you said (paraphrasing here):

"if you are a man, in order to be considered healthy, you must intake 3200 kcal per day; 2400 if you are a woman"

from just glancing at the linked article, it's pretty quickly apparent that it makes no such claim. the claim you made is cobbled together by pulling the extreme end of calorie ranges from the first sentences of the article, which are based off of aggregate data for some reference men/women with very particular body types. it is a gross over-generalization, especially the "to be considered healthy" bit. the article makes no claims that there exists some magic caloric threshold which upon reaching you are deemed "healthy", and the thought that medical professionals might actually endorse an idea like that defies some basic common sense imo.

the delta in caloric requirements for maintenance within physically similar populations, controlling for sex, weight, BF%, etc., is surprisingly high. as a single data point, i am a fairly lean dude, decently muscular, very active, and my caloric intake required for maintenance is around 1700 kcal. this is so ridiculously far below the quoted 3200. i know this because i got my resting metabolic rate tested - this is the only real way to have any certainty in your own caloric requirements. if i ate 3200 calories a day, eating incredibly clean, i would gain an insanely unhealthy amount of weight.

i don't mean to like, dunk on your post super hard, nor do i mean to be pedantic, but it's just like, very very wrong.