The Exercise Paradox

[Skip]

Conventional wisdom holds that physically active people
burn more calories than less active people do.
But studies show that traditional hunter-gatherers,
who lead physically hard lives, burn the same number of
calories as people with access to modern conveniences.

This quote was taken from this PDF: http://dropcanvas.com/1fcrc

Jeff Novick discusses it here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=43482&start=30#p559710

So exercise is still great for your health, but not an effective way to burn more calories because at the end of the day you are going to burn about the same number of calories regardless of how much you exercise.

[plant_eater]

This is very interesting. It goes along with what I am starting to believe from experience. I have been stuck at a rock solid weight and body fat percentage for 2 years now. Despite near continuous endurance training for running, cycling and triathlon events.

My premise is that the more you burn calories, the more your going to eat as a replacement. If you don't you will end up sick and injured. For example today I rode 60 miles with 3,500ft of climbing on the bike and then jumped off the bike and ran for 9 miles and burned 4,000 calories, yet I have been eating continously for about 3 hours now! Not going to lose much weight in that kind of burn and replace cycle.

I pulled up the study and will go through it tonight, interesting.

[Fuzzy]

If I'm correct Doug Lisle mentioned the same paradox in one of the latest McDougall Webinars. I've read the study that Skip posted, checked a couple of Pontzer's representations on youtube and I still have a bunch of questions. I would love it, if someone could help me think it over.

Basically the study compares Hadza people to an average Western male and female. It's focus is on caloric input and expenditure. The main difference is the lifestyle: active vs. sedentary.
0 How exactly do isotope measurements work? From what I understood, the Hadza people had to ingest "doubly labeled water", then they collected urine samples and they analyzed them "for 18O and 2H abundance". But they still have to include height, body mass and age to make an estimation. I don't really understand any of it. But I do understand that they check the body's response, how the body processes a compound. They don't check the food going in and "leftovers" going out. But doesn't that tell us more about metabolic rate? Rather than calories expenditure and consumption? Shouldn't they check the calories of the food that they eat as well? Can somebody explain this?

Aren't there other differences between Hadza and Westerners, do these not count as factors, are they not important?
1) Food: they don't eat the same type of food. And it's not even prepared the same way. Are we supposed to assume that calories are the same, doesn't matter if they come from a cooked giraffe meat or from an oily burger? 33% of Hadza's food is meat, so that is not the best news for McDougall mindset.
2) Accessibility of food: most of Westerners can eat until they are full (and beyond). And fridge is very accessible. Forget about whole hunting/tracking vs. walking to the fridge problem. I imagine Hadza experience hunger on a regular basis. Therefore they might be more efficient in digesting the food. Is it possible that they can do more with a 1800 calories than I can?
1+2) Wouldn't it make sense to give our food to Hadza people for a couple of months. Like after they have hunted down the giraffe, we could exchange it for the same number of calories. Or a bunch of Westerners could eat their food.
3) Genes: it might be politically incorrect but once again: maybe Hadza are more efficient in their usage of calories. A Westerner should live for a year or so among the Hadza people and vise versa, just to see if this changes the results.
4) Body build: Does a 300 pound male have the same calorie expenditure (at the same level of exercise) as a 150 pound male? Maybe that has an effect as well? Perhaps a 150 pound Hadza male uses the same amount of calories on a 5 mile run as a 300 pound Westerner uses on his 2 mile walk? They are both active, since they are both using calories. Can we really compare activity just by looking at lifestyle, mileage ...?
5) It says in the study that they accounted for "effects s of body size, fat percentage, age and sex". But how exactly did they do that? If an average Hadza has lower body fat and an average Western has higher body fat, did they use average of both groups? Or did they use "average" Westerns with the same body fat as Hadza. In any case: you can't have it both ways.
6) There was also a part in the yt representations that is not in this study, I think. Something about observing Westerners who did a 21km run in addition to their regular activities. But if I understood that correctly, they included people that didn't run on regular basis. They were capable of a 21km run, but it was not a part of their daily routine. I find this important, because at the beginning of a new exercise routine, it can greatly affect your daily life. For example you can do your 2h run, but then you use the elevator at work, take a taxi instead of walking ... Perhaps they should include people that did 75 km per week on regular basis to exclude this problem.

Finally:
My assumption is not, that physically active people burn more calories. Or to put it another way, my assumption is not, that I use less calories compared to the similarly built female from another country, who eats the same food but exercises more.
My assumption is, that if I change my lifestyle for a year or more, that this will influence the number of calories that I burn. If I go from no exercise to 1-2 hours of exercise every day, I will be able to eat more potatoes and maintain the same body weight. (I might gain some weight due to muscle growth in the beginning.) I think this assumption still stands. So I'm not sure I understood Doug Lisle and his hint about fitbit. I mean steps counting still makes sense as a motivation. Maybe you can't compare yourself to other people (without knowing their background, habits etc.), but if you are trying to lose weight, it still makes sense to keep track of your own activity level. Where did I go wrong?

Ps English is my second language. I hope it's readable.

[Skip]

Finally:
My assumption is not, that physically active people burn more calories. Or to put it another way, my assumption is not, that I use less calories compared to the similarly built female from another country, who eats the same food but exercises more.
My assumption is, that if I change my lifestyle for a year or more, that this will influence the number of calories that I burn. If I go from no exercise to 1-2 hours of exercise every day, I will be able to eat more potatoes and maintain the same body weight. (I might gain some weight due to muscle growth in the beginning.) I think this assumption still stands.

The study shows, in my opinion, that you will not be able eat more calories if you go from no exercise to 1-2 hours of exercise every day and maintain an energy balance. The study shows that you will burn about the same amount of calories (in the long run) whether you exercise or not (unless you are totally inactive, like bedridden). Again, this is how I interpret the study.

The main point I get out of this study is that increasing exercise has way less affect on weight loss as compared to changing ones diet.....

[Fuzzy]

Are you sure? The study compares different types of people, who eat different diets and have different lifestyles. A lot of variables if you ask me, but ok. It simply doesn't look at the same people changing their lifestyle (exercising more) in the long run.

Let's say that you are right and that the study shows, that exercising more doesn't affect usage of calories in the long run. So basically: we all need about the same amount of calories and exercise has little or no effect.

Ok, so if exercise has no effect: people who eat less than they need (doesn't matter where the calories come from, and even if they don't exercise) should lose weight. And people who eat more (even if they exercise) should gain weight. So it's still calories in and calories out, but exercise doesn't affect the in/output.

But how can you explain sportsmen eating 4.5k-12k calories per day and staying lean for years and years? Are they freaks of nature or are we missing something?

Maybe it's all about going above the "sweet spot" for human beings. Since Hadza people do "135 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity", we simply must go beyond that. So maybe the paradox only works between these lines. So one hour of exercise per day simply won't do. But doing more than 2 hours still works. There has to be a line somewhere, sportsmen are proving that. But the line might not even be the same for everyone. As I have said, maybe for Hadza people normal is 135min/per day. Maybe our threshold is lower than that. We can't really know since Westerners are not living the same lifestyle and the study did not include lifestyle "switch".

[Skip]

But how can you explain sportsmen eating 4.5k-12k calories per day and staying lean for years and years? Are they freaks of nature or are we missing something?

I assume that very very active people have a higher "burn of calories set point" compared to a sedentary group of people (within a given bell shape curve range).

Ok, so if exercise has no effect: people who eat less than they need (doesn't matter where the calories come from, and even if they don't exercise) should lose weight. And people who eat more (even if they exercise) should gain weight. So it's still calories in and calories out, but exercise doesn't affect the in/output.

The study says that if you burn more calories exercising, then you will burn less calories for other metabolic uses like digestion, the immune system, metabolic rate type stuff....but in the end, you burn close to the same number of calories either way....

Exercise has a great beneficial effects up to a point, but if you over do it, then it can become detrimental.

[clunkis]

In my experience the more I run and or Cardio the more I eat in the Evenings sometimes to the point of being uncomfortable. If I run 5-6 days a week then will actually gain weight.
The more Weight training, sprinting and Higher Intensity shorter duration exercise the less I eat and will lean out some.
That's how my body works.
Took a long time to figure that one out.

[Earl_UK]

I have been trying to find out more details on this and it leads to a collection of query's:

Are all Calories equal do they behave the same? (we know they have differing nutritional qualities)
Does the body burn different calorie types in different ways?

Does the fiber content of the food effect how the attached calories burn?

Is the Calorie burning calculation correct?

Is there a way of measuring how and where the body burns calories specifically?

Now much effect does local temperature have to your calorie burning to maintain body heat or loose heat?

[roundcoconut]

I deeply question this -- who is spreading this message, and what agenda is it serving? Also, what things can we see that offer evidence AGAINST this message?

The so-called "exercise paradox" strikes me as a message that we are doomed to fail and our efforts will come to naught, so please don't even bother. But would anyone who cares about us give us such a message?

I have tended to keep front of mind, a few people who have taken up large levels of exercise in order to combat and defeat depression. I remember reading about someone who had found that five miles of fairly brisk walking each day, was able to unravel and dismantle his depression. And once you dismantle depression, then the forces in us that want to sit on the couch and comfort ourselves with food, are not as powerful.

In my own life, I am not finding that extra movement is inevitably compensated for, by extra eating. That is my free will, to determine how much of those calories I put back, on a day when I move more. I don't believe there is some overarching law forcing me to gobble extra calories on days when I move my body more.

I think it's actually irresponsible to act as though our movement will amount to naught. We should call bullcrap on that. Even if people we wish to trust are the ones promoting these kinds of messages. Well, I'm gonna call bullcrap on that anyways!

It is interesting -- there is actually a financial corrollary to this -- that "shows" that people who earn more, just spend more and still wind up as much in debt as they once were. But there are so many examples out in the real world, showing that you aren't FORCED to amp up your spending when you earn more -- that the whole thing is within our human control. As it should be!

Anyway, I believe our exercise matters, and that as we build up to greater levels of movement and exercise, our intake can come in under our caloric expenditure, if we would like it to. By paying attention to eating frequency, and calorie density and all the things that we as plant-based folk already know about.

[Skip]

The so-called "exercise paradox" strikes me as a message that we are doomed to fail and our efforts will come to naught, so please don't even bother.

I don't look at this way. The message that I get is that while exercise is great for your health, don't over do it (but don't under do it either). Also, trying to "exercise off" extra weight is far less effective as compared to what you eat.