"Your low resting heart rate may be related to a slow basal metabolic rate - one normally only sees 45 bpm in dedicated athletes" I did consider this. However

"Your low resting heart rate may be related to a slow basal metabolic rate - one normally only sees 45 bpm in dedicated athletes" I did consider this. However if I stop exercising, my RHR increases up to about 60 within a month or so. Indeed my exercise HRmax is around 230, which is, as I understand, on the high side. I'm guessing it is still related in some way though because clearly I'm not an athlete. Additionally I have a low respiration rate and sleep a fair amount. My doctor has done a few blood tests and such - and as far as he's concerned, I'm metabolically completely normal with no diabetes or hormonal issues - but on the low side. For example, my thyroid hormone levels are quite low, but still just within the normal range. The doctor suggested that some people's weight issues don't respond all that well to exercise in his experience. He said research in the area was weak, but said it may be due to higher levels of fitness combined with favourable body mechanics in some meaning total energy consumption from exercise didn't amount to much. I come from an extremely athletic family, so it's possible that might have some truth. So for me, perhaps, the adage that you can't outrun a bad diet is even more truthful. "daily deficit no greater than 200 Cal" To do this (on paper), I'd have to eat a lot more than I'm able to, or cut down exercise. What I might do is try and get booked in for one of those metabolic studies after Covid, to actually accurately calculate my cycling/walking/resting energy consumption. That way I should be able to accurately calculate what exactly a 200kcal deficit really is for me. Thermodynamically, I must not be at a calorie deficit or else I'd lose weight. I'm just not exactly sure where my calculations could be so wrong. > Getting a job in which I stand for nine hours per day (with mild upper body exercise) I would love this. On holidays and such, I spend at least 10hrs a day active, and I feel a ton better. Back pain disappears, etc. Unfortunately not too easy with programming. I tried a standing desk and found it didn't really work for me. Might try a treadmill desk, but I can totally see myself getting a head injury from that! " I'd also note that cycling seems to be ~ 20x lower energy cost per mile than walking. You'd be better off driving to work and adding a mile to your daily walk in the time saved." Definitely true per mile, but per hour, cycling should be more energy intensive than walking (but less than running). Certainly I spend longer with my heart rate above 180 when cycling, and feel more exhausted after. Metabolic study is the only way to confirm it for me though. It's sort of irrelevant anyway because bicycle is the quickest way to get to work for me and I don't own a car.