> men burn more calories than woman just right out of the gate

Sure, but parent's point is that the energy input from sugary snacks like chocolate roughly equates to a significant amount of exercise. (Over an hour of walking). -- Maybe the caloric equivalent amount of walking is a little longer or shorter for different bodies.

How might you take action from this understanding, though.

Gaining an extra 100 pounds of muscle is hardly an easy/tangible feat.

"Reducing intake of sugary snacks" is going to be easier than "walk for over an hour".

You don't need 100 pounds of muscle to reap the benefits.

My point is, yes eating a sugary snack takes 1 hour of walking. But it doesn't take 1 hour of weightlifting. It can take 0 hours of weightlifting, if you've already been weightlifting.

Even with walking and running, you do build muscle. When the treadmill says 100 calories, you didn't actually burn 100 calories - you burned 100 plus the increased rate from the muscle you gained.

So, if you're an athletic person, you're burning more calories regardless of if you work out. Just by existing, sleeping, whatever, you have a big head start. For some athletes, this head start is in the 1000s of calories range.