An extra 400 calories?!

erikazj

On the news this morning was an article about how the nutritional agency in the UK is thinking of changing its calorie intake recommendations, increasing them by 400 calories. Women are currently recommended to eat 2000 calories a day, men 2500. So, an extra 400 calories would make it 2400, and 2900 respectively. Now obviously this would be assuming moderate amounts of exercise, but the majority of the UK doesn't do enough exercise and we're in the middle of an 'obesity epidemic' to use the government's own words. I can't help but think that we're getting mixed messages. I'm browsing on my phone so I can't find the article or the report to post here, so sorry about that. I was just wondering what you all thought? The increased calorie levels might be ok for those who are active and do lots of calorie burning exercise, but I think it's probably more than my maintenance calories + exercise calories would normally be unless I was doing some serious cardio every single day.

Naokoheart

WOW,I am not surprised about the calorie intake,but maybe it won't help because if most people
are under active then it will just give people more of an excuse to overeat,if that's makes any sense,if
the calorie intake has been raised that high,I hope for the best.

jhb090107

I'm at the start of a huge weight loss journey. Lets put it this way I had to buy 2 scales to get an accurate starting weight for MFP. Even with the MFP built in calorie reduction I get 2600 per day and i have trouble eating all those now that I'm making healthy choices. It seems very ill advised to just add 400 calories to the top - trust me I could really go for a small cheeseburger or a plump taco everyday guilt free but I seem to think that would be counterproductive to my fitness goals.

SHBoss1673

they probably did a new survey and found that these averages were closer to the middle than before. Those 2000 2500 calorie numbers are pretty old I believe, based on the WHO survey from the 80's unless I'm mistaken.
I don't think the averages should mean much to us anyway. Most MFP members are savvy enough to find out what their maintenance calories should be. Or at least know enough to ask.

arewethereyet

I am 5'2" tall and with 1700 calories and no exercise, I maintain.

I guess with moderate exercise I am close to the 2000 mark. Of course I was surprised to find that when I ate 2000 cals, and exercised each day, I LOST a 1/2 pound

I think we need a crystal ball to figure this stuff out!!

:flowerforyou:

erikazj

they probably did a new survey and found that these averages were closer to the middle than before. Those 2000 2500 calorie numbers are pretty old I believe, based on the WHO survey from the 80's unless I'm mistaken.
I don't think the averages should mean much to us anyway. Most MFP members are savvy enough to find out what their maintenance calories should be. Or at least know enough to ask.

Yes, I agree that for those of us that are here and pro actively looking at what we should be eating its not really a problem, but I can just see those who are not so well informed ignoring the 'active' and 'exercise' bit and using the bigger numbers to justify bad choices. I know you can't 'nanny' people in to eating right, but its a tricky balance when trying to get the information to them so they understand it properly. My husband already used the new 'advice' to justify an extra piece of cake yesterday. He was joking, but I can see people who don't understand much about what they eat doing the same in all seriousness.

spinningmango

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8360136.stm

The news article

FireMonkey

"A 16% increase would mean that adults could safely consume an extra 400 calories a day, equivalent to an average sized cheeseburger."

Call me a cynic, but was this report commissioned by the fast food industry? I agree with the other posts - on MFP we learn what works for every one of us. For some people eating a little more may be just what they need, but everybody is different and to make such a blanket statement sounds - well, unscientific!

(Of course the article only gives a very brief glimpse of the report - there may well be more to it.)

FireMonkey

I found the link to the report - it's still in draft form. Only 210 pages! Happy reading!

http://www.sacn.gov.uk/pdfs/5nov_sacn_energy_drafting_group_draft.pdf

erikazj

I found the link to the report - it's still in draft form. Only 210 pages! Happy reading!

http://www.sacn.gov.uk/pdfs/5nov_sacn_energy_drafting_group_draft.pdf

Thanks!