Exercise and calorie burn

Article is paywalled, so I can't read it. Guessing at least some others will have the same problem.

Calorie compensation or exercise energy compensation has long been known. Is that what they're talking about? If so, compensation tends to vary individually but probably the average comes out to limited effect of exercise.

In the first couple of paragraphs that aren't paywall-blocked, I see the Hadza mentioned. That's often brought up when advancing theories based on calorie compensation.

People often fuss about BMI being inaccurate because it doesn't apply to all individuals (even though it's more valid as a population-level metric). My suspicion is that the generalization in this type of study is also more true at the population level than for individuals.

This (below) is a graph I posted in another debate thread here. Caption for that graphic from the original article: "Exercise-related energy compensation (ExEC) expressed as (A) Absolute ExEC (kcals/day) and (B) Percent ExEC. Black indicates energy compensation, and orange bars indicate no energy compensation."

That's the range of ndividual exercise compensation in one small study. It's about a 1000 calorie range! The original source is here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004224010642

Just from eyeballing, it does look like the average result is pretty close to neutral calorie burn impact o on TDEE from exercise. (I don't remember the mean from the article, if it was included, and I admit I didn't take the time to re-read. I'll underscore that it was a small study, even though that should be obvious from the graph.)

Still, if that's even reasonably representative about what we'd see in real life, I think calorie compensation (lots vs. some vs. none) is an n=1 experiment, like so many other aspects of weight management.

I have gut feelings but no evidence about why some people might compensate more for exercise calorie expenditure, and others compensate less. The 4-6 week experiment about calorie needs that's often recommended here for people starting calorie counting may sort that out, at least in terms of TDEE impact even if ot doesn't help with distinguishing the contribution of NEAT vs. exercise.

There have been arguments here that everyone compensates, that people compensate if they exercise above zone 2 heart rate, etc. My intuition - even before reading this and other similar research articles - was that people vary. If there were total energy compensation for every individual, elite cardiovascular athletes wouldn't require the unusually large dietary calorie intake that they do in fact require. How much individuals may compensate is a pretty nuanced question, IMO.

Intuitively - again, without research evidence - I have a hard time believing that changes in the average person's NEAT made zero contribution to the so-called obesity epidemic. I was alive and adult when that epidemic supposedly started, and have a sense of how much average individual activity has changed over that time period.

Of course, I think that weight management always comes down to calorie balance - with a lot of complicated things influencing that balance! - and agree that for most people even at the individual level, the food intake side of the equation is a more powerful tool than activity, either NEAT or exercise activity.

There was a discussion thread about a similar article here in Debate previously. It maybe even was the same article: I don't know for sure since I can't read the one Sollyn linked. Looks very similar, and it was Washington Post that time, too.

That thread is here, and includes a cut/paste that I think answers most of your questions:

Fundamentally, IMO it's the usual media clickbait trying to apply a population finding to individuals, but I'm admittedly cynical.

It's also the case IMO that perspectives and research findings that may help inform public policy don't necessarily have the same usefulness or value in individual cases.