If it would be possible to walk to get groceries (and also exercise at the same time), do people choose to drive instead because it's simply easier and faster? They then claim that the goal of exercise is simply not worth it any more given driving is faster (and easier)?
In suburbia where the grocer is surrounded by a parking lot and there's busy roads to navigate nearby then of course people would drive rather than walk, and thus also end up getting a week's worth of groceries at a time.
In a dense mixed use environment where it is easy enough to navigate on foot then the urge to drive lessens and all grocery shopping can be done more frequently and on foot or by public transport.
I've experienced this personally in Australia, where living in suburbia I went grocery shopping once a week with a car and brought back many bags worth at a time, and also in a more dense neighbourhood where I could get groceries on the walk back from work more frequently and barely used my car even once a month. In Europe I only ever walk or get public transport for groceries as I live in a dense area and don't need to own a car.
> If it would be possible to walk to get groceries
It is.
> do people choose to drive instead because it's simply easier and faster?
Some. You also have to factor in the cost of gas (quite high) vs distance vs how much you plan to buy and possibly other factors (like discounts,...).
> They then claim that the goal of exercise is simply not worth it any more given driving is faster (and easier)?
I would think the goal is to get groceries, but yeah. People are quite lazy. The possibility of taking a car or a bus is always there.