You have to put on quite a lot of muscle to raise your resting metabolic rate, and this probably isn't practical for most people.
Resistance training (weight lifting etc) can be a great way to do interval exercise and get a real sweat going. Kettle bells for instance are particularly in vogue, although there are plenty of other methods.
Resistance training is great for many other reasons, and we should all be doing some. Increased strength and coordination is a solid investment in your future health.
Lower intensity exercise (eg jogging) does unfortunately increase hunger, and it is far, far easier to 1000 calories than to "burn them off".
Some people are simply predisposed to put on fat and retain it. Aesthetically this may not be what they wish for, and that can lead to desperate dieting and more exotic attempts at fat loss.
It is entirely possible to be "fat but fit" so health measures other than estimating subcutaneous adipose tissue are necessary to understand your health.
It is also possible to be "thin outside fat inside" ie to look thin but have terrible cardiovascular health.
The summary is that most of us should probably eat more green veggies and more fibre but less overall, and do more exercise. Any specific formula for this is a distraction from the general message, but if it works for, good.
On mobile, apologies for lack of references.
Can you provide references for this?
I'm not sure about this one. I've read that in reality, most people have the same resting metabolic rate, i.e. we spend roughly the same amount of calories just to live. It's very possible that there are differences in the efficiency of our digestion systems, but I find it unlikely that the differences are that great (apart from specific foods, e.g. milk). So I'd say that most of the "predisposition" is purely mental.
Predisposition to fat gain may be due to maternal influences during gestation including malnutrition; genetic and epigenetic factors; sleep deprivation; poor coping mechanisms for stress and anxiety; childhood weight gain (hardly the fault of the child); complex glandular disorders such as polycystic ovarian syndrome; and many many other factors possibly including infection.
Plus anecdotally we all know that some people simply put on muscle more than others. There will be plenty of research on this, I suggest trawling PubMed.
The notion that some people are overweight or obese simply because their will power is less than others' simply doesn't fly any more.
A handful of links below. Apologies for shoddy referencing style, on mobile.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_obesity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23700512
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21720205
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24010762 (rat model)
What does, then? Definitely there are other ways of losing weight (surgery, drugs), and there exist a few people here and there that have actual health problems (i.e. their bodies are functioning incorrectly), but I think their numbers are greatly exaggerated. Even if it might be harder for some people to do so, most people can lose weight by being disciplined (i.e. by willpower). Unlike many other medical issues that a person cannot solve by themselves (or things that were considered medical issues in the past, e.g. being gay).
Additionally, "will power" is tremendously complex. We must recognise this and add it to the understanding that people are non-deterministic, complex creatures -- physically, mentally, socially, and metabolically.
It's no more someone's fault they're fat than its someone else's fault they're lean. Genetics, epigenetics, in utero influences, disease, social factors, mental health, sleep.... they are all significant.
In a time where personalised medicine is making giant leaps and grabbing headlines we should recognise that obesity and fat-related health and social issues are complex and sensitive, and require deep understanding.
I hate the "calorie is a calorie" parroting, because while it's true, it ignores every other factor involved in digestion and energy usage.
I've been logging my food intake for a few years now, and I have a pretty solid idea of what my resting metabolic rate is, how much I need to eat when I'm building muscle and so on. The fact is, when I eat the same amount as guys who are similar in build and height, I better be ready to bulk. I simply cannot eat the same number of calories as my peers and expect to not gain weight, which means either my body is more effective at digestion, or I'm more predisposed to storing fat than they are.
> gaining muscles is a pretty effective way to increase your energy consumption in idle mode and thus lose weight quicker
It's not counter to what the article describes; the article is just saying that most people will also increase their energy (food) intake along with an increase in their energy consumption, resulting in no net weight loss. It's perfectly possibly that grandparent's psychology doesn't make him/her eat more as a result of more muscle.
The fat-burning aspect of muscle growth has been fundamental for me. 45 minutes of weight-lifting has had a far greater effect on fat reduction than 90 minutes of cardio.
I don't know that I can say it's "weight-lifting" vs. "cardio", but rather the specifics of what those entail. I do free weights, and feel like I work my body out better than the cardio work that I've done.
But I'm with you in that respect -- building muscle is effective for fat loss for me, and I achieve that better through weight-lifting vs. cardio.
It has been shown plenty of times that running/walking regularly increases life expectency quite dramatically. I've yet to find an article that says the same thing about big biceps :)
There is ambiguous evidence suggesting that resistance training protects against osteoporosis.
This stuff mainly applies in the elderly, but the earlier in your adult life you start, the better you're likely to be (okay, ignoring injury, true -- but that may be balanced by issues later in life).
Loss of muscle mass has a name: sarcopaenia/sarcopenia. Stick it into PubMed and look through the literature.