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?

Looks like recommended amounts for children are 1800 according to the BBC article; this is probably also not helpful...

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

It depends on what you mean by dieting.

If you you mean changing your eating habits to be healthier for your weight, heart etc long term then yes of course it works.

If you mean following some ridiculous restrictive plan where you only eat carrots for a fortnight and then give up and gorge on takeaways and mars bars because you feel so deprived, then no it doesn't.

I think it's about right. I'm five feet 1 and maintain on about 1800 a day. When I was on a diet last year I lost loads of weight on 1300 a day. I found it amazing how all the extras such as milk in coffee or relish add up.

Have had a look on MyFitnessPal, which someone mentioned and which I'd never heard of before.

It tells me that at current weight/height/age and basic activity (sedentary job) I would only lose 0.7lb a week on 1,200 cals a day. So to maintain my weight I'd only need about 1,300 if I didn't exercise.

With exercise you get more calories - e.g. I got an "extra" 191 today - but even taking regular exercise that only takes me up to 1,500ish to maintain weight - still well under the 2000. And I'm 7lb overweight right now, so presumably if I were slimmer I'd need even fewer calories to avoid piling it on.

But I'm going to give MFP a go, in case I've been underestimating the calories I eat. Looks interesting .

It's pretty individual though. I'm a bit overweight (not a lot - BMI of 26, but I'd look better without the wobbly bits), but I'm also 6ft tall and my metabolism is a bit nuts. I eat too much chocolate and crisps, end up eating way over 2000cal a day and thus don't lose weight (and it's crept up to this BMI of 26 very slowly from an unhealthy 17 over a period of 8 years). However, I decided I wanted to lose aforementioned wobbly bits earlier this year and went on a 1500 cal a day diet. I was miserable. Kept nearly fainting with hunger. I picked a good diet, full of healthy things that are also tasty and that doesn't have 'forbidden' foods, just everything in moderation - still miserable. According to that BMR calculator though I'd use more than 1500 cal in a day just sleeping though, no wonder I was miserable!

Something like MFP or weightlossresources will give you a more precise maintenance level based on your height, weight and activity level. I'm quite tall and slimmish with an office job and need about 1750 cals a day to maintain my weight, before taking into account exercise. On a good week, I would do exercise burning 400-500 cals 3 times plus 100-200 cals of walking most days, so over the course of that week, 2000 cals a day wouldn't be that far off for me,

I think I eat about 2500 a day, about 50% being Chocolste/snacks/puddings...I'm a size 10 and barely ever exercise, guess I'm lucky!!

That BBC article annoyed the crap out of me.

Bare in mind it quotes the following:
Tam Fry, chairman of the Child Growth Foundation and spokesperson of National Obesity Forum, agrees.
"When trained health workers find it hard to pick out an average-weight child then you have to start to think we've got a problem and it's bigger than just what parents do."

And then its peddling even more unhelpful 'facts'.

Those guidelines are total bollocks and really unhelpful for pretty much everyone.

People are individuals not average blobs of humanity.

I need at least that to maintain my weight. I must be the other end of the scale.

I thought it was 2500! Oops.

I need 2100 a day to maintain my weight, but I'm overweight. When I'm at a normal weight I need about 1800 a day. If I was more active it could be 2000 but I'm a lazy bint.
2000 is fine for tall, active women who aren't trying to lose weight. It's also fine for short, lazy, chubby women who also aren't trying to lose weight :)

My calculations came from www.weightlossresources.co.uk by the way, although I use mfp. Mfp's calorie allowances are way low, and as I used wlr successfully for a year before DS I'm happy to trust their sums.

www.weightlossresources.co.uk

I burn about 2400 cals a day so I could eat 2000 but tend not to. Ordinarily I would have no clue how many cals I was consuming but i do at the moment because I am using an app and bloody weighing all my food. I shouldn't be but have a control ishoooo presently.

Agree with the poster who said that most of us underestimate how many cals we have. Even a cup of tea has calories. Balsamic vinegar does too, for example! Everything that has passed my lips in the past week has been calculated in the app and it all mounts up.

All the people saying they eat only 1200/1300 a day on a regular basis. Really?

A sandwich is around 400 on its own, so assuming you eat breakfast (approx 200) that leaves you only 600 for your main meal and drinks (assuming you never eat snacks at all or even fruit)

This seems like a rather unhealthy lack of food to me.

Obviously people live on this for weeks/months when they are trying to lose weight but that is different.

I

Agree, domino! 200 is a small breakfast too. I can manage 1400 on a diet but I have to be very strict about snacks. People who eat like that regularly must have minuscule appetites.

Agree. They must eat quite plain food too as most sauces and dressings are high in calories.

I diet on 1000 calories a day ie cereal bar, apple, soup and a low calorie ready meal. I am however under no illusion that it is healthy or normal.

A lot of the averages to do with nutrition, included RDAs of vitamins etc were worked out just after the war, when people were far far more active than they are now. It's worth remembering that in 1950 the average woman walked everywhere, had to go to the shop daily, often had 3 or more children, had to wash everything by hand, often had a physical job like cleaning or factory work, didn't own a dishwasher, microwave or tumble drier and didn't have a computer or tv. Remember too that rationing had made people skinny and the emphasis of that time was on building yourself up, eating plenty of fat, not wasting food, basically the opposite of today.

2000 calories is probably far too much for your average 5 ft 6, half desk/half lady sofa loving creature of today. If you run three times a week though, then it's too little.

I would be enormous on 2000 cals a day (I am short and slim). I have been MFPing to get rid of half a stone of chips-and-ice-ceam-based summer weight; 1200 cals a day (net) which I have found quite doable. Porridge for breakfast, small roll or bagel with salad for lunch, decent vegetarian main meal but watching portion size. I am exercising most days plus the school run so have plenty of cals left over for light snacks. I drink water/herbal tea/diet coke and a glass of wine 1 or 2 times a week.

My maintenance allowance from MFP is 1650 cals, which I think is about right as long as I keep the exercise levels up.

I'm 5ft5, 12st2, maintaining my weight with a pretty sedentary lifestyle (due to disability) on 1,700 calories per day. I don't like feeling hungry, so I'm not going to lose weight!

I would like to be 10st2, for me I feel I'm 2st overweight, but honestly, I can't be arsed to deny myself HEALTHY foods and feel hungry ALL THE TIME to do so.

I guess not feeling starving hungry all day (still feel hungry for at least 8 hours in 24...) means more to me than being 10st and size 8 does now!

Domino, I love food but honestly do put on weight on more than that. And yes, it's pretty miserable. 600 cals is indeed the sort of amount I have for dinner unless I want to pile it on. The rest of my family are the same, so it isn't just me! We're all just over 5 feet tall and it's got worse as we get older.