The article title is kind of clickbait-y, isn&#x27;t it?<p>I kind of agree with the article that the diet changes are more important for the <i>weight loss</i> angle. However, when it comes to being healthy <i>overall</i>, I actually think exercise is more important. You can be overweight by BMI, physically fit, and better off overall health-wise than a thin person who is a couch potato. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;healthland.time.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;09&#x2F;05&#x2F;can-you-be-fat-and-fit-or-thin-and-unhealthy&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;healthland.time.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;09&#x2F;05&#x2F;can-you-be-fat-and-fit...</a><p>Anecdotally, I know someone who has gone from 300lbs to 140lbs using a combination of exercise (walking) and diet changes (Weight Watchers). I think both were equally important  to her success, personally.<p>Some of the article to me was, er, a bit of a stretch. Take point 7: &quot;Exercise may cause physiological changes that help us conserve energy&quot;. And the only linked citation is to a paper outlining that people with different genetic composition respond differently to exercise, and a meta study that involved <i>both</i> diet and exercise? &quot;Starvation mode&quot; to extreme diets is well documented, so where&#x27;s the paper that links to <i>just</i> exercise causing slower metabolic change? I mean, perhaps it&#x27;s possible, but it runs against the consensus I&#x27;ve heard, so basically, [Citation needed], because what was provided doesn&#x27;t say what that paragraph said.<p>I do agree with the article that policy should focus on the low-quality food angle.