New soft drink campaign uses exercise hours as deterrent

Print

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 6:13p.m.

It takes 50 minutes of running to burn off the calories of a fizzy drink, say scientists

It takes 50 minutes of running to burn off the calories of a fizzy drink, say scientists

By Anna Burns-Francis

A research team at John Hopkins University, in the United States, have discovered a new way to warn teenagers about how much soft drink they're consuming – by using the threat of exercise.

The researchers looked at three different fizzy drink warning signs in dairies – one showing the calorie count, another the percentage of your daily intake, and the third how long you would have to run to burn it all off.

The scientists worked out that it would take 50 minutes of running to burn off one can of drink.

“I think very few people make the connection between energy in, in terms of drink or food and how much it takes to burn that up,” says Winsome Parnell, of Otago University.

The study in the US showed that when customers realised it was nearly an hour's worth of jogging, 40 percent of them decided to drink something else.

“For people who buy soft drinks, then knowing how many calories you need to run off to consume the soft drink sounds a very sensible way of giving them the information they need,” says Robyn Toomath, who leads a campaign called Fight the Obesity Epidemic.

Overseas, lawmakers in France are about to pass a soft drink tax and even one of our food industry's most ardent critics thinks soda manufacturers could be convinced the exercise labels are a good idea.

“They may be happier with this sort of label then for example a traffic light label because the last thing the food industry wants is a red dot on their food indicating that it is unhealthy,” says Food labelling advocate Sue Kedgley.

For now though, shoppers concerned about their waistline will just have to be savvy when reading labels.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments

18 Jan 2012 04:43p.m.

jan wrote:

agree with andrew. but grant, fruit sugar is easily digestable and has nutrients compared with white sugar. Maybe there should be a label on every fruit and vegetable about calories and fat then we will be overloaded with information and then won't care. But i like the excercise time thing because myself personally hate excercise and might just think twice about 50 minutes to work of just a can of coke. I would also like to know about beer, wine etc and yes milk but, we have to eat calories to survive. maybe the anorexics will know the calories of everything. Hell just eat drink and don't give a stuff and live a life without flipping labels.

14 Jan 2012 10:17p.m.

Stephen Berry wrote:

Sue Kedgley loves food regulations such as labelling but opposes the food bill. If she had any concept of the principles of freedom she would oppose both.

14 Jan 2012 02:25p.m.

Chris wrote:

It is the quantity of food consumed that makes people fat, not whether they decide to have a sugary drink instead of water. This labeling idea seems to be pretty pointless and won't have any effect whatsoever on what I choose to buy. If non-nutritious foods are properly balanced with nutritious foods, it doesn't matter!

14 Jan 2012 10:26a.m.

Andrew wrote:

I agree with Grant. Often people get pretty smug about sugar until labels are compared. Coke pretty much always has less sugar than drinks other than water. Also, if you're going to talk about the time you need to spend running to burn it off. For the same amount - you have to run for longer for the same amount for fruit juice, whole milk, light blue milk, most prepackaged drinks. This is not to say that soft drinks are healthy compared to these other options - obviously the calories don't provide much in the way of nutrition like juice or milk... but if you force manufacturers to put the time spent running to burn of the calories onto the labels then it's only fair that everyone else will have to as well. Something tells me coke will actually come off looking like the preferred choice.

14 Jan 2012 09:28a.m.

Grant wrote:

Considering the sugar level in fruit and and fruit juices is about the same as soft drinks, and recent concerns over fructose being just as bad if not worse than sucrose, should calorie warnings also be placed on fruit and fruit juices?

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)