To think that women don't actually need 2000kcal a day

It can't be underestimates how much, biologically speaking, our bodies consider losing weight to be a Bad Thing To Be Avoided At All Costs.

Weight loss occuring in nature is because you are ill or because you can't get enough food.

Because we are in an obesegenic society, many people need to lose weight, but your biology doesn't give a stuff about that. There's no natural human biology to make you lose weight for no reason.

Absolutely this. It’s bonkers.

I'm 5ft4 and 9st 2, so pretty average.
I guess on reflection I eat more at weekends - maybe a bigger, more indulgent dinner and a bigger treat that day. I might accurately track it all soon as a scientific experiment for myself!
But no, I never feel depleted and always have a tonne of energy.

Do the people with low calorific requirement also have low muscle mass? I think that makes a significant difference. My lean mass is high/body fat low and I have a basal requirement of 1233 cal a day (Hume body pod) - this is the requirement if I sit still or lie in bed all day - although I assume it wouldn't be for long as my muscle would degenerate given my age (65). So (as I said before) I'm eating 2200, of which about 1000 is due to movement/exercise. At my age I've tested this enough times to know these values are about right. I've been fat and thin.
It's a chemical reaction at the end of the day and one person's chemical reaction is unlikely to differ from the next person's, so it's either down to people miscalculating the amount they are eating, actually needing less because they move less or requiring less to move because they have less muscle to activate in order to do so.

No matter - there must be a logical scientific explanation and people should not seek to justify their inability to lose weight in ways that are just wrong.

Appetite control is a different matter - depends on what you're eating too and biome.

Calculators work by estimating your basal metabolic rate (the number of calories required to maintain basic bodily functions) based on your height, weight, age gender. Then they add a number of calories (again an estimate), associated with your level of activity. The resulting sum is the volume of maintenance calories.

Basal metabolic rate will vary between any number of people of the same weight, height, age, due to other factors like metabolic health, proportion of muscle mass, history of previous dieting especially where a person has been in a deep calorie deficit on and off throughout their life. Unless one gets tested in a lab, it's impossible to know what the exact number is for each person.

Some variance will come from the above and some from the estimate of the level of physical activity.

I manage quite fine on 1200 calories a day.

The gyms are no different to calculators available online, they use the same equations to calculate if you know your body fat % to make them more accurate, and your activity levels still fluctuate daily. If you are tracking calories, it is always better to use the sedentary rate and add back calories from exercise daily.

2000 is about right for me. 5'7, 9 stone, late 20s. Get my 10,000 steps but otherwise not very active

People are so varied though. And diet culture has a lot to answer for in terms of messed up metabolisms!

I'd almost guarantee you're not maintaining on 1500cals with that activity level unless you're seriously small/running in a depleted state a lot? Do you recover quickly?

I reckon there could be some undercalculating of cals consumed somewhere?

I just get it calculated properly at the gym.

Around 10 hours a week (a combination of weight training, hiking up hills wearing a weighted vest and running).

YANBU for many, but as an active women in my mid-40s, maintainance is around 2400 for me. I’m 5’8 and bmi of 19. On my recent skiing holiday I upped this to 3000 and still lost during the week.

I always look at the sedentary one, and then add back anything "earned" though activity, rather than use the calculators estimates for activity levels as it obviously fluctuates. Mine is still horribly low though even adding back activity.

What's your activity level?

I'm 5'6 (168 cm) with a BMI og 24-25. I do rock climbing three times a week for exercise, as well as the occasional long walk og run (desk job and car commute, though). I've tried calorie counting. I definitely need 2000 kcal to maintain my weight. At 1600 I'm starving and losing weight fast.

90% of women are between 4ft11 and 5ft8 (apparently) with 5% below 4ft11 and 5% about 5ft8). That's a big range. A sedentary 4ft11 woman is going to require far fewer calories than an active (not an athlete) 5ft8 woman.

I'm 5ft7, I'm quite active and I probably need to eat about 2000 calories to maintain my weight. Given I am taller than average and lots of people will be more sedentary than me then I guess it follows that lots of people would put on weight eating 2000 calories.

WE’VE LOST SIGHT OF WHAT A HEALTHY BODY LOOKS LIKE.

I’d say it’s way too much for the average woman. I’m slim and run 3 times a week (5/10k) and I’d say I have around 1500 per day

I have a BMI of 22 and can’t go over 1650 on a regular basis or I gain weight. I don’t calorie count all the time but use an app to do it if my weight goes up, and that shows me where I am going wrong. 2000 would be lovely but we are all different, and the lower your weight goes the lower your TDEE goes too (as very big people burn more calories just when moving, as they are carrying all that weight around it takes energy to maintain it too)

I need loads more!!! I'm always hungry!

I think we’re a lot more sedentary now than we were whenever those guidelines came into play. Most of us probably don’t need that many nowadays.

This calculator correctly calculates my BMI, but tells me I need 2127 calories a day to maintain. Absolutely no chance. 1500 to maintain is more realistic.

It was fine for me when I was younger and less creaky and not far above what I consume now as a less active 5'4 50-something with a BMI of 22 that hasn't changed in 3 years.

I think you’re right. I’m mid 40s, 5’7, do 15k steps a day, go to the gym 5-6 times a week. I need 1600-1700 to maintain my weight.

It depends on what you do each day. According to my Fitbit I burn around 2700 calories average daily most weeks. When I was heavier, I compromised on aiming to eat a max of 2000 calories a day and I lost 1lb a week doing that. Any less and I don't think there would have been enough fuel in the tank to keep up energy levels.