2024 Caloric Recommendation Changes

CrystalOcean

I was made aware there was a recent change to calorie estimation recommendations. My online searches always prove fruitless. Can you tell me the date this was changed and what are and where I can find the former and new recommendations.
I would like to consider this new information as I consider steps after a horrific relapse. Thank you.

PAV8888

Are you talking about nutrition labels? Are you talking about national nutritional recommendations for your particular country? Are you talking about world health organization recommendations?

The various estimates of how many calories a person spends for a given level of weight height age and activity and gender have not really changed in recent memory and have always been and remain estimates that then have to be evaluated in an individual context based on results.

At least based on what I've heard and may explain why you're not finding supporting information

tomcustombuilder

I don’t think calorie estimates change. You’re either taking calories to lose mass gain mass or maintain mass. I don’t know what they can really change about that.

sollyn23l2

You're either searching for the wrong term or what you're looking for simply doesn't exist. If google's not giving you the answer there aren't really any other reasons. In which case, nobody can really help you until you know and can verbalize what you're looking for.

cmriverside

I was made aware

...by whom? Maybe ask them what they are talking about.

Calorie recommendations aren't legislated...they are Laws of Nature.

jjjsroach

You may be referring to this article.

https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/the-new-rule-for-calories-per-pound-of-weight-loss/

This article takes issue with the old rule that if you reduce intake by 3,500 calories (say 500 per day for a week), you will achieve one pound of weight loss. More recent studies show that this may work for a short time, but the body adapts over time to lower caloric intake by burning less. Therefore, you should take this into account when developing a plan.

The article contains links to two different calculators - one from the NIH and one from LSU that take into account metabolic adaptation when calculating calorie targets. These calculators allow you to enter your personal information, your weight loss goals, your activity levels, and your timeframe for losing weight. The calculators then give you the calories you should consume to achieve your weight loss goals given your body's natural metabolic adaptation.

PAV8888

Almost with the dude, especially in that the NIH body weight planner and Hall's research are quite interesting and do slow some adaptation after a while... but no in how it is presented.

Conflation abounds in the article/blog/whatever it is that was linked.

3500 Cal of deficit (more or less and excluding partitioning between lean and fat mass and whether there is occasional overfeeding in addition to underfeeding and and and and and) is one lb of energy reserve change. More or less, 3500 Cal, close enough for government work, hand grenades and the purpose of losing or gaining weight. FOR MOST of us. It really doesn't matter that much if it is 3300 or 3800. But it ain't 1000 and it ain't 5000

BUT: Deficit is the quantity of energy successfully underfed from ACTUAL CURRENT maintenance.

If your deficit disappears because your maintenance changed it is NOT the 3500 Cal per lb "rule" that changed. It is that you did NOT achieve the deficit you thought you had achieved.

In the exact same way: if your appetite increases by 45 Cal per lb and you are now hAngrier and end up eating into your 500 Cal deficit after 11lbs of loss... it is not the 3500 Cal per lbs of deficit that changed and you don't need to INCREASE your deficit in order to compensate.

What you need to do is actually achieve your deficit that you are no longer achieving because you're eating more in response to your increased hunger cues. Or because it takes more effort to continue to achieve the deficit and as a result you go off plan more often. OR (there are a lot of "or's" including timelines, conditions, possible modifications, etc etc etc..)

And even though this stuff is very interesting to me... I am not sure what they mean to someone who is unsure about "calorie estimation recommendations"

tomcustombuilder

jjjsroach wrote: »

You may be referring to this article.

https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/the-new-rule-for-calories-per-pound-of-weight-loss/

This article takes issue with the old rule that if you reduce intake by 3,500 calories (say 500 per day for a week), you will achieve one pound of weight loss. More recent studies show that this may work for a short time, but the body adapts over time to lower caloric intake by burning less. Therefore, you should take this into account when developing a plan.

The article contains links to two different calculators - one from the NIH and one from LSU that take into account metabolic adaptation when calculating calorie targets. These calculators allow you to enter your personal information, your weight loss goals, your activity levels, and your timeframe for losing weight. The calculators then give you the calories you should consume to achieve your weight loss goals given your body's natural metabolic adaptation.

fatloss is always a moving target. What people think is a lowered metabolism due to low calories it’s mostly just that you’re moving less due to lower energy brought on by the limited calories so in essence the
3,500 ish calorie rule doesn’t change, it’s just that you’re burning fewer calories.

lisawhite1b188

Changes in caloric recommendations can vary based on evolving research, new dietary guidelines, and individual needs. Recommendations might emphasize personalized nutrition plans, focusing on nutrient density, balanced macronutrients, and sustainable eating habits tailored to individual goals and health conditions. It's essential to consult updated guidelines from reputable sources like health organizations or registered dietitians for the most current recommendations.

jjjsroach

Agree.

The article was written by the guy who wrote the book "How Not to Diet". He prescribes a whole plant-based diet and his book tells why. All he is basically saying is you should eat foods with low caloric density and high fiber. These foods fill you up and cause you to eat less calories without feeling hungry or deprived.

I think the most interesting thing he references is the NIH calculator. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/bwp
I back-tested the calculator by plugging in my starting weight from a couple of months ago, my past daily caloric intake, past exercise....and the calculator nailed the amount of weight I have lost so far. I haven't compared this calculator to the MFP caloric recommendations...that might be interesting to do. You turn on "advanced controls" and "expert mode" to get to a lot of settings and generate a lot of data.

AnnPT77

jjjsroach wrote: »

You may be referring to this article.

https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/the-new-rule-for-calories-per-pound-of-weight-loss/

This article takes issue with the old rule that if you reduce intake by 3,500 calories (say 500 per day for a week), you will achieve one pound of weight loss. More recent studies show that this may work for a short time, but the body adapts over time to lower caloric intake by burning less. Therefore, you should take this into account when developing a plan.

The article contains links to two different calculators - one from the NIH and one from LSU that take into account metabolic adaptation when calculating calorie targets. These calculators allow you to enter your personal information, your weight loss goals, your activity levels, and your timeframe for losing weight. The calculators then give you the calories you should consume to achieve your weight loss goals given your body's natural metabolic adaptation.

Perhaps this is what OP was thinking of, but it's not really new in 2024, is it? I mean, Greger's blog post is from 2024, but the sources he mentions have been around longer. (The NIH research model is from 2011.)

Greger's blog post doesn't match up with my personal experience well at all, FWIW. I'm not disputing the research findings' statistical validity when I say that, just stating a fact about my n=1.

I did have to estimate my maintenance calories experientially when I first started losing (because for me MFP was waaaaay off in its starting estimate). But once I did that, the "3500 calorie rule" held up pretty well for me all through losing from class 1 obese to a healthy weight, 50-some pounds in a bit under a year. (The LSU planner suggests I'd need around a 1500 calorie daily deficit to do that. I guarantee I didn't run a 1500 calorie deficit on average that year! Yikes!)

I didn't see a "metabolic slowdown". Maybe there was something too small to notice, no way to know that, but there wasn't a big, observable effect. Nor was there "feeling so famished you'd be driven to eat more" as mentioned in Greger's blog post. Maybe I was just lucky.

I didn't become aware of the NIH Body Weight Planner until late in the process of loss, and at that stage it didn't appeal to me. I was more interested in establishing a sustainable long term (ideally permanent) set of habits, and not at all interested in setting a particular timeline for weight loss to complete. I think treating weight loss as a project with an end date is a trap.

Truth in advertising: I can conceptually separate my opinion of Greger from my opinion of NIH. I'm not a Greger fan at all. I think he's a plant-based advocate/evangelist, oriented to making a case for a particular way of eating, not an intellectually neutral evaluator of evidence who acknowledges facts both pro and con honestly. (I'm saying that as a long term - nearly 50 years - vegetarian, just as context.)

PAV8888

I'm also not particularly interested in (re) spending the time to run the numbers using the bw planner at this point--i was and did almost 10 years ago.

My recollection from back then was that starting from obese levels the body weight planner was indicating some likely adaptation down the road but it was not extreme.

Again, even if such happens, if the process is sustainable the end date is not relevant, I.e. you still get there. And re-feeds and diet breaks could be used to mitigate some of it.

jjjsroach

My MFP caloric target numbers were way off, too. I am much earlier in the process than you guys are...so I am a little more interested in the numbers.

Greger is a bit of a kook, but if he gets some folks to eat more fruits and vegetables, maybe he is not all bad.

CrystalOcean

Thank you all for your very helpful answers. I didn't realize it was Dr Greger and thought it was from the USDA.

In the past I tried losing weight on 1200 and realized too late it was too little. Again I thought it was the USDA and was interested in any update. Thanks for your info and links.

MargaretYakoda

CrystalOcean wrote: »

Thank you all for your very helpful answers. I didn't realize it was Dr Greger and thought it was from the USDA.

In the past I tried losing weight on 1200 and realized too late it was too little. Again I thought it was the USDA and was interested in any update. Thanks for your info and links.

1200 is too low for almost everyone.
I wish there was more emphasis on this point.

I’m disabled and have an activity level below sedentary, which assumes 3000 steps per day, and even I need more than 1200 calories a day.

I have an issue forgetting to eat sometimes (adhd can be like that) so I have MFP set to 1200 to make sure I get at least that much every day. It’s my basement floor, not my max.