To think the government guidelines are way off?

[iammeegan]

With regards to rda of calories on packaging? All packets have a rda of calories as 2000 per women and 2500 for men.
In fact most peoples rda would be nowhere near this. For example mine is 1400 per day and I am an average height and weight.

So if I did follow the guidelines I would be over eating by 600 calories a day!

I know these are only guidelines but surely they shouldn't be this far out?

I think the government should put a scheme in place where we can all find out our recommended daily calorie allowance either through our doctor or free at pharmacy and that it should be encouraged.

I assume that this is old data, that hasn’t been updated. like the advice to drink 5L of water. That was a US army report in WW2 to figure out how much water they needed to supply the troops in combat. The rest of the report goes on to say that most of thatt total comes from food so you only really need to drink 1L (ish) a day.

I thought they have recently changed this.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/british-calorie-intake-cut-per-day-1800-health-guidelines-a8129726.html%3famp

Yanbu, if I eat more than 1,200 calories a day I put on weight. A few years ago I had the metabolism of a shrew and could eat anything I liked.

It's probably to do with factoring in recommended exercise. If people are doing the recommended 30 minutes of exercise a day with the 10000 steps then that'll increase the number of calories they need to consume up to the recommended daily calories. If they live a sedentary life and don't do this then they will need to eat less.

My DD (God rest her soul) spent most of her day in a wheelchair due to multiple disabilities.She didn't move much. From the age of 13 she was tube fed so her daily intake was an exact number of calories each day. On a diet of 500 calories per day she maintained her weight. So anyone who doesn't move around much is clearly going to have a very much reduced calorie requirement than someone who is extremely active. To quote a daily figure for men and women is a nonsense. It should be a figure for active and non active adults.

I think it's more about education of how our bodies work individually. If we stop shoving generic number down peoples throat and teach people how to find out what they need in a way that is personal to your body.

If the rda is inclusive of 30 minutes ex cerci seems and 10000 steps this should be included on the label (10000 steps is about 2 hours of walking ime)

With regards to pharmacies they tend to have those machines that can work out your metabolism and things like visceral fat/ bone density. If these were free and encouraged we could be taking these things into our own hands

2000 calories a day is too much for me. I probably do eat that much but I'm gradually putting on weight.

I wonder whether the guidelines came from a time when we generally led more active lifestyles.

If your RDA is 1400 then you are not getting the governments RDA of exercise (or are so far from typical that you'll know it)

If it's a recommended amount, then it's only relevant to people getting the recommended amount of anything.

Machines cannot get an accurate idea of metabolism etc. they are not remotely accurate enough to do anything.

Exercise enough to remove to be fit, eat when you're hungry, if you're getting fatter, eat a bit less.

The exercise I do per day roughly burns 350 calories so that puts my daily allowance at 1750.
But nowhere on these recommendations does it say that it is inclusive of a set amount of exercise.

But we are talking about metabolism, which is the amount of calories your body needs to 'run'. Exercise will differ daily depending on time, intensity, heart rate, etc. And this will alter your calories burned.

I'm not saying these machines are 100% accurate but they are not 600 calories out.

Don't you think we as a nation should start becoming more educated about our own bodies and stop following guidelines that are nowhere near the average persons daily allowance?
Obesity is on the rise and surely one aspect like getting to know your body better will help us all make informed choices about what we eat and how we exercise

Regarding the governments rda for exercise, wouldn't it be better to put more realistic goals that the average full time working person can achieve and then setting the calorie amount lower?

I would love to meet the people who work full time fairly sedentary jobs, with children be able to fit in 30 minutes of intense exercise and roughly 2 hours of walking into their day.

Even informing people that if you eat 2000 calories this is the amount of exercise it will take to make sure you don't gain any weight.

It take roughly a calorie deficit of 500 per day to loose 1lb per week, so how much are we all gaining by adding 300/400 more then we need and not realising the amount of exercise that it would need to burn off.

Changing the number to something significantly too low for anyone who gets enough exercise would just move the problem onto a different group - no-one is overeating because of the number 2000 on a cereal box. No-one who can't realise that just two numbers for all humans means it won't apply to them is equipped to meaningfully do anything with the number anyway.

People are overeating and under-exercising for lots of reasons, those reasons are not because of RDA numbers. Getting to know your body better is not trying to work out what calories your metabolism uses (since your body can adjust demands and remain healthy weight see Adaptative Thermogenesis) so your test on any particular day would not necessarily be valid on another.

It is learning how you can exercise enough, and how you can recognise hunger and non-hunger triggers to eating that cause the over-eating.

They need a general number across the population and wanting it to also have exercise recommendations on food packaging is just excessive. Reducing the recommended calorie levels to assuming folks don't exercise is nuts.

It's one thing to educate yourself, the info is out there, but wanting a whole diatribe on food packaging goes to far in my opinion.

In addition, so many folks don't read it anyway. Personal responsibility is a thing, we don't need to live in a nanny state.

Interesting, I do lots of walking, (fitbit assures me I regularly do 18,000 steps a day) but eat a lot less than DH who has a more sedentary job, and exercises every few days. No idea how many calories I consume, or should consume! Not sure I would find out either, sounds a bit joyless to me. Interesting idea though.

I see where your coming from. It is about personal responsibility. I think my idea was to encourage people to find out how their body works in a way that is personal to you.

But then I suppose if people don't want to change they won't. Like you said there's a wealth of information out there.
I just remember the shock I had when I realised my body only needed 1400 calories before exercise. And then seeing a label today got me thinking do people really think the average person needs that much?
I am probably underestimating peoples knowledge on these things and like I said before if they wanted to loose weight there are enough resources out there to help them (this is no way implied to people who have medical issues which mean that this issue is out of their hands)

I don't think you're underestimating their knowledge. I think you're over estimating how much they care. If they want to know it's easy to find out. I agree with the pp who said no one over eats because of food packaging.

I’m not sure actually- my Dm recently embarked on another a calorie controlled diet and gained weight, despite eating 1500 cals a day. She believed she was in deficit of 500 cals a day/ a pound a week- but failed to take into account she is sedentary, 65 years old, and 5 foot tall.

A general figure for all women and all men is surely bound to be hugely inaccurate. Why even put it on there? I think companies use it because it makes their food seem more ‘healthy’ or at least not as bad, if they use these inflated benchmarks.

Car drivers and passengers use so much less energy going about their daily lives than those who live in cities with good public transport. I used to walk for an hour a day when I commuted by tube - 15 mins to the tube from home & then from the tube station to the office. Add on walking to buy food on foot & I spent lots of time on my feet.

I assume that this is old data, that hasn’t been updated. like the advice to drink 5L of water

It's just a vague guideline, not advice. And there was never any advice to drink 5l of water, not ever. it's a total myth.

Calorie counting total tosh anyway.

The problem is whilst overeating leads to long term health issues under eating leads to very quick health problems and be prone to eating disorders. The figure will be over and usually does state the figure as an average not an absolute.

Why do you think you need 1400 calories a day OP?

Shark your fitbit should tell you - the app on mine does.

Interestingly since the beginning of December, with the exception of a few days around Christmas where I barely left my chair, my fitbit tells me I burnt over 2000 calories every day. I have a desk job, but walk to and from the train every day (about 10 minutes each way), and go for a short walk around the shops most lunch times.

I would have thought I was pretty typical of your "average" person (although does weight make a difference to calories used, I think it does, so being quite overweight I may be using more to lug all that extra around)

In Italy the back of food packets says 1750 for women and 2250 for men...maybe because we're quite short as a nation?

I have a Tanita scale at home, that while not completely accurate it takes my height, weight and resting heart rate and has come out with a figure 1400. I don't calorie count personally but I would say that I know how much food I need and roughly how much exercise is needed as well. I know roughly what food has very high calorie and if I am having a non active day I try to avoid these foods.