A 500ml bottle of Coke, for example, contains 210 calories, more than a 10th of the daily recommended intake for a woman.
But US scientists think that statistic is ignored by most people and does not work as a health message.
Instead, telling them that it would take a 4.2 mile run or 42-minute walk to burn off the calories is far more effective.
The researchers, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, found that teenagers given the information chose healthier drinks or smaller bottles…
They say that if a menu tells you a double cheeseburger will take a 5.6-mile hike before the calories are burned off, most people would rather choose a smaller hamburger which would require a walk of 2.6 miles…
Study leader Professor Sara Bleich said: ‘People don’t really understand what it means to say a typical soda has 250 calories.
The public vaguely knows what a calorie is – a measure of the amount of energy in food. However, the technical definition is difficult to translate into real life since a calorie is defined as “the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C.” (Side note: does this mean Americans are even worse in judging calories due to not using the metric system?) This proposal does just that, translating the scientific term into one that practically makes sense to the average person. And, having such information could make comparisons easier.
I would wonder if the new exercise data would have diminishing returns over time. A new interpretation might catch people’s attention for a while. But, as time goes on, what is really the difference between that 3.6 mile burger and that 2.6 mile burger?