|
|
|
|
|
|
by bacr
4171 days ago
|
|
|
Those are fair points regarding energy expenditure for specific exercises. However, that doesn't take into account the effects of regular exercise on BMR. That normal exercise can elevate your BMR is certainly plausible, and many people have conducted studies that have reached this conclusion. Metabolism is a complicated thing, and there are conflicting answers on the subject. Results differ under a variety of conditions (human, animal, forced/voluntary, etc.). The abstract in this review summarizes the state of the research nicely: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692598 |
|
|
It is true that they have conducted these studies, it is inaccurate to claim that it any great impact on BMR, and the study you linked (which you can read in full [0]) supports that conclusion. The 48 hour improvement is inconsequential, and there are no improvements beyond that.
Wikipedia summarises it nicely:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#Aerobic_v...
As I said before, exercise is important for a healthy lifestyle (you'll literally live longer), but for weight loss it is much much less important than diet, in particular for people who aren't looking to shed a small amount of weight.
All you're claiming is that for a 30 minute workout you might lose 300 calories instead of 270 calories due to BMR (and that's being generous looking at the study). Which doesn't change the overall point that without diet changes you won't lose significant amount of weight through exercise alone.
[0] PDF: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS...