Skip to content

Useless information

November 2, 2008

Possible trigger warning: This post discusses calories in the context of metabolism, intake and weight-loss.

Before I get into this post, I want to give you a little pop quiz. Just a few questions:

1) Sue is a 34 year old woman who is 5’7″ and weighs 165 pounds. She exercises 3 days a week at a low intensity, has a fairly sedentary job and has no chronic illnesses or conditions which affect her thyroid. Which range of calories best represent the amount Sue probably needs on a daily basis to maintain her weight?
A)1650 – 1850
B)1950 – 2150
C)1350 – 1550

2) Barbara is 23 years old. She is 5’3″ tall and weighs 150 pounds. She exercises 5 days a week at a fairly intense level. She too is in good health with no thyroid issues. Which range of calories best represent the amount Barbara probably needs on a daily basis to maintain her weight?
A) 2150 – 2350
B) 1950 – 2150
C) 2550 – 2650

3) Kathleen is 42 years old. She is 5’5″ and weighs 272 pounds. She exercises 5 days a week at various intensities. Kathleen has no health issues which might affect the rate of her metabolism, but she is not as healthy as she’d like to be and is looking at losing 1lb/week. Which range of calories best represent the amount Kathleen needs to lose one pound a week?
A) 2250 – 2350
B) 1850 – 2050
C) 1250 – 1350

Answers: 1 – B, 2 – A, 3 – A

I have no doubt that a lot of people who read this blog got it right, but I also don’t doubt that a huge percentage of women in our society would have gotten it very wrong.

One thing that keeps confounding me as I work my way through mazes of weight-loss blogs is the sheer number of women who don’t eat enough. A woman close to my age and weight, but 3 inches taller than me who berates herself for failure to stick with her 1600 calorie/day diet. A woman who makes a promise to herself and her readers that she will not eat more than 1200 calories/day. These are not women who seem, in any other respect, to be particularly disordered when it comes to weight loss. They know they should look at slow weight loss, often they explicitly state that they only want to lose one pound a week. They find exercise they like and don’t overdo it. And yet, they’re dropping their calories by 1,000 or more every day.

It is, I think, indicative of a larger social trend where a large percentage of women eat over 2000 calories/day, believe that they’re eating around 1700 calories/day and think that they should be eating 1300 calories/day.

All of this has been on my mind as I read about New York’s law mandating chain restaurants post the calorie count of foods on their menus. If you want to read some good posts and interesting discussion around the particulars of the law (and some similar proposed laws) check out this post from the Rudd Center’s blog or any one of these three posts from Rachel.

I’m torn on the law itself*, but one thing I know for sure is that any possible benefit people could get from this information is useless if people don’t know how to apply it in context. So long as people, women especially, have no clue how their own bodies work or how much energy they actually require in a day, the question of whether to order the 750 calorie lunch or the 550 calorie lunch will be pointless.

The NYC health department is also releasing an ad campaign in conjunction with the new law reminding people that ‘most people’ only need about 2000 calories/day. That 2,000 estimation has got to be one of the single most annoying numbers ever. Remember, that number includes men and women; the elderly and teenagers; athletes and sedentary people. Translation: it is absolutely meaningless. And honestly, when it comes to the majority of women I see, their metabolic misunderstandings tend to be in the direction of underestimating their energy needs.

All of this is, to me, indicative of the contradictory nature of so much of the public health work around obesity. We’ll make restaurants post calorie counts because people have no idea how much they’re eating, then we’ll tell the public that ‘most people’ don’t need more than 2000 calories/day because those fat people all think they need a billion calories a day.

So what you end up with is a bunch of people choosing the 300 calorie lunch who then feel pretty hungry soon afterward which makes them feel like a failure because they believe they ‘should’ feel satisfied with 1400 calories/day – hey, it’s less than 2000, right?

I do believe more information can help us look after our health. Knowledge is power, after all. But it can’t be incomplete information or overly-simplified information. And any attempt to give people information to aid them in making food choices which doesn’t also address the huge amount of misinformation about food and weight is probably not going to accomplish much.

Note: The answers to the pop quiz were estimated using the Mifflin-St Jeor equation which, some research suggests, is the most accurate for North Americans. Tomorrow’s post will deal with different ways to estimate and actually measure individual metabolism.

*I don’t know what the answer is, but I understand both sides of the issue. At the very least, menus without calories should be made available at all restaurants.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. November 2, 2008 11:40 pm

    The problem is that people need more individualized input and counseling on how to lose weight, but our medical/weight loss system can’t be optimized for profit if you do that. It’s the same with chronic disease management, like diabetes. Sometimes, you luck out. I know people in weight loss groups who weren’t losing get told *by their leader* that they weren’t eating enough, and needed to eat more. And sometimes, you have to experiment to see if you are hungry because you are not eating the right kinds of food, like enough protein. My point re: restaurants would be that you don’t have to know if you don’t want to (and I firmly believe most people don’t want to know), but that the information should be easy to get on site, if requested, not squirreled away in a website or by mail.

  2. November 3, 2008 1:54 am

    ITA with your post and your conclusions about what it leads to in our society. Linda, I would be happy to be proven wrong, but when someone in my WW meeting is told they aren’t eating enough, it usually means something like they aren’t even eating their daily points allotment (not eating your FlexPoints and activity points is considered totally fine). This would mean eating less than 1,200 calories/day for many women. Nobody in my world is ever told they aren’t eating enough if they are eating 1,500 calories or more per day, even though the odds are good that they aren’t eating enough at that level, especially if they are active. Only recently, it seems to me, has it been considered “normal” and something to aspire to for women to eat–all the time and on a long-term basis and regardless of how active they are–an amount prescribed by a weight loss diet. Our sensibilities on this issue are totally warped. Yes, I know there are people out there who only need so few calories, but I don’t trust 100% of people to be able to be objective on this because our society has been so brainwashed by diets and Lean Cuisines and so on over the last 50 years.

    I agree with Rachel’s premise in the post that the LEAN (information available but not in everyone’s face to promote misplaced guilt, peer pressure, nosiness, and most importantly ED triggers) bill is the way to go.

  3. November 3, 2008 10:13 am

    The problem is that people need more individualized input and counseling on how to lose weight, but our medical/weight loss system can’t be optimized for profit if you do that.

    Agreed. For anyone interested, I went to a local nutritionist’s office a couple years ago to get a resting metabolic rate test conducted (she uses the MedGem Indirect Calorimeter). The test cost about $40 and took about 5 minutes total. Of the three independent reviews I found on the test (I can provide citations for anyone interested), all have suggested the device to be reliable and accurate.

    The test is absolutely HAES-friendly and for me, helped me develop more peaceful and healthy relationships with food. I took it because I have hypothyroidism, which affects metabolism, and so I wanted more reliable information about my own personal dietary needs and energy efficiency than generic estimates based on my age, height and weight and the assumption of a normal-functioning thyroid could provide. In my case, it turned out that I was eating less calories a day than the test indicated I ought to be eating. The test is often used for weight management and by people who are trying to lose weight, but the test itself only provides the exact number of calories a person needs at rest each day. From that, you can deduce the average daily caloric intake that is optimal for your own personal health and lifestyle needs.

  4. June 15, 2009 4:47 am

    What’s Up

    I’ve been passive on this forum for a while now, so here goes my first post! a great site I’ve found for Wallpapers etc. is I’ve found everything on my list…

    let me know what you think!, Hope this helps 😉



  1. Metabolism by numbers « Exceptionally Fat
  2. Well duh « Exceptionally Fat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: