Everyone would eat more responsibly if companies started using "minutes of running" instead of "calories" as a unit of measure on nutrition labels.

Everyone would eat more responsibly if companies started using "minutes of running" instead of "calories" as a unit of measure on nutrition labels.


Someone needs to design a plug-in for e-commerce where your phone displays all items for purchase relative to your wage. Example: iPhone 12 - 55 hours of work


When I started thinking that way I did slow down purchasing unnecessary items a bit. Excess spending is a hard habit to break.


Had this conversation with my wife. I told her that sometimes one trip to a fast food place is 2.5 hours of my wage. That's a significant part of a single days work for 1 meal. That shit adds up.


I guess, but it also takes a lot of time to go to the grocery store and buy food. And think of what to cook and actually cook it. And then doing dishes afterward. Time that you could be spending relaxing. Cooking becomes a significant part of a single day as well. I don’t think it’s necessarily that bad to do fast food once in a while just to have some extra time to de-stress.


LPT: You and your partner should be doing dishes throughout cooking instead of at the end. Once the food is ready to be plated, the only dirty dishes should be the pots/pans that are in use, and your plate/bowl/fork/spoon. By doing this you have created the scenario for fast food cleanup except instead of harming the environment by throwing your “dirty dishes” away, you’ll be rinsing and putting in the dishwasher, and maybe washing 1-2 things.


Clean as you go. I even have a 'clean as you go' song I sing whilst doing this.




Now I have 2 clean as you go songs!


Well I still only have 1. Start singing!


I second this... I require two songs


It’s called dove-tailing. It works great until you have kids. They tend to distract you from the process. At least mine do!


This. I absolutely hate the idea of eating a meal and then having to clean the kitchen. I want to eat in a clean kitchen and do maybe 5 more minutes of work after.


Until you ruin a nice steak, then you'll swear to never get distracted again.


Steak needs to cool for 10 minutes before being cut. Also I have an electric oven, but you can either put plates on a burner on low or in the oven itself set at like 180 or lower. It keeps the plates and food warm for longer. Be careful, because you will need a hot-pad when serving it.


By the sounds of it, this isn't a problem for you cause you know what's up in the Kitchen. For most people tho, I think they'd rather clean up a little longer and not risk ruining their dish. I try to clean as I go cause I'm a very messy person, but when trying a new dish for the first time I usually make sure I pay full attention to the food.


I started reverse searing my steaks. Pop in the oven at 225/250 for 20-40 minutes and then char them on the grill or stove top. Serve right away. The low and slow bake negates the rest time, or so says Kenji. I'm not sure how that relates to the rest of this thread, but give it a try if you haven't yet.


This is the way.


> LPT: Buy a Dishwasher.




Money versus time. Some people value money, some people value time. No reason to jump down the guy's throat because they'd rather spend some extra money to save some extra time.


How is that a comment on not knowing how money works? The person you’re replying to is just saying sometimes the extra cost of fast food can be worth the emotional break of not needing to do the cooking and cleaning of a meal. That sounds like someone understanding some situational benefits of why someone makes the choice to spend more money.


does sound like pretty serious poverty if its 2.5 hours for 1 fast food run. they are either ordering a shit ton or are dirt farmers


>pretty serious poverty Basically anyone making the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. $7.25 * 2.5 hours = $18.13. After income tax and social security take about 10% so you're down to $16.31. That's $8.15 per person for fast food which would be the price of a combo meal + maybe something extra (depends on the state).




Minimum wage in Texas is $7.25/hr, but it should be ~$15 for people to live with at least a reduced anxiety or without falling prey to payday loan cycles or needing 4+ working peoples to retain access to an apartment/home. .


Maybe I'm ordering the premium stuff, but the minimum I pay for myself at a fast food joint ends up being like 10-12 bucks.


Where are you? Fast food for two is easily up around $30 here.


Could be for a family and could take an extra hour or two to go to one. When me, my mom, niece, and little brother go to a fast food place it can easily cost anywhere between $30 and $50 (not $50 very often, but possible.) and add an hour or two to our day. For me that would be between $40 and $70 dollars which is a few hours of work for me. Time is money and shit adds up.


Right because this guy's wife clearly has no idea what it is to be poor. She should just be delighted to get off her fainting couch and just cook the guy a meal. You are out of touch. It is the people who work 2-3 jobs and are exhausted who are most tempted by the terrible(and cheap) but fast and cooked food.


That guy never said his wife was lacking in understanding. You projected that. Also you got super offended when the person you responded to only really explained why people do it. He didn't literally advise him to spend all his money on fast food, what? He explained the convenience in a more direct way, either way he's objectively correct and did not say one way or another was better. Get over this need for defense with no context. It's pathetic. He literally said "once in awhile to save time and de-stress". Which is far more empathetic than anything you've said here.


Which is why she said “once in a while” Cooking can get stressful, you need to decide what you want to eat every day, about 3 times a day. And if you’re cooking for more than one person, it’s even more stressful. I enjoy cooking, but sometimes you just can’t be bothered.


How much do you spend on fast food? I mean 10-15 bucks for one person is reasonable. If that takes you 2.5 hours in theory you’d be making 6 bucks an hour. Are you in the US? Best of luck to ya


I make 14 an hour in California. My taxes make it 10.50 an hour. So if I spend 25 bucks on a meal (which is fairly normal with a lot of places still being closed and DoorDash being the option for anything but McDonalds) I'm looking at 20 to 25 if we decide to eat something other than what's in the house.


Same here, my modus operandi is now to contribute as little to the commodified economy as possible. If you don't need it, don't buy it!


I’m trying to get in the mindset of buying used. Usually it was about savings, 50 bucks might not be worth it when you think about used vs new but if you think about it as reusing it’s changes things a bit. Obviously doesn’t work with everything.


Darn, just as I was going to start up my used condom business.


A while back there was actually a condom company in Vietnam that got busted for recycling condoms. Google it. It's truly unfortunate to know that the position "prophylactic restoration engineer" was an actual thing lol.


Yeah you just insert your straw down the tube, slurp out the contents, and repackage it. Cost efficient and a nice source of free protein. Not sure why this idea hasn't caught on in more countries.


I think that market's already filled.


The inverse happened for me. I wanna buy an xbox it's so expensive. But its worth less than 1 month of hard work. Yay i am gonna buy the xbox.


That's a neat idea! I would use it to explain to my kids the amount of work that goes into purchasing things that they treat roughly. (or to purchase the things they ask for that are way out of the budget.) I've tried to explain to my kids that I worked long and hard to be able to afford the couch in the living room, and they are not allowed to jump, flop, or wrestle on it. They just countered with the fact that it's a couch, and couches are for sitting on. I told them it cost me a month's wages, and it took me a really long time to be able to save up that much extra. That sort of sunk in better... They still try and wrestle on my couch.


Doesn't work if you have a high salary


Same with diamond ri gs! Yeah I got married at the age of 30. I was making about 80 grand a year at the time. So when buying em engagement ring, I was told about the two month salary rule of thumb. Hell I could’nt even afford a $13k engagement ring! She got a $1500 one and she was totally happy with that.


Nice! Diamond rings are a relic of master class market manipulation racket post WWII. My first engagement ring was some rope I took off a fence when I knew right then and there I wanted to marry her. Then my wife and I got custom designed and engraved meteorite, petrified wood, and sapphire rings for like 1k (total for both) which has much more meaning to us than a diamond measured by cost.


This is so cool! I don’t even know if I ever want to get married, but if I do I wanna get something cool, simple, and cheap for a wedding band.


Truthfully we didn't really look at cost. It was about being unique and special. It just turns out that almost all rings that are not a diamond engagement rings arent massively over inflated by a almost century long marketing campaign and supply manipulation. If a girl must have a expensive diamond ring to get married - that's a red flag to me. But to each their own.


To be fair, we got nice rings but it was because my family has no heirloom level jewelry to pass down and I wanted at least one nice piece that could fill that role. The solitaire diamond is almost flawless, but the setting wasn't super expensive. Still cost less than a month's salary for my husband. One of my friends literally went with the three month salary rule. His wife's ring is huge and gaudy. It looks ridiculous with every day clothes. We tried to talk him out of it, but he wouldn't listen. At least she likes it, I guess.


Its subjective, and these is no real wrong answer. What's important to me should not influence what's important to you - and that's o.k.


My wife told me to get a fake one. She likes the looks fo diamonds but to her their was no difference between from the ground or man made. Still got her a real one because I’m doing it once, the money wasn’t an issue and she deserves it because she is the best. My ring cost 18 dollars on Amazon. I don’t really like wearing rings but I love the way it looks.


Having money not be a issue surley helps you do what you want. If you go into it willingly and it's what's special to you, then right on man.


I'd much rather get a custom made ring with some carvings or design that mean something to both of us, and it still costs 1/10 the price of diamond rings. Biggest scam in history.


Exactly, to each their own! Despite the whole price inflation scam of diamonds, I do understand the appeal... they're just so glittery and shiny! But I've never really liked the way they look on *me*, so it's easy to avoid the temptation. I do like the look of gold, though, and the fact that it doesn't tarnish. Doesn't have to be super high karat, but a simple gold band for a wedding ring might be nice.


Tungsten carbide. It stays shiny for decades, is almost scratch proof. You can tell her/him it is almost as hard as diamond representing the toughness of your love. The drawback is if it needs cut off, it has to be shattered in a vise.


Honestly, don't discount Etsy jewelers. I got my wife a platinum ring with a 1ct moissanite center stone and she loves it. It also tends to shut up the counter-tenders at chain jewelry stores when she brings her silver rings in for cleaning or stone tightening. She'll hand them the "cheap junk" rings and when they start getting condescending she'll say she wants the wedding ring cleaned to and drops that boat anchor in their hands. You can tell just by the weight that it's platinum and they know it too which usually stops the condescension.


Love it. My spouse and I just got silicone bands for $2 each when we got married and that’s what we use almost all the time. More comfortable, and you’re able to adventure and work out with them. Plus it’s no sweat if something happens to it, I’ve already lost one and I just bought another.


Yeah, I've been thinking of doing that too. The one I got is thicker than I would like in hindsight, so I take it off a lot and am always worried about losing it. Maybe I'll take your idea and just get a simple one to wear day to day and keep the "real" one for special occasions.


That's an awesome ring idea, where did you get them done at?


That rule of thumb was surely invented by someone trying to sell expensive rocks. I went nowhere near 2 month's salary (I've heard 3 months also). I actually think my wife would have been pissed if I spent a huge sum on a ring and delayed our other goals like home ownership.


Yeah I agree. We spent about 5 grand going to France, Italy, and Spain. That was a far better way to spend the dough than on a diamond, and I still saved a boatload.


I have 4 rings… one my husband bought me for about $100, one my grandma bought my husband to give to me for about $100, my ceremony wedding band for about $100, and my tattooed band for…. $100 exactly. From the beginning I didn’t want anything expensive or fancy. I keep the 3 other rings for sentimental reasons, but a tattoo is comfortable, cheap, and forever. Diamonds are just scams.


My grandmother left me a ring after she died. It wasn’t an engagement ring per-se but that didn’t stop me from using it as one


I make about 55k. My ex told me she needed a 5k engagement ring. What a surprise we broke up




Red flag noticed - nice dodge.


The Thumb rule is just a scam. It was just a massive marketing campaign ran by De Beers company since 1938. And people fall for it back then and even now.


Yup. Definitely a scam!


Luckily when I got married I was a broke graduate student, and so was my wife, so two months salary was much more manageable ;)


My husband spent $.50 on mine because he got a dinosaur on the first quarter. Rings don't have to be expensive.


Same here. I really don’t get this culture of spending thousands on a ring. My wife got one handed down from her grandma, but we had already talked about plenty of $20-$50 rings that looked amazing in her opinion. She’d rather surprise me with a car than a ring. Or a vacation too. Can you imagine how nice a vacation you could get with some people’s ring value here?


You could give them a $10/day allowance, and then be able to say "It will take you a month to buy us a new couch"


It does if you have a high salary couch.


>Doesn't work if you have a high salary Sounds like upper management all right.


trying to explain "work" or "money" or even "job" to a kid who has no experience with any of that is like trying to explain the color of a rose to a blind person. they won't get it. so sure, try to explain it but you're probably just going to have to demand obedience.


That's why it's useful to give them an allowance and chores to do. They start to realize the value of money and saving. when they want to buy a toy they'll realize the relationship between money, how its earned, and how its used. That is if you teach them correctly. People have made board games and stuff to help teach that stuff in a fun way


I guess it helps if you know something that they do regularly and really don't like and you compare it to that "You know how you hate mowing the lawn? Well I had to mow lawns for 2 whole days to pay for that!"


I often think about non essential items in terms of movie theater prices. I'm willing to spend (gonna make math easier) $15 for 3 hours of entertainment. So my base level is $5/hr for entertainment. That $60 video game? If I spend more than 12 (edited from 5) hours playing it then it's a more efficient expense than a movie theater trip. Of course some things are more fun than others, but as a general rule it helps me decide if somethings worth it. Edit: changed 5 to 12, I did the math of 12×5=60, then was an idiot and put the wrong one


You might want to double check your math for clarity. To be cheaper per hour of entertainment than a movie the video game would need to be more than 12 hours of entertainment.


Hey math gives him 0 hours of enjoyment, so why would he do it? ​ /s


Thank you, about halfway through college I lost the ability to do basic math 😂 Also, I edited it, thanks again for pointing that out


Most $60 games have well over 12 hours of game time just from the story. Quite a few have side quests as well.


Thinking about the hours of fun I've gotten from the Minecraft I pirated


Infinity fun per dollar


Lol, in Czech Republic its something between 150-200 hours.


You should bro, im saving this comment for my free award later. Fantastic idea.


*hours of your life **Your Money or Your Life** will change the way you look at work and spending.


Not wage. Disposable income after you pay all taxes, health insurance, mandatory bills, food, vehicle expenses etc. Stuff that you have to pay no matter what, then divide that left over number by hours worked and that will give you your true number of hours of work needed to buy it.


For me it would be over 90 hours of work lol


Jeff Bezos would be 90 milliseconds.


Rent - 95 hours of work Fml…


That would be great. Even better if it could incorporate estimates for taxes, housing, groceries, etc. If your listed wage is $20/hr, after taxes and basic expenses you might only be making $1-5/hr able to actually spend on stuff like an iphone.


If you can estimate your monthly costs for housing and groceries and then subtract that from your monthly after-tax income (just add up all your paychecks for that) for your monthly disposable income. Then you could divide that by your monthly work hours to find your disposable wage


There is a plug in for browsers but I cant remember what it's called


Be the change you want to see in the world


I run so slow I probably gain calories


Boom! World hunger solved!


If you run backwards, you technically run a negative speed, so you would in fact gain calories. ^(If you think I’m fat, that’s just my intelligence storing inside my body because my brain is already full of smartness)


If I eat tacos while running backwards, what happens, Ô wise one ?




You drop your taco after tripping over the curb.


Then the universe implodes with the amount of excess matter


I have a buddy that was recently diagnosed with diabetes. His diet/exercise routine has never been so healthy since he had to start measuring his blood sugar. By his own admission, it’s like a game trying to stay within the healthy range.


My husband is type 1 and a side effect is it’s helped me revamp my diet. I have to know the carb/sugar in everything I make so he can adjust his insulin and that’s caused me to eat better and exercise more as a byproduct. Down 65 lbs so far.


65 lbs is 29.51 kg


Good bot!


People eat calorie dense food because it tastes good and is often cheaper. Most people know eating a donut is bad for them before they eat it * Never mind the fact that minutes of running is wildly different depending on your body, fitness level, and pace.


yeah I've never been like "wow this doughnut is gonna be *great* for my bones"


Or "Yep, I totally intend to run this off later. That's exactly why I'm eating it."


I do live with that mindset. It is torture to know that running a marathon (or an equivalent amount of exercise) burns just 1 lb of fat, so I've gotten to the point that if I want to avoid that torture then I've learned to avoid the decadent delicious foods that got me into that shitty situation to begin with. BUT don't get me wrong, exercise feels amazing and running a marathon and spending all day at the gym does feel amazing so sometimes we just have to do that to find the balance and it's quite a healthy thing! Your body feels really good when you balance out the calories with exercise but yeah it's time-consuming so it's easier just to avoid the decadent foods sometimes..


That's a really unhealthy mindset to have given BMR exists and you're going to burn a bunch of calories a day just sitting around.


And you also have a base rate of calorie consumption. So it's not all bad when you eat something extra like a treat to have a plan to burn it off.


What do you think BMR means?


You definitely do NOT burn enough calories “just sitting around” to eat even small amounts of junk food. Our bodies are pretty amazing at hoarding fat reserves! And they’re pretty efficient at doing a lot of exercise and movement without burning those fat reserves off. Most people probably aren’t moving enough during the day to begin with, limiting excess (meaning EXTRA! On top of your TDR!!) and unnecessary calories is a good idea but don’t take that to mean NEVER have a treat, just realize the consequences of overindulging can be difficult to work off. Edit: Don’t be purposely dense - I’m obviously referring to the concept of eating OVER TDR with regular meals and then eating snacks ON TOP OF THAT, expecting to just burn it off without effort. If you’re only eating up to your maintenance calories, *in whatever form*, it’s not an issue.


I mean, yeah, you can. We all have a basal metabolic rate. For many people it’s around 2000 calories. Every person is different. You want to lose weight you eat less than your BMR. If you track the calories in everything you can have your fast food, or chips or whatever. Just figure out how bad something is, how many calories it is, and fit it into your plan. it’s not good for you, but you actually can lose weight this way too. Some people have to start by getting kids meals at the drive through, they are usually about 600-700 calories. Not good for you, but easy enough to fit into a deficit for the day. It’s just important to know that they are made to be addictive and make you hungrier. Eating just fast food to get a calorie deficit would absolutely suck, because it’s not particularly satiating. So you’d have to prepare to be hungry the rest of the day. But it is possible to eat small amounts of junk food and keep losing weight- I’ve absolutely done it.


> You definitely do NOT burn enough calories “just sitting around” to eat even small amounts of junk food. I'm sorry but that just isn't how it works. Most people burn anywhere from 1700-2000 calories a day "just sitting around" due to their BMR. I could decide to eat nothing but 1500 calories of "junk food" and so long as that's all I consume that day, I'd lose weight. There are a whole bunch of reasons why that's not a good idea, but weight loss is absolutely THAT SIMPLE.


They put gross pictures on cigarette boxes and say "this will literally happen to you", but people still buy and smoke them. No chance in hell OP's suggestion would work.


That's one reason why metal cigarette cases have made a comeback. The other is legal weed.


Just have the cigarettes talk to you ever time you smoke “this will kill you” etc


Rates of smoking went WAY down after other countries started those picture packs. You actually just proved OP’s point if anything


I mean smoking rates are down to day 20 years ago it does make a difference. The next target will be sugar.


I think it's less the pictures and more the large scale campaign to end smoking


I mean, my consumption of donuts went down when I realized exactly how bad donuts are for you in terms of calories. They're *insanely* calorie dense.


It's not just that it's bad/good - getting actual numbers is important for figuring out your total intake. You can eat something you'd think is "healthy" when compared with a donut but is really a lot of calories


The amount of "healthy" food that is both incredibly high in calories and also not remotely healthy at all is directly responsible for the obesity epidemic. Big food companies are basically pulling the same stunt big tobacco did back in the 70's and 80's. There are definitely plenty of people cheerfully eating foods they know are bad for them, but there are that many more people eating foods they think are good for them/will promote weight loss that are actually exacerbating the problem they're trying to solve.


They definitely lie and make things seem healthier than they are.. that being said, a donut vs something like trail mix with some veggies will be equal calories, but one will make you feel full and the other will make you want more


Right, even when people know a food item is most likely high in calories they still grossly underestimate the number of calories and how those calories fit into their daily diet. I log everything I eat, and this one time I went out to lunch with a friend and got a burger, fries, appetizer, and a couple beers. Of course I knew the meal was high in calories, but when I logged the meal later on I was surprised it was 1,800 calories! Nearly a whole days worth of calories just eating lunch.


The underestimation of calories is astounding to me. I used to work at Buffalo Wild Wings and it was very common for people to get 2-4 little cups of ranch with their wings. Each tiny little condiment cup is 250 calories of ranch…


Yeah, condiments are the worst when it comes to unexpected calories. Like my (obese) friend, "I just had chicken for dinner last night." Yeah, smothered in BBQ sauce. That's 200 extra empty calories. Learn to cook with herbs and spices.


Yup condiments and cooking fats. People don’t realize that they might be frying up their “healthy” veggies in 1-200 calories of oil that just got soaked up


Yeah, reducing the amount of fat I cook with is one of those things which happened naturally from logging my meals all these years. I have 0.5 tbsp of olive oil logged for tonight's pasta dish. lol Those cooking oils add up fast without adding much in terms of flavor. Everyone is (rightfully) worried about excess sugar these days, but at more than twice the calories fat/oils can skyrocket the number of calories in a meal.


Yeah people sometimes get lost in the “good and bad” fats thing I’ve seen, not realizing that weight loss or maintenance ultimately is just calories in Vs. calories out. I put a liquor pour topper on my olive oil so that helps me be very consistent when I pour it out since it’s always the same rate, without having to measure it out first.


Absolutely, strict calorie counting with an app for example is an eye opening experience.


Yes they know it’s “bad” but not just how bad. But people that don’t do physical activity wouldn’t really comprehend the exercise rationale either. “That donut will take 4 miles of running to burn off” ok - good thing I don’t run.


Most people think they can eat a 500 calorie honey bun and walk for 30 minutes and they're golden. I don't think the majority of folks know how many calories they eat vs expend. Spoiler: you'd have to walk FAST for 1-2 hours to burn off that honey bun. If you drank a bottle of regular soda with it, try 3-4 hours.


Yup, that’s the entire point. Also I have seen wrappers and labels that did specifically list how long you’d have to exercise to burn it off. For many many people it would be eye opening. I did the exact math a couple days ago when I wanted a chocolate bar from the store. I was like 220 calories for this thing that won’t even fill me up in any way? And would take like an hour or two to burn off? 100% not worth it. Ironically I also did the same thing with a protein bar that was 280 calories. I was like holy fuck I could eat 2 eggs and 2-3 pieces of bacon for that same amount, and be satiated for much longer.


Protein bars are made for those hard gainers who have trouble eating enough calories, or bulkers who just want to pack on muscle ASAP and cut later (or never depending on goals I guess). They are a decent meal substitute, or supplement if used correctly but for folks like me (and most of us)- they are just a good way to get in shape slower, or get fat.


> I don't think the majority of folks know how many calories they eat vs expend. And many that think they do don't understand that basal calories are included in that "calories per hour burnt". Those 250–300 calories you burn walking for an hour aren't extra. That includes ~100 calories you'd have burnt in any case just being alive for an hour. The human body is extremely efficient. Burning calories is massively harder than consuming them.


>The human body is extremely efficient. Burning calories is massively harder than consuming them. In addition, body fat is very energy dense with 3500 calories per pound of fat. If you stopped eating altogether you wouldn't even lose a pound per day.


Yep - This dawned on me when I started riding the Peloton. Busting my ass for 30 min only to burn 350 calories really makes me think twice about grabbing 4 of the Oreos we buy for the kids which amounts to 300 calories alone. Knowing level of effort to overturn a bad dietary choice is way more impactful than knowing Oreos are bad for me.


Preach. The comparison of calories in diet and in excercising really teaches you discipline in the kitchen moreso than at the gym.


And that is why the suggestion will remain a shower thought. You can't out run most eating decisions, it has to fit in the net average caloric intake over a few days.


According to many running documentaries - a lot of first time marathoners gain wait training for a marathon because they think they burned off more than they really did.


Yeah but it's a bit abstract Knowing that a donut (one minute of pleasure) = 30 minutes of running AKA misery might make it more concrete and put it in terms that people intuitively understand


Also, being hungry and eating that cheeseburger 😍😋🥴


Plenty of people start working out and then quit when they don’t lose weight because they don’t realize losing weight is primarily diet. This would be very helpful to them.


Plus I don't run... so minutes running is just a completely arbitrary number to me. Calories you can at least compare to the recommended amount if you want to guesstimate, but how many minutes of running is good? How much is bad??? This sure as hell won't help anyone trying to build muscle or gain weight.


Yeah, but it’s different for different people. 200 pound guy does not (work the same as) a 100 pound woman. Besides, everyone burns some calories while resting.


And food companies will try to use extremes to make them look better. 20 minutes of running ( if you're a 500lb male running at 25mph). Similar to how they can see they don't have trans fats if it's under .5 grams a serving. ( Serving size 1oz of french fries)


Just like how all "calories" are actually measured in kcal (1000 calories). So your "2000 calories" would actually be 2 000 000 calories, since an individual calorie is tiny (only about 4.2 joules). It's just that nobody likes such big numbers when talking about how much food they eat.


Yup. Weight, gender, fitness level, running speed, even weather will impact calorie burn. It’s far too individualized to be even close to accurate and would create more confusion than clarity.


And yet recommended daily intake is calculated based on an average persons daily requirements. We make generalisations all the time for this sort of thing, I don't see why one more would suddenly make the difference.


You’re right, the “2000-per day” metric is inaccurate for a lot of people. But adding *more* inaccurate estimates on top of that wouldn’t help. The exercise anorexics would love it, though - except they already know exactly how many calories they burn running.


But if we're talking about an app, you could at least add some personal info (height, weight, sex) and get a _more accurate_ and personalized number. Heck it could even integrate with a Fitbit or such and figure out your average running pace. We're still talking about the "Miles per donut" thing right?


Sure but that’s not the suggestions in the post. More like a feature they could add to existing products


I think you're describing My Fitness Pal.


Also, some people don't run for exercise. I have a compressed disk in my back, so I lift weights exclusively for a workout. Others bike, use the elliptical, rowing machines, swim, etc. I *do,* however, track my calories based on my weight, goals (weight loss vs. adding muscle, etc.) and so on.


Cardio is probably the least effective way to lose weight. Lifting weights or hybrid workouts are better. Also, it won't matter if you eat too many calories anyway. Cardio is for your heart, not for your belly.


Yuh 90% of it is just not eating it in the first place. But im not sure what you mean about not losing weight with cardio. If you ate your daily 2000 then ran 300 of it off, you’d lose weight. Most trainers recommend a mix of all 3 - eating better, cardio, and weight lifting.


1. No, we wouldn't. 2. That would be inaccurate since "minutes of running" is not a standard unit of measurement and depends on stride, speed, and runner's weight. 3. I would never buy a product that did not list an actual amount of energy, instead favoring to lecture me on how to lose the weight I'd gain from eating their product


Seems to me this would cause more eating disorders in kids who don’t realize your body burns calories naturally


Not to mention that you shouldn’t run off every calorie you eat in a day. We need calories for our bodies to function normally when we’re not exercising too.


because i havent seen any other comments mentioning it: this would be AWFUL for people with eating disorders. for whoever needs to hear it, you do not have to earn your food by exercising or restricting!


THANK YOU! I am frustrated by people in this thread referring to food as "healthy." Food is not healthy. People are healthy. Food is either nutritious for a particular diet, activity level, and individual, or not. A runner with celiac benefits from certain foods and diets very differently from a vegan who lifts heavy. I have suffered from EDs my entire life and so much of this culturally ingrained "ethics of eating and body size" is responsible for it.


I disagree As a personal trainer I think the best way to go about it is to explain that if you eat x amount of calories your weight will stay the same. This donut is Y amount of those calories so you CAN eat it, but then there's something else you might not be able to eat later.


I mean, if they don't run to begin with anyway i dont think they will care


The people who eat irresponsibly don't read nutrition labels.


Not true. I intentionally eat unhealthy stuff in large quantities dues to to reading the nutritional facts


I don't agree, but even if that is true, perhaps they would if the information given didn't seem so abstract to them.


I wish we could measure "units of life" so that we could for certain know how many minutes/days/months/years we add to our lives by consistently living healthier lifestyle. Like, hey if I go for this run today, I add 03:23 extra on my total life cycle 😆. Because THAT would be awesome and motivating!


Bold of you to assume we want to be alive longer. Lol


Not really, if I don’t really even look at calories why would I look at minutes lf running? And if you go out to a nice Michelin Star restaurant they don’t really list calories per dish either. Only fast food seems to be labelling calories and I doubt it would stop anyone even if you change the metrics.


No. Some people have bad knees and don't run. If people can ignore existing nutrition labels, they can ignore redesigned ones as well.


someone make this a thing pronto


Seeing italian words in random contexts in english always intrigues me. What do english people use "pronto" for ?


We use it like we use the abbreviation “ASAP”


Thanks. In that case "adesso" would make a lot more sense, but i guess i shouldn't expect words to retain their meaning when used by other languages.


I'm pretty sure *pronto*, as used in English, comes from Spanish, not Italian. Obviously those are both Romance languages, but that's probably why there's a bit of clunkiness in the translation to Italian.


I see what you’re saying, but I think it is used in English more as a loan word and the word itself is just a part of the common vernacular. I’d be willing to bet that many don’t even know the origin of the word.


What does pronto mean actually?


It's either used (for some reason) when you answer a call or the intercom "Pronto, chi è ?" (Hello, who am i speaking to ?), or as a synonymous to "ready", as in "il pranzo è pronto" (lunch is ready).


Minutes if running is too imprecise to be a measurement. Running can vary depending on many factors.


Your vastly over estimating the amount of people that look at the calorie content of what they eat.


had to scroll down too much to find the person that speaks the real truth. the only people that give a shit about calories are quite literally *the only people that give a shit about calories*. all others just eat and get on with their lives.


I prefer to think in terms of "hours of sleeping" instead of "minutes of running".


Nobody would be more responsibly. Calories already give you the perfect amount of information about how easy a food is going to make you fat. If people nowadays ignore calories they will also ignore some arbitrary 'minutes of running' OP really thought people were going to eat a snickers bar, look at the back of the package and then be shocked and run 60 minutes around the neighborhood, instead of just being like 'interesting' and throwing the wrapper away lol


The problem is portions. Get a food scale and pour yourself a single serving of cereal for 160 calories. Then laugh and realize you’ve probably been eating 2-4 servings most of your life. Minutes of exercise would be the same, and then we’d have a whole bunch of people saying they only needed 30 minutes of running, when they actually would need 2 hours.


That's actually brilliant. Except that a 300 lb person burns more calories than a 100lb person.


Yeah and the GDA they print on everything is based on a 5'10 male of around 85kg iirc. They'll find an average or median burn rate and use that as the standard


Except that this plays into the old canard that the problem is “Energy in=\=Energy out” This is incorrect and should not be expanded.


Cardio is a terrible fat burner.


Yep, that sounds like a good way to give people eating disorders.


How about the other way around? I need to eat 15 donuts worth of calories today for my body to get its minimum amount of energy.


Sounds like an eating disorder but cool


That was my first though but you're downvoted to hell. Basically exercise induced bulimia trigger


No, they wouldn't. People know what is and isn't bad for them. They simply don't care.


Plus most people would rather sit on the couch than do any form of exercise lol


In Europe they measure the energy content of food in Joules. It shifted my perspective from calories = bad to Calories = energy


Ha ha ha. Yeah; that’s what stopping people from eating salads.