'Exercise labels' should be added to food packets, expert argues

SexyGreyFox · 7 Apr 2016 at 19:57

I've searched for some keywords so hopefully this hasn't been discussed before.

This is one one of the News headlines today:
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/04April...d-be-added-to-food-packets-expert-argues.aspx

I think this is brilliant and probably a lot of people who exercise have thought of this before, I know I have. For at least two decades I've looked at certain treats and thought 'I'll have to run for 30 minutes to burn that off' but how many none exercise people know that?
Both my daughters carefully measure their calories every day but I think if they looked at a packet that said 'You will need to run for 45 minutes to burn this off' would hit home harder.

Thoughts?

NexusK · 7 Apr 2016 at 19:58

As if, the likes of Doritos would go out of business

eatcustard · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:00

I agree, too many of you are fat and need exercise.

Nanny state can go %^&( off, it does not stop the **** smokers from quitting does it, so who would take the advice from a mars bar wrapper?

FeFiDoh · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:02

Depends how it was applied. Fats aren't bad for you, people seeing an exercise label on a piece of steak and it saying they needed to run x minutes to burn it off is kind of stupid. Nothing inherently bad about eating it and it depends how much of your daily intake.

Adding more labels won't make that much difference, neither will taxing it make that much of one imo (sugary drinks for example). Instead education on it in schools. Is cooking in schools even a thing any more? I doubt it. Yet when I went to secondary school (15 years ago), we were taught how to prepare our own food.

On a side note, one thing I heard about sugar tax that really wound me up was hearing dentists say that something like 20% of 5 year olds have tooth decay. Taxing this isn't going to help. To me this is neigh on child abuse and the parents should be spoken to instead. Unlikely to change their habits by charging them slightly more for a can of coke are you.

Freefaller · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:08

I don't think it will add anything as people ignore the labels now. I personally think they should educate people more at school about food and nutrition.

Glaucus · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:09

Muhh, can't really see the benefit, it's already has what a person generally needs and what that provides.
Would rather they sort out over issues, mainly misleading packaging. Fat free but high sugar. Low fat but doesn't actually mean low fat. Using names and pictures to try fooling people into thinking it's not a caged chicken for example. Tighter regs on when it says calories per serving, it's not some stupidly small serving suggestion.

UTmaniac · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:09

Won't this need a weight chart? The heavier you are, the more you will burn calories while active. But then how rigorous is the walk and jog? Sounds like this label is going to be rather vague, as much as the principle is well meaning.

Cosimo · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:13

Apart from health freaks most people, myself included, will just ignore them. Pass the chocolates over...

Casdawer · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:16

I don't pay attention to the GDA labels so I won't pay attention to these either.

SexyGreyFox · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:18

Looks like I'm being beaten like a ginger kid, even my eldest has just said it's pointless.

DaleTheWhale · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:41

Probably pointless for the majority and for some it will send them fitness crazy trying to burn off everything which leads to illness.

Better education and guidance is needed, there's no simple fix to the problem.
Knowing sugar/salt and carb content is good as you can fit that around a scheduled diet, but knowing how much to exercise... don't think it works.

Mynight · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:53

I still ignore the wheel of death so I'm not likely to pay attention to this.

Amp34 · 7 Apr 2016 at 20:58

Sounds like a good idea, much better than a tax...

Danthus · 7 Apr 2016 at 21:00

I saw this on the news earlier, the BBC made a rights pigs ear of the story.

One food they said would take 14 minutes of walking to burn off, then a different snack would take 26 minutes of swimming to work off.

V F · 7 Apr 2016 at 21:01

OldCoals said:
I saw this on the news earlier, the BBC made a rights pigs ear of the story.

One food they said would take 14 minutes of walking to burn off, then a different snack would take 26 minutes of swimming to work off.

Food on the go then?

Craig321 · 7 Apr 2016 at 21:06

Freefaller said:
I don't think it will add anything as people ignore the labels now. I personally think they should educate people more at school about food and nutrition.

Spot on.

Jonny2284 · 7 Apr 2016 at 21:13

Considering the kind of warnings people are already ignoring on a packet of cigs I'm not sure sticking a little "You'll have to work out for 52 minutes to burn off this here double cheeseburger" is going to do much.

datalol-jack · 7 Apr 2016 at 21:13

Reading? Ain't nobody got time for that!

estebanrey · 7 Apr 2016 at 21:39

SexyGreyFox said:
I think this is brilliant and probably a lot of people who exercise have thought of this before, I know I have. For at least two decades I've looked at certain treats and thought 'I'll have to run for 30 minutes to burn that off' but how many none exercise people know that?

But surely it is dependent on your metabolism. Someone with a high metabolic rate might only need to run for 5 minutes whereas someone with a low one might need to go 20.

Not to mention the subjectivity of the word "run" itself. Do I need to go full Usain Bolt for 20 minutes or a mild jog?

Delvis · 7 Apr 2016 at 21:41

Freefaller said:
I don't think it will add anything as people ignore the labels now. I personally think they should educate people more at school about food and nutrition.

This.

This, quite literally is the only way. I can't recall anything at school being discussed about foods in a decent manner.