Dieting and the TV-to-Treadmill Ratio

A study in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine finds that the ratio of TV sets to exercise equipment in the home is predictive of weight loss success. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

If you want to lose weight—really lose it and keep it off—look around your house. How many TV sets are there? And is there an exercise bike or any other similar equipment? The answers could predict the success of your weight loss quest, according to a report in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine.

In the study, scientists surveyed 167 people who managed to lose 10 percent of their body weight and keep it off for five years. They compared them to two other groups whose dieting was not so successful. And they found that the slenderized subjects, in addition to having fewer high-fat foods in the house, also had fewer TV sets and more exercise equipment. These people were more likely to work out, more careful about calories and less likely to sit for hours in front of the tube.

The results pretty much corroborate common sense. If you want to shed a few pounds, don’t fill your cupboard with cupcakes. Instead fill your living space with things that will make you more likely, not less likely, to actually move. Things like a treadmill or a stationary cycle. Or a key. That you can use to lock the door and go out for a nice walk.

—Karen Hopkin

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe