Interesting the article does not attribute any of the obesity to lack of exercise. It doesnt matter if your live in poverty or you are well-off, if you consume more calories than your burn day-over-day, you are going to gain weight.
The role of exercising has been exaggerated by Coca-Cola and other junk food sellers to shift the blame away from them: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-sc....
But I agree with you, the calorie to volume/satisfaction of the fast food meal is a horrible deal.
Important note: calories are generally estimations... calorie counting apps even more so.... so if you're not careful your 3 strips of bacon (listed, 160 calories)) can easily be 250 calories.
The listed calories on many cooked foods are "average expectations" of that kind of product with "average cooking". Who defines average? No idea. But I advise people interested in loosing weight to research food labels and assume them as "ballpark" values. Failure to do so, on top of missing the extra tablespoon or 3 of coffee creamer can easily wipe out your 100-200 calorie deficit you planned.
Also, look at regulating your blood sugar (diets like keto help), or, if you like carbs, do smaller meals over the day -- this reduces the spikes in blood sugar that trigger hunger.
so while pedantically might be true, the mechanism of the calories does matter a lot.
Of course, it is much easier and practical to eat fewer and healthier foods rather than exercise to such extreme amounts.
You don't have to go too extreme either - take an average overweight person and put him through a certain amount of physical exercise - say, cycling multiple hours a day. He will lose weight with his original unhealthy diet, which had lead to him being initially overweight.
My initial point was the following: just doing more sport is not going to help if you don't even know how much and how badly you eat. You need to reflect on your diet first, and then exercise, even if Coca-Cola wants you to believe that you can drink as much soda as you want without consequences, and that it's your own fault if you get fat afterwards.
The idea that "you have to burn more calories exercising than you eat" is 100% false. The calories you burn while exercising make up less than half of the calories you burn because of exercising. Lean muscle mass maintenance caloric requirements exceed adipose tissue requirements by an order of magnitude. Simplified: the more lean muscle mass you have, the more calories your body will burn with zero effort to support that muscle mass.
That said, a proper diet is a great idea for a ton of reasons. I replied only to point out that proper exercise carries a lot of weight(no pun intended).
Edit: as I read your comment again, actually, I think we mostly agree.
Exercise can give you a bit of an edge and increase your rate of weight loss, but it doesn't do much if you're eating in excess.
So the weight problem is technically an eating problem, but it's subject to unconscious behaviors and perceptual biases that you have to control over a long period of time.
That said, the first law of thermodynamics continues to apply: calories in - calories out == weight gained. The real question is, what makes people overeat to an unhealthy extent? The feedback through leptin should stabilize your weight at slightly above normal by suppressing appetite, but somehow it doesn't seem to work? (Or not anymore?) Why is that?
Lofty talk about unspecified "nutrients" doesn't help anyone. (I think it's probably fructose, especially when not accompanied by fiber. But I don't know enough detail to convince anyone.)
Calories in - (calories used + calories excreted). Of course, calories in = calories in food x extraction efficiency, and already the simple formula has become filled with inconsistent values.
My point is simple: "calories in" is unmeasurable. It depends on the food you eat, how it's prepared, what else you eat with it, etc. "Calories out" is unmeasurable. It's based on what you do, how you move, how your body processes what you eat, etc.
The first law of thermodynamics can apply all the live long day, but the statement "calories in minus calories out" is useless.
"Their lifestyles tend to be sedentary because of their built environments, and their food tends to be served in large portions."
"Employers can help, too, by providing mental and physical wellness programs, as well as discounts and subsidies for physical activity programs. These investments are inherently worthwhile, because employees who exercise tend to have better concentration and work output."
Eating less calaries is the only real way.
In particular.
When I am exercising I'm generally less likely to be bored and sitting around snacking and eating. Running, paddling, hiking, biking especially with friends take up a lot of time. Recently I haven't been excercising and so am sitting around (and yes, eating a lot more).
After exercising my appetite is different. I'm hungry in a different way (I tend to eat a bit healthier etc). So after a lot of exercise I don't want the bag of Doritos or highly processed junk food.
Being in shape helps tremendously with things like mobility. Even basic core strength. I've seen folks get VERY sedentary and then start eating a lot more because of mobility issues. I'm convinced in part this is because when you have mobility issues you don't have as many other things to do with your time.
I have worked outside in less developed countries for a few months at a time (ie, no desk work). I ate a relatively poor diet (lots of carbs etc) but boy was I in GREAT shape. The truth is, if you spend the day outside working with your body you WILL be fit. Again, you often don't snack as much as well, it's three meals and then if you are working there isn't usually much food that's easy to snack on.
Personally, I hate exercise, since it's so boring. To be engaged I need things to think about, but exercising gets in the way of deep thought, so I really dislike doing it. I'm more comfortable walking, but then it's difficult to write down my thoughts...