Where did the 2,000 calorie diet idea come from?
I’m in the midst of working on the copy-edited manuscript of my forthcoming book with Malden Nesheim Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics (University of California Press, March 2012) and spending every minute I have on it. So I’m going to take some shortcuts on the blog this week and deal with some questions I’ve been asked recently.
One is right on the topic of the book:
Q. Could you address the 2,000 calorie a day number (both its history and speculate on how an individual can arrive at a more personalized amount)? Short of metabolic testing (and I read conflicting opinions on that, too), it seems rather difficult to figure out how much I should be eating.
A. Nothing could be easier, and here’s a preview of the kind of thing that will be in this book (with footnotes, of course):
If you look at a food label, you will see ingredient contents compared to a 2,000-calorie average diet: ”Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.”
Here’s the history of where that came from:
The FDA wanted consumers to be able to compare the amounts of saturated fat and sodium to the maximum amounts recommended for a day’s intake—the Daily Values. Because the allowable limits would vary according to the number of calories consumed, the FDA needed benchmarks for average calorie consumption, even though calorie requirements vary according to body size and other individual characteristics.
From USDA food consumption surveys of that era, the FDA knew that women typically reported consuming 1,600 to 2,200 calories a day, men 2,000 to 3,000, and children 1,800 to 2,500. But stating ranges on food labels would take up too much space and did not seem particularly helpful. The FDA proposed using a single standard of daily calorie intake—2,350 calories per day, based on USDA survey data. The agency requested public comments on this proposal and on alternative figures: 2,000, 2,300, and 2,400 calories per day.
Despite the observable fact that 2,350 calories per day is below the average requirements for either men or women obtained from doubly labeled water experiments, most of the people who responded to the comments judged the proposed benchmark too high. Nutrition educators worried that it would encourage overconsumption, be irrelevant to women who consume fewer calories, and permit overstatement of acceptable levels of “eat less” nutrients such as saturated fat and sodium. Instead, they proposed 2,000 calories as:
- consistent with widely used food plans
- close to the calorie requirements for postmenopausal women, the population group most prone to weight gain
- a reasonably rounded-down value from 2,350 calories
- easier to use than 2,350 and, therefore, a better tool for nutrition education
Whether a rounding down of nearly 20 percent is reasonable or not, the FDA ultimately viewed these arguments as persuasive. It agreed that 2,000 calories per day would be more likely to make it clear that people needed to tailor dietary recommendations to their own diets. The FDA wanted people to understand that they must adjust calorie intake according to age, sex, activity, and life stage. It addressed the adjustment problem by requiring the percent Daily Value footnote on food labels for diets of 2,000 and 2,500 calories per day, the range of average values reported in dietary intake surveys.
As to how many calories you personally need, I think they are too difficult for most people to count accurately to bother. The bottom line: If you are eating too many, you will be gaining weight.
The best advice I can give is to get a scale and use it. If your weight starts creeping up, you have to eat less.
The book will go into far more explanation of such issues but for that you will have to wait until March.
Leave a comment
Follow Marion
Next public appearance
NYU: Fales Library panel
The topic: “How would Julia Child vote on the 2012 farm bill? 4:00 p.m., Fales Special Collections at Bobst Library. Open to public. Details are here.
Comments
Having bought a scale and using it, I find my weight registers +/- 4 lbs depending on where I set the scale. Wooden floors and tile floors give different results, as do different locations on my available wooden and tile floors. So I tell my self I need to be less concerned with the number I get and more concerned with how that number changes day to day. Fun times!
I’ve always wondered! 2,000 stuck me as quite arbitrary, and lower than what I consider normal for a somewhat active adult.
On the other hand, when the labeling does not truly reflect the contents or servings, I think we do a transparency issue (found among both restaurant servings and in some packaged foods). Counting calories is a pain, and difficult, but it can be a useful short-term tool for some people learning to eat in new ways. Accuracy would be helpful.
Thank you for this information. I had no idea how the FDA arrived at 2,000 calories for a benchmark. One question I have for Marion Nestle about the FDA nutrition facts is the fact that many packaged foods display only percentage values for vitamins and minerals (eg. vitamin A, iron, calcium, vitamin D) instead of actual quantities (eg. 200 mg, 300 IU). Do you know why the FDA allows nutrition facts labels to show just percentages? This seems odd, considering how much individual needs for nutrients like calcium and vitamin D can vary depending on a number of factors. For example, I believe that menstruating women require more iron, and growing teenagers need more calcium. Also, it would be nice if nutrition labels displayed an absolute value for something like vitamin D, where recommendations seem to vary and the RDA is under so much scrutiny.
“Despite the observable fact that 2,350 calories per day is below the average requirements for either men or women”? Is this a typo? If not, I’m very confused by this statement. It says earlier that most women consume 1600-2200 calories/day. Does this mean that most women undereat? If so, wouldn’t most women be underweight?
Sherry, more than being concerned with the change in your weight from a day-to-day basis, I think it’s better if you:
1. weigh yourself around the same time
2. don’t do it more than a couple of times a week because our body weigh does fluctuate a few times a day due to various things like did you just eat, urinate, sleep, exercise, etc.
What you should be more concerned about is the change in weight over a longer period of time than on a day-to-day basis. I know nurses recommend not weighing yourself more than once a week but maybe you can do it more frequently.
It’s easy to figure out how many calories you need. Just get a food scale, weigh and measure your food for a while and put the results into a computer program. There’s one called the Cron-o-meter free online. I wrote one, more flexible, for which you make the database yourself.
[...] more frοm thе original source: Food Politics » Whеrе ԁіԁ thе 2000 calorie diet thουɡht c… Tags: contents-compared, daily, daily-values, diet, food, food-label, higher-or-lower, [...]
The percentage value that Katherine raised above is one of my longstanding questions as well.
In particulare, when something is labeled as having a certain % of the daily requirement of calcium, it’s frustrating to me not to know how much that is, since women’s requirements vary so much depending on age.
@Alexia: good question and one that will be answered thoroughly in the new book. The operative word is REPORTED. Women REPORT eating 1,600-2,200 calories a day, but when actual intake is MEASURED the calorie intakes are much higher.
It’s always very informative when someone explains how ‘basic rules’ are made. Thanks.
However, I feel the urge to respond to your advice to buy a scale and let that tell you whether you eat the right amounts. I’ve run into many clients who eat next to nothing and still gain weight (or at least don’t lose weight). The human body has one main goal: survival. So if you eat too little in quality or quantity, it will shut down processes, including metabolic processes.
Another example: if someone eats a suitable amount of good food, but gets not enough rest or sleep, hormones will change and stack up more energy instead of burning up all the calories.
Bottom line: getting to know your own needs and the signals of your body is crucial if you have weight issues. No scale can replace that kind of insight.
Very interesting information! However, I don’t think watching the scale is the best way to determine how much you should eat. I think we need to teach people to be in tune with their hunger/satiety cues and to learn to pay attention to their health instead of the scale.
Sarah, many people’s hunger/satiety cues are completely out-of-whack and that is exactly why they end up eating a whole package of something when they only intended to have a little bit. Stepping on the scale regularly (once or twice a week) can signal an alert.
Having lost and maintained significant weight, I know that I have to continue to weigh myself. Just a little cheat here and there to my calorie limit brings on weight creep. If I didn’t weigh myself, it would soon turn into significant weight gain. Catching it before it even affects how clothes fit, allows me to make a correction and stay within my limit.
Maintaining my weight loss does not allow me to always eat when I have a “hunger cue” (seeing any kind of wonderful chocolate in a store?). But I’m not sure what you mean by “being in tune with their hunger/satiety cues”, so perhaps I’ve misinterpreted your intent. As to health vs. the scale, I find that I’m a lot healthier since I lost weight, which I have difficulty maintaining without using the scale regularly.
——–
I am looking very forward to this book. So much is written about weight loss by very dubious “experts” that shuns the very idea of calories–it will be good to have a documented source of rebuttal!
Marion, Have you ever considered posting a food journal of what you eat– amounts and foods?
Many people don’t know what true hunger is, but you can learn it. There’s a big difference between a craving and true hunger. True hunger is the body’s single to the brain that it needs food. Learning how to recognize this and honor it is all you need to manage weight. You don’t need a scale. Scales can trigger dieting obsessions and food phobias.
Nobody else in the world counts calories, yet have no trouble maintaining weight. Why? Because they are not afraid of good fats. Eat more (natural!) fat and fewer starchy carbohydrates and sugar with your meal and you’ll know when you’ve had enough. Fat doesn’t make you fat (or cause heart disease) and you need fat, especially saturated fat (which most people are needlessly afraid of) and if you don’t supply your body with enough and instead eat too many easily digested carbohydrates, it will keep telling you to eat more. I’ve had no trouble maintaing my weight without counting calories since I lost my fear of fat.
There are a billion or more people worldwide who count calories in the failed hope ot getting enough.
In agreement, Margaret. I lost and have kept off 100% of a 75-lb. weight loss increasing my fat intake from animal fats, coconut oil, olive oil, and avocado oil. I also eats lots of organic non-starchy veggies in addition to enough meat, seafood, nuts and full-fat dairy to keep me satisfied. I don’t count calories. I experience very few cravings. Thank goodness for Gary Taubes and Michael Eades who helped me find my way. I found out what worked for me. Improved glucose control, triglycerides, LDL, and HDL numbers as well.
@Aubrey, who “counts calories in the failed hope of getting enough”? I lived in a country where many, many people didn’t get enough to eat and yes, they wanted more. But count calories? No, that is something misguided people in (pretty much only) this country do to keep from eating too much because, thanks to a very misguided war on fat, especially saturated fat, they can’t eat to satisfy hunger! Sad that, with food shortage not an issue for most, hunger is ever present when it need not be!
@Suzanne, yes, I, too thank Gary Taubes and Michael Eades for injecting science into the mostly unscientific world of nutrition, but my first clues came from Will Clower (“The Fat Fallacy”), Mary Enig (“Know Your Fats” and “Eat fat, Lose Fat”), and Uffe Ravnskov (“The Cholesterol Myth”). Before that, I had completely bought into the low fat, calorie counting mantra and struggled in vain to keep my weight where it had been as a carefree, fat eating young woman–and put on at least 40 lb.! The zone saved me, but I still ended up feeling hungry most of the time, and then I stumbled across the above books and it changed my life–and my family’s.
@Margaret Thank you for the additional reading materials to pursue knowledge. Will be checking in at the local library. I try diligently to spread the good word that it really is possible to manage weight and health concerns using these methods. My 73 year old Mom fell in love with one of my Mark Sisson books and lost 40 pounds! I wish the ADA would revise their lukewarm position on low carb eating. I don’t know if you follow Jimmy Moore’s podcasts but it’s estimated that a quarter of the Swedish population follows HFLC. Very glad to hear your family’s health is benefiting right along with yours!
Marion – I would love for you to do a column on the Gary Taubes, “fat is good for you” idea that so many are enamored of. I keep noting that he is a journalist, not a scientist. Journalists notoriously cherry pick data and misinterpret studies. Perhaps your new book will include a clear discussion of some these ideas. I’ve been taught that calories are pretty much calories. Most of the people I know who read these books and try these (fad) “diets”, lose some weight, but gain it back, plus some more. Evidence does not seem to indicate large numbers of people losing and maintaining weight or health on a fatty diet (although no one states how much fat is actually consumed).
My scale is my friend and fat is no more than 20% of my calories. I am probably older than those of you who seem to eat a lot of fat–get back to me when you’re 60, with your weight and health status.
I feel plenty satisfied with the calories I am allowed (1000 to 1200), from a balanced and varied diet–now that I’ve become accustomed to appropriate portions.
I lost my weight in late middle age (how many women do that?) with the help of a Registered Dietician who got me to see the simple truth of portion control and the importance of counting calories and weighing myself regularly. Not glamorous, not trendy, not against the body of science.
Pretty interesting post i gotta say. Quite frankly i’ve never even gave a thought why 2000. Looks like you did
Oh by the way, it shall be written “Your daily values may be higher depending on your calorie needs”. I am not gaining weight and I’m happy. Take care!
@Anthro, I lost weight (75 lbs) in my early middle age, and have kept it off since 2006. My Mom is in her 70′s and lost 40 pounds and has kept it off for a year eating High Fat Low Carb. Gary Taubes’ books are not the stuff of “fad diets”. His first book (Good Calories Bad Calories …) is an exhaustive analysis of the history and science of metabolism, and the physiology of fat storage. His recent release, “Why We Get Fat”, is GCBG condensed for a wider audience. Out of a 200+ page book it has 3 pages devoted to a general outline provided by the Mayo Clinic of how to eat HFLC for weight loss. You may not be aware of this, but high fat/moderate protein/low carb was the treatment of necessity for Diabetics by physicians, before insulin was made accessible as a treatment for Diabetics in 1921.
People who are a metabolically normal (i.e., non-Syndrome X, Metabolic Syndrome or Insulin Resistant) have a greater tolerance for eating carbohydrates without weight gain or blood glucose spikes. It sounds like your mind is made up, but it might be useful to review samples of Gary Taubes writing (it is prolific online) on metabolism, fat storage and carbohydrates. You are unfairly characterizing his scientific background and method. He is an academically trained scientist.
@Anthro, you asked about the percentage of fat eaten in a HFLC eating plan. I asked my 70 something year old Mom, and she said she strives for 60% fat (primarily saturated and Omega-3 fats), 20% protein, 20% non-grain based carbohydrates (nuts, seeds, full-fat dairy, non-starch veggies).
@Anthro, I’m 65 and my husband is 70. He just lost 25 lb. In 3 months of eating LCHF and is never EVER hungry. I weigh the most I’ve ever weighed in my early 50s when I was eating low fat, mostly vegetarian. I lost about 25 lb on the Zone, but was ready to fall off (hungry!) when I happened across the first book that changed my paradigm. that was 6 years ago. I’ve been eating high fat ever since. Am never hungry, weight very stable (though I’ve lost a little more fat since going even more low carb than before in the past 3 months after reading GT’s second book. Read the first when it first came out. Be is a scientist first and journalist second.) The hubby and I are LCHF for life, trust me. It is not a fad diet and has been around for a couple of 100 years!
@Suzanne, yes I follow Jimmy Moore, Fat Head, The Diet Doctor, Mark Sisson, Dr. Richard Feinman, and Dr. Su (of Carbohydrates can Kill), among other sites. All provide scientific evidence of the superiority of a LCHF moderate protein diet for diabetes, heart disease, and weight loss. And there are many more. I will never count calories or be hungry again!
Oh, and @Anthro, as to my health status and my husband’s, we both work out, walk, bike, and hike a lot–total about 2 hours a day. I also play tennis 4 hours a week and swing dance 2 hours a week. Our BP checks out normal every time. Haven’t checked other parameters lately, but not worried. Any other questions or comments? If you haven’t already, watch the documentary Fat Head. It’ show you how to manage weight without counting calories or being hungry!
Consciously eating food and education on what constitutes health is the best weight loss program in the world. Everyone needs something different. In Ayurvedic Medicine they have a saying, “The only final cure for disease, is self knowledge.”
It should be obvious that you can eat way more food when it is meat and veggies rather than chips, cookies and soda. As a guy who has lost 94 lbs, I eat an absolute ton of meat and veggies. The only time my weight creeps up is when I start to have junk food or get too relaxed about food choices. 1000 cals of junk can cause fat gain : 3000 cals of meat n veggies can cause health and energy to spare. We don’t all need a special diet, just consistant good habits.
Interesting. What I’m interested in is where the idea of macronutrient ratios came from? I mean, I know that in a sufficiently varied diet, protein takes care of itself, but the 60% carbohydrate figure seems weird, especially given that it’s telling us to eat more.
[...] Read on here. [...]