Have you ever wondered why 2,000 calories is the magic number when it comes to dietary recommendations? Who came up with that number and who does it really apply to? At The Atlantic, food and nutrition expert Marion Nestle provides some history on how 2,000 calories became such an important figure in food.
When it was coming up with a standard for daily calorie consumption, the FDA looked at food consumption surveys of men, women and children, and proposed 2,350 calories as the standard, with 2,000, 2,300, and 2,400 calories a day as possible alternatives. They asked for feedback from the public on these numbers and were told "2,350 calories is too high!"
Nutritionists worried this number would lead to overconsumption, and instead advocated 2,000 calories a day for the following reasons:
• 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
It's especially interesting that these guidelines were designed with postmenopausal women in mind. Overall, this piece is a good reminder that the best way to figure out personal caloric needs in by paying attention to our own intake, rather than relying on labels.
• Check it out: Why Does the FDA Recommend 2,000 Calories Per Day?
What do you think about the recommendation of 2,000 calories a day?
Related: What One Serving of Fruits & Vegetables Looks Like
(Image: Flickr member joelogon licensed under Creative Commons)

Comments (19)
I still think 2000 calories per day is too much for most people.
Um...on what basis?
Websites like LiveStrong or MyFitnessPal allow you to figure out how many calories you actually need -- their algorithms are surprisingly accurate! How many calories an individual needs varies hugely, as your weight, age, gender, and activity level all factor in.
"2000 calories per day is too much for most people
Nice generalization.
I was tested on a metabolic analyzer and was told 3000 was baseline for me. Guess I'm not "most people".
I don't know, I tried the LiveStrong calorie calculator and food long thing, and it only gave me 1400 calories a day--I was STARVING all the time. All it did was make me crazy. Rather than count calories, I'm focusing on eating a healthy, mostly vegan diet with lots of whole grains and fruits and veggies, and minimally processed foods. I eat when I'm hungry and stop eating when I'm not hungry anymore. It works for me.
most people aren't "most people" ...
The amount of calories isn't that off for most people, but calories aren't the be all end all of nutrition. Most have read Good Calories Bad Calories they go into this further.
The big issue with these values is the other standards presented and the associated industries influence on it's value. The value that has the most glaring is the carbohydrates, no one needs 300g that is way high (like 16-18 cups of fibrous vegatables not counting the excessively starch ones like potatoes) and the only way to get that is to eat lots of grains (which are completely unnecessary in the human body, Google why we get fat).
Remember those values are put on there by the government that doesn't have your best interest at heart but the best interest of their supporters I.E. big business.
I've never given a hoot about calories one way or another. I have no clue how many calories I consume each day, or what would be a good amount for me. I just make sure I eat healthy food (not too many treats and lots of fruit/veg) and stop eating when I'm full; easy-peasy. That in combination with regular exercise is what works for me. I'll never count calories, its too boring!
I like the rounded down - as someone who realizes every once in a blue moon, when I remember to think about calories - that I am almost always eating more than that. It's like a high-five for beating the system!
It's really difficult to accurately count calories, and there's a tendency to round down and easy to miss snacking and beverage calories. So, rounding down on the recommendation makes sense.
It would be great to be able to say "just eat when you're hungry and stop when you're full." The body is meant to regulate itself. Trouble is, there are so many foods we eat that trick our hunger cues - artificial sweeteners, highly processed carbs, liquid calories... And a lot of things sold as diet foods are the worst culprits on hunger trickery. Vicious cycle of more and more complexity.
I agree with eminthekitchen. Counting calories can drive you insane! And yet, processed food can make life so complicated.
I'm for eating slowly, enjoying real food (no tricky sweeteners, processed stuff) and listening to your body. And being a little forgiving when you can't eat like an earth goddess :)
I'm with a.hidden.bird, I've never counted calories. If you ask me to show you what 2000 calories look like, I'd probably be off by a couple thousand. My guess, is 80% of the population couldn't give an accurate estimate of what 2000 calories looks like in the "real world". Maybe that's part of the problem. I say eating healthy is what counts. And I think most people know a bowl of fruit is a lot healthier than a can of SPAM?! (just curious, why the image of a Spam can for this article?) Catch me on www.raising-bella.com!
I agree that 2000 calories is a little high, for many. Many people could stand to loose a few pounds, or more. Some people may need more than 2000 calories, like athletes who are working out a lot, or people who stay pretty skinny. It's important to remember that you can fill your stomach with fruits and vegetables or have a few tablespoons of an oil and they can equal to about the same amount of calories. Most people are just used to consuming a lot of calories, when really you can live on less if you're not that active. So get active, and you can eat more calories.
For a healthy person (i.e. not obese or underweight), dietitians use the Harris-Benedict equation to determine a person's Basal Metabolic Rate (~ Resting Metabolic Rate) which says:
Males: BMR = 66 + ( 6.23 x weight in pounds ) + ( 12.7 x height in inches ) - ( 6.76 x age in years )
Females: BMR = 655 + ( 4.35 x weight in pounds ) + ( 4.7 x height in inches ) - ( 4.7 x age in years )
This calculation is then multiplied by an activity factor (AF) to determine the actual calories a person should be consuming, on average, in a day.
Little to no exercise: AF=1.2
Light Exercise (1-3d/wk): AF=1.375
Moderate Exercise (3-5d/wk): AF=1.55
Heavy Exercise (6-7d/wk): AF=1.725
Very Heavy Exercise (twice per day, extra heavy workouts): AF=1.9
I am 25 years old, 5'10", 165lbs that exercises 3 days a week, therefore my caloric needs per day would be:
[66+(6.23x165)+(12.7x70)-(6.76x25)]x1.375 = ~2494kcal/day to maintain body weight
1lb of fat = ~3500kcal, therefore if I consume 500kcal/day less than my recommended maintenance caloric (1994 kcal/d) intake, I would lose ~1lb/wk, all things being equal.
Of course there are many factors that play into this and thats why these are educated estimates and its not going to hurt if you indulge every once in awhile.
Like most of the previous comments, 2000 seems a bit high to me, especially if it's geared towards menopausal women. I know some people who are under 30 years old and only eat 1300 a day and are at a healthy weight. Of course it all depends on activity level and the individual, and that can vary widely.
eminthekitchen is right about trusting your body to tell you when to stop eating, and also about some foods that trick your body. Sugar is especially bad, because since fructose must be processed by the liver, you end up eating double the amount before you receive the chemical message that makes you feel full.
I think the problem is not that 2000 is high - it's probably about right. It's more that we tend to underestimate what we eat. So when most of us guesstimate that we are eating say 2000 cals we are most likely eating a lot more - which would be why we put on weight.
Also the reason many people can maintain their weight on a ridiculously low calorie amount could have a lot to do with the fact that they have been dieting and their bodies have adapted. It's that old famine response - our bodies grow more efficient with much less so that we survive.
I think using a BMR calculator is a good starting point. Then, if you are already in a healthy range for your age, body type and height, use the 80/20 rule (80 % of your calories from high quality foods) to stay there.
If you aren't at a good weight, eat at the BMR of the weight you need to get to, and focus on high quality foods. But you can still slip in a bit of chocolate at ice cream once in a while if you don't go over the BMR daily. You will lose weight (I've lost 50 lbs this way and kept it off)
Most nutritionists have replaced Harris-Benedict with Mifflin-St.Jeor: HB was designed in the 1910's for people who did much more work than 21st century Americans.
Examples:
5'10" - 170# - 25 yr old male - Exercise 5/wk
HB = 2705 cal/day
MS-J = 2580 cal/day
5'0" - 125# - 55 yr old female - Exercise 3/wk
HB = 1618 cal/day
MS-J = 1423 cal/day
http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm