Greentext

I agree, its not magic. Its you making up numbers and refusing to accept that glycogen exists. Probably because you don't know anything about it while massively over estimating your knowledge of bio chem.

Its not 80 - 140. Its like 5 -10 at best. Again, you epically over estimate the calorie burning effect of excersise, above bass rate, that cardio does. Its why its called cardiovascular and not weight loss excersise, just fyi, due to the fundamental lack of evidence proving it to cause weight loss. Funny that......

I mean, you might have a point, if insulin and glucagon didn't exist. However, they do. So, that ends that really. Well, it does it you understand metabolism.

There is also evidence to support the notion that individuals who are less physically active are more likely to gain weight over time than those who exercise between 150 and 300 min/week

Doesn't mean exceraise makes people lose weight. It could also mean people who do no excersise often eat more too. They would have said this in their report themselves. Dont just read what you want to from things.

Although exercise contributes to multiple health benefits, and most of the research suggests that it can play a role in both short- and long-term weight loss and weight maintenance, patients often have a difficult time engaging in a regular exercise program and continuing that program as a lifestyle modification.

It CAN, as in, in their opinion some of the research potentially could indicate that. But its not conclusive, as I keep saying. You just read what you wanted from that.

Consistently performing exercise of a duratio er than the basic recommendations for health (150 min/week of moderate-intensity exercise) does appear to be more likely to contribute to weight loss and weight maintenance efforts over the long term

So, again, one that might "appear" to maybe actually agree with you and you ignored all the rest. Well the ones you didn't choose to missread that is.

Even then, they're very tentative and say its more likely, not something like "the evidence shows", as the evidence does show that. Again again, this so far beyond confirmation bias. If you want to die on this hill of no evidence and feeling like you can out run bad diet (which would have to be true, if it worked to way you're claiming it does), then more fool you.

Its not magic but it would be, if it worked how you seem to think it does. Behold, the magical persistence hunters who evolved to be able to run themselves to a starvation induced death.

You can't argue with that kind of "logic."