Comments on: Would Minutes of Exercise Be a Better Metric Than Calorie Counts?

By: Vikram

Vikram — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:57:03 +0000

Personally though, surely the anorexic should be guided away from overexercise as well by the minutes. Forcing them to exercise in some way that forces moderate intensity… I can’t see how that wouldn’t work, outside of them injuring themselves trying to get to higher intensities.

By: Vikram

Vikram — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:33:46 +0000

I’m curious… if the problem is anorexia, can we instead change the labels to state how many hours of regular, healthy life (or some better worded synonym/phrase) they typically provide? The algorithms we use would be “biased towards foods, and away from food products” as #19 put it. So imagine if you were eating 48 hours of healthy life in 24… you’d feel weird about it at least, sort of zombielike. Plus I think that fits intuitively with the sensation of a serious sugar rush. You could also have multiple healthy-life hour listings (bars plus count format?) for a bunch of different (obviously, trying for non-controversial) demographics. For instance adult women supposedly on average handle fat metabolism better and carb metabolism poorer than adult men.

Though this does seem liable to the “crazies” counterarg.

By: vega

vega — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 02:49:24 +0000

On the one hand, given food[s and food product]s may very well represent different ‘exercise time’ values to different people.
On the other, many food[s and food product]s that do not come prepackaged are permitted by law a margin of error of 20% either way (1000 calories could be 800-1200).
Could they cancel each other out?

I’d also appreciate:
a) exercise times on low-nutrient density food[s and food product]s, but calorie counts on high-nutrient-density foods
b) distinction between low-nutrient-density food[s and food product]s, and high-nutrient-density foods (biased towards foods, and away from food ‘products’)

By: Bear1951

Bear1951 — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:34:42 +0000

Or. People could be educated about the meaning of “calorie” and make their own informed decisions regarding how many to consume without food/beverage manufacturers having to be responsible for how much of their product people consume. Those who make “wrong” decisions – based on the science-of-the-day (remember when coconut oil was bad for you?) – will have to live with the consequences.

By: Ug

Ug — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:33:40 +0000

Max,
People wanting things to be “handed to them” is never going to change, just because you made a personal choice to pay attention doesn’t mean anyone else will or even should. Your going off the “everyone should be like me” mentallity and that just wont ever happen. So if this is a good way to deal with the obesity problem we have in this country I say go for it.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:15:58 +0000

I think this would further the idea engraved in Americans minds, that “calories are bad”. Calories are neccessary regardless if you are excersizing or not. If a food item says “50 minutes of running to burn this off” than according to this idea i shouldnt eat anything if im not going to do some running. In reality im burning calories as i sit in chair writing this.

As an active person i count calories as a way too make sure i have enough energy for an activity and to replace caloric debt. Getting to know your body is how you should monitor your calories. By minimal research and mostly experience i can tell when im eating too many calories(by the belly fat that starts too show up) or too little (feeling fatigued/headaches).

This is just another thing Americans want handed to them, when in reality we should be monitoring these things ourselves.

I think it would be a good idea to simply put the DV% next to the calories. i think that would be useful for how mange your calories without further reenforcing the stigma attached to calories.

By: Geack

Geack — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:01:02 +0000

We’ve never had a problem giving people nutrition info based on hypothetical “typicals” – the most obvious being the % Daily Values on all our food. Giving a typical amount of exercise would work just as well. And I agree that it would give people a MUCH more useful sense of how much energy they’re taking in.

By: Minnie

Minnie — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:21:03 +0000

It works for me personally. As someone who exercises regularly but hates the pain of it, I often pass on food treats because I know, in general, that it will “cost” me in exercise, and it just isn’t worth it. Exact counts don’t matter, the basic awareness is enough for me.

By: m

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:24:52 +0000

It would be easy to assign a figure that works for everyone, though mostly women are the one who care about it. I would have a picture of a man with a number on its Belly, a woman with a number on its thighs! Then they can visualise where its going as well.

People who have eating disorders like anorexia are completely irrelevant to this, as they are on a doctored monitored, home monitored system that has nothing to do with the general population.

By: floodmouse

floodmouse — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:47:25 +0000

Labeling foods with the amount of exercise needed to work them off would definitely improve people’s cause-effect thinking. On the other hand, I’m bothered by the idea that people think exercise is a bad thing, and you shouldn’t eat just because you’ll have to exercise afterward to get the weight off.

The real problem is simply that people in industrialized society’s don’t get enough exercise. (One hour at the gym is no substitute for eight hours of physical labor.) Strangely enough, moderate amounts of exercise actually reduce the appetite.