Would people choose menu items with fewer calories if they could see the amount of exercise required to work off that meal?

Karin's point about forces seeking to discredit it is perspicacious. The profit motive is difficult to fight, and just as there is a pull between philosophical expressions of self confidence and the need subtly to promote self dissatisfaction in some quarters to sell products the selling of food with the highest profit margin (the most processed, and thus generally the least healthy and often the most fattening) will certainly be pushed by those in industry who make billions off of the sale of such products. And of course the spines of many lawmakers have developed their flaccidity on a diet of donations from those who sell such products.

It is true that calorie counting is difficult for many people. I do think as more restaurants post calorie counts people will get better at using them. I suspect it will be less actual counting, than eyeballing, and choosing among available options. If I were in charge of where the efforts were to be spent I would want those calories out first, as I think before you consider how many miles you have to walk to burn something, you need to get a sense of the relationships between different types of food choices, and generally what kind of things have more calories.

As far as the cost to burn calories I think it could be useful to require fast or processed foods to carry a little warning box, like cigarettes, with something like "It takes so and so minutes of fast walking to burn off so and so many calories for an 150 lb male". But I consider it absolutely inconceivable that the fast food lobby would every allow that to happen.

I like Karin's and Ariadne's responses. It's good idea and if it is presented in a simple way it could be effective. I agree that calorie burning is different for everyone, but a general number of suggested amount of exercise that would be required to perform in order to burn those calories would be a good point to start. Sometimes that could be all that is needed. Just like the images from what smoking does to the human body, even though it's different for each smoker and it depends from various factors. But the images alone are enough to discourage many from smoking.

While I like the idea, I often tell clients to look more at the ingredient list of foods than the calorie content. Obviously coconut oil, nuts and avocado are high in calories, but I don't think we would classify them as "bad" foods. I think the issue of just listing calories and the amount of exercise needed to burn those calories is backwards. Why not focus on "what" we're ingesting, rather than just the calorie count? Afterall, isn't it "what" the food is made of that is damaging to our health, not just the calorie count of the food?

Hi Alex. In my opinion, some would change their eating behavior, and some won't. I think that it depends upon whether someone is an 'active exerciser' to begin with. If a person already does NOT exercise, then I don't see how this would effect their eating patterns one bit. It could have an impact on someone who actively exercises on a fairly regular basis, but my question would be "is that the audience that truly needs to receive the message?"

LaRue, CSCS
www.lecfitness.com