American Food Pyramid

vapianogirl2553

1,600 calories for a women not excersising is not extreme at all. Also I think they should adjust it based on height and weight. And increase protein for everyone and lower grains. Animals fats are good we are learning and so may areas they could improve they dietary guidelines. 2,000 or more would be what I consume when working out my smart watch adjusts my DVs based on how many calories I burn that day so I'm always maintaining or gaining never losing

AnnPT77

vapianogirl2553 wrote: »

1,600 calories for a women not excersising is not extreme at all. Also I think they should adjust it based on height and weight. And increase protein for everyone and lower grains. Animals fats are good we are learning and so may areas they could improve they dietary guidelines. 2,000 or more would be what I consume when working out my smart watch adjusts my DVs based on how many calories I burn that day so I'm always maintaining or gaining never losing

Did someone here suggest that 1600 was low for a woman not exercising? I didn't. In fact, I said I ate that (as my base pre-exercise calories), and sometimes less, while losing weight. I wouldn't do that now (even as my base calories), because if I did I'd lose weight at a rate that would be pretty dumb for a 5'5" 120-something pound woman. If someone is trying to maintain their weight, and 1600 calories does that, that's how many calories they should eat.

BTW: Fitness trackers are not gospel. If I ate what my good brand/model fitness tracker - one that's accurate for others - says it would take to maintain my weight, I'd lose weight like a house afire. It's just another estimate of calorie needs, not a measurement of calorie needs.

The US government does adjust calorie and nutrition recommendations based on height and weight, if you look at the resources that are aimed at giving advice to individual people. (They're still just estimates!).

One of my previous posts mentioned one of those:

https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/dri-calculator

There are others, such as this one:

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/bwp

Even the My Plate plan has an individualized recommendation option:

https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan

(The My Plate plan is the actual current US government guidance - the food pyramid is long gone. Criticizing it now is fighting a straw man.)

Yes, there are places on the web where the US government uses 2000 calories as a generic example. To do examples, they need to pick some arbitrary number, and that's a central-ish arbitrary number.

I agree that a higher protein goal would be useful, but I suspect that the bureaucracy will work its way there eventually, but it's likely not a priority: They government's big focus is health, and many of the recommendations are about making sure people hit minimums. It's quite rare for people in the US to be protein deficient, so they're not going to be focused there.

I do think they've downplayed calorie counting as a weight management practice, because of the sense that it's not a high-success strategy at the population level: They're more focused on things that may work better, in a statistical sense. (Calorie counting can be very successful in an individual sense, of course.) Nonetheless, everywhere you look on the government health sites, looking for individual calorie guidance, that's what you get: Individualized numbers. They take into account height, weight, age, and other factors . . . just like any similar non-government estimating "calculator".

As far as grains: Why do you think they need to be lower? I'm not seeing sound science suggesting there's a problem. I do see lots of junky pop-science sources in the blogosphere demonizing carbs, so demonizing grains.

The My Plate plan, for someone eating 1600 calories daily, has this recommendation for grains:

5 ounces

1 ounce from the Grains Group counts as:
- 1 slice bread; or
- 1 ounce ready-to-eat cereal; or
- ½ cup cooked rice, pasta, or cereal

So, if that person eats a cup of oatmeal for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch (2 slices of bread), some whole grain (either as grain or pasta or something) at dinner, they've met the recommendation. In what way is that dangerous or extreme?

I don't understand why you're criticizing the US government for things they don't actually do (across the board one size fits all calorie or nutrition recommendations). Is your perception of their recommendations filtered through what some other (non-government) source says the government recommends?

I think there's plenty of room to criticize the US government guidelines as not based on the absolutely most current scientific evidence. (The problems tend IMO to be in areas where most USA-ians are statistically not showing problems - i.e., the government is recommending limiting things the statistically average person tends to overconsume, like animal (saturated) fats; and recommending getting too little of things the statistically average person gets plenty of, like protein.)

I don't understand criticizing them for things they're actually not doing, though.

lemurcat2

I don't understand criticizing them for things they're actually not doing, though.

This, and also what gov recommends a higher protein number?

kshama2001

vapianogirl2553 wrote: »

So actually I've been researching this and the standard dietary advice is pretty flawed.Big AG has a lot of say in the US also 2,000 calories is not right for most people. Right now I'm hovering around 1,600 and 2,000 and I don't push myself to eat because the app says so actually by dinner I know I'll catch up. Intuitive eating is actually very important for my body type and so is cutting back on days I do nothing. Been sneaking some vital proteins and soymilk and Greek youghrt into my breakfast and swapped all sweets for Luna bars. If I must eat a sweet I try to make sure it has some protein. Some days I really don't eat as much but I majorly upped my morning and overall protein intake. Loving the changes I am seeing with more protein. Getting the recommended DVs is really stressful and eating so many calories isn't going to always happen for me especially on desk days so I just look more to the macro ratio s that sweating DVs or calorie intake. I'm a small person I don't need as much as the avarage American. Also I sit a lot 😔. The American dietary are insanity and have far to many carbs and grains. There is no safe amount of added sugar imo

vapianogirl2553 wrote: »

To clarify I know added sugar isn't safe so if I must have a sweet it should at least have some protein too. Luna bars have a lot less sugar than a large KitKat (my favorite) so it's not perfect but a safer option. I agree about the American protein guidelines being far to low. 2,000 calories is too high for most Americans and a reckless starting point IMO. I find getting protein super hard. I'm about 1,600 calories on a non workout day and all the high protein sources are actually quite low per serving. A Greek yogurt, soymilk and 2 scoops of vital proteins is only like 40 grams but if I get 40 at breakfast it's at least a good start.

From where did you form your opinion that no amount of added sugar is safe?

perryc05

Love me some food pyramids. They are mainly all riffs on the same thing. Fad diets usually try to chop out a section or invert/play around with the hierarchy.