New Research: It may not be as simple as CICO?

OnceAndFutureAthlete

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out. But don't let that depressing fact hold you back from the gym — it's crucial that you still get daily exercise for weight maintenance and overall health." (my emphasis)

Lots of other interesting information tidbits here (including how pregnancy is like competing in the Tour de France, energy-wise!).

So it seems that CICO still applies, but not "simple" in that the CO part may vary over time based on our past activity.

Thoughts?

MsCzar

There's been quite a bit of recent research from reliable sources demonstrating that CICO can be a rather fluid process and vary quite a bit from person to person... or even the for same individual at different time points. So far, my weight loss has been all about finding the calorie/activity level that works well for me.

There are folks here who go into third degree pearl-clutch at the notion of 1200 or fewer daily calories. For me, that's the only number range that shifts my scale; I am never hungry or fatigued while in deficit, but do take deficit breaks every few weeks. For someone else, that's not nearly enough food; the hunger level is intolerable and they might experience negative effects over time. When it comes to CICO, YMMV.

lynn_glenmont

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

kshama2001

I've often seen posters write that when someone is doing too much exercise for them at their current state of fitness, they may compensate for this by cutting back on NEAT.

I know this is true for me when I snowshoe, which takes a lot out of me - I'm likely to be a couch potato afterwards instead of my usual moving around self.

So when I add too much CO one place, I will make up for it by subtracting CO elsewhere. However, when I get my normal everyday moderate exercise, this isn't a factor.

It's still just CICO

AnnPT77

Of course the CO part changes, not just over longer time spans, but dynamically over relatively short amounts of time based on CI - probably within one day, certainly across a couple of days. Their interviewee expert is also, I believe, saying that. It's not startling.

Super-simplistically, at extremely low calorie levels, we are stressed, and our body responds with what amounts to fatigue (may be perceptible, but not necessarily). With excessive stress/fatigue, bodily processes down-regulate. We burn fewer calories than might be estimated by so-called calorie calculator - fewer calories than we would've burned eating at a somewhat higher calorie level. It's a useful adaptation, in a "scope of human history" context.

The most obvious explicit case is that if I do too much, having eaten too little, I get fatigued, non-energetic, and do less. It's common sense, at that level. (It's not always that explicit.)

Personally, I consider the Hadza comparison studies a little bit of a red herring, when it comes to n=1. It's apparently true on average that societies appear to trend toward a certain calorie expenditure level, regardless of lifestyle. At an individual level, elite athletes burn dramatically more calories than those averages; and highly active normal developed-world people burn appreciably more than otherwise similar highly inactive developed-world people.

Population averages are interesting, but you nor I are likely to be population-average, exactly. And anyone saying that we have zero (or super limited) control over our calorie expenditure because of studies like that is reasoning poorly, IMO.

Averages are averages. Individuals' n=1 is distributed around those averages; typically most are closer to average, but a few are quite far away, potentially in either direction. That's inherent in how statistics work, in any complex case.

On the flip side, at an unusual super high calorie intake, our bodies can spend some of them amazingly quickly, even without our consciously being more active. (I'm not going to link a video here, but look up Stephanie Buttermore's 10,000 calorie challenge and aftermath (2 videos, make sure you get hers, not someone else's recaps/recreations), where some of the short-term dynamic aspects are examined in detail (via lab tests), with implications for explaining unusual effects of either excess or insufficiency.)

Clarity of terms is important here: CICO is the calorie balance equation. Calorie counting is the weight management method that most closely seeks to exploit CICO directly.

CICO is physics: Burn more calories than you consume, and the difference has to be made up somehow. You can't make energy out of nothing.

Calorie counting is much more fraught: If I have an unusual digestive system (physically or microbiome) I may absorb fewer calories from the food I eat than someone else would, eating exactly the same way. Calories that exit the body as waste are not "calories in" for CICO equation purposes. (I can't absorb more calories than are in the food in the first place, though.) Some foods reportedly resist yielding up their calories during digestion more than others do (some types of nuts are an example). Some foods may "cost" more calories in the digestion process in ways that aren't accounted for in raw calorie counts, so have fewer net calories than gross calories.

On the flip side, it's not the case that everyone the same age/weight/height/job/chores burns the same number of calories. The so-called calculators spit out an estimated average for a similar population, not a strict truth for any one individual. My body composition (muscularity vs. fatness) affects how many calories I'd burn in a coma. Maybe my genes or gene expression have an effect. Fidgetiness vs. non-fidgetiness for sure has an effect. Maybe microbiome has an effect. Maybe exercise or fitness levels affect resting calorie burn in some way not accounted for by body composition. Maybe past dieting history has an effect. Food choices may have an effect. Nutritional adequacy may have an effect. I could go on and on, and I'm not just making up questions: Those are things about which one can find studies that suggest there's some effect going on there (not necessarily a large-magnitude one).

It's all estimates. The calories in foods are estimates, the number of calories we need are estimates, and lots of the variables can influence each other dynamically.

On top of all of that, calorie intake, nutrient levels, and calorie expenditure (exercise and other) influence mood, appetite, cravings, many types of hormone levels, and more. Some of those can affect calorie-goal compliance, but I'd also bet some of them affect energy output and absorption, too.

It's super complicated, if one looks closely enough.

Thing is, as a practical matter, most people don't need to be derailed by those complexities. Close enough is good enough. Experience gives feedback on estimates, allows one to adjust to find a workable spot within that individual's typical range of estimating error and individual physiological quirks. Many of the effects mentioned above are relatively small, for most of us: Not worth worrying about, in an arithmetic-magnitude sense.

Are there some statistical-outlier people who could be derailed? If we include people with certain health conditions, and a range of thresholds for "derailed", sure. (For example, there are cycling thyroid conditions where an individual shifts unpredictably from hypo to hyper repeatedly. Calorie counting would be quite a challenge, even if the range of variation is only a few percentage points.)

Calorie counting isn't the best method for every single person who wants to manage body weight. But it can work for a lot of people.

CICO (the calorie balance equation) applies to everyone. It's the estimating of CI and CO - required for calorie counting - that can present challenges.

Speakeasy76

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

I think Olympic athletes are statistical anomalies really, in a lot of ways. Most have been training intensely since they were young and would have a higher BMR then most humans on any given day. Also, I think the 8000-10000 calories/day is when they're training super-intensely for something like the Olympics (like the article described when comparing Tour de France and pregnant women). Because they don't train that intensely all the time and it changes depending on what's going on, their metabolism doesn't adapt to that "narrow range." My guess is that they may actually be eating in a surplus, too, to build more muscle for the Olympics (still a crazy amount, though!).

AnnPT77

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

I think Olympic athletes are statistical anomalies really, in a lot of ways. Most have been training intensely since they were young, so may guess is that their bodies eventually adapted to this high level of activity/CO. This is the reverse trend of what happens when someone eats very little for a long period of time.

The adaptation is fitness, and a high activity level: No need to reach much further for an arcane explanation.

I've been close to a successful collegiate (NCAA Div I) women's sports team, in a short endurance sport (rowing), knowing a number of the athletes personally.

Rowing is weird, sometimes varsity rowers are women who didn't do any sport at all in high school (though more commonly women who did a different sport(s), not necessarily always true endurance sports).

All of them on the team need to eat lots, pretty much from the start. Some of them lose weight so precipitously that they have to consume special calorie-intense shakes on top of whatever normal (high) eating they can tolerate. They're slim (being materially overweight is not helpful to boat speed), though not necessarily extremely thin. Eventually (after perhaps the novice year) they're muscular.

I've been at alumni reunion events, including some for people who rowed not that long before - within 5 years, say. Quite a large fraction of them have become overweight, some quite overweight. They were used to eating lot, moving lots; they kept eating relatively high amounts, materially reduced their activity level.

The results, overall, are about what you'd expect IMO if they were "metabolically normal".

Fitness and a high activity level are adaptations that are available to quite a range of people, including people who aren't and never will be elite athletes. 🤷‍♀️

Requires patience, persistence, and some time investment. I know several recreational athletes with a history of being overweight, who now eat quite high on the calorie scale for their demographic but are slim, because of high current activity. It's still just about calorie balance.

lynn_glenmont

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

I think Olympic athletes are statistical anomalies really, in a lot of ways. Most have been training intensely since they were young and would have a higher BMR then most humans on any given day. Also, I think the 8000-10000 calories/day is when they're training super-intensely for something like the Olympics (like the article described when comparing Tour de France and pregnant women). Because they don't train that intensely all the time and it changes depending on what's going on, their metabolism doesn't adapt to that "narrow range." My guess is that they may actually be eating in a surplus, too, to build more muscle for the Olympics (still a crazy amount, though!).

So basically anything that would show that the premise in your quote in the OP about the daily burn staying in a narrow range will just be declared an anomaly and not have to be accounted for.

I am not an Olympic trained athlete, but I lose weight at a predictable rate when I tip my CICO into a deficit either by increasing CO or decreasing CI or some combination thereof. I have never biked in the Tour de France and am not pregnant. What anomaly category do I fall into?

lynn_glenmont

From the underlying study, not the news article interpreting it:

It remains unclear, however, how the growing evidence for metabolic adaptation and metabolic constraint can be reconciled with accelerometry studies showing a positive correlation between physical activity and total energy expenditure [4]. Missing from these comparisons is an ecological study of total energy expenditure and physical activity collected simultaneously within a large, diverse sample, needed to characterize the relationship between variation in habitual levels of physical activity and total energy expenditure among individuals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803033/

In other words, they took "snapshot" data from a bunch of individuals and plotted them and decided that proved there was a "narrow range" of the number of calories a person will burn in a day. BTW, the "narrow range" seems to run from about 1500 kcals to 3500 kcal/day.

lynn_glenmont

Also, in the NPR interview with the author who is trying to popularize this "narrow range" daily calorie burn admits there are people like Tour de France riders who are burning 7000 calories a day. Is 7000 calories within that narrow range? Until someday quantifies what they mean by "narrow range," it feels like trying to have a discussion with a moving goal post -- both in the "moving" sense and the "post" sense.

amusedmonkey

I don't think it's as dramatic as that. Yes, certain adaptations could take place for all kinds of reasons (especially when someone is pushing a high deficit), but I don't think the "narrow range" theory is correct. This has not been my own experience counting calories for years now. I have always been able to eat way more without gaining when I had periods of increased activity.

A research was published a few months ago about under-reporting food intake in overweight and previously overweight (maintainers) people, and they found that previously overweight people also under-report food intake, but the reason why they're able to maintain successfully despite under-reporting is that they're generally more active than both overweight and normal weight people. Granted, the sample is a bit small, but enough to notice a trend. Most people are able to eat more when they're more active, and that still applies after a long time of maintaining a higher activity level (mantainers averaged 4.5 years of weight maintenance).

Previously overweight people were eating significantly more, on average, than normal weight people and they were significantly more active. If the "narrow range" theory was true, they would have needed to eat less at that increased activity level.

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/114/1/257/6179024

sijomial

Strawman - "It may not be as simple as CICO?"
Yes, human bodies and behaviours are very complicated but the process of weight loss can be simplified right down to calorie balance. If "it" is losing weight that's simple, if "it" is all the various physiological function going on then that's complex but complexity is optional to get results.

Clickbait - "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
Didn't know crash dieting was compulsory? Studying an unusual anomaly group and then projecting to the mainstream is fraught with problems. And of course exclude other anomaly groups (like very high exercisers) because they don't fit the narrative. Seems like someone is trying to support a theory.

"Surprisingly Narrow Range" - vague, surprising to who, what is the range?

"Metabolism" - seems to be used in a very loose way. Someone’s basal or resting metabolism is just one part of total needs

"the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range" - Nonsense. Even if you exclude high volume exercisers (who aren't just the elite few) that's saying people working very active jobs such as construction are in the same unquantified narrow range as sedentary people. When a new study contradicts a huge volume of existing studies that put a range of BMR multipliers from 1.1 to 1.9 sorry but I’m going to be sceptical.

Personal example - my estimated BMR is 1562.
X 1.1 gives a TDEE of 1718
X 1.9 gives a TDEE of 2968
That isn't my idea of a narrow range and I'm actually mostly eating in the range of 3,000 - 4,000 cals with outlier days from 2,500 - 5,000cals.

wilson10102018

I don't know if this reflects only the desire for eyeballs with clickbait or a manifestation of the power of denial or both.

But, keeping the bag of water at 98.6 degrees and replacing about 96 million cells per minute is about all that is necessary to make dietary driven CICO the rule for measuring weigh loss. Persons who rely on exercise for weight loss usually experience a lot of frustration because it takes so much exercise to burn off even a donut. And, of course, it makes them terribly hungry, just as nature intended. And, of course, crash dieting is just stupid, but everyone knows that whether they admit it or not. Its main benefit is the temporary release of guilt and shame and the warm glow of self-righteousness until the pounds load back up.

Speakeasy76

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

I think Olympic athletes are statistical anomalies really, in a lot of ways. Most have been training intensely since they were young and would have a higher BMR then most humans on any given day. Also, I think the 8000-10000 calories/day is when they're training super-intensely for something like the Olympics (like the article described when comparing Tour de France and pregnant women). Because they don't train that intensely all the time and it changes depending on what's going on, their metabolism doesn't adapt to that "narrow range." My guess is that they may actually be eating in a surplus, too, to build more muscle for the Olympics (still a crazy amount, though!).

So basically anything that would show that the premise in your quote in the OP about the daily burn staying in a narrow range will just be declared an anomaly and not have to be accounted for.

I am not an Olympic trained athlete, but I lose weight at a predictable rate when I tip my CICO into a deficit either by increasing CO or decreasing CI or some combination thereof. I have never biked in the Tour de France and am not pregnant. What anomaly category do I fall into?

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

I think Olympic athletes are statistical anomalies really, in a lot of ways. Most have been training intensely since they were young and would have a higher BMR then most humans on any given day. Also, I think the 8000-10000 calories/day is when they're training super-intensely for something like the Olympics (like the article described when comparing Tour de France and pregnant women). Because they don't train that intensely all the time and it changes depending on what's going on, their metabolism doesn't adapt to that "narrow range." My guess is that they may actually be eating in a surplus, too, to build more muscle for the Olympics (still a crazy amount, though!).

So basically anything that would show that the premise in your quote in the OP about the daily burn staying in a narrow range will just be declared an anomaly and not have to be accounted for.

I am not an Olympic trained athlete, but I lose weight at a predictable rate when I tip my CICO into a deficit either by increasing CO or decreasing CI or some combination thereof. I have never biked in the Tour de France and am not pregnant. What anomaly category do I fall into?

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

I think Olympic athletes are statistical anomalies really, in a lot of ways. Most have been training intensely since they were young and would have a higher BMR then most humans on any given day. Also, I think the 8000-10000 calories/day is when they're training super-intensely for something like the Olympics (like the article described when comparing Tour de France and pregnant women). Because they don't train that intensely all the time and it changes depending on what's going on, their metabolism doesn't adapt to that "narrow range." My guess is that they may actually be eating in a surplus, too, to build more muscle for the Olympics (still a crazy amount, though!).

So basically anything that would show that the premise in your quote in the OP about the daily burn staying in a narrow range will just be declared an anomaly and not have to be accounted for.

I am not an Olympic trained athlete, but I lose weight at a predictable rate when I tip my CICO into a deficit either by increasing CO or decreasing CI or some combination thereof. I have never biked in the Tour de France and am not pregnant. What anomaly category do I fall into?

I simply responded to your question based on my opinion and from the information that I gleaned from reading the article, so I don't see the reason for the snark in your reply to me. I also gave some other reasons beyond statistical anomaly for why they may burn rate at at a much higher rate when they increase their level of exercise, or did you just find the thing you wanted to argue with me about? Did you read the article entirely before responding to my post, where it admits there are people who burn at a a much higher rate during certain times?

wilson10102018

Since only about 20% of calorie burn is the consequence of all movement and exercise, and movement is pretty stable for each person and exercise is a few minutes per day, the numbers start getting really small and the article, really silly.

People get up, make breakfast, go to work, visit the loo, make the dinner and the bed and have sex pretty much independent of the 20 minutes or so they raise their activity level to run around the block or pedal to the tunes. So if only 50% of movement calorie burn is for every day activities and all of the rest of exercise, and all movement is 20% of calorie burn, then all exercise is at 10% of calories. For me, that is 174 calories to work with. If adaptation changes the burn by 15% which is probably high we are quibbling about 35 calories.

But wait, there's more. If someone burns 1000 calories running (about two hours of running) and we have adaptation of 15%, oh my gosh they only burned 850 calories. The difference being about one-third of a Crispy Kreme.

Speakeasy76

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

I think Olympic athletes are statistical anomalies really, in a lot of ways. Most have been training intensely since they were young, so may guess is that their bodies eventually adapted to this high level of activity/CO. This is the reverse trend of what happens when someone eats very little for a long period of time.

The adaptation is fitness, and a high activity level: No need to reach much further for an arcane explanation.

I've been close to a successful collegiate (NCAA Div I) women's sports team, in a short endurance sport (rowing), knowing a number of the athletes personally.

Rowing is weird, sometimes varsity rowers are women who didn't do any sport at all in high school (though more commonly women who did a different sport(s), not necessarily always true endurance sports).

All of them on the team need to eat lots, pretty much from the start. Some of them lose weight so precipitously that they have to consume special calorie-intense shakes on top of whatever normal (high) eating they can tolerate. They're slim (being materially overweight is not helpful to boat speed), though not necessarily extremely thin. Eventually (after perhaps the novice year) they're muscular.

I've been at alumni reunion events, including some for people who rowed not that long before - within 5 years, say. Quite a large fraction of them have become overweight, some quite overweight. They were used to eating lot, moving lots; they kept eating relatively high amounts, materially reduced their activity level.

The results, overall, are about what you'd expect IMO if they were "metabolically normal".

Fitness and a high activity level are adaptations that are available to quite a range of people, including people who aren't and never will be elite athletes. 🤷‍♀️

Requires patience, persistence, and some time investment. I know several recreational athletes with a history of being overweight, who now eat quite high on the calorie scale for their demographic but are slim, because of high current activity. It's still just about calorie balance.

Thank you for always responding in a way that is thoughtful and respectful, even if you don't agree and even if what the poster says is kind of "out there!"

In regards to Olympic-level athletes and not really related to this post, I believe that most of them (especially in the more high-profile, commonly-played-by-kids-kind), it takes some level of "natural" talent, body shape conducive to specific sports, natural muscle tone and propensity to gain muscle, but I definitely don't think that's all of it. I also think grit and other innate psychological characteristics (like perseverance) are part of it too. I think it's a combination of both, and those that rely on natural talent don't fare nearly as well as others who don't have as much of it but work hard. I still bristle at the mantra told to kids "You can be ANYTHING you want to be!" and not I am actually quite realistic with my own kids (for better or worse). If there aren't already studies out there about it, it would be interested in finding out what are the underlying unifying characteristics of Olympic athletes. I do think "natural talent" may be lower on the list than expected, but things like grit and perseverance are much higher.

AnnPT77

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

I think Olympic athletes are statistical anomalies really, in a lot of ways. Most have been training intensely since they were young, so may guess is that their bodies eventually adapted to this high level of activity/CO. This is the reverse trend of what happens when someone eats very little for a long period of time.

The adaptation is fitness, and a high activity level: No need to reach much further for an arcane explanation.

I've been close to a successful collegiate (NCAA Div I) women's sports team, in a short endurance sport (rowing), knowing a number of the athletes personally.

Rowing is weird, sometimes varsity rowers are women who didn't do any sport at all in high school (though more commonly women who did a different sport(s), not necessarily always true endurance sports).

All of them on the team need to eat lots, pretty much from the start. Some of them lose weight so precipitously that they have to consume special calorie-intense shakes on top of whatever normal (high) eating they can tolerate. They're slim (being materially overweight is not helpful to boat speed), though not necessarily extremely thin. Eventually (after perhaps the novice year) they're muscular.

I've been at alumni reunion events, including some for people who rowed not that long before - within 5 years, say. Quite a large fraction of them have become overweight, some quite overweight. They were used to eating lot, moving lots; they kept eating relatively high amounts, materially reduced their activity level.

The results, overall, are about what you'd expect IMO if they were "metabolically normal".

Fitness and a high activity level are adaptations that are available to quite a range of people, including people who aren't and never will be elite athletes. 🤷‍♀️

Requires patience, persistence, and some time investment. I know several recreational athletes with a history of being overweight, who now eat quite high on the calorie scale for their demographic but are slim, because of high current activity. It's still just about calorie balance.

Thank you for always responding in a way that is thoughtful and respectful, even if you don't agree and even if what the poster says is kind of "out there!"

In regards to Olympic-level athletes and not really related to this post, I believe that most of them (especially in the more high-profile, commonly-played-by-kids-kind), it takes some level of "natural" talent, body shape conducive to specific sports, natural muscle tone and propensity to gain muscle, but I definitely don't think that's all of it. I also think grit and other innate psychological characteristics (like perseverance) are part of it too. I think it's a combination of both, and those that rely on natural talent don't fare nearly as well as others who don't have as much of it but work hard. I still bristle at the mantra told to kids "You can be ANYTHING you want to be!" and not I am actually quite realistic with my own kids (for better or worse). If there aren't already studies out there about it, it would be interested in finding out what are the underlying unifying characteristics of Olympic athletes. I do think "natural talent" may be lower on the list than expected, but things like grit and perseverance are much higher.

For elite (anything), I think it usually takes both parts, some natural ability/inclination, plus some character attributes that lead the person to long and persistent practice and self-honing. There's probably also some luck in there.

For athletes specifically, in some sports, genetics are an almost unavoidable factor: In my sport, rowing, elites are tall people, mostly *really* tall, with a few outliers that are only medium-tall, but quite rarely. (Open class tend to be taller than lightweights, for obvious reasons.) In more popular sports, think about basketball: There's the occasional short high-level player, but it's quite exceptional.

This isn't just about natural talent inherent in body shape, there are also biases (that amount to luck or not, for the individual). One year, for example, the university rowing team I'm familiar with had a huge response from walk-ons wanting to join the team. They arbitrarily set a 5'10" height cut-off (that year only) just to narrow the pool to be further tried/tested. That, even though in other years some of their top rowers were only middling-height (5'7"-8", say). Rowing coxswains are all pretty tiny, usually right around 110 pounds (which is minimum weight, or the boat must add sandbags), because they don't row, they steer & run the race plans, so they're dead weight in the boat. Big people don't become elite coxswains, but not because they wouldn't/couldn't be excellent ones.

Coincidentally, I know 3 women who've rowed in the Olympics in various eras. Two, I know, hold gold medals (not sure about the 3rd; I know her record less well). I've shared meals with the two I know better, spent time in conversation with them, rowed in boats with them, etc. Their body composition is definitely non-average, even years after elite competition.

I haven't seen anything that suggests their metabolism is somehow super special, when it comes to calorie needs. They appear to eat in the same range as recreational athletes I know with body composition and activity levels that approach theirs (their *current* activity levels, to be clear, not when training, for those now long past elite competition).

Of course, I don't know what they eat and do every minute of every day, so that's an impression, not "proof" of anything.

ETA: To the bolded, thank you for saying that. I do try, though I'm 100% sure I do fail more than I'd like. I feel like it's good for all of us to share what we think and know openly, so that we can all expand our knowledge, and think that ridicule doesn't encourage open dialog.

With respect to fitness adaptations, I think that for someone like me before I became active in my 40s, it was tempting to believe that athletes were almost a different species metabolically . . . maybe even more tempting after I became quite active, but stayed overweight/obese. I thought I must have a "slow metabolism", especially since hypothyroid and post-menopausal besides. Calorie counting taught me that I (as an individual) *don't* have a slow metabolism, I was just eating more calories than my body required.

I'm not saying no one has a slow metabolism, in the sense of having lower calorie needs than the average person their size, even one of similar activity. I have no way of knowing, but it seems high probability that some people require fewer calories than the so-called calculators estimate.

Speakeasy76

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

OnceAndFutureAthlete wrote: »

I considered putting this in Debates - Mods, if you think this should be moved, please do.
(I'm not trying to start an argument or debunk people's beliefs, just add something new to the discussion.)

Here is a fascinating article titled: "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor

I think the title is a bit misleading (click bait?) because the article is more about sustained efforts at exercise and weight loss.

Basically it says that our metabolisms DO change based on past exercise and eating (deficit) patterns.
That humans burn calories (on a daily average basis) in a very narrow range whether sedentary or very active.
Also seems to make solid arguments against the advantages of a Paleo/low carb diet.
But that exercise is still excellent for overall health.

"One of the most startling findings is the notion of constrained daily energy expenditure. This is the idea that the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range — no matter how hard you work out.

If this were true, how did Olympic-level swimmers like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte get away with consuming 8000 to 12000 calories a day without turning into Jabba the Hutt?

I think Olympic athletes are statistical anomalies really, in a lot of ways. Most have been training intensely since they were young, so may guess is that their bodies eventually adapted to this high level of activity/CO. This is the reverse trend of what happens when someone eats very little for a long period of time.

The adaptation is fitness, and a high activity level: No need to reach much further for an arcane explanation.

I've been close to a successful collegiate (NCAA Div I) women's sports team, in a short endurance sport (rowing), knowing a number of the athletes personally.

Rowing is weird, sometimes varsity rowers are women who didn't do any sport at all in high school (though more commonly women who did a different sport(s), not necessarily always true endurance sports).

All of them on the team need to eat lots, pretty much from the start. Some of them lose weight so precipitously that they have to consume special calorie-intense shakes on top of whatever normal (high) eating they can tolerate. They're slim (being materially overweight is not helpful to boat speed), though not necessarily extremely thin. Eventually (after perhaps the novice year) they're muscular.

I've been at alumni reunion events, including some for people who rowed not that long before - within 5 years, say. Quite a large fraction of them have become overweight, some quite overweight. They were used to eating lot, moving lots; they kept eating relatively high amounts, materially reduced their activity level.

The results, overall, are about what you'd expect IMO if they were "metabolically normal".

Fitness and a high activity level are adaptations that are available to quite a range of people, including people who aren't and never will be elite athletes. 🤷‍♀️

Requires patience, persistence, and some time investment. I know several recreational athletes with a history of being overweight, who now eat quite high on the calorie scale for their demographic but are slim, because of high current activity. It's still just about calorie balance.

Thank you for always responding in a way that is thoughtful and respectful, even if you don't agree and even if what the poster says is kind of "out there!"

In regards to Olympic-level athletes and not really related to this post, I believe that most of them (especially in the more high-profile, commonly-played-by-kids-kind), it takes some level of "natural" talent, body shape conducive to specific sports, natural muscle tone and propensity to gain muscle, but I definitely don't think that's all of it. I also think grit and other innate psychological characteristics (like perseverance) are part of it too. I think it's a combination of both, and those that rely on natural talent don't fare nearly as well as others who don't have as much of it but work hard. I still bristle at the mantra told to kids "You can be ANYTHING you want to be!" and not I am actually quite realistic with my own kids (for better or worse). If there aren't already studies out there about it, it would be interested in finding out what are the underlying unifying characteristics of Olympic athletes. I do think "natural talent" may be lower on the list than expected, but things like grit and perseverance are much higher.

For elite (anything), I think it usually takes both parts, some natural ability/inclination, plus some character attributes that lead the person to long and persistent practice and self-honing. There's probably also some luck in there.

For athletes specifically, in some sports, genetics are an almost unavoidable factor: In my sport, rowing, elites are tall people, mostly *really* tall, with a few outliers that are only medium-tall, but quite rarely. (Open class tend to be taller than lightweights, for obvious reasons.) In more popular sports, think about basketball: There's the occasional short high-level player, but it's quite exceptional.

This isn't just about natural talent inherent in body shape, there are also biases (that amount to luck or not, for the individual). One year, for example, the university rowing team I'm familiar with had a huge response from walk-ons wanting to join the team. They arbitrarily set a 5'10" height cut-off (that year only) just to narrow the pool to be further tried/tested. That, even though in other years some of their top rowers were only middling-height (5'7"-8", say). Rowing coxswains are all pretty tiny, usually right around 110 pounds (which is minimum weight, or the boat must add sandbags), because they don't row, they steer & run the race plans, so they're dead weight in the boat. Big people don't become elite coxswains, but not because they wouldn't/couldn't be excellent ones.

Coincidentally, I know 3 women who've rowed in the Olympics in various eras. Two, I know, hold gold medals (not sure about the 3rd; I know her record less well). I've shared meals with the two I know better, spent time in conversation with them, rowed in boats with them, etc. Their body composition is definitely non-average, even years after elite competition.

I haven't seen anything that suggests their metabolism is somehow super special, when it comes to calorie needs. They appear to eat in the same range as recreational athletes I know with body composition and activity levels that approach theirs (their *current* activity levels, to be clear, not when training, for those now long past elite competition).

Of course, I don't know what they eat and do every minute of every day, so that's an impression, not "proof" of anything.

ETA: To the bolded, thank you for saying that. I do try, though I'm 100% sure I do fail more than I'd like. I feel like it's good for all of us to share what we think and know openly, so that we can all expand our knowledge, and think that ridicule doesn't encourage open dialog.

With respect to fitness adaptations, I think that for someone like me before I became active in my 40s, it was tempting to believe that athletes were almost a different species metabolically . . . maybe even more tempting after I became quite active, but stayed overweight/obese. I thought I must have a "slow metabolism", especially since hypothyroid and post-menopausal besides. Calorie counting taught me that I (as an individual) *don't* have a slow metabolism, I was just eating more calories than my body required.

I'm not saying no one has a slow metabolism, in the sense of having lower calorie needs than the average person their size, even one of similar activity. I have no way of knowing, but it seems high probability that some people require fewer calories than the so-called calculators estimate.

I used to think I had a slow metabolism, too, and I am also hypothyroid. However, I too have discovered I now am probably pretty average, if not even more so due to my activity level. I admittedly used to be pretty inactive overall, even though I could say "but I workout!" I also used to overeat, and eat for reasons other than hunger frequently. It took me a long time to learn about actual hunger/fullness signals, which I think really came about because of tracking.

wunderkindking

I am having a very strange reaction to this article and making all kinds of faces.

Largely because it doesn't say what it says it says.

Is there a 'narrow range' for caloric needs for most people? Yeah. That's kind of how statistical average and those calculators work.

The big one:
Isn't as simple as CICO?

A calorie is a unit of energy. How many calories our bodies get from food and how many they burn may be (is) danged complicated, but uh. CICO itself is physics. It's not 'simple' to calculate precisely, might even be impossible at the moment, but still pretty basic physics. Food has calories. Calories are energy. We expend them living. When we have too many for what we're doing, we expend them. When we don't have enough we make up the difference from our bodies.

Also, every person here who has kept an accurate log of their food - which is not me because I'm a cups and spoons person - and of their weight over a longer time can get a pretty good snapshot read on what their calorie expenditure is, based on some pretty basic and static math. Not perfect, because CI and CO are estimates, but pretty good.

...same as was used in the article to determine 'pretty narrow range'.

AnnPT77

sijomial wrote: »

Strawman - "It may not be as simple as CICO?"
Yes, human bodies and behaviours are very complicated but the process of weight loss can be simplified right down to calorie balance. If "it" is losing weight that's simple, if "it" is all the various physiological function going on then that's complex but complexity is optional to get results.

Clickbait - "Why Crash Weight Loss Programs Don't Work: Clues From Hunter-Gatherer Societies"
Didn't know crash dieting was compulsory? Studying an unusual anomaly group and then projecting to the mainstream is fraught with problems. And of course exclude other anomaly groups (like very high exercisers) because they don't fit the narrative. Seems like someone is trying to support a theory.

"Surprisingly Narrow Range" - vague, surprising to who, what is the range?

"Metabolism" - seems to be used in a very loose way. Someone’s basal or resting metabolism is just one part of total needs

"the human metabolism adapts to our activity levels to keep our daily calorie burn in a surprisingly narrow range" - Nonsense. Even if you exclude high volume exercisers (who aren't just the elite few) that's saying people working very active jobs such as construction are in the same unquantified narrow range as sedentary people. When a new study contradicts a huge volume of existing studies that put a range of BMR multipliers from 1.1 to 1.9 sorry but I’m going to be sceptical.

Personal example - my estimated BMR is 1562.
X 1.1 gives a TDEE of 1718
X 1.9 gives a TDEE of 2968
That isn't my idea of a narrow range and I'm actually mostly eating in the range of 3,000 - 4,000 cals with outlier days from 2,500 - 5,000cals.

I like your case study, and your math, @sijomial. A question or two for you below . . . .

The interviewee in the article says:

If you or I started an exercise program tomorrow, we will burn extra calories from that exercise for a while. But after a couple of months, our bodies will adjust so that we're spending about the same energy every day as we were before we started the exercise.

From other posts, I think you've been doing your current level of exercise, or at least some decent volume of the same type of exercise, for more than a couple of months. I believe you've also said elsewhere that you've been maintaining a healthy body weight for a while now.

Does your personal experience bear out what the interviewee said in the quote above?

I don't have as dramatic an example as you do, but it's similar. My estimated BMR would be around 1200, so the estimated TDEE range based on that would be 1320 (multiplier 1.1) to 2,228 (multiplier 1.9) . . . not, as you say, an especially narrow range, coming from the widely-accepted research-based estimating formulas. In practice, my base calorie goal is 1,850 (with no exercise), usually 2,200-2,500 intake most days with exercise, and I throw in some indulge-y days (maybe 2-4 a month?) of 4,000-5,000 calories.

I've been doing the same general exercise for almost 20 years (fat and thin), with some seasonal ups and downs, and have been calorie counting for 6 years as of next week. Over that time, there hasn't been the slightest sign that my body has adjusted so that it is "spending about the same energy every day as before the exercise". My weight has been in the healthy BMI range (lower 20s BMI) for 5+ years, eating at relatively high calorie levels for my demographic (female, 5'5", now age 65, 125ish pounds).

As an aside, the interviewee is also quoted as saying:

. . . once you are able to lose weight and get to a set point where you want to be, exercise is really key in keeping yourself there. Exercise changes the way that your body regulates how hungry you feel or how full you feel.

I absolutely guarantee that in my n=1 case, I'm not staying at a healthy weight because my body has regulated how full I feel so that I eat fewer calories - just as few as calories as someone who's less active. That's completely ridiculous, at n = 1.

sijomial

@AnnPT77
Snipped a bit to extract the interviewee's comments.....

"If you or I started an exercise program tomorrow, we will burn extra calories from that exercise for a while. But after a couple of months, our bodies will adjust so that we're spending about the same energy every day as we were before we started the exercise."

Urgh!

I'll be charitable and assume that the author of that isn't just parroting a really dumb idea and try to break it down.

Behavioural changes - yes, it's possible that someone starting out exercising or switching to a higher intensity regime or just an exceptional session might feel fatigued and reduce their non-exercise movement and activity as they feel tired.
But those numbers are going to be very individual in relation to how much exercise and how much non-exercise activity a person does. My two weekend rides both burned 1,400+ cals so I simply wouldn't have enough headroom to wipe-out that number by spending more time on the sofa than usual.
Yes, exercise could well make someone hungrier and raised eating level could compensate for increased output (more of an issue for non-calorie counters).
On the other hand, as I got fitter and fitter my activity level also went up, I simply feel full of energy.
Quite interesting observations when I worked in an office with dreadfully slow lifts/elevators - the fitter people would always use the stairs to get to our 4th floor office, the less fit people wouldn't. Also, fitter people walked between offices, less fit people took public transport.

Physical changes - no bodies can't simply get more efficient and use no energy to exercise. Being accustomed to exercise doesn't magically mean you burn less. The more likely scenario is that as people's fitness and strength improves their exercise level also goes up (faster, further, longer, harder....).
e.g. my maximal sustainable burn rate was about 570 cals / hour. Now it's about 750. That's also replicated all through the different intensity levels (what would have been zone 3 is now zone 2 for same speed). Talking of HR - reduced pulse doesn't equal reduced calories as many seem to think, my "pump" is simply working 20% better as it became better trained.
Biggest calorie impact though was simply from increasing volume, 2,000 miles a year rose to 5,000 miles and might hit 6,000 this year.
For strength training my lifts all went up which means more calories burned (you do have to take bodyweight into account for some bodyweight bearing lifts though, more on the bar can be cancelled out by lower body weight).
Tour de France is going on right now, those riders are forcing themselves to eat 5,000+ cals to replace their extraordinary calorie burns, top guys can hit 1,440+ cals an hour.

I don't believe in the weight set point theory the author pushes either. I certainly find it much easier to maintain at a good weight long term with a calorie allowance boosted by exercise to the tune of 200,000+ cals a year!
I choose my weight to maintain at and have experimented with choosing many different weights, I did hit a point where maintenance became harder when I got quite lean but again that's a choice. Harder and lighter, or a few pounds heavier and easy.