this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

15952 readers
121 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 day 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 bursts of activity. Then fat redistribution will be more effectively towards a )( body shape, with breast growth improved.

For testosterone-oriented HRT, I'm less certain, though I assume the same applies, though with the accent more on weight loss and exercise for muscle growth.

That said, everyone has their own goals; important is that one remains healthy. 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.