Malta is also a very small country. It has a population of around 500,00 and area of around 310 km2. These are roughly the size of Atlanta, Georgia. It’s not hard to have a high adoption rate if your entire population is so small.
This is well-intentioned but I think it oversimplifies in ways that can actually be harmful. "Just get used to being hungry" is rough advice to give people - chronic hunger is one of the main reasons diets fail, and framing weight loss as a willpower contest against hunger ignores that satiety is heavily influenced by _what_ you eat, not just how much. A 400 kcal meal of protein, fat, and fiber will keep you full for hours; 400 kcal of simple carbs will leave you hungry again in 45 minutes, in part because of the insulin and blood glucose dynamics involved.
The calories in/out model isn't wrong exactly, but it's so reductionist that it becomes misleading in practice. It omits hormonal responses (insulin, leptin, ghrelin), the thermic effect differences between macronutrients (your body burns 20-30% of protein calories just processing them vs 0-5% for fat), gut microbiome composition, sleep quality, stress hormones, meal timing, and individual metabolic variation. Two people eating identical calorie counts can have very different outcomes. Telling someone "just eat less and accept the hunger" without any of that context can set them up for a miserable yo-yo cycle - or worse, a disordered relationship with food.
> Can you expand on that please? Because I can tell you as a matter of fact that when I go for a run for an hour I burn well over 800 calories
Sure - how did you arrive at the 800 kcal figure? Most likely a wearable or an app, and those estimates are based on rough linear regressions from weight, age, sex, and heart rate - not actual calorimetry. The error margins on those numbers are significant, but the devices present them with false precision that makes people treat them as ground truth.
Even setting accuracy aside, the framing is the issue. Your basal metabolic rate - just keeping your organs running, blood circulating, cells maintained - accounts for 60-70% of your total daily energy expenditure. Add the thermic effect of food (~10%) and you're at roughly 70-80% of your energy budget spent before you even lace up your shoes [1]. Exercise typically makes up the remaining 20-30%. So that hour of running, while genuinely beneficial for a hundred other reasons, is a relatively small slice of your total daily burn. And not all calories are equal on the intake side either - your body spends 20-30% of the energy in protein just to digest it, compared to 0-5% for fat, so "800 kcal burned = 800 kcal of anything eaten" doesn't hold up.
That's what I mean by "myth" - not that exercise burns zero calories, but that the popular mental model of "I ran for an hour so I earned X calories of food" is built on inaccurate measurements, treats all calories as interchangeable, and overweights exercise relative to what your body spends just existing. Curious though - do you track your intake with the same rigour, and if so, do you find the numbers actually add up in practice?
> if I ate only the 2000 kcal I hypothetically need I would go into a strong deficit
Right, and that's kind of my point - the "2000 kcal" figure is itself part of the problem. It's a rough global average that doesn't account for your sex, age, weight, body composition, activity level, or even climate. It's a number on a food label, not a physiological reality for any specific person.
And even if you could nail down your actual total daily energy expenditure, calorie counting treats all calories as equal, which they aren't. Your body spends 20-30% of the energy in protein just to digest and metabolize it, compared to 5-10% for carbohydrates and 0-5% for fat. So 100 kcal of chicken breast and 100 kcal of butter are not metabolically equivalent - your body nets significantly less usable energy from the protein. This is the thermic effect of food, and it alone accounts for roughly 10% of your total daily energy expenditure.
Speaking of which - basal metabolic rate (just keeping your organs running, blood circulating, cells maintained) accounts for about 60-70% of total daily energy expenditure. Add the thermic effect of food on top and you're at roughly 70-80% of your energy budget spent before you even stand up from bed [1]. Physical activity - including your 100km rides - typically makes up the remaining 20-30%, though obviously that range is wide and shifts dramatically for endurance athletes.
So yes, of course people who cycle 100km need more fuel. Nobody is disputing that. My point is that most people vastly overestimate how many calories exercise burns relative to what their body spends just existing, and they use kcal as a universal unit of nutritional value when the body's actual energy extraction varies significantly by macronutrient composition. People optimizing purely on calorie numbers are working with a model that's far rougher than they think.
And this whole picture gets worse with wearables pushing calorie counts front and center. You see it all the time - "my wearable shows that i burned 300 kcal with that activity so it zero outs that sweet thing I ate earlier that was also 300 kcal" That's wrong on multiple levels - the device estimate is inaccurate to begin with, the thermic processing of that pastry isn't equivalent to the "300 kcal" on its label, and your body doesn't do neat arithmetic like that anyway. But with every fitness app and smartwatch plastering a big kcal number on your workout summary, it's becoming the default way people think about food and exercise, and it's reinforcing exactly the wrong mental model.
And also that the calorimetry from wearables is highly flawed and it seems to that we don't have super accurate data and what sort of activities burn the most energy.
I am also a big opponent of folks that start equating the "my wearable shows that i burned 300 kcal with that activity so it zero outs that sweet thing I ate earlier that was also 300 kcal" which is wrong on so many reasons but with a lot of workout apps and devices pushing the (inaccurate) kcal count front and center becomes more and more a of a thing.
The product that this article is advertising seems to be pretty inaccurate and their marketing seems to be burying that information.
The big copy on the front page says:
> Your Apple Watch *tracks* VO2 Max—one...
While you have to read through FAQ where you see:
> The watch *estimates* your cardio fitness during outdoor activities and stores it in Apple Health, which our app reads automatically.
All emphasis are mine.
I think it's a little disingenuous to sell this as "Your VO2 Max, finally visible" when it's actually just an estimate from a watch, based on biomarkers. When the real VO2 is measured in a lab with a more involved equipment.
A 2025 validation study involving 30 participants found that Apple Watch underestimated VO2 max by a mean of 6.07 mL/kg/min (95% CI 3.77–8.38) when compared to indirect calorimetry, the gold standard method. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was 13.31%, and the limits of agreement showed considerable variability ranging from -6.11 to 18.26 mL/kg/min [1]. Another 2024 study found similar results, with the Apple Watch Series 7 showing a MAPE of 15.79% and poor reliability (ICC = 0.47) [2].
I've also been interested for some time in how metabolism works and wanted to debunk the popular myth for my friends that exercise burns a lot of calories, since I was under the impression that around 80% of energy we burn is just by "living" - breathing and thinking.
Reading this article I'm a little confused by the author's conflation of brain energy and the energy expenditure of the body as a whole. In the beginning they mention:
> "Your brain consumes roughly 20 to 25% of your body's total energy at rest"
while later they say:
> "Even chess grandmasters, who sit for hours in states of intense concentration, burn only about 1.67 calories per minute while playing, compared to 1.53 calories per minute at rest"
That second figure seems to refer to whole-body expenditure, not just the brain. And intense cognitive work doesn't happen in a metabolic vacuum - there's increased cerebral blood flow, elevated sympathetic nervous system activity, changes in heart rate variability, hormonal shifts (cortisol, adrenaline). These all have systemic metabolic costs that go beyond the glucose the neurons themselves consume. So the "it's just a banana and a half" framing might be undercounting by quietly switching between brain-only and whole-body measurements.
Also somewhat related - the link to businessinsider about chess grandmasters is broken, but another very interesting rabbit hole here is how energy expenditure is actually measured. A lot of what consumer devices and even many studies report is based on proxy biomarkers like heart rate, HRV, weight, age, and sex, run through linear regression models. True calorimetry (indirect via gas exchange, or direct in a metabolic chamber) is expensive and impractical outside lab settings. That means the precise calorie figures cited with such confidence - the "100 to 200 extra calories" from a day of thinking, or the per-minute burn rates of chess grandmasters - likely carry wider error bars than the article suggests. We don't really have a great way to measure real-world energy expenditure accurately at the individual level, which makes me a bit cautious about the neat narrative of "thinking is calorically cheap, full stop."
That said, the core point about adenosine accumulation and perceived exertion affecting training quality is fascinating and well-supported — that part of the article is genuinely useful regardless of the calorie accounting.