inefficient way to aid weight loss. Added to the fact that, by its very nature, strenuous exercise increases the appetite, then I think there is a strong argument to be made that exercise is at best an inefficient way to aid weight loss. Not great for your metabolism, I would expect. Sensible exercise and sensible eating- a bit of self-discipline, that's all it takes. It's not rocket science, but by Christ, society will make you think it is. Rubbish. Of course its possible to be technically overweight and fit, I daresay a lot of rugby players, for example are, but you can't do any meaningful "moderate intensity activity" when your thighs are a solid mass down to your knees and your stomach has a close acquaintance with the floor. Diminishing the importance of diet is plain wrong. Too right that our world isn't planned to encourage walking - try walking through a supermarket car park even! You'd think that in places where drivers become pedestrians there would be easier crossings and even the odd considerate driver, wouldn't you? And how many rural roads leave enough space on the verges for anyone on foot? I don't dispute the message you send, but it seems a bit ambiguous. The article talks about obesity, weight and fatness in contrast to exercise levels. But 'obesity, weight and fatness' refer to different characteristics which may or may not be related. In particular: Almost a quarter of British women are obese, and nearly as many men,