The results themselves are not wrong per se. Reaching this conclusion from those results, however, is frankly insulting and should make all authors of the paper

The results themselves are not wrong per se. Reaching this conclusion from those results, however, is frankly insulting and should make all authors of the paper ashamed. > These data indicate that physical inactivity (e.g., sitting ~13.5 hrs/day and <4,000 steps/day) creates a condition whereby people become "resistant" to the metabolic improvements that are typically derived from an acute bout of aerobic exercise (i.e., exercise resistance). Also note that the researchers _immediately_ re-fed the group who participated in the intense exercise: > The additional energy expenditure from the exercise session was estimated via indirect calorimetry. This energy was then replaced with additional caloric intake with the post-exercise dinner (Clif® Builder’s®; ~40%/30%/30% of calories from carbohydrate, fat, and protein, respectively). This is especially bad because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the abstract (I checked the full-text). Shit science.