818

submitted 3 days ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

239 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago

I'd argue that's a downgrade for most people. I personally exceed all of those bullet points and the idea of coming close to most of them sounds like Hell to me. If it meant 8.5 billion people met those standards, I could make the sacrifice, but it would be awful.

Can you imagine if everyone you met was wearing a 3 days dirty shirt? Do other not sweat? And 2100 kcal per day is not safe or sustainable for almost anyone that exercises regularly.

[-] astutemural@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

ITT: people who didn't even glance at the study.

Quoting from the study:

"It is important to understand that the DLS represents a minimum floor for decent living. It does not represent a an aspirational standard and certainly does not represent a ceiling. However, it is also a level of welfare not currently achieved by the vast majority of people. A new paper by Hoffman et al finds that 96.5 percent of people in low- and middle-income countries are deprived of at least one DLS dimension...we can conclude that 6.4 billion people, more than 80% of the world's population, are deprived of DLS."

The authors are not suggesting that everyone be forced on DLS at gunpoint. They are suggesting an absolute bare minimum standard that the overwhelming majority of people on Earth do not yet even have. Quite obviously any excess production could and would be used to increase standard of living.

"Averages are reduced by the relatively lower requirements of infants and children."

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

And 2100 kcal per day is not safe or sustainable for almost anyone that exercises regularly.

I’m a woman with a relatively large frame (~65kg/180cm) who used to do 14 hours of hard cardio a week. At that time, my recommendation was 2250, the first time in my life it had exceeded 2k. For smaller women, the recommendation is sometimes much lower. My stepsister is about 45kg and 155cm tall and her calculated daily calorie burn is like 1300. My ex boyfriend’s mom was told not to go over 1200, which I thought was the lower limit for humans generally- things are different when you’re a short, post-menopausal woman.

All that is to say, it’s probably an average of 2100 calories, spread between people who need on average 1400-1800 calories and those who need 2000-2400

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

That's fair. My take was shallow and I was thinking more from personal experience. I'm ~200lbs and burn over 100 kcal every mile I run, and am a distance athlete. If I jog 6 miles or bike 20+, I have to replace that for proper recovery.

I shouldn't say most people, but a large amount of people need more than 2100 kcal if they are active.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

It’s honestly wild the difference in caloric requirements based on age and sex/gender (I don’t know how much is due to size/hormones, so I don’t know where trans people’s requirements would be) even before factoring in activity level, so it’s entirely reasonable not to realize the difference.

[-] Taalnazi@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

For trans people it depends.

If you're just starting estrogen-oriented HRT and you're at a weight considered ideal for your pre-HRT body, then it is helpful to actually gain a few kg of fat, together with weekly hours of intense activity (like running, bicycling, squatting and planks, hip thrusts) coupled with moderate activity (like walking half an hour everyday) Then fat redistribution will be more effectively towards a )( body shape, with breast growth improved. This guide may help.

For testosterone-oriented HRT, I'm less certain, though I assume the fat redistribution's accent is more on weight loss and exercise for muscle growth. Lifting, bench presses, planking, and the like for \/ bodies. Here's a good training scheme.

That said, everyone has their own goals; important is that one remains healthy. A good diet is balanced and lowly processed.

A body fat percent healthy for all people (binary and nonbinary) would be around 14-25%. If you can get pregnant (and seek to do so), it's better to be a little higher in this range, because during pregnancy, your body will prioritise the embryonic/fetal needs more than yours.

[-] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I can attest that i definitely eat less than 2000 kcal per day on average. But:

I read a study (done by the CIA, ironically) a while ago that said sth like the average caloric intake for americans is like 3500 kcal/day, while for USSR people it is 3200 kcal/day, and concluded that people in the USSR eat healthier.

The study was done in the time of the USSR.

I'm gonna look for it now.

Edit: it's here

[-] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Coming to that conclusion based purely on amount of calories is incredibly stupid

[-] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago

actually if you read the paper it goes into more detail than just calories

[-] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Well that is more a report than a study, but that is pretty interesting, saving that.

Though 3500 and 3200 seem absolutely fucking wild to me. I am a 184cm, 96kg (not fit anymore but used to work out 6 days a week for 2-3hrs) and if I eat more than 2200 per day not-active (I got used to weighing every gram of food during cuts) I gain weight. I find it hard to believe that 3500 and 3200 was average then as there were significantly less obese people then.

[-] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago

Yeah i still can't really wrap my mind around it. I suspect it might be caused by the fact that there were a lot more manual blue-collar labour back then being done? But i'm not sure.