Comparing Calories to Miles Makes Impact

Choosing foods according to the distance needed to burn makes a difference….

A new study shows that using the number of miles a person would have to walk to burn off calories instead of a calorie count number on food items can have a healthy impact on people.

Choosing what to eat or drink based on calorie numbers alone is challenging for some restaurant-goers, according to Anthony Viera at the University of North Carolina (U.N.C.) at Chapel Hill School of Medicine. "It requires a computation that many people might not find easy to make at the point of decision," he says.

Researchers conducted an online survey of 802 individuals randomly presented with one of four hypothetical menus. The first menu provided only calorie counts, the second menu provided the number of minutes one would need to walk to burn those calories whereas the third menu showed calorie numbers plus the distance necessary to walk them off. The fourth menu had no nutritional data whatsoever.

People who viewed the menu without nutritional information ordered a meal totaling 1,020 calories, on average, significantly more than the average 826 calories ordered by those who viewed menus that included information about walking-distance. Study participants ordered meals adding up to averages of 927 calories and 916 calories from menus with only calorie information or calorie information plus minutes walking, respectively.

A recent study from researchers that included scientists at the National Institutes of Health calculated that eating just 10 fewer calories a day would make a person shed a pound of weight over three years. So, a decrease in 100 calories can help people maintain a healthy weight when enjoying a meal out.

Sunaina Dowray, Jonas J. Swartz, Danielle Braxton, Anthony J. Viera, Corrigendum to "Potential effect of physical activity based menu labels on the calorie content of selected fast food meals" [Appetite 62 (2013) 173–181] Appetite, online 26 February 2013