I would like to add some more detail to this. Its not actually the exercise that causes weight loss, its the panting and breathing that causes weight loss. You literally breathe out the weight as carbon dioxide.

The most effective way to do this, is Sprint Interval Training.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

From the book'

This is especially true when we look at longer timeframes of several days or weeks. In the case of the Hadza(tribe in Tanzania), when they rest, they really rest. And it’s true for athletes and everyone else who is active too. We can be very active for a period of time, but we claw back that energy debt later. It’s this reduction of energy usage in other ways inside the body that may explain why exercise is associated with improved physical health, even if it doesn’t lead to weight loss.
Pontzer’s model posits that going for a long walk or run results in simply scaling back on routine non-essential bodily processes, reducing the amount of energy spent on your immune, endocrine, reproductive and stress systems. That may sound bad, but a bit of downtime actually seems to help to restore those systems to a healthier level of function. And it makes sense evolutionar-ily: throughout hominid history, there will have been significant periods during which food was scarce. Under the conventional model of calorie burning, that would mean using the most calories when food was least available because you would inevitably work harder to hunt or gather those calories. The fixed energy model means that energy use is consistent even if we do have to walk further to get food. And in a time of scarcity, it makes sense to borrow from – for example – the reproductive system to reduce fertility.
According to Ponzter’s data, we burn around 2,500 calories per day at desk jobs, the same number of calories as if we were walking a long distance. Since we’re not spending that energy on walking, we spend it elsewhere, on things like being stressed. The hypothesis says that office workers will likely have increased levels of adrenaline, cortisol and white blood cells, all of which make us anxious and inflamed. 53 , 54 A sedentary life (of the kind you probably live if you’re reading this – although not necessarily) leads to higher levels of testosterone and oestrogen, which might sound good to some people, but which can increase risks of cancers. By contrast, the Hadza – who do around two hours of moderate and vigorous physical activity every day, many times more than typical people in the UK and the USA – have morning salivary testosterone concentrations that are roughly half those of western populations. 55This is a good thing, and it may explain why exercise is such an important treatment for many chronic conditions
and seems to reduce depression and anxiety. 56

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've read articles about the diet etc of top athletes, they're often consuming 7,000 calories at the peak of their training regime, and clearly not getting fat.

The idea that a sedentary office worker is burning as much energy as an athlete is just nonsense.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is interesting; what is their energy balance over an extended period?

I assume they are not eating 7000 calories for months on end; I realize the idea seems nonsense at first glance; which is why I posited the question, how do you take new information that conflicts with an existing view point?

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I assume they are not eating 7000 calories for months on end

That's exactly what they're doing. Michael Phelps, for example, would eat multiple whole pizzas a day.

For a proposal like this, which contradicts a lot of knowledge I already have about exercise and nutrition, my response would be to reject it unless either multiple sources confirmed it, or the source was extremely credible.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago

Assume the source is very credible; do you actively search for why it contradicts or do you just accept the new view point?
Do you try to find common ground between the new information and the old?

I try to get to the bottom of the difference and see how the new info relates to the old. I'll look for corroborating sources if it still doesn't seem correct / the explanation is not satisfying.