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

Calories are not a very helpful way to think about food.

Food is so much more than just its calorie content. You can have an extremely healthy life if you are active and eat 2000 calories per day of wholesome, nutritious, unprocessed food. But if you eat 2000 calories per day of McDonald's burgers, you are not going to be healthy.

We need to reevaluate the entire way we think about food - getting hung up on calories is not really helpful, and advising everyone to eat only 1,350 calories a day is a recipe for disaster - it will just spike an increase in sales of low fat this and processed that, which will impact our health.

I highly recommend having a listen to the Zoe Science & Nutrition podcast and prof Tim Spector. De-process your diet, move more, and stop obsessing over calories.

@Teddleshon , Not RTFT but I'd be too. You'd be better off eating your main meal at lunchtime.

I agree with the calorie guidance being nonsense in the sense that one size most definitely does not fit all, and people should be encouraged to eat fewer sugary refined carbs and more natural whole foods and lean protein. I'm not entirely sure they'd necessarily naturally regulate their intake but I can see that happening to a certain extent.

I do know as a very short middle aged woman with a desk job that 2000 calories is very much in excess of what I need, sadly.

The bigger you are the less calories you need. I would say 1350 amount would make you lose weight steadily, rather than maintain, but I could be wrong.
2000 is too much for some women to maintain weight. I had to eat between 3 and 4 thousand a day for 5 weeks, and I only put on 6kgs. It depends on your size to begin with and your metabolism etc. It's only an average amount. The food industry obviously want us to eat more, so that's probably why it's set at the higher end level.

I eat very little in comparison to my needs (keen runner) but I'm also fairly heavy for my size. So in the end I just self regulate

I used to agree with you that most women shouldn’t need 2000 calories but realised I needed over 2000 (around 2200 actually) to stop losing weight at approx 50kg at 5ft4 so not a tall or heavier woman requiring more Cals. I was a bit active but nothing excessive- just a walk to the gym to do weights (though I’m not muscular) a couple of times a week. Not a particularly active job either! And this was pre kids, early thirties. Alas, I’m not like it anymore. I’m heavier and can’t shift weight despite eating far less. Maybe it’s assumed people are more active than the average Brit is..?

I think the focus should be on eating the right kinds of food (not processed, not too sugary) and stopping when you feel full. If everyone ate more mindfully, and ate the correct stuff, calories wouldn’t need to come into it.

It's like the speed limit really - a maximum, not a target.

I can see why there might be value in keeping it to a round number (so 1500 or 2000). A surprising number of people are quite innumerate. I have been surprised by conversations with friends where it just doesn't register that if the sign in Greggs says a pastry is 500 calories, that's a quarter of your recommended calories a day, just on breakfast. Or if a latte is 400 and then you have a cookie (or whatever), you're getting on for half your calories just in a snack. It doesn't compute for them - in the same way that some people automatically half-read any text they can see and others are completely unaware unless they actually need to "read" it.

For a woman aged 5'3" and 160lbs doing light exercise- TDEE is 1910 for someone aged 45.

So 2000 isn't a bad average unless you are petite and/or sedentary.

My maintenance level calories are about 2200 and I lose 1lb a week averaging 1700 calories a day.

I find that a lot of people are clueless when it comes to calories. Someone told me not to eat avocados or mars bars because they had 1000 calories each.
Flapjacks are considered a 'healthy option' etc.

And milk. Whole milk is 'full of fat'. No, it's about 4% fat.

The problem there for me would be that my body is innumerate.

It still gets hungry later if I've already eaten a big breakfast.

A latte is not 400 calories though unless it's massive with sweet syrup and cream. I measured the ones I make at home and they are 95 calories. A small Costa Coffee latte is 100 calories.

I always think avocados are about 200 calories each. But it's worth weighing them if you are counting as we get some dinky ones that are 100-120.

Same for me op.
If I ate 2000kcal per day I would very quickly put on weight.
I am 5.2 and very petite all round and I only need about 1300 per day to maintain my weight and thats with lots of exercise as I have an active job.
If I ate the 2000 I'd put on a pound, every 5 days or so.
That's almost half a stone per month!!!!!

@shearwater2 , they're fruit and contain good oils. Sod the calories.
They do vary in size though, and sometimes the seed/stone is big.

That sounds like a very low figure for the machine to provide you. I'm 5'5 and a healthy weight, my maintenance calories for doing no exercise at all are just over 1600. I worked this out while too injured to exercise, stuck to roughly 1600 calories during recovery and maintained my weight.
When not injured, my calories for light exercise are almost 2000.
People should educate themselves on their body and how to correctly fuel it, especially if they are shorter/taller/larger or smaller than average.

I’m 172cm (5’8), obese bmi and my BMR is 1800 ish but I only lose weight very slowly if I eat under 1300 kcal (under-active thyroid and steroids don’t help). Healthy mostly whole-food vegan diet as well.

Agree 2000 is too much for an average woman. I'm 5'6".
I am active and exercise daily but according to my Apple Watch I just about burn 2000 calories a day.
I don't eat 2000 a day. I don't lose weight but don't gain either .

I wonder whether 2000 is an old figure from when (for instance) household tasks such as washing were much more demanding physically. I don't think I burn 2000 a day and I'm moderately active, BMI of 29 (I know this isn't great but it's coming down) and 5'8".

I am the same height, BMI 22 and need around 2000 kcal to stay as I am. Anything less and my bones start showing. Just goes to show we are all very different and a 'one size fits all' (pardon the pun) approach seems to be of limited use.

Maybe more emphasis on determining your own personal limits is needed?

I've just had a look at Apple Watch stats.
Apparently my resting energy is around 1250 a day. The amount of active energy varies a bit it's between 400-600 calories a day.
That means to maintain my weight i need 1650-1850 a day.
I absolutely eat that amount a day. No wonder it's hard to lose weight though. I am old (57) with a BMi of 19.5 ish
The days of eating whatever and whenever are sadly over :(

Oh dear OP … tell us what your qualifications are in Public Health before you tell us the NHS carefully reviewed and signed off guidance is wrong?

Erm. No. I don't know what is wrong with that machine but my maintenance calories are 2,200! I have a sedentary job but workout 5 x week. I am 5'7"

Even when trying to lose weight, I can never eat less than 1,600. Never. I am famished on 1,600 anyway.

No apparently its 5ft 3 in the UK so 5ft 6 is reasonably tall.

I really wouldn’t put too much trust in those machines at the gym OP (or frankly, with a background in NHS digital activity, the ones the GP).

Agree with some of the other posters that the real problem is not that 2000kcal is too high for a moderately active healthy woman, but rather that many people vastly underestimate what they consume.

I’m a healthy size 10, BMI about 23 - I eat approx 2000 kcal a day (maybe a bit more at weekends). However I log everything on MyFitnessPal like a fiend (right down to semi skimmed milk in tea) and I KNOW that this is my consumption. I am active (gym/swim 3 times a week, two small children to chase and don’t drive) and I definitely maintain on that kcal. I lose weight quite quickly if I go down to 1800 say.

When I started MyFitnessPal I was astonished by how a sensible ‘good’ day (yogurt and nuts, soup, fruit, normal dinner etc) adds up - I honestly think many people underestimate and are eating far more than 2000