Super Bowl Snacks Need These Exercise Equivalents

Charles Platkin, director of the New York City Food Policy Center at Hunter College, published tips on what it would take to burn off the calories we typically consume during the Super Bowl

 

Getty Images/iStockphoto/Thinkstock Images

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!

Super Bowl Sunday is almost here and there’s one question on everyone’s mind: How can I tackle a plate of chicken wings without adding yardage to my end zone?

Well, Charles Platkin is the director of the New York City Food Policy Center at Hunter College. And he thinks that to make smarter, more splurge-worthy snacking choices we should consider what it would take to burn off the calories we take in.

To that end, Platkin has come up exercise equivalents for some of our favorite couch-side canapes and other nibbles.


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.


Let’s kick things off with a foot-long meatball sub. This marinara-soaked monster, which weighs in at around 900 calories, would take more than an hour-and-a-half of running up and down the stadium steps to work off. And three pieces of KFC at 740 calories would take some 680 touchdown dances. Almost certainly leading to a celebration penalty.

A single tortilla chip, a mere 20 calories, with a scoop of seven-layer dip, another 70 calories, would require a solid 25 minutes of boogying down to Lady Gaga!

Even two handfuls of Chex Mix, which racks up a surprising 280 calories, calls for 30 minutes of jumping up and down after your team scores. And a 450-calorie slice of pizza? Do the wave 2,194 times. But you could get called for interference—by others trying to see the TV.

Now, if you’re still thinking about piling on those wings, each one weighs in at a hefty 95 calories. Add blue cheese dip and 10 wings can hit 1,400 calories. Which would take 149 trips up and down the field to run off.

But before conceding defeat, Platkin does offer some pointers to help you beat the Super Bowl spread. Stock up on popcorn, and skip the butter. Drizzle hot sauce on the wings instead of dollops of dip. And do not huddle with your snacks—keep them far enough away so that getting at them makes you put your backfield in motion.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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