F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.
The obese marathoners, long distance hikers, weight lifters, and others of my acquaintance seem to illustrate that one can have a high drive to be active despite being obese, so I question whether the correlation between obesity and physical inactivity necessarily proves Taubes' belief that sedentary behaviour is driven by insulin issues, since there are other possible explanations that might offer more room for the existence of people who are both active and overfat.
For example, high body weights can cause joint and muscle pain, and carrying extra weight can in itself be very demanding, so it may be that larger people are less active for those reasons. Also, as a culture, we're all quite sedentary, but we may place more focus on that when people are sedentary and fat rather than sedentary and thin. Additionally, exercise doesn't necessarily help much for losing weight, but we know that exercise is important for people who sustain significant weight loss over long periods, so it may assist people in maintaining body weight after fat loss, thus skewing numbers.
As I've said before, I don't think Taubes is all wrong (my vote above was for "eh, kinda"). I certainly give him a lot of credit for showing that people are not obese simply because they are lazy or stupid and pointing toward metabolic issues as one major cause of obesity. But I also don't think he gets it all right, and while insulin resistance is one cause of overfatness, I don't think it's the only one. He's worth reading, but I'm not in the "Taubes said it, I believe it, that settles it!" camp. Skepticism is healthy.
“If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde