In fairness, Nashville was enough walking to make up for a bit of extra eating.
Discussion
Barely. Exercise IS crucial for staying healthy but is a terrible way to try to offset calorie intake.
Have you actually carefully counted how many calories you really are eating on keto and other diets?
I've never met anyone who actually got significant exercise over a lot period of time and stayed fat. It's hard to do that with North American lifestyles. But the fact is calories in, calories out, is how it works.
If anything, it amazes me how _little_ exercise is actually needed to lose weight. High intensity cardio exercise burns calories quite quickly. The issue is people don't realize what high intensity actually feels like and don't reach it.
I was super-serious about my first round of keto and absolutely logged everything.
Once the ball really got rolling, I was losing about 0.5 lb per week with ZERO increase in activity level. Keto made my body willing to burn onboard fat stores so my appetite decreased and I never had to fight through hunger, even though I was def at a significant calorie deficit. It was all shockingly easy.
I have close friends / family that still think the only way to lose weight is to torture yourself by eating salads all the time, feeling hungry and miserable, and working your ass off in the gym 5-7 days a week. It's such a horrible prospect that they just don't even try to lose weight. Road seems too hard.
Keto has worked wonders for me because the ONLY effort involves being disciplined about food (which is easy for me. I'm boring; I love salmon, eggs, cheese, broccoli, avocado. Happy to eat them every day).
I wish those other people in my life would just give it a f'n try. But they just can't shake the incorrect equation:
Losing weight == really hard, miserable work
The other thing is that I view keto as a tool, but not necessarily a lifelong permanent way of eating. If you have excess fat you want to burn, do a stint of disciplined keto until you get to your target body fat percentage. Then ease up but keep monitoring. If bfp drifts back above some uncomfortable threshold, switch back to keto for a bit.
I know steady cardio isn't the same as HIT / HIIT (in terms of burn while active and residual effects), but still. The effort-to-calorie-burn ratio is rough.
The average American is just not willing to offset a single can of Coke by running 1.4 miles every day, let alone do enough additional work to get into a calorie deficit for the day.
Yes, they'd be better off doing sprints / HIIT (I used to do cycles of 20s sprints, 60s rest with my gymnasts in the summer. Holy shit was that hard to get past even 5 rounds). But the average American probably can't even move fast enough to get into a high intensity zone nor could they sustain it for 20s. And they'll give themselves a heart attack.
I think you're missing my point.
Keto is not a way to offset calorie intake. It's a way to eat less total calories.
Exercise _is_ a way to actually offset calorie intake. The reason why it doesn't work in most people is most people don't actually work hard enough at their exercise to burn more than a trivial amount of calories.
In my personal experience, and the experiences of everyone else I've ever met, once you actually get a significant amount of exercise you will lose weight. Eg for me, that was quite easy by cycle commuting. Its just hard to integrate that into most lifestyles.
I once calculated the distance I had to walk (at a fast pace, with or without elevation change) to offset a single Frappuccino. It was a depressing but certainly doable number. Some fitness apps give you a vanity number of calories spent that don't subtract baseline metabolism though.
Agree with the observation that keto mostly helps increase satiation and therefore calorie intake. The one time I did that it was very effective, but not fun.
Exercise may, in addition to obviously burning calories, have some influence on (the type of) appetite too. I haven't read up on any studies.
A tall frappuccino is about 160 calories. That's about equal to the extra calories burned for. 200lb man walking at a brisk pace 2.5km, which will take about 25 minutes.
If your walk to and from the Starbucks, that's just 12.5 minutes each way. Pick a Starbucks that isn't close to you. No big deal.
If you ran at a moderate pace, the same man could equal the calories burned in just 10 minutes round trip, 1.6km.
Since most people only exceed their calorie needs by a bit, putting on weight slowly over time, reversing that doesn't actually take that much more exercise.
The problem is that people think a "brisk walk" for half an hour three times a week counts as significant exercise.
I really have to wonder what % of Americans have even reached 90% of maximum heart rate in the past year...
Double that... Java chip and whipped cream is my style :-)
Back in the day I would usually walk 20 minutes there and back with a detour (up to an hour if I had the time and a good podcast). 
Yeah, well, cut out the chocolate and cream and it'll be easier to lose that weight...
Which I think we all agree is so much of what keto really is: a restrictive diet that naturally leads to weight lose purely out of inconvenience.
Blasphemy! (can also just cut the frequency of consuming them in half)
Oh for sure the problem CAN be worked from either or, ideally, both sides (reduced calorie intake, increased calorie burn).
I'm just saying that the effort required and mental resistance is WAY skewed against the calorie burn side. To the point where, Richard Simmons' best efforts be damned, I think it's a losing case to try to make to the average American.
But too few people understand how EASY the reduced calorie intake side can be (it has its own mental resistance -- "not my beloved carbs!" -- and misconceptions -- "I can't live on salads").
I'm just viewing it as a pragmatist. If the goal is fat burn, I just focus on what they're eating.
Personally I've always found the mental effort of getting more exercise easier than the mental effort of trying to restrict my diet.
Travelling in Europe and eating "good" food doesn't get me to lose weight if I don't get a bunch of exercise regularly. Being in Canada and consistently exercising with North American crap food does.
The most weight I've ever lost in my life was while cycling to school and work regularly, and eating fast food multiple times a day. I can't out eat regular 50km bike rides.
I checked, and comparing the week before and after the conference I lost 0.3kg at what is probably the same hydration level, and my Fitbit scale thinks my body fat % went down slightly.
Too small of a difference to actually measure reliably. But probably didn't gain significant weight.