We’ve been had, and it’s time to own up to it. For years, the gym boom has been welcomed with enthusiasm: having ubiquitous and accessible sports facilities to break out of our sedentary routine can only be understood as a positive thing.
And yet, the way sports has woven into our lives is deeply problematic: we’ve managed to construct a “compartmentalized” model of physical activity that leaks in every direction.
So does “going to the gym” not work? No, that’s not it. It’s not what the evidence says. Intense exercise is useful. Very useful. And it’s always better than doing nothing: but the idea of going to the gym for an hour and calling it a day forgets that the relevant unit is not the gym hour, but the 24-hour energy pattern of the day.
Let’s frame this differently: why don’t the Hadza burn more calories than office workers despite walking 12 km a day, why do weight-loss gym programs systematically disappoint, or why has the WHO started separating “doing exercise” from “sitting less”?
The answer to these three questions is the same: the evolutionary biology of humans.
Two lines of research converging on the same point. Between 2012 and 2018, a Duke University team led by Pontzer found that the body does not simply add exercise energy to basal energy expenditure. What it does is compensate for it (reducing energy spent on other vital functions such as inflammatory processes, reproductive functions, or metabolic control).
In other words, spending an hour (or more) of intense exercise does not necessarily increase total energy expenditure.
The second line of research comes from comparing people who weigh the same and have the same height. In 1999, Mayo Clinic researchers discovered that the daily variation in energy expenditure can be attributed to things like walking, standing, household tasks, and other small, unconscious movements.
The Risk. On top of that, physical inactivity is itself a risk factor. In 2016, Ekelund and his team found that 60 to 75 minutes of moderate activity daily are needed to offset the excess mortality risk associated with sitting eight hours or more a day.
That is, an hour of exercise does not solve the problem.
Blind to the issue. The problem is that public discourse does not notice. It’s imbalanced: the dominant imagination since the 1980s has treated “a handful of hours of exercise” as a way to “buy” health. The long-running debate about how many steps to take each day is exactly the same.
The matter, as I’ve said, is that the evidence is clear: we’re not buying anything.
So what now? Do we close the gyms? Not at all. What matters by 2026 is to begin understanding that the proper unit for thinking about our physical activity is the entire day.
As the WHO states, “more activity is better than little; any activity is better than none; [however] reducing sedentary time provides independent benefits” and it is worth addressing it alongside the exercise we do.
The idea of “train for an hour and then glide through the rest of the day” does not hold up. Going to the gym is positive, but it isn’t a royal decree: intense exercise acts as something that adds to reducing sedentary behavior. It does not substitute it.
Image | Anupam Mahapatra
At Xataka | Cereals yes, but wrapped in black cardboard: the business of packaging aimed exclusively at men