I don't know about you, but every year around Halloween, I see a lot of posts about charts like these:

Or at least the thinking: that if you eat some candy, you need to try to burn it off via exercise.

This is really outdated advice that I don't agree with.

To echo much of the content about this topic, here's why:

• It makes the candy less enjoyable, since you're already thinking about having to burn it off
• You can develop an unhealthy, tit-for-tat relationship with food and exercise
• It reduces exercise to nothing more than a calorie-burner... which it's generally pretty inefficient at anyway

But again, I'm sure you've already seen these takes.

A less popular take that I have is:

I actually think there's a valuable takeaway from charts like these.

Despite the fact that everybody (understandably) dumps on them.

What these charts do a good job of highlighting—intentionally or not—is how even small amounts of food can be hundreds of calories.

I can tell you right now that most frustrated dieters underestimate this because they're focusing on volume: how much food is on their plate.

Or isn't.

But weight loss comes down to how many calories you're eating, not whether you're "not eating that much." Those aren't necessarily the same thing... as you can see in the chart.

This isn't to say you need to avoid candy all week, and certainly not that you need to try to burn it off.

Just to actually PLAN for the things you want to enjoy, so the seemingly insignificant treats don't erase your deficit.

Sam

P.S. If you could make any candy calorie-free for the week, which would you choose?

For me, it's definitely Reese's. Either the classic version, Reese's Oreo, or the Take 5.