Exercise slows down metabolism ?

Kind of makes logical sense to me that a more efficient body would need less food to survive if you aren't doing very much? Dunno though, I'm not a scientist!

This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.

It makes sense that it would slow down metabolism due to either (1) the people lost weight (I'm assuming they didn't as the study would've controlled for that or at least mentioned it) or (2) their resting heart rates decreased, implying their cardiovascular system got healthier and more efficient.

People don't seem to take into account that a 'slowed down metabolism' has positive implications for overall health. It means your body processes function more efficiently, not that they're damaged.

Exercise less to weigh less ? Who knows.

Sure. If you're not losing weight the best thing to do would be to exercise less or stop all together. That and eat more calories. Those two things will most definitely make you lose weight.

[/sarcasm]

It makes sense that it would slow down metabolism due to either (1) the people lost weight (I'm assuming they didn't as the study would've controlled for that or at least mentioned it) or (2) their resting heart rates decreased, implying their cardiovascular system got healthier and more efficient.

People don't seem to take into account that a 'slowed down metabolism' has positive implications for overall health. It means your body processes function more efficiently, not that they're damaged.

This was my initial thought even before I read the article. I think more recent studies would also provide a more concrete foundation to the claim.

Controversial, but worth a read -

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/15/exercise-boosts-the-metabolism-it-seems-the-reverse-might-be-true/

I often see postings along the lines "I'm eating {sensible number of calories} and exercising five times a week but haven't lost a pound since Easter / Xmas / other milestone". Big deficits and stalls / plateaus seem to go hand in hand.

Does exercise have its own "starvation mode" ?

Is the conventional logic inadequate - " First, exercise builds muscle, and muscle burns energy even at rest. Second, there are a lot of skinny athletes out there who think they are skinny because they train hard (as opposed to being able to train hard because they are skinny). Third, it is a common observation that heavy people tend not to exercise much, so it is easy to blame their weight problem on a lack of exercise."

There are 4 well-controlled, inpatient, metabolic ward studies (the gold standard for human research) published from 1982 thru 1997 that showed statistically significant reductions in resting metabolic rate when overweight subjects performed 300-600 Calories per day of endurance exercise for weeks at a time [1-4]. There are no equally rigorous human studies showing the opposite.

Exercise less to weigh less ? Who knows.

Makes sense, it doesn't usually take too long to become more cardio vascularly fit, especially from the state of having done no cardio.
So initially you may get some great calorie burns, but then your system becomes more efficient overall, and that extends into the other 23 hrs of the day.

Plus the fact some other studies have shown folks that are new to exercise tend to do less in the day of activity when they exercise, so you burn 600 in an hr, but for say 2 hrs later in the day you might have been activity enough to burn 200 cal over RMR, you sit around and burn no extra. So the workout only brought you net 400 gain to the day, plus it's made you more efficient, so now the whole day burns say 200 less, that means the net burn was only 200.

Hence those studies we've all seen where the diet and resistance group does best at keeping LBM, better than even the diet and cardio group.

Really shows how walking, as a way to just make up for our generally inactive lifestyle, can be a enough cardio. Helps make up for the extra sitting we do, mainly fat burning, don't improve so fast in efficiency because it's not as stressful and demands less improvements, ect.

Wow. That's really intriguing. Definitely controversial but interesting none the less.

This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.

^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".

^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".

I don't agree. It doesn't make excuses for people at all. It just points out that a person may not be getting the benefit they expect from just doing cardio. If that turns out to be true, I think it's important for people to know that. It would have been better if he'd pointed out that weight lifting may be a more effective alternative.

This is more sensationalistic crap. It refers to "exercise" as aerobic activities, while terms like "strength training", "weight lifting" "anaerobic" not only don't show up in this article, let alone countless studies performed over the span of decades which almost all conclusively demonstrate the effects of anaerobic activities on RMR.

^^This. The way that this article comes across is very "it's not your fault you're fat".

If anyone wants onboard, I'm launching a class action lawsuit against Precor. Use of their equipment has caused my metabolism to slow down and I want compensation for my physical and mental stress. They are destroying America by preaching exercise and we must make our voices heard!