Following the recommended 2000 calorie intake.

starpoweractivate

Hi all,
Nutrition labels are designed at a 2000 calorie intake. Does anyone have any insight to how the nutrition changes if you consume more or less than 2000? I've always wondered about that. Why do the labels need to specify based on 2000 calories unless the nutritional info changes depending on you calorie intake. Just thought I would pose this topic out to the forums to see what people have to say on it. Thanks!

VioletRojo

The only thing that would change is the percent of RDA a particular micro is. All hard numbers would remain the same.

kimny72

starpoweractivate wrote: »

Hi all,
Nutrition labels are designed at a 2000 calorie intake. Does anyone have any insight to how the nutrition changes if you consume more or less than 2000? I've always wondered about that. Why do the labels need to specify based on 2000 calories unless the nutritional info changes depending on you calorie intake. Just thought I would pose this topic out to the forums to see what people have to say on it. Thanks!

2,000 cals is just what they consider the recommended calorie consumption for the "average" sized person. They picked a number to determine the RDA %s for. How many calories you eat doesn't affect the grams of something it's recommended you get, just the % of your calories it will be.

NovusDies

starpoweractivate wrote: »

Hi all,
Nutrition labels are designed at a 2000 calorie intake. Does anyone have any insight to how the nutrition changes if you consume more or less than 2000? I've always wondered about that. Why do the labels need to specify based on 2000 calories unless the nutritional info changes depending on you calorie intake. Just thought I would pose this topic out to the forums to see what people have to say on it. Thanks!

If you eat more of something you get more nutrition from it. If you eat less of something you get less.

AnnPT77

starpoweractivate wrote: »

Hi all,
Nutrition labels are designed at a 2000 calorie intake. Does anyone have any insight to how the nutrition changes if you consume more or less than 2000? I've always wondered about that. Why do the labels need to specify based on 2000 calories unless the nutritional info changes depending on you calorie intake. Just thought I would pose this topic out to the forums to see what people have to say on it. Thanks!

I'm going to say that that might not be the question you really want to ask.

Some (many/most) nutrients have recommended intakes based on bodyweight/gender/age/etc. In most cases, you'd probably use your healthy goal weight as a basis, rather than a possible currently seriously over- or under-weight bodyweight. The labels use a calorie level just to give people a general idea of whether the food is a good source of particular nutrients or not, compared to other foods. It's not so much intended as a way for you to calculate your needs or track your intake.

So, there are a lot of assumptions or generalizations built into those labels with the 2000 calorie basis, since people of many different ages/genders/sizes/etc. could be eating any given calorie level, for lots of different reasons (activity level, weight management goals, etc.). Even for those actually eating the same calories, the nutritional needs could be different.

If you want to give more attention to your nutrition, it would be a good idea to figure out sensible nutrient recommendations for your very own personal body. One possible source of mainstream recommendations is the USDA calculator, where you can put in your personal characteristics, and get a tailored recommendation:

https://fnic.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dri-calculator/

(You may or may not agree with those recommendations. For example, recent research I've read leads me to eat more protein than that calculator recommends, since I'm older, quite athletically active, vegetarian, and sometimes in a calorie deficit.)

Then, if you want to understand how a particular nutrient on a food label contributes to your nutrition, you can compare your personal need for the nutrient to the amount in a standard serving of the food (or, by doing a little arithmetic, your personal serving that may be a different amount than the standard serving).

Some of the ingredients have only a %DV on the label, rather than a number of grams plus a percentage. Unfortunately, for those, if you really care, you'd have to figure out what USDA's standard for calculating those percentages is. There's some more information about that here:

https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-and-materials/how-understand-and-use-nutrition-facts-label

That link also has some info about what the label values are intended to be useful for.

starpoweractivate

Thanks everyone for your input. Very informative! 😊

lynn_glenmont

VioletRojo wrote: »

The only thing that would change is the percent of RDA a particular micro is. All hard numbers would remain the same.

Actually, it's the macro percentages (fat, protein, carbs, sugar, total calories, maybe fiber) that would change. Micronutrient RDAs aren't based on your calorie intake.