2,000 calories [a day] is only enough to sustain children and postmenopausal women
FIT_Goat
Posts: 4,224 Member
Here's a fun article: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/why-does-the-fda-recommend-2-000-calories-per-day/243092/
I often find myself wondering why everyone is so convinced they need to eat so little. I mean, I always thought the 2,000 calorie number was for women and the 2,500 calorie number was more for men. Yet it seems, everyone is always claiming their TDEE is nearly 1,400. While doing some investigation as to what the actual calorie requirements are for men and women, I ran into this article. Turns out, even the 2,000 calorie number is too low for most women. It was picked on the basis of opinion and not science.
But, this is my favorite quote from the whole thing:
LOL, even the author of a book titled Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics thinks you shouldn't bother actually counting calories.
I often find myself wondering why everyone is so convinced they need to eat so little. I mean, I always thought the 2,000 calorie number was for women and the 2,500 calorie number was more for men. Yet it seems, everyone is always claiming their TDEE is nearly 1,400. While doing some investigation as to what the actual calorie requirements are for men and women, I ran into this article. Turns out, even the 2,000 calorie number is too low for most women. It was picked on the basis of opinion and not science.
Despite the observable fact that 2,350 calories per day is below the average requirements for either men or women obtained from doubly labeled water experiments, most of the people who responded to the comments judged the proposed benchmark too high. Nutrition educators worried that it would encourage overconsumption, be irrelevant to women who consume fewer calories, and permit overstatement of acceptable levels of "eat less" nutrients such as saturated fat and sodium.
But, this is my favorite quote from the whole thing:
As to how many calories you personally need, I think they are too difficult for most people to count accurately to bother. The bottom line: If you are eating too many, you will be gaining weight.
The best advice I can give is to get a scale and use it. If your weight starts creeping up, you have to eat less.
LOL, even the author of a book titled Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics thinks you shouldn't bother actually counting calories.
0
Replies
-
That's awesome.0
-
It's fascinating. We trust these little calculators implicitly. We trust them, rather than trusting our own bodies...0
-
AT last, someone who thinks that those low cal counts are TOO low! I always heard 2000w/2500m too, and figured if I ate at the 1700 recommended by MFP I would lose (but then again, I don't count). The 1100-1400 some people claim I thought were ridiculously low! Personally, I think I need at least 1100 to fuel my brain LOL!
0 -
That's really interesting! I found I do better with higher calories and higher fat macro, but to accommodate my doctor I did lower calories and lower fat macro... shoulda listened to my body and not the doc!0
-
Oh to be able to eat that much and not gain weight. Some of us just flat out can't do that, it doesn't work for us. Which sucks. And it's all based off of averages anyway. So if you're unlucky enough to not be in the middle third of the bell curve than you're screwed. If you're shorter or taller than average, have more or less muscle than average, are more or less active than average, and if anyone of these non-average traits are far from average then you're SOL. We all have to find our own way, because rarely is there a person who is the "perfect" average. Lots of people are close to it, but many aren't.0
-
Yup.sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »Oh to be able to eat that much and not gain weight. Some of us just flat out can't do that, it doesn't work for us. Which sucks.
This. If I consistently eat over 1800 calories and live a generally sedentary lifestyle where I'm not intentionally trying to exercise, and work a desk job all day, I WILL gain weight. Even 2000 is too high for me. I tested this from Jan - May of this year, when I went back to work after a 6 month break in which I ate healthy and worked out daily because I had the time. During that 4 month period I put on about 15ish lbs. I'm 34 and around 155 now. I guess my metabolism just sucks.
0 -
If it really was all about averages, why do more than 50% of the women on MFP claim to have TDEEs significantly below the average? I think it is safe to assume the median should be close to the average, unless there are some rare women with absolutely insane burns that managed to be part of the original survey group.
I have ordered this book. I am going to give it a read and see what it has to say. I do believe that most people are telling the truth about how much they eat and their results. I have my own suspicions as to why this is true at the same time as they aren't lying either.0 -
Remember that the averages are based on the SAD eaters, compelled to overeat by their high-carb intake.
I wonder what the averages are for the ad lib low-carb studies. IIRC, it was well under 2000 kcals, but I may have to look that up.
0 -
This average isn't about much people are eating, it is about how many calories they are burning. But, you are correct that this was still based off of the standard "balanced" diet. We could potentially find even higher average daily burns for low carbers.0
-
Low carbers do burn a little more, but they also eat a lot less. That's how they lose weight.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16002798
spontaneous energy intake decreased by 441 ± 63 kcal/d
Edit: Oops, that was just high protein. Still digging for low-carb.
Here we go:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15767618?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
On the low-carbohydrate diet, mean energy intake decreased from 3111 kcal/d to 2164 kcal/d.
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/1540419031361426
Total daily intake of calories and nutrients were calculated from 3-day food diaries. Body weight was measured at the end of each 2-week diet session. All enrolled subjects completed the study (age = 39.8 ± 8.1 years, BMI = 36.6 ± 6.6 kg/m2). Mean caloric intakes were 1400 ± 472 kcal/day (Induction diet) and 1558 ± 490 kcal/day (Ongoing Weight Loss diet) both p ≤ 0.001 compared to "usual" (Baseline diet) 2481 ± 723 kcal/day.0 -
If it really was all about averages, why do more than 50% of the women on MFP claim to have TDEEs significantly below the average? I think it is safe to assume the median should be close to the average, unless there are some rare women with absolutely insane burns that managed to be part of the original survey group.
I have ordered this book. I am going to give it a read and see what it has to say. I do believe that most people are telling the truth about how much they eat and their results. I have my own suspicions as to why this is true at the same time as they aren't lying either.
I think this might be a skewed result, as unless there is a way to get the actual data of estimated TDEEs for mfp users you're only going to hear about the women(or men) who do seem to have the really low TDEE levels. Becaause they're the ones asking for advice because they just can't lose at whatever level, and most will eventually lower there cals enough to lose, and then assume they have a very low tdee.0 -
I might think so, except when you put in the stats for an average 35 year old woman (5'4.6" 166.2 lbs) you end up with around 2,000 calories (if they exercise 3 times a week). If you move them down to sedentary, you end up in the 1700-1800 range. That's going to put a lot of women at a 1,200 calorie a day intake goal, when they decide they want to lose a pound a week or more.
But, shouldn't the average woman be around the average calories? Especially since I am using relatively recent weights (which are heavier and thus have higher BMRs). To get the average woman's TDEE estimate near the 2,350 that the author above stated was still below the actual average, you need to assume they exercise heavily 5 days a week! That doesn't sound like the average woman to me.
I think the TDEE calculators are about as accurate as tarot cards. But, people are convinced the output has some meaningful say in determining how much they should eat. It's wiser to pay attention to what you eat and how the scale and your body definition changes.0 -
sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »If it really was all about averages, why do more than 50% of the women on MFP claim to have TDEEs significantly below the average? I think it is safe to assume the median should be close to the average, unless there are some rare women with absolutely insane burns that managed to be part of the original survey group.
I have ordered this book. I am going to give it a read and see what it has to say. I do believe that most people are telling the truth about how much they eat and their results. I have my own suspicions as to why this is true at the same time as they aren't lying either.
I think this might be a skewed result, as unless there is a way to get the actual data of estimated TDEEs for mfp users you're only going to hear about the women(or men) who do seem to have the really low TDEE levels. Becaause they're the ones asking for advice because they just can't lose at whatever level, and most will eventually lower there cals enough to lose, and then assume they have a very low tdee.
I think more women than average on MFP have hormonal issues and they don't know it, thus they have a difficult time losing weight. Agree, these are the ones who are asking questions because they are not losing. I also think that most are probably not tracking exactly and accurately so when they say they are eating 1400 and can't lose weight, they are actually eating more.
The women I know who lift heavy 3x a week are eating significantly more than women who don't, more in the range in this article. Most aren't doing much if any cardio. So they aren't exercising heavily 5x a week. But yes, this is probably not "average" either.
0 -
I think the TDEE calculators are about as accurate as tarot cards.
Of course, this has been studied.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/3/519.long
Seven-day physical activity records provide an acceptable estimate of EE in free-living adults compared with EEDLW0 -
sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »If it really was all about averages, why do more than 50% of the women on MFP claim to have TDEEs significantly below the average? I think it is safe to assume the median should be close to the average, unless there are some rare women with absolutely insane burns that managed to be part of the original survey group.
I have ordered this book. I am going to give it a read and see what it has to say. I do believe that most people are telling the truth about how much they eat and their results. I have my own suspicions as to why this is true at the same time as they aren't lying either.
I think this might be a skewed result, as unless there is a way to get the actual data of estimated TDEEs for mfp users you're only going to hear about the women(or men) who do seem to have the really low TDEE levels. Becaause they're the ones asking for advice because they just can't lose at whatever level, and most will eventually lower there cals enough to lose, and then assume they have a very low tdee.
I think more women than average on MFP have hormonal issues and they don't know it, thus they have a difficult time losing weight. Agree, these are the ones who are asking questions because they are not losing. I also think that most are probably not tracking exactly and accurately so when they say they are eating 1400 and can't lose weight, they are actually eating more.
The women I know who lift heavy 3x a week are eating significantly more than women who don't, more in the range in this article. Most aren't doing much if any cardio. So they aren't exercising heavily 5x a week. But yes, this is probably not "average" either.
I bet this is true about the hormonal issues. It's also possible that birth control plays a role in TDEE that we don't realize. I'd consider 3x per week heavy lifting closer to average than 5x a week vigorous exercise.
0 -
Oh man, if I can get off birth control in the next year like I hoped, I'd love to write up my experiences. You guys are welcome to ask me to start recording things now for comparison.
0 -
But, shouldn't the average woman be around the average calories? Especially since I am using relatively recent weights (which are heavier and thus have higher BMRs). To get the average woman's TDEE estimate near the 2,350 that the author above stated was still below the actual average, you need to assume they exercise heavily 5 days a week! That doesn't sound like the average woman to me.
I think the TDEE calculators are about as accurate as tarot cards. But, people are convinced the output has some meaningful say in determining how much they should eat. It's wiser to pay attention to what you eat and how the scale and your body definition changes.
This is where I stand. I've done the calculators to outline my macros, roughly. But I know that I rarely work out and I can't do what everyone else does. It's that simple. Pay attention to your body and you'll get the results you want... In time of course. Lol0 -
The awesome myfitnesspal data export tool (an excel thingamabob) gives me an average TDEE of around 2350kcal per day. I'm under 5 feet tall and female. I don't get how anyone's TDEE (around my age anyway, 32) could be 1400kcal either, they must be bedridden. I'm mainly sedentary as I don't work and still have a pretty good TDEE.0
-
I weigh the results of the food I eat each day. I do 1300 for breakfast each morning so for the life of me I do not understand how people function on 1300 a day for example. Maybe carb calories burn better and a lot of the fat calories are going out in the flush? 0
-
Hmmmm.... I have been thinking that MFP has set my target daily calories too low. Their algorithm tells me I should be eating 1,200 calories a day. The only way I can do that is to work my butt off at the gym, and then eat those exercise calories in addition to the 1200. I'm within 1 Kg of my goal weight. I think I will up my cals and see what happens.0
-
I wish I could figure out why my TDEE seems to be around 1600. Im 19, just over 5 feet, active as heck most days. Still a sh**ty TDEE.The awesome myfitnesspal data export tool (an excel thingamabob) gives me an average TDEE of around 2350kcal per day. I'm under 5 feet tall and female. I don't get how anyone's TDEE (around my age anyway, 32) could be 1400kcal either, they must be bedridden. I'm mainly sedentary as I don't work and still have a pretty good TDEE.
0 -
Here's a fun article: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/why-does-the-fda-recommend-2-000-calories-per-day/243092/
I often find myself wondering why everyone is so convinced they need to eat so little. I mean, I always thought the 2,000 calorie number was for women and the 2,500 calorie number was more for men. Yet it seems, everyone is always claiming their TDEE is nearly 1,400. While doing some investigation as to what the actual calorie requirements are for men and women, I ran into this article. Turns out, even the 2,000 calorie number is too low for most women. It was picked on the basis of opinion and not science.Despite the observable fact that 2,350 calories per day is below the average requirements for either men or women obtained from doubly labeled water experiments, most of the people who responded to the comments judged the proposed benchmark too high. Nutrition educators worried that it would encourage overconsumption, be irrelevant to women who consume fewer calories, and permit overstatement of acceptable levels of "eat less" nutrients such as saturated fat and sodium.
But, this is my favorite quote from the whole thing:As to how many calories you personally need, I think they are too difficult for most people to count accurately to bother. The bottom line: If you are eating too many, you will be gaining weight.
The best advice I can give is to get a scale and use it. If your weight starts creeping up, you have to eat less.
LOL, even the author of a book titled Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics thinks you shouldn't bother actually counting calories.
WHAT THE......!??! - 2000 calories would have me gaining fat quicker than you can say "cellulite city". I don't care what any article says, women come in all shapes and sizes, and the amount of calories an average height 140 pound woman can maintain at would be wayyyy too much for a 5ft tall 127 pound midget like me. FACT! Plus then you have metabolism speeds to come into play... Mine of course is slow (thanks god) so that lowers your weight gain threshold once again.
I've tried eating more calories, and even 100 calories below sedentary TDEE, with exercise on top, I stay the same weight. My body appears to need the standard 500 calorie minimum deficit to lose fat. As my sedentary TDEE is 1400 that means only 900 net calories per day intake for me to be guaranteed a reasonable weekly weight loss of only 1 pound ish per week. Obviously 900 cals is too low a goal to sustain, so I need to eat 1200 cals a day, then exercise off the remaining 300 calories, and not eat any exercise calories back.
It's so frustrating to hear people professing we can all eat so many more calories and lose weight, when experience is showing me that is sadly not the case. I've tried upping my cals this past week or two, and I sit here weighing exactly the same as I did 3 weeks ago, possibly 1 pound heavier. Argghh! So frustrating! (I have 10 more days to get that scale below 125 pounds before my summer vacation. It was a really important goal I set myself, which should have been technically easily achievable with the amount of work I'm putting in every single day, so im beyond disappointed that eating a bit more did NOT work for me).
I mean, if I could really eat 2000 cals and maintain weight, or 1500 cals and lose, I wouldn't have all this excess body fat to start with! And I'd be tiny and slim by now.
Truly, for some of us, low calories and tough restrictions are the only way to ensure satisfying weight fat loss.
0 -
I only eat 1700 or so calories
Even on high calorie burn days
If I eat 2000 calories a day I gain slowly
0 -
There was a time when I was gaining weight at 1,700-1,800 calories a day. So, I don't disbelieve those who claim to do the same. But, I suspect that was the end result of long term diet induced issues. When those turned around and healed, my TDEE rose and now I can eat 2,500-2,700 calories a day without gaining weight.0
-
It is frustrating
I'm glad it may be a phase.
Maybe I should go to a muscle build phase
That used to be a good gear change
It has been 20 months of losing weight0 -
As you get more fit, your RMR drops. This is counter to conventional wisdom, but several studies bare it out, including at least one done by Volek.
If you're still hungry, focus on protein. It's almost impossible to get fat by eating too much protein.0 -
Professionalhobbyist this seems so strange to me. As a very active male and if your profile pic is you.... you should be able to eat way more. I am a 52 yo woman and 2000 is about maintenance for me.0
-
The human body is not a simple machine and is mainly electrical in nature and is powered by sunlight in one form or another. On top of that we can respond differently due to the different foods produced as the results of sunlight. The science of HOW MUCH we should eat daily at an individual level just is not there in my view.
There is only one way that I know how to track how my body deals with food that are all a byproduct of sunlight and water. That is to track what I eat and how it makes me feel and where the scales go up, down or stay the same. That is not rocket science.
Personally I think as my organ systems recover on a very low carb eating lifestyle I can handle more calories in part because I move more because I am more physically able to move better. I am doing activities that were not possible 12 months ago for example.
The lack of hard science about human diets at an individual level does not concern me. I work to find what works for me and try to get blood work and a check up annually to monitor the results of my eating and moving habits that I have adopted. How I feel is the most important factor. While I am very slowly losing weight my first goal is to feel better and physically be well.0 -
Interestingly, that study I posted above about estimating metabolic rates found that the best estimate was the caloric intake.
This can either be used to support the Taubes/FIT_Goat view that intake drives EE, or it simply reflects the fact that the body is very good at maintaining homeostasis and accurately directs us to consume just enough. Probably a little bit of both.
We normally don't question thirst as a good director of fluid balance, why should we question hunger as a director of energy balance?0 -
Great points all around. The bottom line for me is that calories are one part of a much bigger story, that can vary considerably on an individual level, due to all the other factors at play. For me personally, I know I can lose weight effortlessly if I cut out dairy, probably eating more calories per day than I do now. But I haven't managed to give it up without really missing it, so I do eat it. When my allergies get bad, I'll cut it out for a while, because I'll have enough of an incentive to do so. Macro ratios, hormonal differences, the season of life you're in, how much and what exercise you do, all matter.0
This discussion has been closed.