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

The number of people agreeing with the OP with the words 'I eat' are proving the point - you're an individual, not every woman.

There is not a figure which will be the correct amount for all women - it will depend on your height, build,muscle mass, activity. I highly doubt the real average would be such a round number but it's a number that doesn't mean anything to anyone anyway.
I would loose weight eating 2000 calories a day but my BMI is 25 so probably could loose some.

I am tall, have 3 young children, and like to do weight training at the gym so this may increase what I would want to eat compared to someone smaller - if you eat more than you are using you will put on weight so there is not a set round number which will work for women across the board.
A petite women that does not have a lot of muscle mass won't need many calories but not the case for all women.

This thread really shows how everyone is different! 2000 calories a day is fine for me - if I drop to 1500, then I lose weight pretty quickly (5"5, size 8-10). But I have a friend who can't lose weight unless she goes below 1200. Too many different factors to calculate using online tools - you've just got to find what works for you.

Obviously this can be answered by the phrase 'everyone is different'.

Totally agree

Exactly my point.

My weight would rocket if I ate 2000cal a day.

I'm 5"6 and a size 8. Not sure how many calories I eat but it's not anywhere near 2000 a day.

I have no idea how many calories I eat per day. I think my weight is just right and that I exercise just about enough. I enjoy eating what I want, when I want (thankfully what I want usually involves fresh fruit, veg, nuts, wholegrain carbs etc. quite a few Ferrero Rocher in the last week thanks to mother's day 😂). I avoid UPFs except for said chocolate on special occasions. Whilst it's important to be healthy, it's important to actually enjoy life and not sweat the small stuff.

Agree. I’m 5’ 11” and would put on weight at 2,000kcals a day. I also don’t have a thyroid which is a major contributor to shoddy metabolism, but maintenance for me is about 1,600. I’ve lost a significant amount of weight in the past 18 months and need to stay under 1,300kcals a day which is really hard going.

I’m more like 1350 to maintain where I am and need less again to lose

I’m nearly 5’10’’ and my maintenance calories are 2000 but given the average female height is Lower than that, I don’t think 2000 is the average calories and will be lower. Edited to say this is on a purely maintaining bodily functions and very sedentary lifestyle. As soon as I do exercise or move more, my maintenance calories go up

Totally agree. Pretty sure it took my toddler approx. 2 mins to walk up the stairs this morning…. Before I carried her the rest of the way. There’s a huge difference between being “on the go” and on your feet most of the day, and actively burning lots of calories off. Being able to properly exercise, didn’t ever really start until my kids were somewhat old enough to be safely left playing on their own/watching a show etc.

Prior to that, I just maintained being overweight from pregnancy, and struggled by with unpredictable sleep, caffeine, and sugary carbs.

I was going to say surely we should be promoting moving more, and strength work rather than eating the same calories as a toddler

my male friend is a very picky eater and refuses to change so he lost 6 stone just from exercise alone

I am 55 years old and 5.2". I maintain on 1000 calories and I lose, very very painfully and slowly on 800.

I wear a Fitbit, which I appreciate isn't accurate. But on days where I'm at work all day (office job) and don't fit in any exercise at all, it will show I've burned around 1400 calories. On days where I go for a run, walk with the kids to school, get over 10000 steps etc it reports anything between 2000 and 2600.

So it varies massively.

I agree. Most people consume way more calories than they think they do. I track/weigh everything, so I know what my calories/macros are (as accurately as I can). I reckon the average person probably underestimates their calorie intake by at least 500.

A lot of people would benefit from moving more and building strength rather than starving themselves on 1000cals a day.

I can maintain on 2200-2400cals a day. I'm 5'8 and have healthy bodyfat levels (22%) and high muscle mass. I sit around a size 12-14 and am late 30s.

Remember women are healthy with up to 30% body fat, but muscle mass is very important for menopausal age women as are healthy fats and protein in diet.

More focus needs to be on nutritional content rather than calories, less processed food tends to be lower calories anyway than processed food.

My average calorie burn last week was 1750 per day. I’m 5’ 2’’ and weigh about 8 stone 9. I wasn’t very well so no additional exercise but still walked 80,000 steps so reasonably active. I need nowhere near 2000. I think more people need to be aware of what they need rather than follow blanket guidance.

Not read the replies, but most women don't need more than 1500/1600 calories a day, and the guidelines around recommended calories per day are so far out of date that it's actually causing a massive issue imo. Coupled with people underestimating calories in food, not counting drinks and a largely sedentary lifestyle, it's no wonder so many people are overweight.

Personally, I eat around 2000-2250 calories per day, but I’m very active (weights x5, cardio 3h per wk). However, if I want to lose body fat, I have to be quite aggressive and cut to around 1600 calories. I guess it depends on your muscle mass/activity level, but I agree that most women probably don’t need 2000 unless they do a lot of exercise.

I think most people miscalculate how many calories they are eating. I was anorexic several decades ago and have managed it well since about 1990, but having for several years weighed everything that passed my lips to the gram (sadly, I'm not exaggerating) I do know how much I eat. I'm 65, body fat 21.1%, weigh exactly what I weighed as a teenager and have exactly the same measurements. In my case, I happen to know that I'm usually eating about 2,200 per day and that maintains my weight. Hunger and how you process it depends on what you are eating and your gut biome, and exercise obviously.
I'm not saying it doesn't vary from person to person but I think it's much more likely to be down to miscalculation, just a few grams here and there making the difference.

Ay 63 I certainly don't. If I eat more than 1500 I start piling on the pounds. This worries me a bit as I don't know if I'm getting enough vitamins and minerals so I have to take supplements.

My maintenance calls are 2100, I am 5’9” so fairly tall and a medium build. If I eat 1600 I drop weight fast.

I think you are correct.

The guidelines on food stuffs that says on average a woman needs 2000kcal a day and a man 2500 is too simplistic.

It would be better not to have it at all or, an example of how to calculate your needs, or a range. But that's too complicated for a cereal box. I think the traffic light is quite good as a simple indicator of nutritional density.

But really education on how to determine your individual needs is vital, from a young age so that it becomes instinct rather than thought out. Not necessarily calorie requirements, but understanding nutrition and portion sizes for your frame and activity levels.

I fail to understand how any adult can eat 1200 calories a day without losing their motherfucking MIND. Unless you’re super teeny tiny and short and don’t do anything physical—but still!

I’m 5’4, lift weights, walk loads and am very fit (abs, muscly, toned) and I start to feel like dogshit if I go below about 1700. Usually eat 2000-2500. 2000 calories is touted like it’s a crazy high number but it isn’t really if you’re active.