[jmiwhite]

At every turn the GEBN scientists seem to acknowledge the role of excessive caloric intake and a sedentary lifestyle, then briefly handwave the former as overhyped - a large excerpt from one of the linked GEBN "Portfolio Items" containing a bald-faced example[0]:

>Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is that they’re [...]blaming sugary drinks and so on. And there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that that in fact is the cause. [...]

The big problem is we don’t really know the cause other than, well, too many people are eating more calories than they burn on too many days. But maybe the reason they’re eating more calories than they need is because they’re not burning many."

So - he does know the cause. A combination of inactivity and overconsumptiom, both of which are remediated with lifestyle changes that invert their prefixes. Why abandon the latter, simply because each is well reported?

[0]:http://www.sharewik.com/portfolio-items/the-global-energy-ba...