Labelling food how much exercise you need to burn the calories off.

[lljkk]

I think this idea is inspired.
But, they'll need different numbers for men & women, right?
Anyone else a fan?

could work?
although they'll need to adjust for body weight rather than gender.

an 11stone man uses the same amount of energy to to walk 5 miles as a woman of the same weight...the work required to move any given mass t from point A to point B depends on the mass, not the gender of the mass:o

mmm.... I'm not sure about that, Suzanne. At least, for the same heart rate and body mass, men use more calories. Plus the man is probably 2-3 stone heavier, so he uses more calories. So a 10 stone man averaging HR = 155 for an hour's exercise, will use ?35-50%? more calories than a 10 stone woman averaging HR=155 for an hour. Assuming both perceive selves to be working equally hard (which is reasonable going on their heart rates), the bloke uses a lot more calories. It's totally unfair! :)

Play with the calculator if you don't believe me.

Women have more water and fat than men. I think this is a good idea, but will need some work.

men (on average) have a higher metabolic rate for the same body mass because they have greater muscle mass.
Here it is body composition and not gender which determines metabolic rate and it remains the case that 'the work required to move any given mass from point A to point B depends on the mass'
calorie burn cannot be directly calculated from heart rate, it can only be inferred with the help of other metrics.
Also I specified walking, not just exercise in general, there are too many variables to account for if we are just talking about exercise in general

I think it's a great idea. It's never going to be massively accurate, but then neither are the daily calorie reccomendations, and I think this is far more meaningful and engaging than the traffic light system.

Nope. I hate the use of using exercise as an example to show how many calories are in something. I've always hated it, and I can't quite put my finger on why.

i think it's because pure weight loss is not really the point of exercise, which should be more about keeping the heart healthy etc. It shouldn't be seen purely as a way to keep the weight off, which is how I think a lot of people see it. And I think these labels will exacerbate that.

I think it's a terrible idea and could result in people wondering what's the point of exercising if it won't even burn off a sausage roll.

Sorry, not very coherent today but I hope that makes sense.

people wondering what's the point of exercising if it won't even burn off a sausage roll
others might think whats the point of eating a sausage roll when I have to exercise that much to stop the calories from it being stored as fat

I agree with ghostoftheMNchicken (hilarious username!)

I'm more of a fan of exercise for its own sake.

It's relevant, meaningful, obviously not entirely accurate for all, but a pretty good visual and striking reminder that everything has a calorific value and those foods higher in sugar and fat would require more physical activity to 'burn off' than others.

I can't see it being a bad thing. Ignore it if you don't want to know, but use it as a tool towards healthy eating choices if you feel inclined. I think it's particularly good info for young people, thinking about my two pre teens.

I hate this. Food isn't earned through exercise. Exercise is earned through food. Trying to exercise to burn off a certain number of calories creates a dysfunctional relationship with exercise and cannot be healthy. Exercise should be part of a healthy lifestyle, not something reduced to numbers.

I think it will make people a lot more mindful about what they are eating.

See for me knowing calories / exercise needed pits me off eating healthy. Why eat 100 cal of apple when I could have a little chocolate bar etc.
Plus I don't see how they can make it even remotely accurate even walking you need to.consider: Build, weight, heart rate, etc

others might think whats the point of eating a sausage roll when I have to exercise that much to stop the calories from it being stored as fat

others might thing what's the point of eating when I have to exercise that much to stop the calories from it.

I think it is a great idea, and that is speaking as one fairly savvy with diet, exercise etc.,

I know, that personally, if I picked up a luscious looking cheesecake at the supermarket, the calorific count is a big ouch. BUT, reading a label that says eating 25% of this cheesecake will take thirteen hours of walking to burn off, it really drives it home.

I would not get overly hung up on male v female rates either, it is an indication, nothing more, but an easily understandable indication.

I hate this. Food isn't earned through exercise. Exercise is earned through food. Trying to exercise to burn off a certain number of calories creates a dysfunctional relationship with exercise and cannot be healthy. Exercise should be part of a healthy lifestyle, not something reduced to numbers.

swearygodmother, you put it much better than I did.

I think it will make people a lot more mindful about what they are eating.

I hate this idea that overweight people are stupid and don't know that eating chips and other shite will make you fat. No one is under the impression that eating chocolate, cake and crisps is healthy, no one.

The way I see it, the exercise bit of it is not to link food being earned by exercise, nor to patronise people. It is an alternative to 'this should make up 2% of your daily allowance', which a lot of people do not see, or have the willingness to tow up all the percentages. Same with the colour coding scheme. Very easy to underestimate what you are eating.
I wonder how many people have tried to eat healthily by following this advice, then had a bag of crisps with a glass of wine at nighttime? To be able to pick up those crisps or wine and immediately assess just how costly it is may well be enough for one to think 'shit 2 hours walking for crisps and wine, i'll just have the wine'trying to be realistic here

I think it is a grand way of simplifying and demystifying food.

gosh, lots negativity.
I can definitely expect conversations b/c people are looking at packets who wouldn't otherwise have bothered stopping to look before. Not just the overweight or stupid people having a look, but everyone. A lot of eating is done mindlessly (by all sorts of people).

Funny enough I was an exercise bulemic: so yeah, I felt compelled to do so much exercise after or before I ate. Exactly that dysfunctional relationship, in the 1980s. Calorie info from reference books & rules of thumb about exercise from diet books. Too much easy access to information didn't cause my problem, though. I didn't get better because anyone removed the info, either.

P I agree, no one thinks chocolate and cake is good for you, but, certainly I have been guilty of eating what I thought was healthy foods, to find later that they were packed with sugar. We all know about hidden sugars, but an easy way of identifying that should be welcomed. Don't assume that every person who shops has the intelligence/interest/basic knowledge to choose the right kinds of food.
This scheme will give additional information, which is great.
I don't believe it is being used to encourage everyone to exercise more (although that would be a good thig), I think it is simply another easy to use tool in helping people make the right choice.

I read a piece of advice that said don't believe anything that make health claims on the packet. It's in a packet............

I think it's stupid. I don't really care how long I have to walk to burn off a piece of chocolate cake. I will eat it regardless.

Bottom line is such inforMation can't be correct as it varies person to person.

Sounds like a good start. Won't be perfect but might help some people.

And it will encourage others to obsess over numbers of calories eaten and minutes exercised..

I suppose if fat people die young they don't use up so much of the pension budget and possibly not as much NHS resources in the long run?

Maybe it makes economic sense to just let people go ahead and eat themselves to death if that s what they choose?