1200...Was it pulled from a hat?

shellsrenee01
shellsrenee01 Posts: 357 Member
in Food and Nutrition
There has been numerous debates about whether or not 1200 calories is or is not the lowest amount of calories a body can survive with, and this post isn't to discuss that question. This post is to ask:

Where the heck did 1200 come from, anyway? :huh:

Did they just pull that number out of a hat? A person laying in bed, doing absolutely nothing for 24 hours, is going to burn calories...yes. However, what if that person weighed 120 lbs? What if they weighed 220 lbs? 450 lbs? Would each of them require a different amount of calories to sustain life, even at doing absolutely nothing but be in bed for 24/7?

I wonder where 1200 came from and who they were considering when they picked it?

Who are "they"? :tongue:

Replies

  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    I don't know who all uses it but I know American College of Sports Medicine uses 1200.

    This guy thinks it's probably too conservative.
    http://johnbarban.com/weight-loss-fallacies-2lbs-per-week-and-1200-calories-per-day/

    I think the reason it can apply to people of any size is because it's addressing nutrition needs, not caloric needs. It assumes you have stored body fat to burn as energy. By nutrition needs, I mean we need a certain amount of fiber, vitamins, etc. per day and we need some level of satiety. A larger person doesn't need more fiber, essential amino acids, vitamins, etc. If they did we'd see One A Day Obesity Formula. Or maybe that is on the shelf already, I don't know.

Categories