OK, WTF United States. Calories?

[hazelsteapot]

You know how all the "Nutrition Facts" things are based on a 2000 calorie diet?

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION recommends 2792.

(That would mean that our nutrition labels are telling us to eat 28.5% too little food. As in, over a quarter.)

(Not, of course, that I can find where this figure came from)

Comments

[lochan]

According to the lady who did nutrition at ncsa (who has a masters in it), creating a "recommended" caloric intake is pretty silly for people in situations where they don't have to worry about malnutrition. Things like average height, current body mass, how muscular you are, and then obvious things like how much exercise you get on a daily basis, play a huge role in determining an individual's recommended caloric intake. So, for example, maybe the quoted number above would be accurate for someone whose job relies on physical activity (like a farmer or construction worker or preschool teacher even) or for someone who is just tall and somewhat muscular naturally and has a higher metabolism but not for someone with a semi-sedentary or sedentary job (such as a high school English teacher--oh wait, me!) so for them (or simply someone smaller) the number would be much lower. I do take your point that 2000 C is probably too low for many people, but the whole idea of an "average" is kind of absurd to begin with

[hazelsteapot]

Agreed.

Or, you know, teach that size isn't connected to health in any simplistic one-size-fits-all way, or to moral status at all, and that your body will tend toward the size it wants/diets don't work (so eat till you're full, not more not less, except in special circumstances.)...

[hazelsteapot]

oh, and "one-size-fits-all" was only sort-of intentional as a pun, but it's apt, I think.

basically: Average, smaverage. like you said.

[hazelsteapot]

Also, playing around with calorie calculators, while I was working at Whole Foods, 2000 calories appears to be slightly less than my rock-bottom, starvation diet, eat less than this and you're in trouble (which I know I didn't always meet, but if I told people I was eating that much they'd think I was eating just fine, not disordered-eatingly), whereas now it's about my lose-a-pound-a-day, which is, um, not super great either (losing 30 lbs/month? No thnx.).

[sable_twilight]

Look at US attitudes about ideal size and BMI. This does not surprise me.

[soylentmean]

Given that there's been a lot of recent research to indicate that slight malnourishment is a good thing (ie, those who eat less live longer), 2000 calories might not be a bad goalpost as an "average" number. Most labels say that 2000 is the goal for non-pregnant, non-lactating women, and have 2500 for everybody else.

[hazelsteapot]

actually.....

[tagonist]

This isn't the first time the US has come up with very different numbers for nutrition than the WHO. Normally, though, the WHO is more likely to label people healthy (or, well-fed) than the FDA. For instance, the "healthy range" of hemoglobin in the blood is much higher for Americans than for WHO standards, meaning that people who had been considered perfectly health their entire lives might find themselves at a clinic while touring the US, and be told they have chronic anemia. Another commonly quoted example is protein, which the FDA recommends you eat 60g of per day. Most places in the world, this is not only excessive but inaccessible. I find it odd that the FDA uses a lower number for calories than the WHO, given that much of the FDAs idiosyncrasies come from being heavily lobbied (for decades) by specific food producer industries to account for more meat, sugar, whole grains, whoever pays the bills this month