The Paradox of Exercise
sofrances
Posts: 156 Member
Has anyone read the article The Exercise Paradox?
It details a study of the Hadza people, who have a very active hunter-gatherer lifestyle (18000+ steps), but were found to use an average of 2400 calories. The researchers hypothesised that this means that, long term, exercise doesn't so much increase energy expenditure as change what they body spends the energy on. This may be why its so good for you - because it diverts energy away from harmful things like inflammatory processes etc.
I take this to mean that, long term, once your body has got used to higher level of exercise, you might not actually be able to eat back your exercise calories.
What do people think? Does this accord with your experiences of eating exercise calories etc.?
It details a study of the Hadza people, who have a very active hunter-gatherer lifestyle (18000+ steps), but were found to use an average of 2400 calories. The researchers hypothesised that this means that, long term, exercise doesn't so much increase energy expenditure as change what they body spends the energy on. This may be why its so good for you - because it diverts energy away from harmful things like inflammatory processes etc.
I take this to mean that, long term, once your body has got used to higher level of exercise, you might not actually be able to eat back your exercise calories.
What do people think? Does this accord with your experiences of eating exercise calories etc.?
0
Replies
-
Unfortunately, the link is behind a paywall so I can't read what he says and what conclusions he is drawing...
I will say this, however. If he is trying to say that the Hadza are a representative sample of homo sapiens, then any conclusion he is trying to extrapolate to the rest of us is kind of silly. The Hadza are a completely separate sub-group/culture that has been living the hunter-gatherer life for thousands of years without intermingling with the rest of the world, so it would not be unheard of for them to have special adaptations to their specific lifestyle - such as conservation of energy and more efficient energy use adaptations. There are many sub-cultures across the planet that have adapted in such ways that are very specific to their lifestyles and situations (adaptations that have taken thousands of years to develop) - adaptations that do not extend to the rest of us 'normals'.7 -
Just FYI, the full article can be found fairly easily. However, I thought it best to post the official link here.0
-
"I take this to mean that, long term, once your body has got used to higher level of exercise, you might not actually be able to eat back your exercise calories."
Sorry but that's illogical. To move takes energy, that energy comes ultimately from your food.
The 200+ watts of power I'm generating doesn't come out of thin air.
Remember this from your school physics lessons?
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Yes there can be some minor efficiency gains and variations between individuals.
As an average sized 60 YO man I'm eating far more to maintain my weight than most of my demographic purely because I exercise a lot. My calorie goal for maintenance today is 3,721 and that's far from exceptional for me.
Your body predominately "gets used to a higher level of exercise" by getting fitter, faster and stronger. What felt hard now feels easy but because your capabilities have gone up, not because it takes less energy. I can burn roughly one third more calories in a given time than I could previously or I can produce the same amount of power/burn the same number of calories as my previous best and it now feels comfortable.
"What do people think? Does this accord with your experiences of eating exercise calories etc.?"
I ate them back when I was losing weight and continue to eat them back after 7 years of weight maintenance.
I maintain weight while eating my 100,000+ annual cycling calories (plus gym calories).
I'm somewhat privileged in that my exercise estimates from cycling are easy to ge accurate numbers - but there seems a large tendency for people to blame their exercise calorie inaccuracy for their sums appearing not to add up when frequently the far bigger problem is that people often are pretty poor at estimating their food intake.
12 -
It does certainly seem paradoxical, if not strictly illogical. I'm not in a position to argue with the science though (although for all I know there are other scientists who have).
I mean, its not strictly contrary to the law of thermodynamics. The hypothesis is that one form of "energy out" (exercise) reduces another sort of "energy out" (resting energy expenditure).0 -
It does certainly seem paradoxical, if not strictly illogical. I'm not in a position to argue with the science though (although for all I know there are other scientists who have).
I mean, its not strictly contrary to the law of thermodynamics. The hypothesis is that one form of "energy out" (exercise) reduces another sort of "energy out" (resting energy expenditure).
Is that his hypothesis?
Just based on the Hazda lifetyle? That would seem to be a huge assumption and a projection to completely different lifestyles seems very unwise. Hunter gatherers are hardly comparable in their available downtime choices compared to other cultures.
Personally being fit increases my non-exercise energy expenditure too, being unfit makes me lazier.
My activity setting on here has always been higher than most would expect both when I had a desk job and also now I'm retired.9 -
I've been running and eating back the calories since 2015. I will note that, based on my observation of results, my body has not yet found a way to produce energy from nothing to fuel my runs, so if it's going to happen I guess it will take longer than five years.9
-
I'll admit to not having read the full article, only diagonally.
I think this is the basis of the article though:
"data from 98 studies around the globe and showed that populations coddled by the modern conveniences of the developed world have similar energy expenditures to those in less developed countries, with more physically demanding lives."
And how that difference could be explained:
"How does the body adjust to higher activity levels to keep daily energy expenditure in check? [...] we know, for example, that Hadza adults burn the same number of calories to walk a mile as Westerners do. It could be that people with high activity levels change their behavior in subtle ways that save energy, like sitting rather than standing or sleeping more soundly. But our analysis of the METS data suggests that although these behavioral changes might con-tribute, they are not sufficient to account for the constancy seen in daily energy expenditure."
My issue is: the article talks about comparisons in calorie expenditure between populations.
But then jumps to ideas about indivual health and metabolism, such as:
"In fact, I suspect that metabolic adaptation to activity is one of the reasons exercise keeps us healthy, diverting energy away from activities, such as inflammation, that have negative consequences if they go on too long. For example, chronic inflammation has been linked to cardiovascular disease and autoimmune disorders."
To conclude that our bodies burn less calories (base metabolism) as we get used to exercising/being active - on an individual level - requires metabolic testing of individual subjects being a certain level of active after having been long-term sedentary and after having been that active for a long time, to compare base metabolism.
But by comparing two populations, another (more logical, in my mind) conclusion would be that the Hadza have evolved as a people to 'waste' less calories on basic metabolism etc. since they need a lot of calories for their daily activities.9 -
It does certainly seem paradoxical, if not strictly illogical. I'm not in a position to argue with the science though (although for all I know there are other scientists who have).
I mean, its not strictly contrary to the law of thermodynamics. The hypothesis is that one form of "energy out" (exercise) reduces another sort of "energy out" (resting energy expenditure).
One study does not suddenly become "the science". For it to be accepted scientific fact the results need to be replicated multiple times.
Based on your posts, you seem prone to over-analysis.8 -
It does certainly seem paradoxical, if not strictly illogical. I'm not in a position to argue with the science though (although for all I know there are other scientists who have).
I mean, its not strictly contrary to the law of thermodynamics. The hypothesis is that one form of "energy out" (exercise) reduces another sort of "energy out" (resting energy expenditure).
One study does not suddenly become "the science". For it to be accepted scientific fact the results need to be replicated multiple times.
Based on your posts, you seem prone to over-analysis.
At most, what one study like this could show us is that there is something potentially interesting to look at here. Even if the results are 100% correctly observed, there are many ways this could go besides "people who exercise at high levels will stop needing calories for the increased activity."
2 -
What does it matter? You (you, personally, sofrances) can eat what you can eat.
You're not going to change your biology, genetics. I eat a full 500 calories above what any of the calculators say I should be able to eat. It is what it is. If that number was 1900, or 3000, what would it matter? I made my food choices fit my needs.9 -
I remember reading an article quite a while ago about people in some African tribes walking long distances with heavy loads in such a way that they preserve energy. I think it was something about using the momentum of the movement and the additional weight somehow.
I also read a/this? study just now showing that the average male of this tribe is just about 50kg. Now the paper doesn't mention how tall they are, but the average BMI is very much on the lower end, also for women. This suggests very low body fat and low muscle mass, hence less mass to be moved around and to be nourished. This might play a role as well.3 -
One study does not suddenly become "the science". For it to be accepted scientific fact the results need to be replicated multiple times.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, I wasn't saying "The Science" in capitals, I just meant "I'm not in a position to argue with the scientific argument of this article".Based on your posts, you seem prone to over-analysis.
Oh, I'd be the first to admit that.4 -
Has anyone read the article The Exercise Paradox?
It details a study of the Hadza people, who have a very active hunter-gatherer lifestyle (18000+ steps), but were found to use an average of 2400 calories. The researchers hypothesised that this means that, long term, exercise doesn't so much increase energy expenditure as change what they body spends the energy on. This may be why its so good for you - because it diverts energy away from harmful things like inflammatory processes etc.
..
At what height/weight are they maintaining? 2400 isn't necessarily less versus one of us active people. That would amount to ~1000 exercise calories for me at estimated maintenance at my slightly higher than ideal weight. That would be ~30 miles of hard cycling/day in my case.2 -
...
I also read a/this? study just now showing that the average male of this tribe is just about 50kg. Now the paper doesn't mention how tall they are, but the average BMI is very much on the lower end, also for women. This suggests very low body fat and low muscle mass, hence less mass to be moved around and to be nourished. This might play a role as well.
...
..So pretty close to my weight as a 4'10" female. Their BMR & NEAT/exercise-generated calories would be on the lower side versus that of most of the people here.2 -
I remember reading an article quite a while ago about people in some African tribes walking long distances with heavy loads in such a way that they preserve energy. I think it was something about using the momentum of the movement and the additional weight somehow.
I also read a/this? study just now showing that the average male of this tribe is just about 50kg. Now the paper doesn't mention how tall they are, but the average BMI is very much on the lower end, also for women. This suggests very low body fat and low muscle mass, hence less mass to be moved around and to be nourished. This might play a role as well.
That was one of the first thoughts I had myself when reading the article (aside from my other comments already posted)
But in the article there is a graph showing calorie burn in relation to lean mass, for both Hadza and Westerners, and in the explanation:
“To account for differences in energy expenditure arising from body size, Western averages are calculated at Hadza body sizes"
Not sure what they mean by size though: height or weight?1 -
I remember reading an article quite a while ago about people in some African tribes walking long distances with heavy loads in such a way that they preserve energy. I think it was something about using the momentum of the movement and the additional weight somehow.
I also read a/this? study just now showing that the average male of this tribe is just about 50kg. Now the paper doesn't mention how tall they are, but the average BMI is very much on the lower end, also for women. This suggests very low body fat and low muscle mass, hence less mass to be moved around and to be nourished. This might play a role as well.
That was one of the first thoughts I had myself when reading the article (aside from my other comments already posted)
But in the article there is a graph showing calorie burn in relation to lean mass, for both Hadza and Westerners, and in the explanation:
“To account for differences in energy expenditure arising from body size, Western averages are calculated at Hadza body sizes"
Not sure what they mean by size though: height or weight?
Yeah, and I still don't know if I looked at the same study, as surprise: I can't find it anymore and the one linked above is being a paywall. I do have quite a few questions as well.0 -
For those not inclined to Google the article mentioned in the OP
here's a non paying version:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://exss.unc.edu/files/2018/09/Exercise-paradox-Pontzer-2017.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj_mNCymKLpAhUOyqQKHWXRC8cQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2F3rutNL1eZdpNNS_zHL3O1 -
Has anyone read the article The Exercise Paradox?
It details a study of the Hadza people, who have a very active hunter-gatherer lifestyle (18000+ steps), but were found to use an average of 2400 calories.
Let's break down what 18,00 steps means in terms of calories (assuming reasonably level terrain) it would be something less than 10 miles a day and if you use the .30 x weight in lbs x distance in miles formula for net energy expenditure 10 miles represents 600 cal daily for a 200lb person so a 2,400 cal/day expenditure is not surprising.... FWIW I used a TDEE calculator based on my goal weight of 175 lbs and current exercise levels and my projected TDEE was around 2,400 cals.
2 -
Sorry to be that person, but as someone who works in academia I would not trust a study with only 3 references. There is also no clear and justifiable methodology so replicability of this study would be near impossible under the proper standards, thus deeply impacting the reliability and validity of any "findings". Pseudoscience one would suggest.9
-
Took a while to find it back: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405064/
this is what I read earlier today. There's more data there, some statistical analysis (didn't check that one), and also more questions that I have0 -
It is interesting how the major metabolically active organs that account for the majority of the BMR in a body - vary between races and people in locales that have been there ages.
Several studies like this. And several studies I've seen reference this difference and account for it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201122
Haven't read this topic's article if they even dug that deep to see if that is a difference.
But also that learned to move less angle. When food is scarce - nice ability to not be wasting it on useless movements.3 -
Speaking only for myself, though it's academically interesting, I fail to see relevance to my n = 1.
If I exercise beyond my current capability**, or fail to fuel my exercise adequately****, I'll get fatigued.
If I get fatigued, it will reduce my calorie expenditure throughout the day, in ways subtle to major.
I might get takeout instead of cooking at home, spending maybe 50 fewer calories on food prep. I may watch TV longer, rather than doing some optional home chores, same kind of caloric issue. I may buy some new t-shirts online, instead of walking around the mall looking at things to buy, or order groceries for pickup rather than wandering through a big-box grocery. I may fidget less (research shows differences between fidgeters and non-fidgeters potentially as much as low hundreds of calories daily). I may go to bed early, sleep being about the lowest-MET activity I could do, lower than that inert TV-watching, even.
So, fatigue is counter-productive.
At my n = 1, experience tells me I can optimize my TDEE by paying attention to daily life activity (NEAT), eating at a reasonable (not excessive) calorie deficit when I want to reduce my weight, and including exercise that's energizing rather than exhausting.
I don't see what difference this research makes to that n = 1.
** Via too-high intensity, insufficient recovery, or excessive duration. Some of those might be worth doing sometimes for reasons of fitness or fun, but with the recognition that doing it regularly can have unhelpful impacts on TDEE, overall life balance, etc.
**** I.e., try to lose weight at a rate that's silly-fast given my current size, health, etc.1 -
Took a while to find it back: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405064/
this is what I read earlier today. There's more data there, some statistical analysis (didn't check that one), and also more questions that I have
This was interesting.
So they used DLW for getting a good TDEE measurement - but for BMR they calculated. Why didn't they measure!
True, based on some better specifics than a Harris or Mifflin BMR calc, but still based on mass population BMR equations.
"Physical activity level (PAL) was calculated as TEE/estimated BMR for each subject following previous studies [13]–[16]. To estimate BMR for Hadza subjects, we entered each subject’s body mass and height into age-specific prediction equations developed in a large sample (n = 10,552) from a geographically broad set of populations that includes populations in sub-Saharan Africa [27]."
And this is where the smaller organ size can slip through the cracks.
I recall one study of tribal background africans where even accounting for LBM being equal, the fact those organs was smaller though muscle was greater % of the LBM, the BMR was lower overall. Since most know the muscles by themselves don't burn that much extra as far as BMR.
So for them the standard BMR calc's was bad failure.
I can picture the opposite of what many families may do with their kids in some countries (well, not right now probably) - "why don't you go outside and play! get out of the house and off the computer/phone/tv"
Whereas in long-time culture of meals being more difficult to come by - "why don't you kids stop playing and come sit down and help prepare food for meal."
Just a picture that comes to mind, not based on any hard data except pictures of meal time and almost everyone helping prepare food.2 -
After a while, I have concluded y'all must be right. My weight loss has been faster than my calorie deficit (before exercise) would suggest, so either the maintenance calorie calculation is way off for me, or exercise must account for it. I have been doing the same exercise schedule for a while, so if there was some sort of adaption period my body must have adapted by now.
Still, its odd that scientists have come to a conclusion that seems to contradict my experience in a way which is difficult to explain. I mean, usually in an argument between me and a scientific expert I would expect me to be the one who is mistaken, but I can't find an obvious way that I could be in this situation.0 -
Has anyone read the article The Exercise Paradox?
It details a study of the Hadza people, who have a very active hunter-gatherer lifestyle (18000+ steps), but were found to use an average of 2400 calories. The researchers hypothesised that this means that, long term, exercise doesn't so much increase energy expenditure as change what they body spends the energy on. This may be why its so good for you - because it diverts energy away from harmful things like inflammatory processes etc.
I take this to mean that, long term, once your body has got used to higher level of exercise, you might not actually be able to eat back your exercise calories.
What do people think? Does this accord with your experiences of eating exercise calories etc.?
Were those calories measured using a metabolic ward, or roughly estimated?
If this is true, after years of running and training, it would mean that running a marathon doesn't burn any calories. How is that possible?
I have almost 6,000 miles on my current bike. I did a loop last night and burned about 1,150 kCal as measured by a power meter - which could be off by as much as 2.5% in either direction. So I'd say no this doesn't accord with my experience at all.4 -
After a while, I have concluded y'all must be right. My weight loss has been faster than my calorie deficit (before exercise) would suggest, so either the maintenance calorie calculation is way off for me, or exercise must account for it. I have been doing the same exercise schedule for a while, so if there was some sort of adaption period my body must have adapted by now.
Still, its odd that scientists have come to a conclusion that seems to contradict my experience in a way which is difficult to explain. I mean, usually in an argument between me and a scientific expert I would expect me to be the one who is mistaken, but I can't find an obvious way that I could be in this situation.
If a scientist is arguing that our bodies can perform activity without using energy, they're going to need excellent data to back up that assertion. They don't get the benefit of being assumed right just because they're an "expert." Everyone needs data to back their claims. The more exceptional the claim, the more documented it needs to be.
What has been presented so far is very far from conclusive.3 -
After a while, I have concluded y'all must be right. My weight loss has been faster than my calorie deficit (before exercise) would suggest, so either the maintenance calorie calculation is way off for me, or exercise must account for it. I have been doing the same exercise schedule for a while, so if there was some sort of adaption period my body must have adapted by now.
Still, its odd that scientists have come to a conclusion that seems to contradict my experience in a way which is difficult to explain. I mean, usually in an argument between me and a scientific expert I would expect me to be the one who is mistaken, but I can't find an obvious way that I could be in this situation.
Ummm . . . can I suggest that it's perhaps that you're misunderstanding what the scientist might be trying to say in this case? (That's not a criticism, this stuff is freakin' complicated!) I'm not a scientist, but I do have a theory - heh - about how to reconcile your experience with the science, without either of you being mistaken.
Science recognizes that individuals vary, and not always for reasons that are identifiable based on current knowledge (known unknowns, maybe even unknown unknowns).
On top of that, they vary for known reasons that are pretty much useless for large populations of people who just want to lose weight in a practical way. (heybales' post up there a few on this thread, about the influence of organ size, is an example).
On top of that, they vary for reasons that are quite well-understood, and potentially more usable, but for which most people lack the relevant data. (An example is muscularity. All other things equal, a person with substantially more muscle mass will burn slightly more calories than a similar-weight/height/age/activity person who has much less muscle mass. Some calorie estimators can use this information to refine (not perfect) their estimates, but most regular people don't have a good estimate of muscle mass (the BIA devices one stands on, or holds, are not very accurate)).
On top of theat, humans' daily life activity levels are extremely variable, because they exist on a continuum. The "calculators" usually ask us to pick from a list of 4-10 activity levels. Real humans don't behave in chunks like that - it's that continuum, really. Individuals can fall kind of between or beyond the 4-10 levels, more or less.
There are lots of other factors that matter a little: Fidgetiness (or its lack), possibly dietary composition (tiny effect), hormone-level effects (example: untreated hypothyroidism), more.
What any calorie "calculator" is doing, in effect, is asking you for a very small number of inputs, then spitting out an average calorie-needs value for the statistically typical person with those same characteristics. It's the best guess to use as a starting point, because it's at least (in effect) a large group average, and in a realm where the variation between individuals (the standard deviation, in statistical terms) is reasonably small.
But it's still a statistical estimate. It will be close for most people (because most people are typical, by definition, right? ), further off (high or low) for a few, and quite far off for a very rare few . . . because that's the nature of statistical estimates.
A little background, that only covers part of this:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
I'm not saying any of the above is the actual, true reason for your observations. As you say, it could be the exercise estimates. As others say, it could be the food estimates. Or you could simply be non-typical, possibly for non-identifiable reasons.
I don't think you're a special case that would confound your imagined scientist, fun though that may be.
And if you are scientist-confounding, I am, too. My calorie needs, based on almost 5 years of careful logging data, are 25-30% above what MFP (and my fitness tracker**) estimate for me. (** A solid, mainstream brand, and a model that many others here report estimates their needs quite accurately.)
I don't know why, specifically (I have some ideas ). But I'm pretty sure I don't live in some strange place outside of Science. :drinker: 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions