AIBU to wonder if the recommended 2000 calories a day for women is too much?

[VenetiaLanyon]

I'm of an average build and height and exercise regularly, but would definitely put weight on if I ate this much every day. Anyone else?

So how much in grams is a normal spreading of butter type stuff on two slices?

According to a chart, that shows ideal calorie intake, for a woman to require 2000 calories a day she would need to be around 16 stone and aged between 18-29. 2000 is not even on the chart for ages 30 up. I can't believe this is the average of our population. Perhaps it is a mean average rather than a modal average.. Healthy intake for me would be around 1200. I am quite small but according to the chart I'd reckon that around 1300- 1600 would be a more suitable guideline.
I think its too difficult to give people helpful guidance on this though. People need to find out for themselves what is healthy for their individual height, weight, lifestyle, etc.

I think it would be helpful if on a Snickers Bar it said something like "If you eat me you will need to walk briskly for an hour and do 25 sit ups to make up for the calories I contain"

It tells me that with my exercise levels (3-4 runs and 1 swim per week), I could eat over 2K a day . I do understand about "hidden" calories but have kept food diaries in the past and definitely put on weight at over 1300. Those calculators say that's my basal metabolic rate (lying in bed all day!)

Dieting doesn't work. Eat a variety of foods, whatever you fancy, stay reasonably active and stop fretting about it. Being thin is not compulsory.

Blimey, using that calculator I'd need 2330 calories a day to maintain! I wish, cake is on me...

If calorie amounts are given out as (unexplained and unqualified) guidance, and actually they're inappropriate for a significant number of people, then they're not helpful and could be harmful for those struggling to lose weight.

Should add, I'm 5 10 and have a bmi of 21.9. Can't be right can it

Not all calories are equal.

2000 calories of bread, pasta, cake and crisps isn't the same as 2000 calories of eggs, full fat yogurt, meat, veg, nuts, cheese.

Obviously it's not the case for everyone, but most people do tend to underestimate the amount of calories they're eating. I'm certainly guilty of this - eating more than a handful of pasta at a time, for example, cutting a big hunk of bread off the loaf rather than a "standard" slice, or pouring a large-ish glass of wine rather than a 125ml pub measure.

At the same time, not that many people do the recommended amount of exercise. Personally, when I've been doing an awful lot of exercise - ie hard marathon training, instead of my standard a 5k lor 10k jog four times a week - I've been able to eat and drink what I want and not gain weight.

But when I eat what I think is a "normal" amount (probably around 1800-2000 calories) and I'm not doing hard exercise, the weight starts creeping on.
This could well be because my estimate of 1800 calories is more like 2,200 calories by the time the odd dollop of homous or handful of Maltesers is taken into consideration, and it only takes a little to tip the balance.

I think if I ate an AVERAGE of 2000 calories per day, I'd probably be OK. However, although I do think I eat about 1800 on a normal day, I do sometimes go over this by 200-300 calories (too much wine, cake, chocolate etc) which is why, if I'm not careful, I can easily put on a couple of pounds on in a month.

Like today. I've just got back from the gym and ate 2 thick slices of banana cake . God knows how many calories consumed there, and that was just a snack. And yes, since I turned 40, soooo much more difficult to lose weight.

Also, people waaaaaay overestimate how many calories exercise burns off. It's really not as much as you think. Exercise is better at maintaining weight than aiding weight loss.

Am I the only one who hasn't a clue how many calories I have a day?

I always stay around the same weight, which is fine, but other than calculating the calories in everything I eat (which I wouldn't have a clue how to do) how do I know?

I think it's probably done on the average size of people across a whole country, and so if you're on the short side it'll be too much for you.

I say this because in Italy food packets say 1800 for women and 2350 for men, and we're a pretty short bunch.

As people are more sedentary, it would be more helpful to have guidelines which reflect this e.g. eat 1200 calories if you're going to be sitting down for most of the day etc. Clearly you ideally want people to exercise, but this isn't an ideal world...

No way could I eat 2000 cals and not put weight on..........I do loads and loads of exercise and have about 1200 cals.

I had to see a dietican/nutrionalist after being ill.

She worked out that i need 1700 a day to still heal myself.

I have seen her since and i should now eat around 1400, to maintain my weight and exercise to lose weight.

I'm 5'2 and weigh 7 stone 7lbs and I eat ATLEAST 2000 calories a day. So for me it seems the right amount. I do intensive Zumba twice a week and do lots of walking as I don't drive so I am pretty active, plus I still BF so burn a couple of hunderd calories there too. I do eat healthy food mainly though, although I am partial to sweet things, but meals are always a wholegrain carb and protein with lots of veg.
but calories are calories whether you get them from junk food or healthy food IMO.

The 'recommended' amount of calories chart comes from WW2 & has not been amended. It was worked out during the rationing years that this was the amount of calories the average woman had to consume in order to stay healthy, as obviously food was in short supply & rationing meant reducing food intake but also making sure you got enough of the right foods so you didn't get ill. Remember that during these times women did a lot of manual work in the factories & on farms so yes it probably is too much for today's women who don't expend that amount of energy a day :)

It seems to be for me - if I stick rigidly to 2000 calories a day, I would gradually gain weight. If I eat more than 2000 calories a day, interspersed with a week every so often of a very low calorie diet (600 calories a day), I lose weight and/or stay slim, depending on how long I do the low calorie diet for.

For years I have been criticised for doing this, although I have remained a size 8/10. Yet now there are various studies and doctors actually proclaiming it as a healthy way to stay slim, ward off diabetes, etc..

I'm pretty sure its because your metabolic rate adjusts to your eating patterns.

I just checked the NHS website, and it says "2,000 calories a day. These values can vary depending on age and levels of physical activity, among other factors. However, instead of focusing on how many calories you consume each day, to maintain a healthy weight you should:

?eat a healthy, balanced diet

?take part in physical activities - for more information, see Live Well: how much exercise?

?balance the amount of calories you eat with the amount of calories you burn"

The early part of the advice about not counting calories seems to directly contradict the last sentence!

It's way too much for me - I lost at 1200 and am maintaining at 1500 - I'm 5'6 and 9st 6lb, roughly size 10, sometimes 12 depending on shop and style.

As to whether all calories are equal, it's a matter of fierce debate on My Fitness Pal. I've found that as far as losing weight goes, it is as simple as energy in v energy out. If I eat fresh, healthy, sensible food I feel better, sleep better, have clearer skin and shinier hair, so it's clearly doing my body more good than lots of takeaways, wine and chocolate biscuits, but it doesn't affect the rate at which I lose weight.

(Lost 1.5 stone over 3 months using MFP to count calories.)

If I cut the carbs the weight seems to melt away. Only ever lost pitiful amounts doing actual calorie counting.

GirlWithALlamaTattoo, MFP calorie-counting plus exercise also worked for me; lost 2 stone in 10 months.