Diet May Be More Important Than Exercise for Long-Term Weight Control (2021)

(I say this as someone who rides a lot, somewhat competitively, and has directly observed that weight loss comes in the kitchen, not from riding. And if you try to cut back on nutrition during the ride, you'll feel so awful you won't be able to ride.)

Then I got serious about rehab and corrected the issues in my leg, started cycling again, and I was back to my desired weight in about 6 weeks, and without putting any particular effort into controlling my calories. Everyone else in my immediate family is obese and sedentary excepting my uncle who is also a cyclist.

Someone in r/cycling the other week tried to suggest that "abs are made in the kitchen" and they were laughed out of the thread. In most forums, however, exercise is a 4 letter word, and Dr. pontzer is very popular.

After following the subject for years, I've come to believe rising sedentarism is the primary culprit in the obesity epidemic.

The best way to lose weight is to reduce insulin levels. This involves changing what you eat and when you eat.

How so?

Of course if you're exercising regularly and strenuously, there are some athletic metrics: how long you can run until exhaustion, how much weight you can lift, etc.

Yes, because my weight—or visible body fat, anyway—has fluctuated over my entire life, including then and now, depending on how much exercise I get.

True.

> Low intensity cardio like walking doesn't have the same effect.

That's short-term thinking though. Long term, higher intensity cardio builds muscle and endurance. The more strenuously you exercise now, the more strenuously you'll be able to exercise in the future. If you're not pushing yourself, then you'll remain stuck at the lower level forever. The extra calories now are an investment in your future body.

Of course. And I'm not suggesting that people ignore or go crazy with their diet. I'm personally very strict with mine, though I'm not counting calories at all but rather trying to mimimize salt, saturated fat, and added sugar (which perhaps naturally restricts calories somewhat, since the highest calorie foods also tend to have high salt, saturated fat, and added sugar).

> But if my 240 lbs buddy wants to lose weight? Dude would be doing well to jog 5km. He's not going to be running any marathons.

Of course. What I would say is that in fact it's a (metaphorical) marathon, not a sprint. The goal, I think, should be health, not simply weight loss, which is only one aspect of health. You shouldn't be afraid to exercise strenuously just because it might make you a little hungrier. In the long run, you want to control your diet and also get your body into shape, which requires investment in exercise.

My dispute is with the idea that "we burn calories within a very narrow range: nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level." That's simpy not true in general. It may be true for a relatively sedentary activity level, but it's not true for people who are at higher levels of vigorous activity, and I don't mean just elite athletes. A normal person can build up to becoming quite physically active if they commit to it long term. Of course nobody can just run a marathon right away, but almost anybody could run a marathon eventually. The author was examining people who walk all day, but I don't think that's a good baseline for measurement of "maximum" physical activity, because walking is generally not very strenous.

The OP said 6 hours a week (1 a day), not 6 a day.