[stkni]

Absolutely, but without stating the blindingly obvious the calorific content of some foods is so high that exercise can not be the dominant factor of that function.

This article [1] from last week seems to support that view. There was something else on HN on Friday that offered the same opinion but included a lot more studies. Can't find it now, but the message is the same.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/22/obesity-owes-...

[revelation]

That's a bit excessive. I did a ride of 3 hours on the weekend and put 1832kJ worth of energy into the pedals, that translates (at 25% efficiency) to 1750kcal total energy expended.

It's actually pretty difficult to eat back those 1750kcal if you don't go out of your way to stuff your face with sweets.

The point most people (and certainly the press) misses with the "exercise doesn't work!11" meme is that of course it will never work if you simply see it as some kind of tool for weight loss or necessary evil. You are just going to stop the moment you have your "goal weight". The point is to turn the exercise (rather, find a sport) into a habit, a hobby.

[stkni]

>> It's actually pretty difficult to eat back those 1750kcal if you don't go out of your way to stuff your face with sweets.

Disagree. Over the course of a week it only means over eating 250kcal per day. What's that an extra muffin? Seems entirely plausible to me. Of course if you're expending 1750kcal additional kcal a day on cycling then THAT's a bit excessive, IMHO.