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

I assume the 2000 is an average, and as per pps have said, we are all different.

I don't calorie count and have always been thin and active. I have big portions in general at dinner and "eat what I like", but what I like is mostly home-cooked and healthy. I just did a rough calculation of what I expect to eat today and it came to about 1700 cal. Given the propensity to underestimate, I don't think 2000 sounds unreasonable.

Yeh I'm 5 ft 2 and tbh the only time I've successfully lost any weight is by eating a depressing 500-800 calories a day and exercising a few times a week too. I reckon my actual metabolic rate is around 1200-1500. Even at times I've piled weight on I don't believe that I regularly exceed 2000 tbh

I have a sedentary job. I also do a lot of exercise. How do you know what Sandra in accounts does before or after work?
And I don't think most people are having a croissant for breakfast and KFC for lunch.
A cup of tea and a boiled egg is not enough to keep a person full and well all day.

The amount of calories needed to maintain one's weight depends on a number of variables: age, height, weight, gender and activity level..

Here is a good calculator to use

https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/how_many_calories_do_you_need

The tricky bit is assessing your activity level accurately, especially in the range of light to moderate levels of activity, where most of us place ourselves.

Monitoring food intake can also be tricky. Even pre-packaged food labelling allows for a margin of error, let alone home-made food where each ingredient needs to be weighed and logged separately.

To lose weight, you'd need to be in calorie deficit (e.g. -20-25% from your maintenance level) - not massive, so your body does not go into starvation mode and try to put every calorie in storage.

That works for me, female, age 53, moderate activity. Maintenance level of calories = 2034 (or thereabouts) and I lose weight slowly if I go down to about 1600 consistently. At this age losing muscle mass is a risk factor of weight loss, so stimulating your muscles is important. Weight training + sufficient amounts of protein would be the way to go alongside dieting.

I'm post menopausal. I do lots of exercise.
I don't think it's news that older, more sedentary people don't need to eat as much, but they can still have a light breakfast and lunch and a larger meal at dinner time.

TDEE not BMR

Your metabolism and mindset is broken unless you're having a feast in the evening, and some herbal tea will not stimulate your metabolism.

We need to be eating fruit/veg/nuts/seeds for health, plus good quality protein at bear minimum of 0.75g/kg of bodyweight to maintain muscle mass. This is incredibly important for women.

7-10g of only protein and a little bit of fat at lunch (an egg/chicken wing) means your evening meal needs to include 400g of various fruit/veg, plus 30-50g minimum of quality protein and a source of calcium and healthy fats to even begin to meet nutritional requirements. Your body and brain also needs carbohydrates to stay healthy and function.

You can meet all of these requirements on relatively little calories throughout the day, but in one meal it would be huge.

Depends on your lifestyle and build obviously. If you drive to work, then sit at a desk all day, you won't need 2000 cals.
I walk everywhere, have an active job and do moderate exercise 3ish times a week. I'm losing weight on 1800.
I think 2000 cals would be about right for an average women getting an adequate amount of exercise. But most of us don't.

My maintain is 1500 a day, which means my 500 deficit is 1000, its miserable. 2000 i would defintely gain again, and im still not a my goal weight, thank god for WLI making 1000 a day doable.

It’s an average. I know women who are 45kg and others who at 85kg and are both healthy for their frames. Obviously one needs more calories than the other.

I’m using an app set to lose 2lb per week and when I stick to it, it works. I’m 5’4” 66 years old size 14/16 and moderately active. It’s calculated I should stick to 1288 calories per day. I can have more if I exercise. I wouldn’t lose weight on 1600 cal per day

If I ate 2000 calories a day, every day, I'd be fat.

I'm 41, have a large energy output (around 10 hours of hard exercise a week), and I'm 5ft4 and 9st 2.

I'm peri meno, 5'11", reasonably active, and losing approx 2lbs a week on 1900 cals. We're all different.

It's not accurate to say women do or don't need 2000 cals a day.

Maybe - I'm not an expert on this. But I know that, personally, I can't have 3 meals a day of any sort of normal portion and maintain a healthy weight. I'm older now, and though i'm active (lots of walking, gardening, DIY), I don't think I could cope with the sort of exercise levels which would allow me to eat 3 substantial meals a day. A banana is my breakfast when I have any. I just can't use up the calories to allow any more than that.

High days and holidays are different, of course - but I then need to lose the weight I've gained afterwards.

One boiled egg is 'more than enough' all day?

There's a significant number of women who only care about a number on the scale/BMI chart and not in the slightest about actually getting nutrition into their body and having a skeleton and muscles strong enough to keep us mobile and safe into old age. Reading some of the comments on this thread, there is such a fear of food - a thing that sustains us and keeps us alive and healthy!

You are absolutely being unreasonable stating it like that. By saying “women” as we are one homogeneous thing you don’t actually realise the reality of calories. I am not even that active but my maintenance is around 2000 cals. If I start getting properly active again I can count 2400-2700 for maintenance, in which case 2000 would become more than enough of a deficit. I’ve lost weight on averaging about 2200 cals a day. But then I am tall.

I do believe the messaging around calories should become much more nuanced because there are so many variables: lifestyle, height, starting weight, body composition, etc. 2000 calories simply is an average and as individuals we have to make our own efforts to see how we fit within those averages.

There was a Sliced Bread (R4) episode a while ago about fitness trackers and by far the most incorrect value was calorie count. It is pretty much impossible to accurately calculate your calorie usage via a Smart watch.

I'm always amazed at how many MN posters count their calories - it seems so time consuming.

It varies, I can maintain on around 1600-2000 cals a day.

However once I began swimming three times a week my weight started to drop again in a very slow but steady way.

No change in eating habits.

I am around 50, almost 6 feet tall and have a very busy, active, and stressful live. I put on weight of I eat more than 1500 cals... envious of those who can eat more!!!

I find it depressing that lots of women can’t eat a normal, healthy diet with a few treats without worrying or trying to pretend they only nibble at lettuce leaves. We need calories and sustenance too, just like men. This nibbling at lettuce crap only serves to promote guilt and encourage women to be undernourished and feeble.

Yes, I don't disagree with you - it is indeed depressing!

But it cuts both ways - if women want to have the freedom to eat what they want they'd have to make sure they used those calories in order not to pile on the pounds.

I'm talking about a healthy physique - not a fashionable one. We know that visceral fat in particular is a threat to health.

Talking of fat - I think recent research suggests we should be more vary of carbs, especially refined carbs (my favourite food group....sob) in terms of causing glucose spikes and cholesterol formation. Animal fats in moderation are not the baddies they used to be.

I think most people in the sendentary economy don't need many kcal. We are not dry stone wallers working in the Shetlands for 10 hours a day. Most people are Sandra in accounts having a pret coffee and croissant for breakfast and considering a KFC wrap at lunch. Personally I don't know how people can put it all away. I have a herbal tea at breakfast to stimulate my metabolism and a boiled egg or chicken thigh with some light herb sauce for lunch to avoid bloating. This is more than enough before an evening meal.

I eat little and often but if I bothered to work it out easily eat 2000 calories daily.But petite build like my mum and very active. Not sporty just walking ,gardening and had physical jobs before retirement. To eat any less Iwould be feel hungry I know. Not sure if it's metabolism but guess everyone is different and you can't generalise.

Surely it depends on how large those meals are? Eating at regular intervals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) is fine.

Also - I think the idea that you can really eat 3 meals a day is also very optimistic if you want to keep your weight down.

Most people just don't need 3 meals - it's very largely a social convention we've all got into the habit of. Of course if you're working outside in a physical job, or you're an athlete, that's different....but that's not many women.

I agree. I think this 2K figure must be well out of date - and refer to a time when women did more active jobs, or when they were doing more physical work in the home without so many labour-saving devices. Now nearly all of us just sit in front of a computer at work, we're really not using 2K calories each day and need to do exercise to use that amount of energy.

I would put on weight if I ate 2K a day! I try to stick to 1.5K with exercise, unless it's a special occasion.

I'm 5 ft 7 and don't have a petite build and people's height and build will have implications for calorie intake too.