If your packet of potato chips suggested that you need to swim 20 laps in an Olympic sized pool to work off the calories they contain, would that be a deterrent to eating such junk food?

An article just published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggests that such “activity equivalent” calorie labeling would actually help to combat the growing obesity epidemic.

“Most people don’t have a reference point for calories,” explains Dr. Charles Platkin, director of the New York City Food Policy Center and Distinguished Lecturer at Hunter College, City University of New York.

Platkin, a nationally syndicated health columnist known as the "Diet Detective," says understanding the “cost” of a food in terms of calories consumed can help people to control their diets.

Platkin’s own recent research suggests that people with knowledge of exercise equivalents tend to order and eat foods with fewer calories than those who have no information. There is not a significant amount of data on this topic, but it is possible that if food were labeled consistently, then people might make better food choices, he says.

“If you have a food budget of 2,000 calories, for instance,” he says, “then after you’ve exceeded the budget, the exercise equivalent comes in.” 

Platkin’s book, “The Diet Detective Countdown,” offers the exercise equivalent of 8,000 different foods — detailing how what it would take to burn off the calories of each item.

“You have to decide if something is splurge worthy,” he says. “Is a rich piece of pizza worth two hours of walking? You might say yes, but knowing the exercise equivalent creates an ability to negotiate with yourself.

“If you are talking about widgets, with no reference point, it is meaningless. Exercise creates a reference point for those calories. People can look at the calories and compare with the equivalent amount of exercise. This is an element for people to use, to give them guidance.”

Examples from Platkin’s research give easy-to-remember activity equivalent calorie information for the following foods:

Nachos: If you eat a ½ order of fast-food nachos, at 500 calories, then you need to play an hour of tennis to burn it off. A lower-calorie alternative: Eat an 84-calorie shrimp cocktail and play 10 minutes of tennis.

Cookies: Three oatmeal raisin cookies contain 660 calories — the amount you’d burn off in several hours of cart-free golfing. A lower-calorie alternative: 94 calories of cantaloupe (about ½ of a cantaloupe) — the equivalent to 17 minutes of golfing.

Fried chicken: A fast-food, fried extra-crispy chicken breast — at 585 calories — would require about one hour of swimming. A lower-calorie alternative: A 4.6-ounce chicken breast dressed with veggies and herbs, at 160 calories, would require a 20-minute swim to burn off the calories.

Potato chips: A 6 ounce snack bag of potato chips, at 900 calories, would require about 2 ½ hours of stair climbing. A lower-calorie alternative: Two cups of plain popcorn, at 62 calories — requiring seven minutes of stair climbing.

Muffins: To burn off the 630 calories in a chocolate chip muffin you’d need to do 3 ½ hours of housecleaning. A lower-calorie alternative: A 154-calorie cup of low-fat, plain yogurt with berries — requiring 51 minutes of housecleaning.

Pancakes: A breakfast of flapjacks adds up to a whopping 1,457 calories — requiring seven hours of walking to burn off those calories. A lower-calorie alternative: A 210-calorie bowl of cereal — requiring one hour of walking.

Pizza: A single slice of pizza, at 600 calories, would require one hour and twenty minutes of bike riding. A lower-calorie alternative: A bowl of chicken noodle soup, at 180 calories, could be burned off in a 25 minute bike ride.

Ice cream: A 1,200-calorie ice cream sundae would require six hours of walking. A lower-calorie alternative: A 110-calorie fruit bowl — requiring a 30 minute walk.