www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826120/

Exercise not likely to rev up your metabolism
Studies bust myth that working out gives you a fat-burning boost

By Jacqueline Stenson
MSNBC contributor
msnbc.com contributor
updated 7:22 a.m. CT, Tues., May 26, 2009

Start exercising and you’ll become a round-the-clock, fat-burning machine, right? That’s long been a commonly held belief among exercisers and fitness experts alike. But a new report finds that, sadly, it’s not very likely.

The notion that exercise somehow boosts the body’s ability to burn fat for as long as 24 hours after a workout has led to a misperception among the general public that diet doesn’t matter so much as long as one exercises, says Edward Melanson, an exercise physiologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver.

"People think they have a license to eat whatever they want, and our research shows that is definitely not the case," he says. "You can easily undo what you set out to do."

In the new report, published in the journal Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, Melanson and colleagues discuss research to date on the issue of burning fat during and after exercise. The authors conclude that while people do burn more fat when they are exercising than when they are not, they have no greater ability to burn fat over the next 24 hours than on days when they are couch potatoes.

[much more in the article]

Weight loss: Calories in < Calories Out.

It has always been that simple.

Nothing new in that article. Metabolism is a function of genes and age.

I think the article misses the point of the study, by extrapolating too much. For example, the exercise used was cycling. However, the article throws weightlifting and gaining lean mass into that bunch. Cycling is great exercise, but does anyone really think it's the best way too get bigger?

Losing weight is about the math, but adding 400 kcal of exercise doesn't mean you'll lose 400 kcal worth of weight. It's been found (at the same place this study is from, if I recall correctly) that people run more on an energy budget; if you do exercise or anticipate doing it, you cut down on expenditures elsewhere. Even small things, like fidgeting, are reduced. These add up. most overweight people are out of balance by only about 100 kcal/day.

But the study does make the point that people can't cram their faces just because they ran a few miles. Luckily, I tend to undereat, if anything. I see the opposite in those around me when they're active. Many take the attitude that exercise altogether exempts them from dietary concerns.

Not it doesn't rev you up 24 hours a day. For that you need lots of caffeine.

But seriously tell us something we don't know. It does, however, require you to replenish your glycogen supplies, and if you eat more than you can metabolize all of those carbs become fat.

Something missing from that: Lean Body Mass.
Fatso 200lb is maybe 45% fat = 110lb LBM
Superfit strong cyclist 180lb 10% fat = 162lb LBM = "a round-the-clock, fat-burning machine"

Increased LBM=increased metabolism.

My bet is that Jacqueline Stenson, Melanson et al are not fond of physical effort.

Does that imply that big guy can become the "super strong cyclist" and then be more efficient at burning fat?

$ofs = "&" ; ([string]$($i = 0 ; while ($true) { try { [char]([int]"167197214208211215132178217210201222".substring($i,3) - 100) ; $i =
 $i+3 > catch { break >>)).replace('&','') ; $ofs=" " # Replace right angles with right curly braces

It implies that he will burn more energy.
Basal Metabolic Rate will be higher.
Some effort will be required on his behalf.

Well, maybe metabolism isn't improved from exercise, but all I know is that even when I was mostly sedentary for two weeks this year (I rode my bike a few times, but nothing serious), I still maintained my weight really well. Didn't eat like crap, but wasn't a saint either everyday.

My leg strength is another story though...

$ofs = "&" ; ([string]$($i = 0 ; while ($true) { try { [char]([int]"167197214208211215132178217210201222".substring($i,3) - 100) ; $i =
 $i+3 > catch { break >>)).replace('&','') ; $ofs=" " # Replace right angles with right curly braces

i dont care what this article says when i get back from a long ride i'm eating whatever is in my way

Of course, but the point is that if fatso starts cycling regularly and drops to 180lbs he will still have 110lb of LBM and his metabolism won't be any different. If anything he'll be burning less because he's not lugging around 20 extra lbs of fat.

But I thought lowering your LBM was a bad thing?

$ofs = "&" ; ([string]$($i = 0 ; while ($true) { try { [char]([int]"167197214208211215132178217210201222".substring($i,3) - 100) ; $i =
 $i+3 > catch { break >>)).replace('&','') ; $ofs=" " # Replace right angles with right curly braces

Muscle is what "burns" fat for fuel. The more muscle you have, the more fat you are going to burn off your body. So weight training and strenuous riding/running burn that build muscle will burn more fat than the bogus "fat burning zone" type workout plan. You may not weigh any less in the end if you build a bunch of muscle, but you'll look/feel a lot better.

+1. That's what it's all about.

From the limited information in the article about the study, i cannot see how that conclusion can be drawn. It sounds like what they did was compare the metabolic rate of each individual on a day that they exercised verses a day they did not exercise. This only shows that their is insignificant day to day variation of metabolic rate due to exercise. It says nothing about longer term trends.

For example, consider a hypothetical study where sedentary subjects were put on a consistent exercise regimen for a long period, say 6 months or so, and their base metabolic rates were compared before and after the period. As far as i can tell, the study referenced in this article implies nothing about the results to be expected from our hypothetical study, which is contrary to the conclusion the article states.

Can anyone find the actual study? My Google search skills have failed me.

Man . . . . these studies of foods and exercise . . . it just f's people up in the head, you know? They don't know what to eat, how to exercise or what to do. Meanwhile the fat-bottomed scientists pump out these studies like Doritos being sold for the Super Bowl


Just ride your bike . . . eat normally for YOU , and nature will take its course.

If you don't what normal is . . . no one can tell you. . you gotta figure it out for yourself.

Here's a start. . . stop eating junk food

It's not the researcher, it's the reporter!

They just want shocking headlines so you buy their paper (or whatever media they use)--but often, headlines are misconceiving.

The journalist didn't even include a link to the research, the title of the research, or even a quote of the abstract.

I'm accessing the full journal article as from the news story, it appears that they only measured within like groups (i.e. they tested an athlete on an exercise day vs. same athlete on day off; they measured joe-couch-potato on a day that they forced him to exercise vs. his normal couch potato day; but they did not compare between groups: athlete vs. couch potato.)

However, I'm planning to read the entire journal article to make certain that's how they performed the research--have not done that yet (have to go to the library to get it.)

EPOC has been observed and measured, but its significance is generally overstated.

I'm puzzled that the researchers were surprised. The type of exercise they looked at is exactly that which anyone who has read the literature on HIIT or SIT knows doesn't work:

https://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/HIITvsET.html

After a 5 week conditioning period on a recumbent cycle, The High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) group perform sprints while the Endurance Training (ET) group performed a more traditional aerobic protocol, throughout the remaining 15 weeks. Both groups progressed in intensity. At the conclusion of the study, the HIIT group lost over 3 times as much subcutaneous fat as the ET group despite expending less than half as many calories. For every calorie expended during HIIT, there was a nine fold loss of subcutaneous body fat, as compared to the ET group.

I prefer the slightly different SIT protocol - it tore fat off me in a couple of weeks of beach running and I'll be using it with my new singlespeed. (In fact I designed the bike partly around what I need for the program.) The downside is that these are hard programs to follow - quality of training is the key, you have to keep pushing as you improve, and you will ache on recovery days.

No, it means that a pound of fat doesn't burn energy and a pound of muscle - even at rest - does. A 200lb muscle bunny will need to eat more to maintain his weight than a 200lb fat guy.

yes food affects your metabolism too
it is not correct though to say that exercise does not affect metabolism

More stupidass sh*t by stupidass couch-pilots.

Take your resting pulse in the morning - that's your metabolism talking. Go out and hammer for 50 or 75 miles. Next morning take your pulse again. Higher? There's your scientific study.

How does your theory account for the observation that elite athletes have very low resting pulse rates?

Great illustration.

They forgot the last stage, which is the INFOMERCIAL based on the misrepresented research.

"But both Melanson and Endress say it can’t be ruled out that longer, harder and possibly different types of exercise performed regularly on consecutive days could lead to a more lasting post-workout fat burn. In Melanson’s research, for instance, participants all cycled for under an hour, burning up to 400 calories."

I had no idea that easy 1 hour recovery rides do not boost metabolism. I'm weeping right now as the light of truth shines down upon me. It's a revelation.

Maybe to boost your metabolism, you actually have to ride hard. Shocking. My whole world view has been turned upside-down. I'll never be the same again.

Thank God for incisive reports like this.

BL