The results themselves are not wrong per se. Reaching this conclusion from those results, however, is frankly insulting and should make all authors of the paper ashamed.

> These data indicate that physical inactivity (e.g., sitting ~13.5 hrs/day and <4,000 steps/day) creates a condition whereby people become "resistant" to the metabolic improvements that are typically derived from an acute bout of aerobic exercise (i.e., exercise resistance).

Also note that the researchers _immediately_ re-fed the group who participated in the intense exercise:

> The additional energy expenditure from the exercise session was estimated via indirect calorimetry. This energy was then replaced with additional caloric intake with the post-exercise dinner (Clif® Builder’s®; ~40%/30%/30% of calories from carbohydrate, fat, and protein, respectively).

This is especially bad because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the abstract (I checked the full-text).

Shit science.