1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Running off calories - new advice

Discussion in 'Personal' started by nizebaby, Dec 11, 2019.

  1. nizebaby

    nizebaby Star commenter

    Yes, well, Run for twenty minutes to burn off those excess calories from "unhealthy" foods.

    This latest initiative intended to encourage people to lose weight [sorry I can't give the link - can some kind person please help me out?] is doomed to failure. Is it supposed to be a shock tactic? An overweight person is not going to run for twenty minutes unless they're conscripts in the army. And besides, when it comes to calories, they're eitherin excess or not.
  2. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    It's a good idea as it gives a readily understandable and comparable number between different foods. Other data where the amount of fat, saturated and unsaturated, carbohydrate - of which sugars etc. are far too complicated and very difficult to make straight comparisons.

    Shall I buy this - takes 20 mins to run off? or this - takes 93 mins to run off? makes it much easier.

    Will it work? I suspect not because large food companies will do their utmost to kill it off. There have been similar ideas before with traffic lights for instance, but they were killed off by corporate interests who prefer to hide things.
  3. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Studies show that it has a positive effect.
    alex_teccy likes this.
  4. nizebaby

    nizebaby Star commenter

    I agree about the simplicity bit. It's the word running that I mind. Unachievable for many, and for many reasons. Walking makes much more sense.
  5. coffeekid

    coffeekid Star commenter

    The word "jogging" seems to have gone out of fashion. That's what I do. "Running" is a bit of a stretch.
    smoothnewt, needabreak and nizebaby like this.
  6. nizebaby

    nizebaby Star commenter

    Running is sexier.
    coffeekid and needabreak like this.
  7. coffeekid

    coffeekid Star commenter

    Indeed. Which is why I jog.
    nizebaby likes this.
  8. coffeekid

    coffeekid Star commenter

    Sexy enough, dontcha know.
  9. Jesmond12

    Jesmond12 Star commenter

    Exercise is not the whole answer.

    I have been on a low carb Keto diet since September and I have lost 3 stone and 4 inches around my waist. My daily carb intake is 30g, bearing in mind that two slices of white bread = 38gcarbsthen I have had to be very careful. I have another 1st to lose before I reach my target weight and this should happen towards the end of January. I have increased the distance that I walk each day with J dog, and it is really paying off.

    If you are careful about what you eat then you can still lose weight.
    hplovegame48 likes this.
  10. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    It's all very well telling people how much exercise they need to do to burn off the food they eat, but what if you discover that the pork pie you fancy is going to require a six mile jog to burn off, but it took a twelve mile jog to find a corner shop open that would sell you one?
    Aquamarina1234 likes this.
  11. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Then you can eat four.

    Not exactly hard to work out...
  12. Aquamarina1234

    Aquamarina1234 Star commenter

    You have to run a real lot to jog off a 2 finger kitkat. Imagine a tiramisu. A pasta alfredo.
    Jesmond12 likes this.
  13. Aquamarina1234

    Aquamarina1234 Star commenter

    When I've "needed" to lose weight, even 3 wks have shifted a stone on Dukan. It's just not something i feel is a long term healthy choice.
    Jesmond12 likes this.
  14. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    Does this take into account that the body uses up calories to keep everything working? Or is it a simplistic 'pizza contains x calories; running for y minutes will use up x calories'?
  15. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Yes. There's around a 2% variation in individual times according to metabolic rates. I might have to run for n hour, you for only 58 mins if your metabolism is faster than mine. There is little difference between individuals in terms of time needed to burn off calories.

    I walk a lot, play football and eat very few sugary/fatty foods ad lots of veg. Keeps the weight off. I use an app to tell me how many calories I've burned.
    alex_teccy likes this.
  16. MrMedia

    MrMedia Star commenter

    It’s terrifying. Take a Big Mac - we are talking a five mile run! A five mile run for a Big Mac! And I can eat two without batting an eyelid. And I run. A five mile run is a monster.
    nizebaby likes this.
  17. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    Surely it's intended as a simple comparative measure, little to do with actual running other than contemplating the horror of the potential run.
    border_walker likes this.
  18. Aquamarina1234

    Aquamarina1234 Star commenter

    Nah. It's meant to warn guzzleguttses that scoffing THIS will end up wraithed around their bellies and backsides unless they undertake THIS much exercise sometime very soon.
    Maybe I'm just not sophisticated enough.
  19. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    Surely it is not telling people to "eat this and then run for x minutes"? For those who are overweight and wanting to lose weight, it demonstrates the extent of the physical effort needed to offset the calories. The person might then make a different food choice and will be educated on which foods are more calorific than others.

    For those who are not overweight, the calories involved might simply be part of the daily requirement to maintain their current weight, and no running would be needed.
    lizziescat likes this.
  20. lizziescat

    lizziescat Star commenter

    I agree with @jubilee.
    I’ve lived (or rather worked) with a sort of exercise fascism - a moral imperative for going to the gym etc. and there is a pervasive message that losing weight requires you to exercise but with far less emphasis on the food we eat. Of course this emphasis on exercise rather food is beneficial to the fitness industry (all those underused gym memberships, fitness magazines, personal trainers etc.) and to the food industry (added value and fast foods, diet foods and supplements etc. )
    But I thought this approach had long been disproved. Whilst exercise does have important health benefits, it is marginal to losing weight. An hours average gym session = approx 1 chocolate bar. For me and, I suspect for those who are seriously overweight, is it likely that it is just ‘one chocolate bar a day’ that’s causing it?

    Is there a source re the OPs ‘new advice’

Share This Page