While preparing a follow-up study we discovered that unfortunately we made a mistake in the estimation of the daily energy expenditure in one of the regimes. In the so-called exercise regime, subjects were asked to ride a bicycle ergometer for one hour/day and be sedentary for most of the rest of the day. The energy during the 23 hours of non-cycling was estimated with an ActivPAL activity monitor. This equipment was also used to estimate energy expenditure in both other regimes. The energy expenditure during the one hour of cycling was calculated based on the heart rate (Hiilloskorpi et al. Int J Sports Med 2003). In this calculation we made a mistake, we used the equation for male participants also for our female subjects. In addition, during the exercise regime the ActivPAL was taken off during cycling but in the energy expenditure calculation the ActivPAL categorized this hour as sitting instead of no activity. This resulted in an overestimation of the estimated energy expenditure during the exercise regime in the females. In the paper we report for the three regimes, ‘sitting’, ‘exercise’ and ‘minimal intense physical activity’ 1934 (88), 2407 (100) and 2486 (121) kcal respectively. The value for the exercise regime (2407 (100)) has to be corrected to 2248 (93) kcal.

In the original publication we already reported that the goal of identical energy expenditure of the 3 regime was not completely met and that the minimal intense physical activity regime had higher energy expenditure in comparison with the other 2 regimes (p < 0.05). Therefore, the results of the recalculation of the energy expenditure during the exercise regime does not affect the conclusions of our original article and after carefully and critically rereading the paper we feel that no changes in the conclusions will be necessary.