To think 2000 calories a day is a crazy amount of food.

[HairsprayBabe]

The government guidelines are just not helpful when it comes to reccomending a healthy calorific intake. I have been dieting for the past 6 months and am proud to say I have lost over 4 stone not so stealth stealth brag

But anyway, the government recommends on average 2000 calories a day for women, even before I was watching what I ate I didn't eat that much (logged in MFP before diet proper started), and these days I would consider 1500 cals a treat day.

I know it is all linked to TDEE and BMR but I cannot believe that the average woman in the UK could happily eat 2000 calories a day and not gain weight! Where has this figure come from? It really is no wonder that obesity is on the rise.

So IABU is 2000 calories a normal amount of food or are my views skewed?

well done on your weight loss OP! [smiles]

I was a healthy weight all my life, but for the last 10 years or I've yo-yo'd between 9 1/2 stone - 15 stone. I hate not being in control of what I should be in control of. I know what I should do and what I should eat and am constantly angry with myself for not being able to do it

I know that when I feel depressed I comfor eat all the wrong foods. It's like a cycle I can't break.

But hearing stories like yours make me feel like I can do it. I'm just not sure how I'm going to, but I will.

I watched a youTube video once where a middle-aged slim woman was showing us her healthy diet to maintain her figure. It was only around 1400 calories, but certainly looked delicious and well-balanced.

The comments ranged from older women agreeing they had to do similar or face weight gain to teenaged boys who lived in the gym having a go at the woman for eating like a mouse! Sigh those boys had no idea about being an older menopausal woman. Why would they?

Still, they're in for a shock too if they think it'll always be so easy.

800 calories was NEVER the recommended amount for a woman, that is complete nonsense. 800 cals is a starvation ration, 1200 cals a day is the MINIMUM safe amount for women, without medical supervision.

I think Dulcimena is mistaken: I am 52 and cannot remember a time when 1000 calories was considered anything except a strict diet.

I am 5'2" and slight. 1500 calories maintains me at a slim weight, 8.7 or so. But if I eat what I want, I tend to stabilise at around 9 stones.

I would say 2000 calories is an awful lot of veggies and lean protein. But not a great amount of carby crap and alcohol.

1700 a day at my age (50s) (don't move much) keeps my weight as it is. 2000 therefore sounds right for more women (younger who tend to move more).

Before I was pregnant or breastfeeding I would eat between 2500 - 2800 to maintain my weight I walked a lot as I didn't have a car at the time and was on my feet all day in retail, but didn't do any other exercise. I definitely eat 2800+ now that i'm pregnant again and still feeding my toddler.

It is just a guide/ starting point, you need to know your own body, metabolism, exercise level and eat accordingly.

It is also more about the type of food and how it makes you feel not just the amount of calories, if i eat sugary snacky things of the same calories as a nice balanced meal I will crash about 2 hours later where as the balanced meal will gradually give me energy and I'm much happier.

Fascinating article. See how things change with age. Enjoy it while you can - I did

I disagree Charlotte is too thin though. I think she looks perfect!

www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/how-many-calories-you-really-2161639

Fair enough, I can't find anything to support what I said so I may well be mistaken. I definitely read something in print and prior to food labeling - it could potentially have been that 800 was recommended (by a journalist possibly!) for dieting.

However others are remembering 1500, so the figure has gone up in recent memory.

I've just done the calculator myself, and apparently I need just over 1500 to maintain. So that explains why my jeans are a bit tight

I am 5ft 1 and weigh 6 stone. The only exercise I do is 5 or 6 hours of dance a week. I maintain my weight on just under 1200 calories

Fuck me, I weigh double what you do (same height!!)

I know I am 3st too heavy but 6st is very light - and 5 to 6 hours of dance per week?

For me its 1300 cals to lose, 1800 to maintain.

Dulcimena

I distinctly remember 900 to 1000 calories for diet levels which is still considered lower than even diets would allow nowadays. Maybe it's that you were thinking of?

Why is it always women subjected to these sort of articles? Plenty of porky men around who could do with a bit of education about food.

Now it appears you are mocked and accused of 'showing off', 'stealth boasting ' etc if you state your low weight

No, I congratulated the OP on her weight loss. That is fantastic. But to say 1500 calories is a treat day and the amount of food that a lot of people eat is a "crazy amount of food". Sorry but if you were trying to make people feel self conscious and greedy you'd struggle to do a better job.

I am slim too - 9.5 stone and an 8/10 given you seem to think I like to "shame" slim people.

I tried the BBC link too - it told me that my BMI was 19.4 (sounds about right) and that I should eat nearly 1900 calories, which I think is a big high for me in practice. I'm in my 59s, and aim for about 1800 (more at weekends as they involve )

Yup 1000 calories for diets in the 80s for sure

I am 5ft 1 and weigh 6 stone. The only exercise I do is 5 or 6 hours of dance a week. I maintain my weight on just under 1200 calories.

manic, please see your GP - this is not normal. It sounds as though you have an eating disorder (5-6 hours of dance is quite a lot of exercise, and 1200 calories is not far off a starvation diet). Your BMI will be well into the underweight range.

I did an online metabolism calculation and apparently I only need 1,400 calories a day. I turned 40 recently and I noticed that my weight has crept up, so I'm trying to ensure that at least half my dinner plate is low carb vegetables.

Buy a tape measure, buy some calipers

Weight is an incorrect term anyway; it should be mass. Waistline not weight

Get out of your car and walk your children to school. I'm amazed at how many women who live within a 10' walk of the school near me drive their kids in (they then moan about lardy-arses and thunder-thighs) when the half-mile there and another half-mile back would be very good for them and very good for their offspring.

Lay off ' a large glass of wine' in the pub. That'll be 250ml, which is exactly one third of a bottle. Two of those in an evening equates to 4 x units of alcohol, or about a third of your proscribed weekly input.

Wine always used to be sold in 125ml glass size; 1/6th of a bottle, hence 6 glasses to the bottle. Pubs now sell 175ml as 'standard', lots of calories in there.

And only one person has noted that 3,000 calories a day was the wartime rationing amount (takes us back to driving everywhere I suppose)

Now it appears you are mocked and accused of 'showing off', 'stealth boasting ' etc if you state your low weight

Not at all, like the pp said, the problem here is an OP telling women that a perfectly normal intake of 2,000 cals a day is a CRAZY amount of food to eat, and that this is why everyone is fat.

IT's not the OP that is being shamed, she is the one doing the shaming. You have it arseways.

They used to recommend 2000 cals for a man and 1500 for a woman

I don't think they did. I think they used to recommend 3000 calories a day when people (men) did strenuous manual work. I have an old atlas that was published in the early 80s and it has a section on calorie intakes across the world, and the UK fell in the category of 3000 calories! It considered 2500 to be a bit under-nourished.

I'm 5'5, 35 and fairly active.

If I eat 2000 I'd gain weight easily. I need to stick to 1500 a day to keep a healthy BMI.

Most of the women I know of a similar age and height who are slim eat the same amount as me.

OP, you mention 'blow-outs' and say you do this very infrequently now. My guess is that in the past, you ate 1500 cals when being 'good' but had frequent blow-outs, which would have increased your average daily intake. Otherwise, it is unlikely that you would have been able to maintain a weight of 4 stone heavier than your current weight. I used to think that I did not eat a lot. I sat down with my takeaway receipts and honestly added it all up- I was eating around 3,000 cals a day on average rather than the estimated 1800 or so.

Also, for those that think that the body does not distinguish between 100 cals of carrot and 100 cals of cake, that thinking belongs in last century. It is simply not true and different foods have a hugely different effect on the body. It is virtually impossible to gain weight eating 2,500 cals of veg a day, but you would rapidly gain if eating 2,500 of refined carbs. Science has moved on since that nonsense was spouted.

I gain on 2,000 calories. But I think YABU to think it's an unrealistic figure to use. It's in our nature for these things to always be on a scale and I don't think the number has ever been pushed as a one size fits all suggestion, but rather as an exemplar.

How do people know this stuff? Why so obsessed with calories?
I would not know what 100 calories of ANYTHING looked like.

Yabu. MN is full of judgy fuckers congratulating themselves on how little they eat though so you aren't alone.

MN is full of judgy fuckers congratulating themselves on how little they eat though so you aren't alone.

Yup.

"Oh I ate a quarter of a salmon fillet and a broccoli florets and I am absolutely STUFFED, I simply can't fathom that anyone else might have a different appetite to me"

Bog off and have a pasty ffs.