Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The new calorie packaging scheme - UK
mitch239
Posts: 78 Member
in Debate Club
Apologies if this doesn't belong here. But I need to find out peoples opinions.
So the UK is introducing a new scheme that means it will tell you how long you have to run or walk for to burn the amount of calories in the product. I'd like to know your opinion on things. Agree or Disagree? I don't want to get people into debates so no arguing. 😋😋
So the UK is introducing a new scheme that means it will tell you how long you have to run or walk for to burn the amount of calories in the product. I'd like to know your opinion on things. Agree or Disagree? I don't want to get people into debates so no arguing. 😋😋
2
Replies
-
I would have to agree with the idea, no harm in setting healthy expectations4
-
But doesn't it vary by person's size and ability? We burn calories according to our muscle mass or whatever, so each person would be different, right?20
-
Those numbers are going to be completely different for a small, elderly woman and a young, obese man, and everyone in between.12
-
It will of course be very generalized (but so is the standard "2000 calorie diet" on American packaging). I'm assuming the idea is to add perspective - the CO portion of CICO - not be 100% accurate.But doesn't it vary by person's size and ability? We burn calories according to our muscle mass or whatever, so each person would be different, right?6 -
It kind of ignores the fact that you burn a crap ton of calories merely existing. When I was dieting I had people make comments like that all the time...like, "you must do a ton of exercise to be able to eat X,Y,or Z and still lose weight"...Nah...I burn like 1800 calories just being alive and nothing else.5
-
Two thoughts:
In general I like availability of nutrition information (I loved when they started requiring restaurants to put it on menus in the US). I can see how this is similar and set realistic expectations in peoples head since it seems like a large portion of the population really has not idea how many calories are in food and how many calories they burn normally.
I could see it being a bit triggering for people with the overexercising version of anorexia. Or just naive people who think they need to exercise off every single thing they eat to lose weight and don't understand BMR (similar to cwolfmans comment above)12 -
Disagree. It’s a well-meaning idea, but there are too many factors to consider when calculating calories burned, even whe accounting for “standard diet/activity”. Ultimately it would have the same impact as diet soda: uninformed consumers taking the labeling at face value and perpetuating poor dietary and activity habits as a result.5
-
I just saw an article about the new packaging with examples.
I don't have an ED, but I do have anxiety. These labels made me immediately feel panicky about eating the foods even though I am well aware of how CICO works.
To be fair, I had the same reaction the first time I was exposed to calories on a menu. I felt paralysed about making a choice because I had to now balance another data point along with what I like, what won't cause a problem (lactose, allergies, etc), what I can afford, etc.
Of course, now I do better with the calories on menus, so I'm sure I would adjust. However, I am glad it won't be coming to my labels anytime soon.
Edit:
And to the person who felt the need to disagree with a post that was obviously 100% about my own thoughts/ feelings/ experience ---
Go find some empathy! Geez! Or possibly work on your reading comprehension!10 -
Maybe if you think about it this way it won't cause so much anxiety. If you are a 150-pound person walking three miles per hour, it will take eight hours of walking to metabolize a recommended 2000 calorie diet. Now of COURSE you don't walk eight hours per day, but if you keep that eight hour number in mind when you look at labels, maybe you can just add up the minutes to get to eight hours instead of "counting calories." Just a wacky idea.
0 -
I think it creates an unhealthy association with food. Your don't need to "burn" most of what you eat from exercise. Your body burns it just from you existing. Exercise can provide some added burn, but it is still only a small part of it. I can see people unnecessarily restricting the amount they eat because the idea of exercising it off freaks them out. I get that is the point in a way to prevent people from overeating, but I think it will have unintended consequences for people at risk of EDs.13
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »It kind of ignores the fact that you burn a crap ton of calories merely existing. When I was dieting I had people make comments like that all the time...like, "you must do a ton of exercise to be able to eat X,Y,or Z and still lose weight"...Nah...I burn like 1800 calories just being alive and nothing else.
There ya go.
Combine that fact with the 2000 cal average diet always used.
Based on I believe Sedentary setting.
So 1600 BMR.
State how many hours sleeping to burn off the stated calories. ;-)
"This 200 cal serving of ice cream will take 3 hrs to burn off"4 -
DanyellMcGinnis wrote: »Those numbers are going to be completely different for a small, elderly woman and a young, obese man, and everyone in between.
Exactly. They're going to be very different. I see it on my wall every day. MapMyWalk posts X calories burned by me for my 60 minute walk, and my friend's fitness tracker posts X + 30% calories for her 30 minute walk, because of our different size/age/pace.
The information is going to be so inaccurate that it's useless.2 -
Can I point out this is just a suggestion from a university research group and there are no plans whatsoever to implement.11
-
"So the UK is introducing a new scheme that means it will tell you how long you have to run or walk for to burn the amount of calories in the product."
Not true. You didn't listen to the news article very well if you came to that conclusion, it's just a suggestion from Loughborough University.
"I'd like to know your opinion on things. Agree or Disagree? I don't want to get people into debates so no arguing. "
My opinion would be don't post in the debate section unless you want a debate!
My other opinion is that most people wouldn't be that interested in a very random estimate but it might be thought provoking for some but probably unlikely to actually influence their food choices. If people are interested in calorie tracking the information is already there.
13 -
This content has been removed.
-
I can see both sides to this. Weirdly it came up as a topic on askamanager.com a couple of weeks ago.
On the one hand I think it can help the problem of overestimating exercise calories burned. I was once in an informational talk by a dietician student at university who stated that it would require walking a football field to work off the calories of 1 m&m. Now I never fact checked that, but it has been something that put in perspective the relationship between calories and exercise.
On the other hand, until a person is ready to absorb the information it won’t do any good.0 -
Lobsterboxtops wrote: »I can see both sides to this. Weirdly it came up as a topic on askamanager.com a couple of weeks ago.
On the one hand I think it can help the problem of overestimating exercise calories burned. I was once in an informational talk by a dietician student at university who stated that it would require walking a football field to work off the calories of 1 m&m. Now I never fact checked that, but it has been something that put in perspective the relationship between calories and exercise.
On the other hand, until a person is ready to absorb the information it won’t do any good.
That dietician student needed to do more studying and less talking.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
swierzbik1 wrote: »Lobsterboxtops wrote: »I can see both sides to this. Weirdly it came up as a topic on askamanager.com a couple of weeks ago.
On the one hand I think it can help the problem of overestimating exercise calories burned. I was once in an informational talk by a dietician student at university who stated that it would require walking a football field to work off the calories of 1 m&m. Now I never fact checked that, but it has been something that put in perspective the relationship between calories and exercise.
On the other hand, until a person is ready to absorb the information it won’t do any good.
That dietician student needed to do more studying and less talking.
If he was talking purely about energy generated through movement he was right, better check before bashing on people. However when it comes to humans we constantly burn way more because of BMR and NEAT so yes the OVERALL calories burned by walking around football field are way way way higher however from purely physics perspective and kilocalories created from the power output then yes it would be equivalent to an m&m. When in doubt, always use 70%BMR 20%NEAT 10%EXERCISE of TDEE (this are not entirely accurate but work more all less for majority of population)
Closer to 2 M&Ms, even not counting what you will burn anyway. That's for someone of about 150 lb.1 -
Oooookay, I took it as "football field....really big. One m&m....really small".
Now, I think I'll eat some m&ms....while still exercising.
Also, that wasn't even close to bashing.4 -
swierzbik1 wrote: »Lobsterboxtops wrote: »I can see both sides to this. Weirdly it came up as a topic on askamanager.com a couple of weeks ago.
On the one hand I think it can help the problem of overestimating exercise calories burned. I was once in an informational talk by a dietician student at university who stated that it would require walking a football field to work off the calories of 1 m&m. Now I never fact checked that, but it has been something that put in perspective the relationship between calories and exercise.
On the other hand, until a person is ready to absorb the information it won’t do any good.
That dietician student needed to do more studying and less talking.
If he was talking purely about energy generated through movement he was right, better check before bashing on people. However when it comes to humans we constantly burn way more because of BMR and NEAT so yes the OVERALL calories burned by walking around football field are way way way higher however from purely physics perspective and kilocalories created from the power output then yes it would be equivalent to an m&m. When in doubt, always use 70%BMR 20%NEAT 10%EXERCISE of TDEE (this are not entirely accurate but work more all less for majority of population)
Closer to 2 M&Ms, even not counting what you will burn anyway. That's for someone of about 150 lb.
OK, but the original statement was "walking a football field" (which to me means walking the length of a football field), but it has morphed into "walking around football field," so if the latter is 2 M&Ms worth of calories, the former would be about a third of that (accounting for crossing the width of the field twice, as well as crossing the length twice).1 -
It's a bad idea and will only lead to people forming a poor relationship with food. Food is something to be enjoyed. It's part of our social behaviour. It should not be simply viewed as a source of fuel for exercise nor should exercise be viewed as a way to compensate for overeating. We all know you can't out-exercise a poor diet. This would seem to suggest that you can.2
-
Certainly the 2,000 calorie guideline in the US has not worked - we are more obese than ever. But, attitudes and practices vary around the world so it may be a good thing.
But we are all human. And, I think for those who track and care it will be another piece of information at their finger tips. Those who are not concerned are going to eat what they eat and move on with their day. No pun intended.
Hope everyone has a great day!0 -
Haha...and this thread is why I see both sides of this. I feel like there are three kinds of people in this world...
1. Those who hear something, take it with a grain of salt and apply it generally to their daily lives
2. Those who hear something, calculate it to the nth degree
3. Those who hear something, don’t want to agree with it and dismiss it outright.
The information being suggested would help the first group, might work for the second group, and will be ignored by the third group.
Back to the now infamous m&m, I simplified the the message. All things being equal and assuming one is already breathing and living and consuming calories by existing if one were to eat an m&m and wanted to deliberately convert the calories of that m&m into energy it would require the equivalent of walking the length of one football field. I’m other words calories in and calories out. It was never intended to be a direct calculation.0 -
I think it's a great idea. I know plenty of people who don't shed a tear or even pay attention to the number of calories listed on the menu. I also know a ton of people who actually don't understand CICO and they don't know that you can't out-exercise a bad diet. There are people who still think carbs are bad... so yeah, people just don't know this stuff. I think the only thing that would happen is that it would create further awareness and maybe even help some people start to think about how much they're putting into their body on a daily basis. For those who might get triggered? Oh well.. if it's not a calorie count or number of calories burned as the trigger I am sure it will be something else.0
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »swierzbik1 wrote: »Lobsterboxtops wrote: »I can see both sides to this. Weirdly it came up as a topic on askamanager.com a couple of weeks ago.
On the one hand I think it can help the problem of overestimating exercise calories burned. I was once in an informational talk by a dietician student at university who stated that it would require walking a football field to work off the calories of 1 m&m. Now I never fact checked that, but it has been something that put in perspective the relationship between calories and exercise.
On the other hand, until a person is ready to absorb the information it won’t do any good.
That dietician student needed to do more studying and less talking.
If he was talking purely about energy generated through movement he was right, better check before bashing on people. However when it comes to humans we constantly burn way more because of BMR and NEAT so yes the OVERALL calories burned by walking around football field are way way way higher however from purely physics perspective and kilocalories created from the power output then yes it would be equivalent to an m&m. When in doubt, always use 70%BMR 20%NEAT 10%EXERCISE of TDEE (this are not entirely accurate but work more all less for majority of population)
Closer to 2 M&Ms, even not counting what you will burn anyway. That's for someone of about 150 lb.
OK, but the original statement was "walking a football field" (which to me means walking the length of a football field), but it has morphed into "walking around football field," so if the latter is 2 M&Ms worth of calories, the former would be about a third of that (accounting for crossing the width of the field twice, as well as crossing the length twice).
I was basing what I said on walking across a football field, i.e. 300 ft.
Specifically, an M&M has about 3 calories.
Walking a km at a slow pace when you weigh 150 lb (68 kg) (not taking into account other cals you are burning in the same time just by being alive) burns 62 calories, according to that Runtastic calculator. 1 km is about 3281 ft. So a football field is about 10.9 football fields. Based on that, walking across the football field burns about 5.7 calories, or about 2 M&Ms.
To put that in terms more meaningful to me, one city block in my city = 660 feet. That means I can burn nearly 4 M&Ms just by walking a city block, which is a quite short distance (well, maybe closer to 3 or 3.5, since I'm less than 150 lb and I was rounding up). A single M&M just isn't many cals.4 -
The formula I've seen for net calories burned based on energy expenditure studies was 0.30 calories/mile/pound for walking, and 0.63 calories/mile/pound for running.
For 100 yards (0.0568182 miles), a 150 lb person would burn 2.5 calories walking that far. A single M&M appears to be 3.4 calories per the MFP database.0 -
Here's the calculator I used: https://www.runtastic.com/blog/en/calories-burned-walking-vs-running/
It seems to be a bit higher than that formula for walking and running, and also has less of a difference between walking (even at a quite slow pace, 3.2 km/hour) and running.
It says that walking and running burn the same cals if the walking is fast enough and the running slow enough (about 5 miles per hour). Of course, most likely cannot walk 5 mph, I certainly cannot.0 -
BoxerBrawler wrote: »I think it's a great idea. I know plenty of people who don't shed a tear or even pay attention to the number of calories listed on the menu. I also know a ton of people who actually don't understand CICO and they don't know that you can't out-exercise a bad diet. There are people who still think carbs are bad... so yeah, people just don't know this stuff. I think the only thing that would happen is that it would create further awareness and maybe even help some people start to think about how much they're putting into their body on a daily basis. For those who might get triggered? Oh well.. if it's not a calorie count or number of calories burned as the trigger I am sure it will be something else.
How empathetic of you 🙄🙄🙄2 -
Maybe it was a peanut m&m? Sorry couldn’t resist, you guys are killing me 🤣2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions