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
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
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
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
