I think you might mean bodyfat.

> it has effectively no bearing on weight in the general population (non-athletes).

Cmon man, strength / muscle building -absolutely- has an effect on "weight" and "bodyfat". Even when not at the athlete level. Muscle at rest burns more calories than fat at rest, and those burned calories gotta come from somewhere.

I have been into fitness and bodybuilding for 20 years, and I cannot emphasis how true this is. Also not all exercise is equal in that walking isn't a good example of exercise. Humans are extremely efficient at walking, so it is poor at raising your heart rate and doesn't provide any resistance.

Interesting, what do you mean by this? I would have expected that people who exercise more would have lower probability of being overweight?

> Interesting, what do you mean by this?

Purely mechanically, mild effort simply does not burn that many calories over baseline metabolism. To make a real dent you need extreme prolonged effort, or increased muscle mass (which increases base metabolism).

Caloric restriction is a much easier path to caloric deficit if the goal is weight loss.

Obviously if you resume caloric profit afterwards you’ll bounce back, but the same will happen if you din’t maintain your exercise-drive metabolism: the human body is quick to tear down deviations which are costly and not actively maintained.

> Purely mechanically, mild effort simply does not burn that many calories over baseline metabolism

I think that the point is not just "burning calories"; exercise has many effects on your body that go beyond just consuming energy. For example it affects the level of hormones, which in turn affects (among other things) your mood and stress level. I am one of those persons that end up eating just because I am nervous or depressed, and regular exercise makes me do that much less.

> I think that the point is not just "burning calories"

That's a weird take given entire thread is about weight loss, and the gp was specifically noting that exercise won’t help with that. thomasfedb’s statement is rather explicit on that subject.

Sorry, that phrase was meant to be "I think that the point of exercise is not just "burning calories"".

To lose weight you need (roughly speaking, I know it is not only about that) two things: reduce the amount of energy that you intake, and increase the amount of energy that you consume.

The traditional wisdom is you have to exercise because while doing that you consume more energy, but it is not only that. When you regularly exercise you also tend to eat less (- intake), process the food differently (- intake), speed up your metabolism out of the physical activity (+ consume)

Meta analyses of randomized controlled trials show diet and exercise both are related to weight loss but diet has a much bigger impact.

You have to take this with a grain of salt though. My experience clinically (working in obesity clinics) is some people need exercise much more than dietary changes at least at first. But the average person wanting to lose weight will see bigger gains from dietary changes.

The type of dietary change that works best seems to depend on the person.

Because once you exercise enough to lose weight he reclassifies you as an athlete

I was lucky enough to read this article and took a look at the underlying experiment. Human bodies are fascinatingly adaptable.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4437395

You can't outrun a fork.