Probably should convert that into minutes of sex.

It's okay, I played the workout tape at double speed so I got a full workout in half the time...

Researchers find that if a '250 calorie' label doesn't stop you, a '50 minute jog' label just might kill you

FTFY subby

Done in one.

/always wanted to say that!

Or if it's Taco Bell portions, "ironman triathalon."

For example, a 110-pound person would need to jog for 50 minutes to burn off a 20-ounce bottle of soda, whereas a 150-pound person would need to jog for 40 minutes.

SUVs need to burn more fuel to go from point A to point B whereas light sports cars burn less.

This doesn't work because energy utilization takes into account the mass of the person expending the energy

Harry_Seldon: Probably should convert that into minutes of sex.

The people who need to be reminded not to stuff their faces probably aren't having too much sex.

/Is there a jogging/fap conversion?

But I herd all you need is 30 mins of walking a day.

cmunic8r99: FTFA: Researchers calculated the exercise times based on a 110-pound teenager, and jogging was chosen because many people don't like to do it, Bleich said. Exercise times, she noted, would vary depending on a person's weight. For example, a 110-pound person would need to jog for 50 minutes to burn off a 20-ounce bottle of soda, whereas a 150-pound person would need to jog for 40 minutes.

This is the inherent problem with this - it's very inaccurate. it would only take me about 20 minutes to burn that many calories while jogging.

/why yes, i do sound fat.

I suppose they could just use 200lbs as the measurement. Anyone that size probably wants to lose weight and using that size will give a greater 'scare' value. It would be easy to divide the time for folks substantially lighter too.

/anyone substantially larger probably either doesn't care
//or can't exercise anyway due to joint strain or somesuch

110 pounds, huh. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable baseline to represent the average person.

cuzsis: I suppose they could just use 200lbs as the measurement. Anyone that size probably wants to lose weight and using that size will give a greater 'scare' value. It would be easy to divide the time for folks substantially lighter too.

/anyone substantially larger probably either doesn't care
//or can't exercise anyway due to joint strain or somesuch

Lighter folks need to jog more, because they're more efficient overall. You'd have to multiply, not divide.

My question would be are they using data for males or females? Men are wasteful calorie burners. If they wanted to put the fear of God into the target snacking audience, they'd use the numbers for an underweight woman.

Some 110lb chick would need to jog forever to burn off a BigMac.

What do they consider jogging? Like, an actual RUN, or the flailing arm speed shuffle the coeds around here do. Not that I'm complaining, and exercise in any form is great. But it's hardly jogging, much less running.

At 123, I would need to run a 5k to burn off 250 Kcal. That takes about 26 minutes.

/At 110 you don't need to worry about the Calories\
//Unless you are 4'5"

NOBODY IS FAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EATING MAKES THEM FAT.

There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated. Smokers know smoking is bad. Fatties know eating too much is bad. Let's stop wasting our time and money on this.

If you want to help the obesity epidemic spend your dollars on....

1.) Food that has no calories and still tastes good.
2.) Drugs that allow people to eat the same crappy food they already eat without gaining weight.

Any solution that includes 'diet and exercise' isn't going to work. It hasn't worked in the last 40 years. Sure, sure, on an individual level - absolutely *YOU* can lose weight and get in shape. But it's never going to work for the masses. Printing up new food pyramids and changing labels isn't going to do a damn thing. People will continue to overweight and obese until someone can provide them with an effortless solution.

Tourney3p0: 110 pounds, huh. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable baseline to represent the average person.

That weight is just for the food geared towards small children.

lewismarktwo: But I herd all you need is 30 mins of walking a day.

hey, a start is a start. For your average American, 30 mins a day of walking would be a huge increase in activity.

Me, I have to be at the gym in 26 minutes.

/not really
//6'2", 300 pounds and all man!

Stoutpants: At 123, I would need to run a 5k to burn off 250 Kcal. That takes about 26 minutes.

/At 110 you don't need to worry about the Calories\
//Unless you are 4'5"

I hope to one day hit 26 min for a 5k. Almost there. Next year a 1/2. Maybe.

lordargent: For example, a 110-pound person would need to jog for 50 minutes to burn off a 20-ounce bottle of soda, whereas a 150-pound person would need to jog for 40 minutes.

SUVs need to burn more fuel to go from point A to point B whereas light sports cars burn less.

It's more complicated than that. Continuing your analogy, the bulk of the vehicle is as important as the size of the engine inside, and there's an... um, I'm not sure how weight-to-height analogizes as well - aerodynamics?

Anyway, it's not so simple. But probably simple enough for a grocery store "nutrition information" label.

lordargent: For example, a 110-pound person would need to jog for 50 minutes to burn off a 20-ounce bottle of soda, whereas a 150-pound person would need to jog for 40 minutes.

SUVs need to burn more fuel to go from point A to point B whereas light sports cars burn less.

taurusowner: Harry_Seldon: Probably should convert that into minutes of sex.

The people who need to be reminded not to stuff their faces probably aren't having too much sex.

/Is there a jogging/fap conversion?

Working on it.

taurusowner: /Is there a jogging/fap conversion?

This guy has your answer.

How many minutes sitting in front of the computer is that?

/How about if I type really fast?
//slashies are helping me burn off calories

Fark_Guy_Rob: NOBODY IS FAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EATING MAKES THEM FAT.

There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated. Smokers know smoking is bad. Fatties know eating too much is bad. Let's stop wasting our time and money on this.

If you want to help the obesity epidemic spend your dollars on....

1.) Food that has no calories and still tastes good.
2.) Drugs that allow people to eat the same crappy food they already eat without gaining weight.

Any solution that includes 'diet and exercise' isn't going to work. It hasn't worked in the last 40 years. Sure, sure, on an individual level - absolutely *YOU* can lose weight and get in shape. But it's never going to work for the masses. Printing up new food pyramids and changing labels isn't going to do a damn thing. People will continue to overweight and obese until someone can provide them with an effortless solution.

I wish this could the be solution, as I like this rant, but it won't work. Diet Sodas are making the obesity problem worse, and they have less calories than their counterparts. This illustrates a problem with your solution.

The seven or so calculators I tried through a Google search is putting it at 20-25 minutes of jogging for a 150 pound person, not 40 minutes, at a speed of 5mph. Still walking speed for me at 6'1, but it seems like a reasonable jogging speed. What are they using, 3mph?

The_Time_Master: Fark_Guy_Rob: NOBODY IS FAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EATING MAKES THEM FAT.

There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated. Smokers know smoking is bad. Fatties know eating too much is bad. Let's stop wasting our time and money on this.

If you want to help the obesity epidemic spend your dollars on....

1.) Food that has no calories and still tastes good.
2.) Drugs that allow people to eat the same crappy food they already eat without gaining weight.

Any solution that includes 'diet and exercise' isn't going to work. It hasn't worked in the last 40 years. Sure, sure, on an individual level - absolutely *YOU* can lose weight and get in shape. But it's never going to work for the masses. Printing up new food pyramids and changing labels isn't going to do a damn thing. People will continue to overweight and obese until someone can provide them with an effortless solution.

I wish this could the be solution, as I like this rant, but it won't work. Diet Sodas are making the obesity problem worse, and they have less calories than their counterparts. This illustrates a problem with your solution.

I disagree with Fark_Guy_Rob and believe we do need a much better system in place when it comes to weight education in school. I've been told numerous time that a Big Mac is not healthy in school but never once explained why it was bad outside of HIGH CALORIES and HIGH FAT, even though I now know that a Big Mac is nutritionally fine as long as it compliments the rest of your diet and HIGH FAT isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not that research and development into healthier foods is a waste but it is only going to go so far when companies will just turn around and advertise why those (usually more expensive or less convenient ) alternatives will kill your dog and rape your mom. See Aspartame.

Though I don't see how diet soda is making the obesity problem worse and I'm asking for a source. Unless you're suggesting that ordering a diet soda is psychologically tricking people into thinking that they are going to lose weight in which case it sounds like you're just referencing a shiatty Facebook wall post joke ("Don't you just hate it when people order a Big Mac, fries and a diet soda? Might as well just drink a regular soda OLOLOLOL fatty")

Fark_Guy_Rob: NOBODY IS FAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EATING MAKES THEM FAT.

There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated. Smokers know smoking is bad. Fatties know eating too much is bad. Let's stop wasting our time and money on this.

If you want to help the obesity epidemic spend your dollars on....

1.) Food that has no calories and still tastes good.
2.) Drugs that allow people to eat the same crappy food they already eat without gaining weight.

Any solution that includes 'diet and exercise' isn't going to work. It hasn't worked in the last 40 years. Sure, sure, on an individual level - absolutely *YOU* can lose weight and get in shape. But it's never going to work for the masses. Printing up new food pyramids and changing labels isn't going to do a damn thing. People will continue to overweight and obese until someone can provide them with an effortless solution.

Here here.

At my heaviest I was 340, down to 280 and still doing work.

I didn't get fat out of ignorance, just neglect. And sweet, crippling sadness.

If it takes you 50 minutes to burn 250 calories, you're doing it wrong.

gadian:
However, I will say that calorie labeling does need to be made more efficient. Everyone knows you're going to drink that whole bottle of soda in one sitting. Why the fark do you have it divided by servings? 140 calories with three servings in a bottle. fark that. Tell the truth. Tell someone that they'll be consuming 420 calories if they drink (and they will) the entire bottle. The same thing with a bag of chips or microwavable veggies. My veggie steamers are 45 calories a serving. But the entire bag doesn't fill up a breakfast bowl, so yeah, I'm eating the entire bag. I don't want to do math when I eat, I just want the information.

This has long been a mild pet peeve of mine. A while ago my (now ex) wife bought some packaged muffins. They looked good but out of curiosity I checked the calorie count: 150/serving. Oh, but the muffins, which weren't all that big, contained 2 servings each.

Now I'm relatively active, but I have to be because I know I eat like absolute shiat, but displaying the amount of servings in a reasonable fashion might help with some people buying certain high calorie foods. I know when I'm shopping and trying to keep a semi healthy mindset I check calories/sodium and sometimes don't pay any attention to how many servings are in each package.

One serving is almost always a ridiculously small amount...

Fark_Guy_Rob: There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated.

I feel sorry for you if you really believe that.

For example: How many Calories must you burn in order to lose one pound of fat?

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people could not answer that question without looking it up. (There are far too many people that couldn't answer that even if they did look it up...)
=Smidge=

Smidge204: Fark_Guy_Rob: There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated.

I feel sorry for you if you really believe that.

For example: How many Calories must you burn in order to lose one pound of fat?

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people could not answer that question without looking it up. (There are far too many people that couldn't answer that even if they did look it up...)
=Smidge=

Isn't that because there is no one-size-fits-all answer to that question?

Seriously, I want to know.

This will just scare people into not eating at all... the average person needs ~2000 calories a day just to maintain body heat, breathe, and keep their blood moving around.

Smidge204: For example: How many Calories must you burn in order to lose one pound of fat?

3500. Some places say 3000. No I didn't look it up.

You'll have to jog 50 minutes to burn off the calories from that soda.

Can't they give multiple values like they do when saying how long you should microwave something x minutes at 650 Watt y minutes at 800 Watt and z minutes at 1000 Watt? This should be enough of a clue for most people to figure things out.

Alternatively they could simply have computer enabled shelves with smart display that talk with your RFID customer card or your smartphone, look up your weight and display an appropriate warning. The advertisers already know everything they need to know about us to make that happen. If you want to be really throughout they can interface with your HMO to look up any allergies and dietary recommendation from your doctor to personalize the display and give have your insurance give you rewards if you make healthy choices.

\If people are to stupid to act like adults there is nothing wrong with treating them like children.

Ecliptic: 3500. Some places say 3000. No I didn't look it up.

Ecliptic gets a cookie. :)

MonkeyAngst: Isn't that because there is no one-size-fits-all answer to that question?

It boils down to conservation of energy. Body fat is body fat with very little variation. One pound of body fat stores ~3500 Calories (big "C" BTW - there's a difference). Cut 500 calories a day from your diet and you'll lose a pound a week, everything else equal.

Or you can go the other way and burn more by being more active... but that takes effort.
=Smidge=

Exercising makes you more hungry. Once you've reached a good weight it's ok to exercise but doing so while trying to lose weight is a good way to get nowhere

Fark_Guy_Rob: There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated. Smokers know smoking is bad. Fatties know eating too much is bad. Let's stop wasting our time and money on this

Problem with your claims:
1. Smoking has gone down, and continues to go down, where people are more educated about the dangers. Plastering warnings on the boxes DOES work.

2. Have you read fark diet threads? People most certainly AREN'T educated about diet, or exercise. Hell, go to the gym and see what foolishness goes on there.


Now, people do know that in general eating less and moving more is good, but when it comes to people with a job sitting at a desk, kids, no free time, doing things well via understanding how exercise works and how foods affect you is important.


Besides fark guy, aren't you one of the ones who argues that its all calories in and calories out, and none of other variables matter? That'll REALLY help someone struggling to control their appetite when they ignore blood sugar.

Researchers observed teenagers at stores in West Baltimore



Shouldn't have bought that soda

/was the soda researcher's name in the article, BELCH?

starsrift: It's more complicated than that.

Yeah, kind of my point. Gotta account for muscle mass (more muscles == higher metabolic rate), and all sorts of other factors that make this ridiculous to attempt to filter this down onto something that can go on a food label.

One fix that I think needs to be done is to toss out this whole concept of 'serving size'. Because it's ridiculous that six oreos in a single pack are labeled "6 cookies = 1 serving", meanwhile, those same oreos in a big package are labeled "4 cookies = 1 serving"

/I want calories per gram/ounce, that gives a direct 1:1 ratio to compare foods without the tweaking that serving size allows manufacturers to do.

Fark_Guy_Rob: 1.) Food that has no calories and still tastes good.

They tried that with olestra, but there was trouble when the oil hit the anus.

If you are just doing cardio to lose weight/inches/burn calories then you are doing it wrong. With proper strength training mixed in, your muscles will burn more calories for you while you sleep than what you can burn in a 30 minute jog. [citation needed]

/pretty sure I read that somewhere, not sure where though

TheMadChaosopher: jogging burns 100 calories a mile.

most people can do a mile in about 10 minutes.

so a 50 minute job is about 500 calories.

besides most americans would drop dead if they tried to jog for 5 minutes.

A 10-minute mile is out of the question for most of the people I know. It's about a 6.0 MPH speed, which is pretty brisk. Maybe they could do one or two miles, but that's barely worth pulling on a jogging suit as far as burning calories goes.

I've recently ramped up to doing 5-mile runs, and it's also fairly taxing to do it in 50 minutes even though I'm fairly young and in good shape. Indeed, the average American would drop dead at that rate of exertion.

Somehow or other people need to get it into their heads that lack of exercise is just not an option.

Smidge204: Fark_Guy_Rob: There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated.

I feel sorry for you if you really believe that.

For example: How many Calories must you burn in order to lose one pound of fat?

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people could not answer that question without looking it up. (There are far too many people that couldn't answer that even if they did look it up...)
=Smidge=

Why does it matter? Seriously.

Let's be honest - the average person has no idea how many pounds of fat they have. All of the attempts at measuring body fat are either expensive, difficult or inaccurate. And the 'guidelines' you find published for how many calories someone burns doing X are exactly that - just guidelines. If you run a mile *you* don't know how many calories you've burned. It's typical to find a calories-burned calculator that takes your weight and makes a guess....but it's just a guess. How efficient was your stride? How tall are you? What is your ratio of lean mass to fat mass (because that impacts the number of calories burned doing EVERYTHING). And then, exercise can impact the number of calories you burn *after* your stop running. But how do you measure that? And - when you eat 500 calories, there is absolutely no guarantee you will absorb 500 calories. The human digestive system is not 100% efficient. Unless you are doing some in-depth analysis of your poop - you don't even know how many calories you've consumed.

This is complicated stuff....so at best, we've got a lot of guesses. But what value do we get from knowing that we need to run exactly X miles at Y speed to burn Z calories? Keep in mind, I'm talking about overweight and obese people - not high performance athletes. If you want to compete in the Olympics - fine - totally different levels of knowledge are required. I'm talking about people who haven't run a mile in 20 years.

Eat better
Work out

That's enough to know. And people already know it. Any 6th grader can tell you this. Again, I'm not saying that 'eat better' doesn't have a lot of really specific issues top scientists and nutritionists could debate over for hours. We're talking about people who haven't had a vegetable that wasn't covered in cheese in five years and who eat at fast-food restaurants an average of 9 meals per week and regularly consume bags of chips and candy. We're not talking about competitive body builders who need to get down to 4% body fat for their competition (they have entirely different requirements). I'm talking about overweight/obese Americans who these labels are designed to help. They ALREADY know ENOUGH to not be overweight/obese.

It's actually pretty ridiculous when you look at what most obese people are eating. I can *lose weight* by simply eating only THREE large slices of pizza instead of my usual four. I know fat people who have gotten less fat by WALKING AROUND THE BLOCK A FEW TIMES.

People know what to do. CHILDREN know what to do. It's just that whenever we are faced with the option of another slice of pizza or being slightly less fat - we pick the pizza. More education isn't going to change that.

The_Time_Master: Fark_Guy_Rob: NOBODY IS FAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EATING MAKES THEM FAT.

There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated. Smokers know smoking is bad. Fatties know eating too much is bad. Let's stop wasting our time and money on this.

If you want to help the obesity epidemic spend your dollars on....

1.) Food that has no calories and still tastes good.
2.) Drugs that allow people to eat the same crappy food they already eat without gaining weight.

Any solution that includes 'diet and exercise' isn't going to work. It hasn't worked in the last 40 years. Sure, sure, on an individual level - absolutely *YOU* can lose weight and get in shape. But it's never going to work for the masses. Printing up new food pyramids and changing labels isn't going to do a damn thing. People will continue to overweight and obese until someone can provide them with an effortless solution.

I wish this could the be solution, as I like this rant, but it won't work. Diet Sodas are making the obesity problem worse, and they have less calories than their counterparts. This illustrates a problem with your solution.

That just means diet sodas don't work.

If diet soda has no calories and causes people to gain weight it means either diet soda is magic or people are eating more of other stuff.

"Artificial sweeteners could have the effect of triggering appetite but unlike regular sugars they don't deliver something that will squelch the appetite," Sharon Fowler, obesity researcher at UT Health Science Center at San Diego

So that just means we need *better* artificial sweeteners that take this into account, or other drugs that suppress the appetite :)

Fark_Guy_Rob: The_Time_Master: Fark_Guy_Rob: NOBODY IS FAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EATING MAKES THEM FAT.

There is no need to focus on education and awareness. Everyone is aware. Everyone is educated. Smokers know smoking is bad. Fatties know eating too much is bad. Let's stop wasting our time and money on this.

If you want to help the obesity epidemic spend your dollars on....

1.) Food that has no calories and still tastes good.
2.) Drugs that allow people to eat the same crappy food they already eat without gaining weight.

Any solution that includes 'diet and exercise' isn't going to work. It hasn't worked in the last 40 years. Sure, sure, on an individual level - absolutely *YOU* can lose weight and get in shape. But it's never going to work for the masses. Printing up new food pyramids and changing labels isn't going to do a damn thing. People will continue to overweight and obese until someone can provide them with an effortless solution.

I wish this could the be solution, as I like this rant, but it won't work. Diet Sodas are making the obesity problem worse, and they have less calories than their counterparts. This illustrates a problem with your solution.

That just means diet sodas don't work.

If diet soda has no calories and causes people to gain weight it means either diet soda is magic or people are eating more of other stuff.

"Artificial sweeteners could have the effect of triggering appetite but unlike regular sugars they don't deliver something that will squelch the appetite," Sharon Fowler, obesity researcher at UT Health Science Center at San Diego

So that just means we need *better* artificial sweeteners that take this into account, or other drugs that suppress the appetite :)

I just mix in a little juice from concentrate which has all the 'real sugar' anyone would ever need. Keeps me from wanting cookies and chocolate. Ok, well not chocolate.