Wow! This guy probably can't add 2+2! He takes everything out of context to make his point. While it is true that exercise, if not accompanied by a calorie deficit diet will not help you loose weight, but his focus there is the calorie restriction rather than the exercise. He is also not considering the type of exercise cited for increased metobolism. An increase in metabolism is accomplished with resistance type exercise that build muscle. Aerobic exercise has fat burning benifits DURING the exercise where muscle building, anerobic exercise continues after the exercise and, as muscle grows, it does consume more metabolic energy. The comparison between a hunter-gatherer tribe and western persons in terms of basil metoabolism is not a valid scenorio. Hunter-gatherers aren't doing activities that make their muscles grow. If anything, due to sporadic and sometimes inadequate food supply, they don't want an increased metobolism nor could they support it.
His entire primise is that if you exercise, you automatically increase your caloric intake and that's why exercise alone doesn't work, but in that premise, he violates his exercise alone basis. Exercise WITHOUT a corresponding increase in consumed calories will either reduce the speed at which you add weight, stop weight gain or cause weight loss depending on the relative ratio of calories consumed to calories burned.
This statement: "activity increased between 2001 and 2009, particularly in counties in Kentucky, Georgia and Florida. But the rise in exercise was matched by an increase in obesity in almost every county studied" is especially aggregious in that it names 3 states that had an increase in activity, but then says obestity increased in almost every county studied. If he intended this to mean that in all counties studied in these 3 states activity increased, but at the same time obesity increased, he is comparing a population to individual accomplishments. In theory, if one person in each county increased their activity level AND lost weight, but everyone else continued their lifestyle, then the entire county did indeed increase in obesity, but the correlation with increased activity isn't valid as it basis acts of individuals on outcome of a population and standard statistical comaprisons don't apply. Now, if they had taken a group from each county who did, in fact, increase their activity and did NOT change their consumption figures, the results may well have been different.
Now this one: "When people exercise, they stimulate their appetites, spurring them to eat more than they would have without working out." This is an assumption and depends on the motivation for the person who is doing the exercise, but he states it as a universal fact. I know many of us understand if we want to lose weight we exercise and track our consumption and that is one of the benefits the fitbit app and website offer. However, if someone's desire is to become a body builder (or at least add muscle mass), they may indeed increase their consumption of calories in order the gain weight. My main point though is that he makes an assertion that implies EVERYONE who begins to exercise automatically eats more and this is a fallicy to which most of us here can attest.
Next: "Trial evidence consistently reveals that basal metabolic rates tend to drop as people lose weight, despite daily exercise." True, but it drops even more if you just restrict calories and don't exercise or do something to maintain your muscle mass. Diet is important here as well, espeically if we restrict calories, especially protein as our bodies will consume our own muscles mass for the protein we need resulting is less muscle and lower metabolism. Even if we maintain our muscle mass, our metabolism will drop slightly as it takes less effort to carry around less fat.
This goes on: "A comprehensive 2013 literature review by Amy Luke, a public health scholar at Loyola University of Chicago, concludes that “numerous trials have indicated that exercise plus calorie restriction achieves virtually the same result in weight loss as calorie restriction alone.”" Again, true, but incomplete. weight loss is determined by a simple formula: 3500 calories equal 1 pound. If your calorie restriction equals the same with or without exercise you'll loose the same amount of 'weight'. But will you also loose muscle mass? Probably. NASA did a study that showed as little as 3 days without exercise, a muscle will begin to atrophy. This is why astronauts attempt to exercise while in space, but even in weightlessness, muscle loss during long term micro-gravity exposure always results in muscle loss. Less muscle equals lower metabolic rate. If you just do a calorie restriction and only accounting for natural muscle atrophy, your caloric need AFTER the diet will be less tending to make you gain the weight back faster if you return to your pre-diet consumption habits.
I could go on and on with errors in logic, half truthes and erroneous assumptions in this article. I have a tendancy to assume Dr Aseem Malhotra is taking a 'shock jock' approach to make some point, but this article is filled with half truths and wild assumptions based on unrelated or incomplete facts. About the only thing he says to redeem himself is: " None of this means you should turn in your gym membership card. Working out will make you healthier and less susceptible to disease. No matter what your size, even 20 to 30 minutes of physical activity that breaks you into a sweat five times per week will substantially improve your health and well-being." But again, he ruins it with: "Do what you enjoy, whether it’s dancing, cycling, sex or all three. If it’s longevity you’re after, note that elite athletes in high-intensity sports don’t live any longer than top golfers." - Top golfers to a lot of walking and are not generally obese! Wait a minute, doesn't fitbit encourage walking?
“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.”
― Isaac Asimov
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
― Benjamin Franklin
