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

Harrumph.

Yeah. Until another study comes along and disproves this one

"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"

I don't think it's disproving anything. I think we knew that exercise alone was not going to do the trick unless we were exercising as much as Michael Phelps. There's even that recent study that said that weight loss was was 80% diet and 20% exercise.

And from personal experience, I do know that I lose better when I am exercising regularly than when I am not, no matter what they say :P

I don't think it really tells a different story. Its just a reminder of the old calories in, calories out equation.

This study seems flawed somehow...

I mean obviously exercising more doesn't give you license to eat whatever you want- but I do know thin people who hit the gym everyday for at least half an hour and they still eat very healthy. I agree it's 80% diet and 20% exercise!

my understanding was that the heightened metabolism was a product of high-intensity weight training more than cardio, which they explicitly said they didn't look at. the only mention of weight training was that it takes a lot more to build muscle than most people think. well, duh!

seems like this article is almost intentionally misleading based on a flawed study. i ain't changing nuthin'!

This research found that engaging in cardio activity did not seem to increase metabolism in the 24 hours after exercise. That does seem to go against what "experts" say, but I've always wondered what research that was based on.

As with any research, one study (or one set of studies) doesn't "prove" anything. You have to rely on a substantial amount of evidence. I don't know that the research is flawed, so much as incomplete. As is the case with any study. For example, as someone else mentioned, we don't know from this research what happens for people who lift weights.

Bottom line, even if these results hold, it doesn't change the fact that cardio has LOTS of benefits, and that successfully weight loss and maintenance typically comes from a combination of diet and exercise. Lots of research backs up these points.

"General Public eat what they want..."
I agree that there may be a misconception about the amount of calories one can eat after following an intense exercise program. "You can't out train a bad diet." I don't care if you are capable of doing two hours of HIIT six days a week, there are people who could easily negate the caloric burn of the workout and it's after burn with a hearty fast food lunch followed by dessert all consumed within twenty minutes. Many people underestimate the number of calories they consume and overestimate their workout intensity. So when we speak of "The General Public..." I would probably agree that this misperception exists.

"Most can't create enough muscle to increase their resting metabolic rate"
Most can't or most don't. Big difference. Is it difficult to build muscle. Yes. When I recall my days at the Y, there were very few men much less women who lifted with the intensity, frequency or overall volume necessary to grow muscle. Don't even get me started with what their diets probably look like. To grow muscle, you really have to work hard both at the gym and outside the gym. Most people may not have either the time, knowledge, or consistent discipline growing muscle requires.

I think another thing that is interesting to point out about the study is that they used endurance athletes and measured their post workout caloric burn. Hmmm. Last time I checked endurance athletes, long distance runners, look very different in body type than they people lifting heavy at the gym. Meaning that they do have lower muscles mass available to burn up those calories after the workout. Just a thought that stuck out in my mind immediately. Also, they are using already fit individuals. Maybe that really doesn't matter since we are looking for before and after effects.

What we are interested in is how does real HIIT cardio and real weight training affect the weight loss of the everyday person. How about a long term study of the sedentary population who successfully goes from couch potato to someone who is active and within their ideal body fat percentage and compare the extended post workout caloric burn from day one to the day they reach their ideal body fat percentage. Then, maybe, I would be interested in these results.

I know what worked for me. It may not work for everyone but for me, I had to lift heavy five days a week, HIIT three days a week and steady state cardio on the other three days. I ate immediately after my workouts a clean protein and snack and continued to fuel that metabolism every three hours. I was consistent with this for four years. I also know that when I leave one of these variables out or lessen the intensity, my body begins to change it's shape again. I begin to carry a little more bodyfat. The results I experienced and continue to manipulate could argue in the face of blanket statements made by a reporter/writer of the research they may have stumbled upon.

Good points, Lydia! My 29-y/o daughter is very fit and runs marathons. She eats an unbelievably high number of calories each day. She was thin to start with and so didn't have to overcome any weight obstacles; IOW, she immediately began to get fitter when she began training, so you can't really measure her results against someone such as "moi," who is a 53-y/o woman with ten pounds to lose and muscle that needs to be toned. I think a study such as you have suggested would be much more valuable to the general public.

Lydia, I agree with your points, too. I can tell you that my metabolism is more efficient now than it was a year ago, so I don't imagine I burn as many calories with and after exercise today as I did then. Testing an already fit athlete doesn't seem like the best test group for this kind of study.

I've seen a definite difference over the last year with changes to my exercise, and can see differences even now when I switch my focus to long runs v. HIIT, more cardio with less weight training, ad back and forth between the different things. I may have lost most of my weight from calorie restriction, but I know I changed my shape more with the exercise. And, I know some of my calorie deficit was caused by the exercise, too.

ETA - considering how I feel run down and tired now when I don't exercise regularly, I have a hard time believing it has no impact on my metabolism.

Exactly. Either exercise boosts metabolism or it doesn't. But there's plenty of research to show that it helps lower blood pressure, condition your heart and lung, improve brain function and mood. No matter its effect on metabolism, people were meant to move it or lose it.

Sometimes I wonder what the motivation of the authors of these types of articles is. I would hate to see someone get discouraged from exercising, thinking that the benefits were minimal to none.

Kuhljeanie pretty much nailed it. Post-workout calorie burn is greatest after high-intensity weight training and minimal for cardio work. This is pretty consistent across studies.

And, in the greater scheme of things, post-workout calorie burn is trivial relative to all the other factors in weight loss or gain. You're really talking about the difference between burning off an oreo cookie a day or not.

So, yeah, calories in vs. calories out. Mostly.

Be strong,
Kim

Oh I agree- will people look at this and now go "see, exercising doesn't help, this article PROVES IT."