I mostly agree, except that weight training exercise, in combination with a proper diet, does have one huge effect on body weight: if you successfully increase muscle mass, your resting metabolic rate increases significantly. RMR can vary between ~1700 Cal/day to ~2700 Cal/day just with muscle mass changes, and this is between 'scrawny' and 'fit' body types, not going to something like body builders (who probably have a BMR well in excess of 3000 Cal/day). And the 1000 Cal I'm talking about here are a huge difference in food you can consume.

It can work that way, but it's also an uphill battle if you haven't reached your target body fat percentage. Building muscle is an anabolic activity, and losing fat is catabolic. It's possible to build muscle while losing fat, but it's hard because two opposed processes are fighting each other. For a really fat person, based on my personal experience, trying to build muscle while dropping weight isn't the best idea. Some people might be fine trying to lose body fat over a long period of time, but losing more fat initially and then building muscle seems less error prone than working out and then giving up after a while because the fat loss progress isn't encouraging enough.

Also, I would need to see some data that an average person is going to be able to build enough muscle while losing body fat to add on an extra 1000 calories to their RMR. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm skeptical based on my knowledge. In fact, I would pretty much say "no way" unless one can stay anabolic and dedicated enough to build an above average amount of muscle.

Have a look at this paper using your favorite hub of science.

doi:10.1097/00075197-200103000-00011

https://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2001/...

Based on this, a pound of muscle has a REE ~6 kCal per day.

So to get to the number you are suggesting, a person would have to put on ~166 lbs of muscle. That's not realistic most people, let alone those with plenty of fat to lose. It also takes a lot of time and money (calories = cash).

A person could work out that muscle and burn more calories, but there's a few problems with this as a fat loss approach. For one, you're going to need a lot of glucose to have a meaningful workout so you're already undermining fat utilization. Second, it takes time to build up that kind of muscle. It's both a short and long term time suck.

Let's say an average-sized person puts on that amount of muscle and utilizes all of it during a 60 minute body building workout:

6 METS x 3.5 x 75kg ÷ 200 x 60 mins = 472.5 calories

While that's not anything to sneeze at, it hardly matters anyway because muscles don't burn fat. At best you're just preventing the wrong kind of weight gain. To even get to that amount of muscle and keep it on you still have to eat at least enough calories to match that anyway. This is why working out requires more working out, otherwise energy will eventually be stored in the form of fat.

Or, they could literally just not eat that 500 calories and spare themselves the sisyphean task of relentlessly working out and not losing substantial fat mass.

Some resistance training is a good thing no matter what, but expecting muscle to be a weight loss aid doesn't make sense to me. At best, it's an adjunct to fat loss and should be done in intervals.

I'm absolutely open to having my mind blown on this. :)

Whoa the hormetic thing struck home for me. I haven't had the correct word for it but that completely describes my relationship to exercise/diet and where I have landed after ~10ish years fooling with it. I was keeping my foot on the gas for long periods and getting no results. Lately I have been doing better with 4-6 weeks of strict diet/exercise routines followed by a few weeks of relaxation. I would even say the specific diet has less effect than the mental & physical adjustment to having a strict routine.

Right, because our bodies both developed to adapt to change and resist too much change. If either a negative or positive delta too long, either one can spell death. We don't want to get so fat that we are crushed by our own weight, but too much weight loss would result in our bodies eating themselves to death, though both adaptations are beneficial in certain amounts. This is why I think there's something to the body "set point" theory even though it's really unclear based on the current information if that's truly a thing and how it works.

The hormesis thing in particular is about introducing things in small amounts to get a beneficial response while limiting the harm that can be done in too much excess. Some things have no known hormetic level, lead being a prime example, but generally there's a level of tolerance to most things and beneficial pathways that are triggered by them. This is why when people say "only in moderation", they're only partway correct; moderation to many people usually means an amount of something that is less overtly harmful than average, but hormesis can mean taking in a very small amount of something infrequently depending on the substance and the intended effect. Small amounts of alcohol, for example, can have different benefits for decision making, creativity, and longevity, but the returns diminish rapidly if you either drink too much or consume any amount too often.

The other half of the equation, in relation to my point about adaptation being both positive and negative integers, is keeping the body on its toes, for lack of a better term. A lot of people hit a plateau on a diet because their body has reached a set point for the stress it endures. But occasionally switching up the input causes it to have to have to adjust to dealing with that new input at the current set point it has now reached. This is one reason why some people who have done keto long enough become shocked when they actually lose some weight on a carb binge, and they might even begin to question what they've been doing the whole time. Of course, what they were doing is still right for them if they are in good health because they become fat adapted, thus the body may need to do a certain amount of adjustment in order to start utilizing carbs efficiently again. This doesn't take long, however, since the body still fundamentally needs glucose, so if one were on primarily a keto diet then introducing carbs in brief periods may elicit beneficial responses in more ways than one. Not only can it mean actually dropping a few pounds here or there, but it can be just enough carbs that it improves sleep and allow for more meaningful workouts.

You saw a change in your results not only because you allow yourself a hormetic level of both rigor and relaxation, but you are in a way simulating the environment our ancestors developed in. We didn't develop to exist in equilibrium with our environment, as has been possible thanks to air-conditioning, modern insulation, and agriculture. Living in any particular state too long can mean getting too much of the adaptation we have for that state. Through strict diet and exercise, you are simulating a period of scarcity. When food was scarce or the environment was inhospitable, humans could only eat food that was calorie-thin while expending extra energy in order to solve that scarcity. By taking a few weeks off, which goes against the advice of many in the fitness industry, you are then simulating the time of good weather and good harvest. The body did all it needed to do during hard times, now it needs to shift mechanisms for the current environment. This fluctuation works because, if hard times go on too long, relying too heavily on our long-term energy stores can pose a threat to our survival; the solution is to reduce energy expenditure that occurs beyond BMR, limiting the amount of glycogen expended on excess movement, and focus that both glycogen and triglycerides on getting used to a harsh environment with no end in sight. In contrast, living like it's summer in California all year round, while having certain anabolic benefits and a good way to store up energy for the next period of scarcity, can result in negative health outcomes because our bodies are neither used to modern bounty nor are willing to pass up on an opportunity to store fat for the harsh winter that never comes.

So yes, hypothetically, there's a right amount of flux in exercise and relaxation that has a greater benefit than either of them alone.

At some point soon I need to research more of the evidence for or against this concept because I've become particularly enamored with the whole idea of hormesis as of late. It's biological in the strictest sense of the definition, but I've applied it to more aspects of my life than just diet and exercise. For instance, I rarely watch TV or engage in entertainment anymore, but I have also realized that just a little bit of either one is good for the mind and the soul. There are periods where I go through an "entertainment famine" where I simply don't watch/play any of it, and then I'll have a few weeks where I play a game or watch an old show I appreciate for just one hour in a day and no more. More so than "moderation", it enhances my appreciation without causing me to lose sight of the real world outside of the fantasy realm. Homo sapien sapiens, in contrast to our other Homo-genus relatives, are particularly imaginative. That imagination needs to be stimulated by other imaginations on occasion, but not too much.