[thornjm]

There is some evidence that "aerobic exercise" itself produces an equivalent baseline energy deficit without the performance downside.

This guy[0] studies total average energy expenditure over time and demonstrates that an athlete undertaking intense regular exercise uses marginally more energy over time than someone sitting on a couch all day. The hypothesis being that the athlete is conserving energy by down-regulating baseline metabolic and inflammatory processes when at rest.

Disappointing news for "exercise causes dramatic weight loss" but encouraging news for "exercise is anti-cancer" (a correlation demonstrated many times I believe).

[0] https://www.science.org/content/article/scientist-busts-myth...

[ehnto]

I have seen this study before, but I can't see how this gentleman's work disproves the huge body of health and fitness research that comes before it. It's an interesting outcome for sure, but the idea that it suggests exercise is a bad weight loss tool doesn't seem to reflect reality. The long term outcome of exercise is a changed body composition, which itself can contribute to changing metabolic rates.

I think it points to an interesting insight, something we have yet to uncover perhaps, but I don't think it disproves that exercise spends energy. Maybe all it's really proving is that we are very efficient at the chosen type of exercise in the study.

[ck2]

Exercise causes weight loss only in that as you want to get more fit you start watching what you eat, quality and quantity, more carefully.

As a lifelong runner I know I only burn 80 calories or less per mile, that's nothing.

However exercise does things that no supplement or drug can do, proper AMPK and cAMP activation, endorphin and endocannabinoid release.