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?

It's clear (in an admittedly non-scientific way) that it works for some, but not for most people, and yet these guidelines are frequently stamped on the food that supermarkets sell, and are surely highly confusing for those trying to eat a healthy diet that allows them (and their DC) to maintain a healthy weight.

Do we need a Mumsnet campaign to get this revised? I guess the supermarkets would be against such a change, as the current guidance could be seen as encouraging some people to buy more food than they need...?

It way too much for me, but I'm 5ft and a tiny bit. Infact I didn't lose weight on a weight loss plan once with 1200 per day :( I can only lose weight with low carb. I'm not sure I think it's all about calories.

Way too much for me too. I go most days on about 1200, often less.

When I was bf-ing and eating more I gained weight.

I'm 5'8 and 61kg, which is slightly overweight for me, pre kids I was 55kg and i want to get back to that so need to do some more activity.

Dominodonkey Thu 27-Sep-12 22:26:42

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.

Er, yes thanks I do and I do eat well and healthy. I just eat much smaller portions of the same to other people.

A sandwich being 400 calories is misleading. It depends on what you put in it, and how big it is. You can eat a small sandwich amazingly enough. You can even make a big one and save half of it for another occasion.

My main meal generally is around the 500/600 calorie mark, give or take.

I do snack. On both healthy stuff and on treats. I don't feel the need to tuck into an entire bar of chocolate though; I generally will have a few pieces of chocolate instead rather than devouring the entire lot.

I don't drink tea or coffee. If I have fruit juice it tends to be watered down. I used to drink unhealthy amounts of carbonated soda drinks which was my big failing, but I've kicked that now and eat a lot better on the whole as a result.

My biggest frustration about the whole thing is the automatic assumption that if you eat less than other people this makes you unhealthy or missing out on something or worst still, this word 'deprieved' pops up all the fucking time. No I just don't need as much as everyone else. I am teeny and I factor this in when eating and don't commit the mistake of comparing the amount I eat to everyone else because its not a competition which is the attitude that springs from a lot of people.

It means when I go to a restuarant I don't eat a portion size designed to be eated by a 6' 2" bloke. I eat until I am full and then stop. Or if I buy a ready meal (and therefore don't fully know whats in it) I keep an eye on the calorie content - as not all of them are designed for people like me - and again I don't eat the entire thing if I'm full.

The issue is eat everything in moderation. Moderation for me, is not the same as moderation for everyone else. Moderation for me, would be near starvation for my DH. That doesn't make it unhealthy in any way shape or form. It can be more difficult to do, as the world is not designed for small people, but its entirely possible.

I think a big difference must be appetite! I have to say I'm pretty miserable on 1,200, because my appetite is much bigger than that. That isn't the same as needing the food, though. If my appetite matched my food needs I'd be delighted! I know it isn't a competition but I do feel deprived - even though, physically, I'm not - preparing big meals every day for hollow-legged skinny teenagers and big skinny 6 foot dh and then getting only a tiny amount of it for myself. And when dh has finished his big meal and then heaps a supper plate with lovely cheese and biscuits, pours himself a glass of wine, I do compare. As you say, it's a "mistake", but an understandable one, I think.

Good post HmmThinkingAboutIt

There's the rub, Thedogdidit. DH eats WAY more than I do - happily drinks plenty of beer, has crisps and biscuits and cake much more regularly, and is very happy. BUT he is 6ft and 14-odd stone. I could choose to eat same as him but soon I would be fat and miserable. I would rather stay 9st and not bother with cakes.

DH is 6'2" and cycles daily to work. Means some days he need upwards of 4000 calories which makes things very difficult. We've worked out a way that suits us both. In restaurants its great; he's my bin. We order together, so I can some of everything I want and he finishes off the rest. Equally too, situations like the cheese and wine above, I'd have a nibble or a sip of his, precisely so I don't 'miss out'. During the week he eats more at work, so he's not eating constantly around me, when I'm not. I think this is the big falling down bit; if you have this attitude of 'deprived' you covert and crave what you don't have. Less is more so to speak.

Am still (although DD is 12mo and well on solids) so that makes a difference but at 5ft5inches and 11 1/2 stone I would lose weight on 2000 cals per day. Do no formal exercise but have 2 littlies to chase and walk about 15-20 miles a week.

Was losing 1/2-1 lb a week on 1800 cals. Maintaining now and def average 2000 cals per week at least. I think probably more.

I think I'd put on weight if I ate this many calories per day.

Still Bfing. Damn phone

Might get my dh to do a bit more of that, Hmm.

Thinking about it, I don't have any problem at all with dishing out bigger portions to the children - it's just dh. He's agreed just now to snack on Marmite sandwiches (which I hate) if he gets hungry, and if he has bigger lunches he won't want so much at dinnertime. I also like the approach to meals out, as I prefer to "picnic" than eat a huge portion of one thing.

I've decided to start the MyFitnessPal 1200 cal thing, partly through curiosity to see how far out my estimations are. I can't set it to a higher calorie count as even on 1200 it says I'd only lose 0.7lb a week. In practice I'll always be on more anyway because any exercise at all puts the daily count up. My theory is that I won't lose weight on that number of calories, but if I'm proved wrong I'll be delighted! Have already worked out that the cheese I was talking about has hugely more calories than I thought. I can save loads by cutting that on its own.

'In practice I'll always be on more anyway because any exercise at all puts the daily count up'

TheDog By that, do you mean that you will eat the extra calories that you have burned exercising?

MFP and WLR plan for you to eat exercise calories.

TheDogDidIt wow 1300 you poor soul :( I'm 5ft1 also, and at the mo I'm eating 1700 and loosing weight. What size are you? You must be really slim?

I wish, BurntToast! I'm 10st just now, so 7lb (ish?) overweight.

As I said, I've decided to try a fairly simple calories-in calories-out experiment using MFP. I've always assumed that I have a slow metabolism (have other, non-weight-related, reasons for thinking so). But I really hope that I've just been underestimating the number of calories in what I've been eating, because that would mean I could get down to a healthy weight, and I'd much rather do that than be right!

Waterlego, it gives you a number of calories you can eat each day, and how much weight you'll lose per week if you stick to that number of calories. The number is worked out using your height, current weight and (?) age, as well as your basic activity level. I do exercise, but have set my basic activity level at the lowest because my job is sedentary and exercise is all extra, IYSWIM. If I was, say, a waitress & on my feet all day, it would be higher.

So it tells me that on a basic day I can have 1200 cals per day and still lose 0.7lb a week. Any exercise I do above that basic activity level gives me"extra" calories which I can eat, if I want to lose weight at 0.7lb a week. Presumably if I wanted to lose weight faster I could skip those calories, but TBF that's such a low basic amount that I don't think I could stick to it and exercise as well.

I think there are threads here with lots of people doing MFP so I'm going to have a look at that.

Ah ok, thanks for the answer. I use an app to record calories eaten and expended. I often do 400 cals-worth of exercise but I regard that as extra weight loss opp and so don't eat those cals. I didn't realise you we're 'supposed' to but my head is all over the place with eating and exercise at the mo.

Not sure that it's really a "supposed to", although the calculations on it seem geared up to assume that you do eat the extra. I guess if you wanted to lose faster you could skip them. But I'm only testing a theory rather than trying for fast weightloss, so wouldn't be doing that.

I can eat more than 2000 calories a day, but then I'm almost 6 foot tall, and I'm fairly active.

I do eat mainly healthy food, no takeaways and very little processed stuff.

You are 'supposed to' eat exercise cals. The reason is that you shouldn't go under a net calorie intake of around 1100 a day. So if your daily allowance is 1200 and you burn 300 in exercise, you must eat at least 200 of those calories. The reason is that if you create too high a deficit you will not have enough calories for your body to function properly and your metabolism will slow in response, eventually starting to conserve fat and burn muscle for energy.

I eat about 2200 without gaining. A good proportion are from wine and chocolate i dont do much in the way of exercise although im about 7lb over weight.

To shift that excess half stone I need to be severe and drop my calories by almost half - weird

Thank you for that. Do you think you can have a bigger deficit if your overall intake is still over 1100 calories?

e.g my app has given me 1500 as a target and estimates that I will lose weight (albeit slowly) on that amount because I expend more than that in an average day.

My average expenditure is 2000-2400 and about 1700 intake. I'm thinking that's probably ok as it's still quite a lot of calories to be eating?! Sorry for all the inane questions.

Ah, thanks, Erik. That makes sense .

Yes water, that sounds fine. Basically (bear with me, I got a bit obsessive nerdy about this stuff) you can create a net deficit of up to 1000 calories per day, but should never go below a net intake of 1100. So if your maintenance calories, like me, are 2100 a day, I could safely go to 1100 a day unless I exercise on top, in which case I must eat them. However, if your maintenance cals are 2500pd you should not consume less than 1500pd net.
If you are going for a lower rate of loss, for eg cutting only 500pd, you can exercise without eating the extra cals as long as your net intake stays above 1100. So I aim for 1450pd, a deficit of 650. I could burn an additional 350 in exercise and not eat them, however anything above that I should eat.
Remember you can average it out across a 7 day period, you don't have to be spot on every day. Also remember that mfp is very low on the maintenance calorie calculations, so although it says you are set to lose 0.7lb per week it may be actually 1lb or more.

What's so magic about 1100?