Since exercise no longer affects TDEE, should the activity multiplier always = 1 now?

[EiFit91]

You're entitled to your opinion and so am I. My personal opinion is that I disagree with you completely. You add exercise to anybody's daily routine and 9 times out of 10 that person's maintenance calories will increase. No study in the world is going to change my mind on that. My own experiences and experiences of many others back this up. Even if it is only mild/moderate exercise, in my opinion most people would end up increasing activity in their daily life rather than decreasing it due to become fitter and having more energy thus their maintenance calories increasing even further

But what about my personal experience, which matches the study result that mrpb posted?

I think there may be some selection in the part of the population that tends to participate in fitness forums. For them these study results may be counterintuitive. But you are part of a group for which these results may not apply.

[safcpaul]

Ok man, in that case we're better off not continuing discussion about it.

I notice how you didn't quote the part where I gave my reason but yes I agree we're better off not discussing it as not every single subject needs a study. This is complete basics. This is In line with a lot of my own life experiences where a lot of people who class themselves as intellectually clever lack basic common sense

[Mrpb]

I notice how you didn't quote the part where I gave my reason

I usually only quote the part where I respond to. Anyone reading the thread has the opportunity to read everything you wrote.

[safcpaul]

But what about my personal experience, which matches the study result that mrpb posted?

I think there may be some selection in the part of the population that tends to participate in fitness forums. For them these study results may be counterintuitive. But you are part of a group for which these results may not apply.

I'm not sure about your results mate. But your results are more on the rare side. Most people increasing exercise will have an increase in tdee. Obviously other variables come into play but the most likely outcome for somebody increasing exercise is that their maintenance goes up. My maintenance has went up 1000 calories from a physical job but even in someone who just starts exercising moderately from a sedentary state I would expect the opposite to happen than what mrbp is implying. I would expect them to get fitter and actually do more in their daily life due to the positive effects of exercise but even if they didn't I wouldn't expect them to reduce activity that much that it would negate what they burnt

[EiFit91]

I'm not sure about your results mate. But your results are more on the rare side. Most people increasing exercise will have an increase in tdee. Obviously other variables come into play but the most likely outcome for somebody increasing exercise is that their maintenance goes up. My maintenance has went up 1000 calories from a physical job but even in someone who just starts exercising moderately from a sedentary state I would expect the opposite to happen than what mrbp is implying. I would expect them to get fitter and actually do more in their daily life due to the positive effects of exercise but even if they didn't I wouldn't expect them to reduce activity that much that it would negate what they burnt

I am just not sure that this forum is a representative sample of «most people», it’s not obvious.

When you are part of a selected group, results that actually apply to most people may seem rare or unusual.

[EiFit91]

For those interested I think I have a possible explanation of the 5000-10000 step puzzle.

I get most of my steps from pushing my youngest daughter in a stroller.

I always walk the same route, except that there is a place where the road is spilt in two. You can pick a flat path, or you can choose to go up a very steep hill.

Back when I was getting about 5000 steps I picked the hill every time. And pushing a stroller up that hill is a quite intense activity.

Recently I have been getting 10000 steps, but I think I have only picked the hill once.

So the calories burned by the average step is now lower.

I think this is a nice example of how subtle downregulating mechanisms can be.

[Mrpb]

For those interested I think I have a possible explanation of the 5000-10000 step puzzle.

I get most of my steps from pushing my youngest daughter in a stroller.

I always walk the same route, except that there is a place where the road is spilt in two. You can pick a flat path, or you can choose to go up a very steep hill.

Back when I was getting about 5000 steps I picked the hill every time. And pushing a stroller up that hill is a quite intense activity.

Recently I have been getting 10000 steps, but I think I have only picked the hill once.

So the calories burned by the average step is now lower.

I think this is a nice example of how subtle downregulating mechanisms can be.

Yep. Here's one I noticed in myself: often when I meet my little nephews and nieces they want to play with me and I often say yes. One of the games we do is that I spin around my axis as fast as I can while holding them by their hands. They all want to go several times. It's pretty intense.

If I've done a hard workout before I meet them and then they ask me I usually decline, or at the times I do it anyway I will quit very quickly because I don't feel like it.

[GayCumLord]

16:00 (also section at 37:00) kinda reaffirms that exercise doesn't have huge effect on TDEE

[air2fakie]

I don't really participate in these heated nutrition debates (at least in a serious way) or read the studies thrown out, but am curious if any of the studies also defined "exercise" as something other than adding cardio, increasing steps or doing more sets in the gym.

I'd be surprised if they said the same about things like training for a swim meet or marathon, or snowboarding/skiing all day from first to last chair. You can eat a ton more to do that, and can still lose weight.

[AdamWW]

I don't really participate in these heated nutrition debates (at least in a serious way) or read the studies thrown out, but am curious if any of the studies also defined "exercise" as something other than adding cardio, increasing steps or doing more sets in the gym.

I'd be surprised if they said the same about things like training for a swim meet or marathon, or snowboarding/skiing all day from first to last chair. You can eat a ton more to do that, and can still lose weight.

Well not according to Jordan...

He literally said runners who double their weekly mileage see no difference in TDEE.

[paulinkansas]

This thread is a classic example of Bayesian Theory.

[AdamWW]

Yeah he deleted the thread. Personally I think it's not good forum behaviour to just delete a thread when you don't like the direction a discussion is going. Especially with other people adding good posts and learning from it.



]

noted, and no fuks given.

Stroke your ego in this thread if you feel like it.

Your primary direction in the last thread was micro-managing the topic and being overly pedantic, but that is your MO 99% of the time anyway.

brb being so hell-bent on calling people out that you have to resort to pointing out that I didn't use the 'EAT' abbreviation in the TDEE formula.

[EiFit91]

noted, and no fuks given.

Stroke your ego in this thread if you feel like it.

Your primary direction in the last thread was micro-managing the topic and being overly pedantic, but that is your MO 99% of the time anyway.

brb being so hell-bent on calling people out that you have to resort to pointing out that I didn't use the 'EAT' abbreviation in the TDEE formula.

I may get some hate for this post, but here goes...

It seems to me that mrpb was right. Yes he may have been a bit too pedantic with the definitions, but his main hunch seems to have been correct: many people in the original thread were too quick in jumping to conclusions. Downregulating mechanisms can be very substantial, and while people did acknowledge their presence some examples did and still do suggest that they underestimated how important they are.

The evidence for this is still present in this thread - it seems that many still won’t acknowledge mrpb’s main points.

And based on what he wrote in the other thread he seems to be contemplating leaving the forum. I see that as a very bad sign. I see this forum as one of the few remaining bastions of knowledge on the internet, but lately there has been an increase in «Misc» like activity. I have been on the fence about this - and I have participated in some of it as well, as I thought «well this forum is normally so boring so cannot possibly hurt with some harmless fun».

But it seems to me now that you maybe cannot have one without the other. People are now refusing to bend to well-reasoned arguments and some even resort to insults.

This is what ironwill2008 wrote in one of his last posts before he left the site:

«And whatever you do, stay away from the cesspool known as the misc, and the turds who float around in it. That, in itself, is becoming increasingly difficult as the entire site gradually becomes the misc.»

The fact that mrpb seems to contemplate leaving, along with the above post, to me hints at something.

We need to make the Nutrition forum boring again.

[safcpaul]

I may get some hate for this post, but here goes...

Certainly no hate from me mate. I agree with most of what you say but this is one thing I disagree on with you. Would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything. I know from my personal experiences adding exercise increases my tdee substantially. I'm currently cutting as you know and I'm easily losing 2lbs a week on a decent amount of calories by having increased activity. But you say for you it doesn't which I have no reason to doubt so ultimately we need to do what works for ourselves. As for mrbp, the only reason I got involved in any forward and back with him is because I've seen him countless times state that most of the forum is unintelligent and portrays himself as the most knowledgeable. An actual intelligent person wouldn't have to keep telling people how intelligent they are. I also know from my own experiences that most people that class themselves as 'intellectually clever' lack basic common sense

[AdamWW]

I may get some hate for this post, but here goes...

It seems to me that mrpb was right. Yes he may have been a bit too pedantic with the definitions, but his main hunch seems to have been correct: many people in the original thread were too quick in jumping to conclusions. Downregulating mechanisms can be very substantial, and while people did acknowledge their presence some examples did and still do suggest that they underestimated how important they are.

The evidence for this is still present in this thread - it seems that many still won’t acknowledge mrpb’s main points.

And based on what he wrote in the other thread he seems to be contemplating leaving the forum. I see that as a very bad sign. I see this forum as one of the few remaining bastions of knowledge on the internet, but lately there has been an increase in «Misc» like activity. I have been on the fence about this - and I have participated in some of it as well, as I thought «well this forum is normally so boring so cannot possibly hurt with some harmless fun».

But it seems to me now that you maybe cannot have one without the other. People are now refusing to bend to well-reasoned arguments and some even resort to insults.

This is what ironwill2008 wrote in one of his last posts before he left the site:

«And whatever you do, stay away from the cesspool known as the misc, and the turds who float around in it. That, in itself, is becoming increasingly difficult as the entire site gradually becomes the misc.»

The fact that mrpb seems to contemplate leaving, along with the above post, to me hints at something.

We need to make the Nutrition forum boring again.

If you think that thread was anything like the misc, I think you haven’t studied the behavior of that section very closely.

You’re welcome to your opinion, obviously.

My opinion is that mrpb purposefully split semantic hairs to drag on a discussion/debate rather than truly inform people on the underlying points.

Even after finding some form of common ground, he continued to dismantle isolated words I was using to support my larger argument rather than my larger argument itself.

Why? Because he enjoys pedantry and criticizing if it makes him appear on top and others appear lesser.

[air2fakie]

Yes he may have been a bit too pedantic with the definitions

IMO this is the case with a lot of the stuff written in this forum (by various people), but I've gotten used to the tone and appreciate that others spend their free time reading studies and thinking about topics/Qs that I find somewhat boring and summarize the info for me in (sometimes pedantic) posts.

but lately there has been an increase in «Misc» like activity.

There are certainly some grudges that are aired out, but it's up to mods to keep that stuff under control. I don't recall anyone hinting that they're leaving but I think there's enough room here for Mb, AW and even MWAP to coexist in relative peace. I hope no contributors leave. Seriously, this is a Nutrition forum.

[EiFit91]

Certainly no hate from me mate. I agree with most of what you say but this is one thing I disagree on with you. Would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything. I know from my personal experiences adding exercise increases my tdee substantially. I'm currently cutting as you know and I'm easily losing 2lbs a week on a decent amount of calories by having increased activity. But you say for you it doesn't which I have no reason to doubt so ultimately we need to do what works for ourselves. As for mrbp, the only reason I got involved in any forward and back with him is because I've seen him countless times state that most of the forum is unintelligent and portrays himself as the most knowledgeable. An actual intelligent person wouldn't have to keep telling people how intelligent they are. I also know from my own experiences that most people that class themselves as 'intellectually clever' lack basic common sense

I agree that there is certainly a lot of value to common sense - I think common sense often leads to knowledge that scientists only much later discover. And sometimes, common sense is right where the prevailing science is wrong.

But science is - at least where it counts - self-correcting. It will eventually arrive at which common sense intuitions are correct and which are not.

For instance, common sense used to dictate that we need to bulk to gain muscle. We now know that this is not true, and a large reason is that there were many scientific studies showing that you can gain muscle in a calorie deficit.

So when science tells us, through multiple independent studies, that our common sense knowledge concerning exercise and TDEE is incomplete, I don’t think we should dismiss it. I think we should take it into account when giving out advice.

[EiFit91]

IMO this is the case with a lot of the stuff written in this forum (by various people), but I've gotten used to the tone and appreciate that others spend their free time reading studies and thinking about topics/Qs that I find somewhat boring and summarize the info for me in (sometimes pedantic) posts.



There are certainly some grudges that are aired out, but it's up to mods to keep that stuff under control. I don't recall anyone hinting that they're leaving but I think there's enough room here for Mb, AW and even MWAP to coexist in relative peace. I hope no contributors leave. Seriously, this is a Nutrition forum.

He wrote something like «this is why you will see me posting less and less in this forum» in the other thread. And lately he does seem to have been less active, and I have noticed that this has coincided with the increase in what I (maybe unfairly) described as «misc like» activity...

[EiFit91]

If you think that thread was anything like the misc, I think you haven’t studied the behavior of that section very closely.

You’re welcome to your opinion, obviously.

My opinion is that mrpb purposefully split semantic hairs to drag on a discussion/debate rather than truly inform people on the underlying points.

Even after finding some form of common ground, he continued to dismantle isolated words I was using to support my larger argument rather than my larger argument itself.

Why? Because he enjoys pedantry and criticizing if it makes him appear on top and others appear lesser.

It wasn’t just that thread - it spilled over into other threads and people started making fun of the idea that exercise doesn’t influence your TDEE, turning it into something of a meme. This is despite the fact that mrpb posted several sources backing his claims - and thereby acting according to the Nutrition sticky that states that in this subforum we should aim to back our claims by reference to clinical evidence...

And many of the responses have just been sarcastic remarks along the lines of «of course exercise influences your TDEE».

The thread also eventually evolved into a discussion about mrpb as a person - where I admittedly participated, so I am certainly not entitled to sit on a high horse.

All of this does strike me as a bit misc-like.

[AdamWW]

It wasn’t just that thread - it spilled over into other threads and people started making fun of the idea that exercise doesn’t influence your TDEE, turning it into something of a meme. This is despite the fact that mrpb posted several sources backing his claims - and thereby acting according to the Nutrition sticky that states that in this subforum we should aim to back our claims by reference to clinical evidence...

And many of the responses have just been sarcastic remarks along the lines of «of course exercise influences your TDEE».

The thread also eventually evolved into a discussion about mrpb as a person - where I admittedly participated, so I am certainly not entitled to sit on a high horse.

All of this does strike me as a bit misc-like.

I can't comment on that motivation since I only made the original thread.

My intention wasn't to spawn a string of sarcastic threads, it was to point out the flaws in a well-known industry figure's reasoning on the IG platform where after he criticized me for concepts I do not agree with insofar as he described them.

[paulinkansas]

I have noticed that this has coincided with the increase in what I (maybe unfairly) described as «misc like» activity...

I'll admit that I was one of the instigators. It all started with the Benefits of Salad thread, and things went downhill after that. But there were other people that continued the downward fall once I started it.

[EliKoehn]

I may get some hate for this post, but here goes...

It seems to me that mrpb was right. Yes he may have been a bit too pedantic with the definitions, but his main hunch seems to have been correct: many people in the original thread were too quick in jumping to conclusions. Downregulating mechanisms can be very substantial, and while people did acknowledge their presence some examples did and still do suggest that they underestimated how important they are.

The evidence for this is still present in this thread - it seems that many still won’t acknowledge mrpb’s main points.

And based on what he wrote in the other thread he seems to be contemplating leaving the forum. I see that as a very bad sign. I see this forum as one of the few remaining bastions of knowledge on the internet, but lately there has been an increase in «Misc» like activity. I have been on the fence about this - and I have participated in some of it as well, as I thought «well this forum is normally so boring so cannot possibly hurt with some harmless fun».

But it seems to me now that you maybe cannot have one without the other. People are now refusing to bend to well-reasoned arguments and some even resort to insults.

This is what ironwill2008 wrote in one of his last posts before he left the site:

«And whatever you do, stay away from the cesspool known as the misc, and the turds who float around in it. That, in itself, is becoming increasingly difficult as the entire site gradually becomes the misc.»

The fact that mrpb seems to contemplate leaving, along with the above post, to me hints at something.

We need to make the Nutrition forum boring again.

+1

Agreed and very well said, IMO.

[CommitmentRulz]

making fun of the idea that exercise doesn’t influence your TDEE,

But the TDEE "formula" DOES have an activity multiplier... why?

[AdamWW]

But the TDEE "formula" DOES have an activity multiplier... why?

It isn't that exercise activity isn't a variable in the equation, it is.

However, human beings don't live in a closed or entirely controllable metabolic system, so when you throttle up on exercise, people (on average) in the population tend to unintentionally throttle down on the other variables without knowing it.

On average, if EAT goes up, NEAT and - to a lesser degree - BMR go down. This results in a net neutral effect on TDEE over time.

On average, if EAT goes down, NEAT and - to a lesser degree - BMR go up. This results in a net neutral effect on TDEE over time.




The reason I created the original thread on this subject was because Jordan F. made several statements which were either not true or very poorly explained:

1. His position was that a 6 foot tall, 185lb man at 10% bodyfat who walks 9+ miles a day and performs strongman training in 2-hour session 5+ days a week would be expected to have a TDEE of 2700 calories. He said that was totally reasonable. I disagree, and I think it would be MUCH higher.

2. Whether he just did a poor job of explaining it or not, he argued that it is an inescapable fact that if you increase exercise, your TDEE will not increase. I do not believe that. I believe it is an AVERAGE of the outcomes, NOT a hard and fast rule.



That is all I was getting at.

[Tommy W.]

Wow ANOTHER thread on this. How moronic to think that added activity doesn’t affect TDEE. Mind blowing that people are actually arguing about it.

Yes, a small amount of activity will have a small, sometimes unnoticed effect on TDEE and a high amount of activity will have a more noticeable effect so it’s all relative to the amount.

1 cardio session a week is added activity however that 300 calorie burn won’t have an effect on a weekly TDEE however it will on a daily calculation. So then it comes down to are you considering things on a daily basis or a more long term basis.

[AdamWW]

Wow ANOTHER thread on this. How moronic to think that added activity doesn’t affect TDEE. Mind blowing that people are actually arguing about it.

Yes, a small amount of activity will have a small, sometimes unnoticed effect on TDEE and a high amount of activity will have a more noticeable effect so it’s all relative to the amount.

1 cardio session a week is added activity however that 300 calorie burn won’t have an effect on a weekly TDEE however it will on a daily calculation. So then it comes down to are you considering things on a daily basis or a more long term basis.

There's also something to be said about a person's knowledge of energy balance and activity and how they respond to exercise.

I think that people in this forum, for example, have a pretty good general understanding of their normal step count, their average daily movement habits, and definitely their dedicated exercise time.

The more variables you track, the more you can avoid these compensatory changes that might negate some of the exercise's impact on TDEE.

Yes, a sedentary average American who decides to add in 30 minutes of walking a day might see zero difference in an ad libitum setting, but that's very different from someone who already lifts for 1 hour 4+ days a week, knows they average 10k+ steps a day, holds a predictable daily activity patterns, etc... if this kind of person added in ANOTHER 10k steps, I cannot imagine TDEE not going up.

That awareness in and of itself is a driving force for TDEE to be as high as possible.

[Strawng]

There's also something to be said about a person's knowledge of energy balance and activity and how they respond to exercise.

I think that people in this forum, for example, have a pretty good general understanding of their normal step count, their average daily movement habits, and definitely their dedicated exercise time.

The more variables you track, the more you can avoid these compensatory changes that might negate some of the exercise's impact on TDEE.

Yes, a sedentary average American who decides to add in 30 minutes of walking a day might see zero difference in an ad libitum setting, but that's very different from someone who already lifts for 1 hour 4+ days a week, knows they average 10k+ steps a day, holds a predictable daily activity patterns, etc... if this kind of person added in ANOTHER 10k steps, I cannot imagine TDEE not going up.

That awareness in and of itself is a driving force for TDEE to be as high as possible.

Eric Helms talks about this. I'll dig up the interview if I can find it, but he says that simply carrying a ped0meter and very meticulously counting steps almost completely accounts for the adaptive effects of NEAT in response to EAT. He talks about how most of it simply comes from walking less. I think we shouldn't over-extrapolate what sedentary people who don't count their steps do to people who track them meticulously.

As for the whole debate about the thread, I'm glad it's gone. There were two separate conversations going on. The scientific discussion of EAT and NEAT is very interesting and I will start my own thread later on that Hadza study. That was NOT the point of the thread though. It was Jordan's interpretation of the data, clear inability to track his macros, and idea that his TDEE is the same as a sedentary man. These are separate discussions, hence why it got lost in pedantry. People were failing to respond to Adam's original point.

[AdamWW]

Eric Helms talks about this. I'll dig up the interview if I can find it, but he says that simply carrying a ped0meter and very meticulously counting steps almost completely accounts for the adaptive effects of NEAT in response to EAT. He talks about how most of it simply comes from walking less. I think we shouldn't over-extrapolate what sedentary people who don't count their steps do to people who track them meticulously.

As for the whole debate about the thread, I'm glad it's gone. There were two separate conversations going on. The scientific discussion of EAT and NEAT is very interesting and I will start my own thread later on that Hadza study. That was NOT the point of the thread though. It was Jordan's interpretation of the data, clear inability to track his macros, and idea that his TDEE is the same as a sedentary man. These are separate discussions, hence why it got lost in pedantry. People were failing to respond to Adam's original point.

That does ring a bell... I'm not sure if it was on the Iron Culture podcast that Omar does or not, but it's very familiar.

[safcpaul]

Wow ANOTHER thread on this. How moronic to think that added activity doesn’t affect TDEE. Mind blowing that people are actually arguing about it.

Yes, a small amount of activity will have a small, sometimes unnoticed effect on TDEE and a high amount of activity will have a more noticeable effect so it’s all relative to the amount.

1 cardio session a week is added activity however that 300 calorie burn won’t have an effect on a weekly TDEE however it will on a daily calculation. So then it comes down to are you considering things on a daily basis or a more long term basis.

This right here. Nothing else needs said. End of thread

[EiFit91]

Wow ANOTHER thread on this. How moronic to think that added activity doesn’t affect TDEE. Mind blowing that people are actually arguing about it.

Yes, a small amount of activity will have a small, sometimes unnoticed effect on TDEE and a high amount of activity will have a more noticeable effect so it’s all relative to the amount.

1 cardio session a week is added activity however that 300 calorie burn won’t have an effect on a weekly TDEE however it will on a daily calculation. So then it comes down to are you considering things on a daily basis or a more long term basis.

Nobody disputes that exercise, all else equal, influences your TDEE. And of course there is a limit to downregulation as well; for instance if you go from sedentary to walking 24 hours a day it shouldn't be possible for downregulation to override that activity increase.

But the study mrpb posted shows that for some, even going from sedentary to "high exercise" over a long period of time results in no detectable TDEE increases. So downregulation can be very substantial.

I don't think you can just dismiss this part as "moronic".