I was wondering if anyone knew where the good old standard number of 1200 calories came from? That everyone shouts that it shouldn't ever be violated by going less than that much, and so on?

I never got the memo.

So... there's a "floor" on calories, and it's set at 1,200? I have been long since pimping the formulas (Katch-McArdle, Harris-Benedict) as ballpark figures to start with.

-R

I never got the memo.

We're including the new cover sheet with all the TPS reports now.....



:D

And I was also wondering, where did the 2,000 kcal diet recomendation come from? :confused: I don't know there in the States or Europe, but here every food label claims, "Based on a 2,000 calories diet". I wonder why they pick 2,000 kcal as a guideline?

And I was also wondering, where did the 2,000 kcal diet recomendation come from? :confused: I don't know there in the States or Europe, but here every food label claims, "Based on a 2,000 calories diet". I wonder why they pick 2,000 kcal as a guideline?


Well, that one I believe is based off of government data, averaging a "standard" female (5'4) with a standard male (5'7) with their standard "healthy" weight and what it would take to maintain that.

But the 1200 caloric floor, I am not sure where it came from. I am sure it has to do with some studies (medical or what not) but I don't know which ones, and I was genuinely interested as to the thinking behind it.

Especially now, with stupid infomercials coming out promoting 980 calorie a day diets. :spaz:

980- calories a day? That's crazy.

Really, I wasn't being sarcastic... I just never heard of any programs that advocate a specific number of calories, let alone something as low as 1,200 a day. Maybe that's okay for a female who's 98-lbs. soaking wet and holding a bag of bricks, but for anyone else, that seems absurdly low. I'd be curious to hear someone explain the idea behind that brainchild, too.

-R

Geez, all these comercials (which are crap) are making more and more people confused, frustrated and lost. Advertising craps like these should be banned, shouldn't they? I mean, people are advertising crap and bullshits, and the worse part is, people believe them... :mad: Not only that, they get away with it too :(

It's just a rough number of minimum calories needed to indefinately sustain yourself. At 1200 calories/day, the average person could theoretically fend off starvation for any length of time. The number would fluctuate up with bigger structured/taller people, and lower with smaller structured people. This number is about what your body needs to maintain regular functions, such as heartbeat, breathing and temperature regulation.

A modern and largescale observation of mortality rates based on starvation was the battle of Stalingrad. The encircled German troops were cut off from supplies, and were totally reliant upon the Luftwaffe airborn supply. The calories were higher than 1200 before encirclement, and dropped down to about 600-800. The first to die were the taller or larger people, followed by the medium heighted people, then the smallest people held out longest. These soldiers were all thin as it was, as long marching field soldiers tend to be. The only difference was the bottom of the range of calories they needed to sustain themselves.



We're including the new cover sheet with all the TPS reports now.....



:D


I think I'm the only one who got that and laughed... :spaz:

I think I'm the only one who got that and laughed... :spaz:


Actually, I was wondering if anyone would even pick up on that little tidbit. Glad someone did. :D


-R

As a general rule though, most nutrition experts recommend never going below 1,000-1,200 calories a day if you're dieting on your own. It's also worth bearing in mind that the body doesn't suddenly 'enter' and 'leave' starvation mode, like crossing the border from Devon into Cornwall. It's a gradual process - so you don't need to panic if you do go below your calorie intake very occasionally.



Somrthings not right with those estimates though. I am surviving on 1500-1800 calories per day.

I am a 6'2" male who weighs 210. You're telling me I can maintain my weight at 2000 calories (done it for a few weeks and the weight stayed static) but I am going to starve to death in time at 1100?

I'm not buying it. At a strict 1800/day I am lucky if I see a 2lb drop per week.

Just a super slow metabolism? Crikies - I am running my butt off and lifting every day?!?!?!?!


Bluestreak - Best office movie ever . . . . You didn't get the memo?

Yeah, the 980 calorie thing is crazy. It's brillant though. Compared to these people who are being sued for their "miracle pills" (Change nothing and lose weight! :mad: ) the pill people can be sued. But this Diet that they're selling - well think about it. They get to say it's medically proven to cause weight loss, they tell you upfront how many calories it is, so you can be sued (afterall, it's a food system, not a drug one) and well, DUH, of course you are going to lose weight on it. They can't be touched legally.

It's amazing it didn't happen earlier (they're going nuts advertising it on TV, it's www.medifast980.com if you feel like checking it out for the absolute stupidity it entails).... Hubby was saying, "gee, we could get rich if we suggested a plan that only sold Army field food rations...."

:rolleyes:

That battle information was fascinating though....sad...because I would have been one of the first to bite the dust... but just the same.. interesting.

Well, a 200+ lb man eating 1100 calories indefinately will have to face two options.

1) Don't do any activity. If you move, you're body will go even further into deficit. Don't get hurt, don't get sick, don't exert yourself, and don't work. This usually can't be done.

2) Work harder, exercise, or just try to exist normally. Eventually you'll lose the vast majority your muscle mass, and you'll become bone skinny. It'll happen, give it time. The body can adapt to lesser calories, but begins to shed the things that prevent it from properly protecting itself, healing itself, and being able to move about efficiently on the calories provided to it.

Remember that 1200 is a rough estimate. It varies based on bone structure, height, body composition, internal functions, metabolic rates, genetics, etc. etc. etc. You probably could eat 1100 calories for a while. Take a picture now, and one in two years though. Remember, starving doesn't mean you're going to die right away. It means that eventually, you will die, and it will be due to your malnutrition.

As for the Stalingrad battle... it's pretty much impossible to tell who died from what exact causes. However, out of the 250,000 trapped in the pocket, only 90,000 survived the fight, with a huge amount of casualties being directly proportional to starvation. The men taken into captivity often weighed less than 100 lbs. An even worse side note is that of the 90,000 captured, only 6,000 would return home, many not until the late 50s.