
Good summary, but the difference was only that they would have burned 45% more extra calories from their exercise had they not reduced their other activities. I
by tgb 9y ago
Good summary, but the difference was only that they would have burned 45% more extra calories from their exercise had they not reduced their other activities. If this is the same in humans, then you would just want to multiply your extra calories burned from your workout by about 0.7 to get how much you will have burned net accounting for your less movement throughout the day. That's not that far off from the naive estimate, so I'm not sure that this should really make a difference in our thinking about exercise and diet. (In particular, "extremely minor" seems far too strong a phrase and even "slightly" seems pushing it.)
- dljsjr 9y agoI based that on this quote: >These changes in how they spent their time neatly managed to almost counteract the extra calorie costs from running, says Daniel Lark, a research fellow in molecular physiology at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, who led the new study. And as this is a mouse study I make no comments on how to extrapolate that to humans. If this is behavioral and not biological then it might not translate at all.