AIBU to think that guideline ‘suggested calories per day’ should be reduce

[Crepid]

We all know that the NHS guidance is that adult women should eat 2,000 calories per day and men should eat 2,500.

I’ve also just seen that a 7 year old girl is suggested to eat over 1,500 calories a day - again, the source is the NHS.

I’m 5ft 6, and have a BMI are the upper end of normal (very close to overweight) and I would say that I am probably a little overweight (fat around my abdomen and generally not as slim as I’d like but I’m on track).

In the past year I’ve taken to the gym where, combined with eating less and healthier food, I’m happy to say I’ve managed to lose about 1.5 stone (9.5kg).

For motivation, every time I attend the gym I use a new body sensor device that gives me a detailed breakdown of my stats and it clearly states that to maintain my weight and physique I should eat no more than 1,350 calories per day.

Obesity is causing a huge strain on the NHS and robbing people of their mobility and broader health.

Why are they recommending that people eat 2,000 calories per day when myself - a woman of larger than average height and medium activity levels is being told on both the gym equipment and the GP surgery machine that 1,300 calories will suffice in keeping me at the upper region of ‘healthy’ if not close to overweight?

That’s less than a 7 year old child.

AIBU to think that the calorie suggestions should be lowered to combat it?

YABU - calorie guidance should stick at 2000/2500 calories

YANBU - calorie guidance should be reviewed and lowered

I'm 5'6 with healthy bmi (but towards the top end) so similar to you. I am not as active as I should be since I started to wfh but I do run and do yoga. According to my Fitbit my average daily calorie burn last year was 1985, so 2000 is pretty close to spot on for me.

I am amazed you can eat so many calories on zoe. Since I started following zoe guidelines I feel so much fuller on a lot fewer calories and now have to push myself to eat even 1800 (that includes nuts, evoo and lots of healthy fats). If I ate to my hunger I would only get around 1600 a day.

@Crepid its been brilliant. It has completely changed how I eat and my health in general. My husband also does it and my children now follow a very similar diet to us.

We were healthy already but Zoe made me realise just how awful the UK diet is and that my diet could be way better than it was.

I'd also gain on 2000 calories a day but I'm only 5ft 1 and fairly inactive. Most NHS health/diet advice is outdated imo. The only 100% accurate way to calculate your TDEE is trial and error. I think the bare minimum number of calories that an adult needs to function is 1,200 so I'd start with that and then add approximately 100 calories every week or so until I found my maintenance.

Why do you believe the machine rather than the guidelines? I would guess that a lot more research has likely gone into the guidelines. Might the machine be assuming you do very little exercise?

I agree. My TDEE is 1650ish

And Im 2 stone overweight!!!

It will be less once I get to a healthy BMI

Lowered definitely. My BMI is 23. I walk 3 miles a day and eat about 2200 calories a day.

Thank you for sharing this. I love that you’ve got your family involved too as I’m also hoping to do this.

I'm 5 foot 7 inches and if I ate 2000 calories a day I'd be obese.

I am fairly tall (5ft10) and BMI of 24ish. Medium exercise levels. Last year I burned off an average of 2400 calories per day. I think it must be a lot to do with height.

Everyone is so different. If I ate 2000 cals I’d be very overweight. I need about 1200 to maintain.

A 3 mile walk is about an hours walking, which will only burn around 250 cals (or around that)

So your TDEE is around 2000 exactly?

When my 2000 kcal include take-aways, starchy carbs and anything sugary I gain weight. When eating the same calories in meat, fish, veg, fruit, healthy fat and wholemeal grains I either lose or maintain weight, depending on exercise level. I'm 5'2 and 56 kg. I would be ravenous on 1300. Different people, different metabolism. Also, I have never been on a low calories diet, which might be relevant.

I'm 6ft, early 40s, size 18, built like a brick shithouse but lazy af.
At my current size I can comfortably lose weight on 2600 calories a day while remaining fairly sedentary.
Twenty years ago, I could eat even more and lose. I'm just a greedy bastard hence I'm still fat.
Everyone is different.
And 2k calories is about right for an average height, average size, averagely active woman of average age to maintain her weight.

There's nothing to stop the hypothetical 72kg lady from eating < 2000.

She should avoid eating > 2000 to avoid gaining weight.
The NHS advice literally says "to maintain" not " to lose" or "to be a healthy weight"

There are another 600+ (or maybe 6000+) words that NHS has to say on the topic...

The real challenge is not gaining excess weight from whatever start place someone is at ... that's what most people fail at. They fail to maintain.

Suggested amount for weight loss among women = 1400-1500.

I’m with a PT who has actual nutritional qualifications, we sat down and tracked food intake and energy output throughout a usual day.

It’s not as simply as ‘calorie intake’. I’ve used scales as a guide, but health for me is something I measure by ‘how much easier is it to walk places’. That for me is a far better indicator of health and fitness than strict, no wiggle room, calorie intake.

I came here to say the same. Counting calories is useless. You will lose weight initially in a deficit but then your body will slow the metabolic rate to compensate which will lead to plateau and eventual further weight gain, hence the story of every yo yo dieter there has ever been including myself. The way your body processes 100 calories of almonds is in no way comparable to 100 calories of mars bar. All calories are not equal. Its much more important to focus on eating whole foods within an eating window i.e.16:8. I recommend the obesity code book by Jason Fung who explains all the science.

I think it is very individual but think a lot of our calorie burning isn’t our formal ‘exercise’ but our natural basal metabolic rate (impacted massively by muscle mass etc.) and our general activity level. I am 5’7 and have a BMI around 23 generally and think I easily consume 2000 calories a day. I am one of those people who doesn’t sit still for long, walks a lot and am nearly constantly on the move. That burns a lot more calories than brief periods of more intense exercise (I also do these but for health). I also agree with another poster who said people massively underestimate their caloric intake a lot of the time.

This is a really good point and not one I had even considered before. I have been doing 16:8 fasting recently and have had more energy despite eating way less calories than I did before. I am very short too so would imagine I need less calories.

For me 50 minutes walking would be a less active day. Therein lies the difference I think.

People don't realise how sedentary they are.

It would be better to try to incorporate a more normal level of activity than to reduce calories, which may lead to deficiencies of micro nutrients

I’m 5,9. Can easily survive on 1400 cals a day, but that’s when not very active. If I’m at the gym, cardio, and especially if weights are involved I would literally be starving so I would naturally need more. It probably is a bit too high tbh

Life's too short to count calories, just eat healthily (minimise ultra processed) and naturally the majority will not overeat

I don't disagree that upping activity is preferable health wise than reducing calories. But given the very sedentary lifestyle many people have, giving a lower range for calories would match the activity they actually do.

My TDEE is around 2,200 calories.

There's some science to suggest I should be eating more than that if I want to work out and gain muscle.

So,
YANBU for saying 2000 calories a day is a blunt and probably inaccurate statement
YABU for thinking reducing the 2000 to something else to suit you would be any better. Tailored advice is the way to go.

I think, at the least, they should put what average is (height, age and activity levels)