Tautologies as lame as this usually get a snort from me, and this was no exception. Since humans evolved without a chronic supply of sugar at their disposal, what makes the writer think that a healthy amount of exercise would be normal without that supply? Does the availability of massive amounts of free yet empty calories change the "healthy" amount? If we refrain from consuming all these extra-exercise calories, is the amount of healthy exercise lowered somehow? I suppose so. Is he complaining that early man didn't have all the wonderful low-GI carbs available, so was incapable of healthy exercise? Or maybe early man was too busy working for his dinner instead of wasting his free time burning all those excess calories?

We should eat lots of calories so that we can burn them off in a burst of time-consuming, biologically unadapted "exercise"? Sounds like someone needs to pay more for their food. Maybe they would appreciate it more.

(Of course, the writer's idea of "early man" includes Jesus, so I'm not sure if he'd understand the time frame we envision for these kinds of discussions.)