Guest guest Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Hi folks: Last evening I did a Google search for the average US caloric intake. Please don't ask me where I found it because I forgot to note that! But here are the data for males, and, assuming those numbers are meaningful ad lib reference points, various corresponding restriction numbers (it will be interesting to see how this table formats): degree of restriction % Age Group average ---------------------------- --------- intake 20 25 30 35 40 ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Over 20 2450 1960 1837 1715 1592 1470 40 - 59 2490 1992 1867 1743 1618 1494 60 + 2030 1624 1522 1421 1319 1218 Food for thought. Rodney. NOTE: Since it seems half the population is on a diet at any given time these data may be biased to the low side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Hi folks: Regarding the previous post, the formatting is dreadful. But there is a simple solution to fix that problem. Just click on the reply button! It will be formatted exactly as intended. At least it is for me. Rodney. --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > Hi folks: > > Last evening I did a Google search for the average US caloric > intake. Please don't ask me where I found it because I forgot to > note that! But here are the data for males, and, assuming those > numbers are meaningful ad lib reference points, various corresponding > restriction numbers (it will be interesting to see how this table > formats): > > degree of restriction % > Age Group average ---------------------------- > --------- intake 20 25 30 35 40 > ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- > Over 20 2450 1960 1837 1715 1592 1470 > 40 - 59 2490 1992 1867 1743 1618 1494 > 60 + 2030 1624 1522 1421 1319 1218 > > Food for thought. > > Rodney. > > NOTE: Since it seems half the population is on a diet at any given > time these data may be biased to the low side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Formatting looked fine to me. Positive Dennis Rodney wrote: Hi folks: Regarding the previous post, the formatting is dreadful. But there is a simple solution to fix that problem. Just click on the reply button! It will be formatted exactly as intended. At least it is for me. Rodney. --- In , "Rodney" <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > Hi folks: > > Last evening I did a Google search for the average US caloric > intake. Please don't ask me where I found it because I forgot to > note that! But here are the data for males, and, assuming those > numbers are meaningful ad lib reference points, various corresponding > restriction numbers (it will be interesting to see how this table > formats): > > degree of restriction % > Age Group average ---------------------------- > --------- intake 20 25 30 35 40 > ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- > Over 20 2450 1960 1837 1715 1592 1470 > 40 - 59 2490 1992 1867 1743 1618 1494 > 60 + 2030 1624 1522 1421 1319 1218 > > Food for thought. > > Rodney. > > NOTE: Since it seems half the population is on a diet at any given > time these data may be biased to the low side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.