The next time the line at Starbucks is threatening to burn through your resolve to eat clean—that 420-calorie chocolate-chunk cookie would go so well with a latte, wouldn't it?—take a few seconds to do some mental math and your craving may quickly evaporate. Factoring the "exercise equivalent" of an item—how long it would take to to burn it off—is much more effective at helping consumers make healthier choices than viewing the calorie count alone, according to new research from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"Simply knowing how many calories an item has isn't really that meaningful," says study author Sara Bleich, PhD, an associate professor of health policy and management. "The exercise equivalent of an item is easier to comprehend and carries more weight than calories alone."
While this study looked at teenagers, Bleich says all of us could benefit from picturing the sweat we'd have to expel to zero out those empty calories. And we have to agree. One measly cookie doesn't seem like a smart trade for a 2-hour walk on the treadmill.
Of course, it's definitely great to treat yourself once in a while, and obsessing about calories isn’t fun or healthy. But if you find yourself succumbing to your sweet tooth more than you’d like, this trick could help you stay on track—or at least inspire your to split your treat with a friend.
The next time you're tempted, here's a little calorie perspective:
100 calories = 21 minutes brisk walking, or 8 minutes running, or 10 minutes cycling, or 11 minutes swimming
500 calories = 106 minutes brisk walking, or 40 minutes running, or 50 minutes cycling, or 57 minutes swimming
1,000 calories = 211 minutes brisk walking, or 80 minutes running, or 100 minutes cycling, or 115 minutes swimming
1,500 calories = 316 minutes brisk walking, or 120 minutes running, or 150 minutes cycling, or 172 minutes swimming
2,000 calories = 422 minutes brisk walking, or 160 minutes running, or 200 minutes cycling, or 229 minutes swimming