Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to think a standard woman does not need 2000 calories a day?

(183 Posts)
CardinalRichelieu Tue 26-Feb-13 14:56:14

I know it says on packaging etc that 2000 is the standard intake for a woman but it sounds like kind of a lot. I reckon I eat maybe 1600-1700 per day? I am quite small (5 ft 3) and don't do much exercise except walking around and a bit of pilates. I work partly from home and partly out of the home and don't really burn that much off in daily activity. I am in the healthy BMI range (19).

I don't think someone like me needs 2000 calories a day - am I right?

countrykitten Thu 28-Feb-13 11:23:38

I am 5ft tall btw in case I get told that this is not enough. It's enough for me to maintain a good healthy weight and feel energetic.

countrykitten Thu 28-Feb-13 11:21:01

I would be absolutely massive if I ate 2000 calories a day! It's all aboujt what's right for you isn't it? I currently eat about 1200 a day and 200 more if I exercise hard. It's plenty.

fascicle Thu 28-Feb-13 10:34:18

CardinalRichelieu
I know it says on packaging etc that 2000 is the standard intake for a woman but it sounds like kind of a lot.

I've never read it quite like that. On food packaging etc the word 'guidelines' is usually in there and 'average' rather than standard. I wouldn't interpret the message as all or most women need to eat 2,000 calories a day.

I think apart from stature, a lot of individual difference in calorific requirements is down to incidental movement (that NEAT stuff). Some people seem to move/twitch/expend energy all the time, whilst others can sit at a desk for hours and barely move.

ChairmanWow Thu 28-Feb-13 05:09:44

SirEdmund, that was kind of my point. I personally don't give a monkey's arse what size anyone is. I'm not into fat or thin bashing. It just depresses me that otherwise intelligent women are wasting their energy obsessing over calories - and before anyone attacks me I'm not saying don't be healthy.

Lljkk - interesting article. I never thought I'd see Susie Orbach quoted in the Torygraph! Thanks for posting.

anonymosity Wed 27-Feb-13 19:26:38

Love your response LLjkk!

SirEdmundFrillary Wed 27-Feb-13 17:55:38

I think angsting about calories and height is part of the problem. Why does this happen?

Wishihadabs Wed 27-Feb-13 17:49:58

I think they should whether they do ....

Thingiebob Wed 27-Feb-13 17:27:26

OP. you don't need 2000 cals because of your lifestyle, but I do. On average I think most 'standard' women do more exercise than you.

lljkk Wed 27-Feb-13 17:21:00

Well, if adulthood = age 18-88, then standard must be 48yrs old, reasonable?
Which means perimenopausal.
About 5'5" tall.
2.5 stone overweight.
Takes NO regular exercise. And virtually never any aerobic exercise.
25% chance of being a smoker.
Most of us are too young to identify with the standard woman.

This calculator says my standard woman would need 1600 calories/day to maintain her 2.5 stone excess.
I fear OP's case may be proven.

anonymosity Wed 27-Feb-13 16:55:22

What is a "standard" woman? I'd love to know...

oohlaalaa Wed 27-Feb-13 16:53:05

I'm 5'11, breastfeeding, and do lots of exercise. I eat far more than 2000 calories. Never worked out the actual calories. I'd ignore the guidelines, we're all different.

Fillyjonk75 Wed 27-Feb-13 16:45:22

Being a size 8 isn't the be all and end all. People can be thin but unhealthy and a bit plump but healthier. You can live on chocolate cake and be thin but it won't do much for your blood sugar, cholesterol levels, not to mention your moods and energy levels.

Fillyjonk75 Wed 27-Feb-13 16:41:16

While people need a varying number of calories, I do generally agree the 2000/2500 levels are rather high as a general recommendation. 1800/2200 would be better, based on someone being fairly sedentary.

digerd Wed 27-Feb-13 16:33:01

I read a while ago that it is 1500 for women and 2000 for men .

pixi2 Wed 27-Feb-13 16:29:37

Who cares? I am the same height, I eat chocolate for breakfast, just finishing a slice of cake and a coffee before I start dinner. I am a size 8. No idea how many calories I consume and couldn't give a feck what my bmi is. I run, I walk the dog and I play on the park with dc.

TheSmallPrint Wed 27-Feb-13 16:25:20

and I never excercise because I'm a lazy mare as well as greedy.

TheSmallPrint Wed 27-Feb-13 16:24:56

I'm 5'10" and eat well over 2000 calories a day and my BMI is 23. Does that help?

cumfy Wed 27-Feb-13 16:11:44

I'll just go with those and ignore the ones containing constructive criticism.

How refreshingly different.grin

malinois Wed 27-Feb-13 15:46:17

ithaka actually, the average calorie intake has decreased since the 1950s. Unfortunately the amount of physical work people do has decreased even more: they drive where they might have cycled or walked, they work sitting in an office rather than standing in a factory, they shop (by car) once a week rather than every day on foot, and washing machines and vacuum cleaners have taken a lot of the manual labour out of the home.

Still not convinced.

Being overweight is unhealthy and lots of people don't feel comfortable with the way they look or feel, just the same as being underweight. Not to please men or society, simply because they in themselves do not like it.

I hate how everything is jumped on as a feminist issue when most of the time it is a case of women not feeling comfortable the way they are and wanting to make a change for themselves. I think it's totally counter productive to tell a woman (or anyone for that matter) that they are doing something for a particular reason and not the reasons that they give and that they shouldn't do it even if that is their own choice.

Shaved fanjo anyone?

ithaka Wed 27-Feb-13 14:21:40

It seems significant that the 'average' women is 5'3" and 11stone and is therefore overweight - perhaps by consuming the recommended daily calorie intake of 2000 calories. Which does rather suggest that the recommended calorie intake is too high, which is a bit worrying considering we are apparently facing an obesity epidemic.

I do think as a nation we have lost the way with portion sizes. I remember what my nana & grandad considered a portion of a food and it was teeny.

RedToothBrush Wed 27-Feb-13 14:05:10

lljkk, the trouble I have with that particular article is every word says that if you are thin, you are giving in to social pressures and the underlying feeling throughout the piece is that is somehow unnatural state.

Even the last two paragraphs give me that feeling:
Orbach says she feels as though it is 'the perfect coming together of activists, and pressure on government ministers, and a change in culture. There is a lot of bravado around. There is a cockiness, a spunkiness, a sense of taking pleasure in our bodies. It’s a fury, with women saying, “No, we are not all the same shape and size.” I think there is a real attempt to remake the culture in which we live. It feels like we are taking part in a dare, one where we say, “It’s OK, this is who I am.” ’

And it is about time, too, she says. Time that we nourished our bodies, instead of torturing them.

On the one hand it celebrates the idea that we are not all the same shape and size; and on the other hand then puts this idea of torturing instead of nourishing our bodies on the table as an alternative and opposing train of thought. Which is equally unhelpful.

The article is all about hatred of people's own bodies - and yet says very little about how this hatred is being projected in all kinds of different ways - and not just in the direction of bigger women.

So for me, that particular article, misses the point just as much as the people it tries to criticise.

RedToothBrush Wed 27-Feb-13 13:51:29

Again we have yet another person who thinks its ok to be abusive about people who are thin.

I'm not sure I see it as a feminist issue as such, along it does have feminist elements. Personally I think its an issue of basic respect for others.

Midastouch, between 5'3 and a half to 5'4" is the average height of a woman in the UK depending on which study you look at. I think 5'4" is more commonly used though.

lljkk Wed 27-Feb-13 13:48:59
midastouch Wed 27-Feb-13 13:36:43

Im 5 ft 5 (that must be about average size mustnt it?) and i definetly do not need that many! somewhere aroung 1800 id have thought

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now