Because you're confused by the sentence eat healthy and exercise. Just because it's a simple sentence to verbalize doesn't mean that the performing the actions are equally simple.
Completely true; it's possible that the sentiment "eat healthy and exercise" is very complicated, and it's also possible that it's very simple. Let's explore, shall we?
For example, what is meant by "eating healthy"...? Low Fat? Low Carb? Gluten and casein free? Are Red Meats acceptable? What types of vegetable oils are harmful? Are supplements needed? What's a good way to keep track of my progress?
On exercise: What type of exercise is acceptable? Do different types of exercises have different rates at which they assist in weight gain? Does this type of exercise require a different diet in order to help speed recovery time? Should I be worried about pulling muscles?
Speaking generally, we all know what constitutes a healthy diet: about five servings of fruits and vegetables daily, lean meats, low quantities of fats and sugars, and a total caloric intake no greater than 2000-2500. When it comes to exercise, most people can maintain a healthy weight with an hour or so a day, focusing on low-risk exercise that won't likely pull any muscles; for those who want to lose weight, an hour might be on the low side.
Now, I will grant that there is a difference between a healthy diet and an optimal diet, the latter presumably requiring a lot of work and nutritive understanding. But just keeping the weight off, looking good, and feeling good? Simple.
And for both of them: How the heck do I plan to stick to an exercise/diet plan? is there any way for me to do both by default instead of using cognitive energy each time? How am I going to balance the costs of each against my limited time and money?
"Using cognitive energy" each time? If a person considers the choice between an apple and an apple pie to be one that requires too much energy for them to bother, then something's wrong with that person. As for the choice between health and convenience? This might have been a legitimate complaint a couple decades ago, but now most fast food joints serve healthier options. Plus, there's always a Subway close by.
Of course, and then the masses assume that merely because it's easy to chant a four word slogan like they're supporting a political party that the mechanisms involved to succeed are similarly simple. Except that when their model clearly deviates from reality they postulate a mass neurosis and pathological indolence instead of thinking that just maybe, since they've never studied or read or researched anything about how and why such failures happen, they might be wrong.
They "postulate a mass neurosis and pathological indolence"? I'm glad you're a science type, because you would make an awful writer. Few people are impressed by overwriting.
Also, what I find hilarious is that Jaffar commits the error twice by referring to the Shangri-la diet as complex, then, because he sees a dark, murky, shapeless void where the definition of the diet should be, assumes that the diet is similarly confounding in its complexity.
I actually know nothing about that particular diet, nor did I pretend to. It's besides my point, which, as a reminder, is that maintaining a reasonably healthy weight involves the simple and winning combination of healthy diet and exercise. Now, if you want to be a body builder? Different story.
It's hard not to like anime when the only decent things on TV were anime, the Simpsons and live action kungfu/sitcom/historic drama.
Completely unrelated, but get cable. You're missing out on too many amazing programs!
--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)