To think 2000 calories a day really isn't very much

[Drqedwa]

I was sat in a restaurant today and noticed almost all the dishes were around 500-800 calories for the salad and low calorie options. The normal dishes (pasta, grilled dishes) were around 1000 calories. This wasn't a greasy take away but a Greek restaurant which uses only fresh ingredients.

I eat healthily but I eat more than 2000 calories a day. I maintain a healthy weight which may be due to the fact I'm fairly active and the calories I eat are from healthy food.

I can easily see how do many people are overweight as it's very easy to go over the 2000 calories mark.

A bowl of porridge with fruit, rice salad, protein bar and banana and for dinner lamb roast dinner and I'm already over the 2000 mark. That's not factoring in the lattes I had or the flapjack after dinner!

I would be so hungry if I reduced how much I eat. How do people manage to routinely eat less than 2000 calories? For me to achieve that I would have to record everything I eat.

Obviously I'm a healthy weight so I'm doing just fine. But AIBU to think 2000 calories a day really isn't much and we've lost sight of what a normal days worth of food looks like?

I had a go at working out how many calories I ate yesterday. It was about 2,300 ish. The most calorific item was a cheese sandwich, which was over 800.

I think if I cut out the fat content of what I eat, my calorie consumption would plummet - but I would then be hungry before the next meal was due and might be tempted to snack on something sweet and sugary. The fat keeps me ticking over until the next meal and is a healthier option than sugar imo.

To answer HuskyMcClusky and Bluntness100, no I'm not overweight; I weigh 8st 2lb.

The most calorific item was a cheese sandwich, which was over 800.

That seems really high. Did you make the sandwich yourself?

But there's hunger and hunger, isn't there? I found that when I took antidepressants the way I experienced hunger really changed. My GP said 'oh, they don't make you put on weight, they just increase your appetite. You're putting on weight because you're eating more - if you eat the same you won't gain weight.' And, obviously, this was true. But I've never known hunger like it before. Usually, I can easily forget to eat lunch if I'm very busy - mild hunger is a feeling I can ignore and carry on. For the two years where I took these antidepressants when I got hungry it was consuming - I couldn't think of anything else until I'd eaten. I have a very mentally demanding job, and if I hadn't started snacking more I wouldn't have been able to get through my day.

For me it was a temporary state (that was completely worth it for the improvement in my mental health) but I don't think it's implausible that just as we all experience pain differently, some people do feel hunger much more intensely than others.

Marg I was antidepressants for a short time, had to stop taking them because of the increase in appetite, I was waking in the night and feeling hungry to the point I couldn’t sleep unless I ate something.

I think hunger can be mistaken for boredom and thirst. When I’m really busy I can easily forget to eat lunch but if I’m at home alone with not much to do I’m constantly thinking about what I can eat next.

Looked in the mirror this morning and I have gained a bit over the past few weeks, I know it’s due to the weather and not keeping busy enough, in the summer I will walk a lot more and be out in the garden not thinking about food as much. Even though I am exercising most days at the gym I am probably eating too much. I’m not over weight by any means (have been a size 10/12 for a few years now) but could do with losing half a stone around my thighs and tummy.

I'm never too sure about the calories they assign to meals at restaurants. They sometimes seem extremely high and I wonder if it is based on a much larger portion size than they actually serve. Either that or they may just deliberately overestimate so that they don't get in trouble for underestimating.

I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that restaurants are routinely overestimating - I think, in fact, that they're almost certainly doing everything to avoid this. While restaurant food is often more calorific, as they add a lot more butter and cream than you would at home, I also think people are often underestimating the calories in their home-cooked meals. Do it measuring every splash of oil, actually weighing the ingredients rather than assuming you're using the portion the packet says, and the results can be shocking.

It can also be hard to get good calorie estimations unless you look hard. For instance, I just googled 'calories in two slices of bread'. The result highlighted by Google at the top of the page - which most people would take as their answer - is 106 calories, but that's for two very thin slices. Two slices of medium-sliced - so, what most people actually buy - is double that. I used to use My Fitness Pal and you'd notice that people had put in hugely differing calories for the same thing - and it was pretty tempting to always use the lowest one!

I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that restaurants are routinely overestimating - I think, in fact, that they're almost certainly doing everything to avoid this.

Not necessarily. The large chains may be wary of underestimating as if found out this could lead to bad publicity.

While restaurant food is often more calorific, as they add a lot more butter and cream than you would at home, I also think people are often underestimating the calories in their home-cooked meals. Do it measuring every splash of oil, actually weighing the ingredients rather than assuming you're using the portion the packet says, and the results can be shocking.

I don't know what other people do but I doubt that I personally underestimate. I have only counted a few times but it usually adds up to around 2,000. I doubt that I eat more than that.

It's been shown scientifically that the average adult needs around 2800 calories a day.

However we don't live in a lab so some of us will need more than that and some of us fewer.

The danger is that we may go too low in search if that perfect body. Our ancient brain then kicks in as it thinks we are starving and....oh my goodness....we live in an obesogenic environment with plenty of high calories food

It's why dieters who go too low inevitably regain the weight.

It's why dieters need to play around with their calorie intake to find what's best. Much of the latest advice is that to lose weight successfully you need to be aiming for 0.5-2lbs a month. That way your body doesn't feel hungry and send you off to McDonalds.

I notice that too Margaret and packets can be misleading and you need to be very very careful with pasta as mostly it gives the calories for the cooked weight not the dty weight. The 100g figure is invariably the cooked amount which is approx 40g of dry. Chicken drumsticks are another - the pack will only give you the amount for 100g as eaten but unless you strip the meat from the bone then you don't know, plus i would remove the skin so it's hard too. The packets also sometimes give weird portion sizes. e.g. nandos spice pack will give the calories per portion with the portion being the same size as the pack, but its a rub that will feed 4 or more.

Bread you need to be really accurate with the bread type too as it can vary from about 88 calories per slice to around 110 and this is packet sliced bread, when you get uncut loaves then even weighing it doesn't help that much. Cheese is generally about 100 per 25g, that isn't very much so if you cut a thick slice and have it on two slices of uncut bread or thick sliced then add in spread etc. then you could be looking at 500+ calories.

Packaging can be deceiving, I bought a ready made curry from Asda last week (one from the chilled section), asumed it was a meal for one, the calorie count in the front looked reasonable at just over 350, when I checked on the back it was double that, the 350 was just for half the curry, I asumed it was a meal for one but apparently not, it was based on if you were sharing it. So for the whole thing (which wasn’t very big, small take away container) it was 700cal . Most packaging say how much it is per portion, this is often 100g, it’s easy to misread and eat double what you are meant too.

I’m making my own curry today and I have no idea how to work out the calories or portion sizes, when cooking from scratch it’s hard to work it out as I don’t weigh things out, everything in the curry is healthy (no fat, no dairy, chicken breast). It’s a SW recipe which has no syns, I’m not following SW but use their recipes sometimes, when on SW you are basically told you can eat as much syn free food as you like, there’s no counting or real portion sizes.

I know Ilove and if you add rice (even a modest portion) then your curry will then be at least 800 calories.

If you know what the recipe is you can look it up on MFP as chances are someone will already have added it. Or go into the recipe section and add a recipe, you just need to paste/type in the ingredients and how many portions and it will work it out for you - you need to be careful as it sometimes says it's identified it correctly but when you look its put down a kilo of butternut squash instead of a teaspoon of baking powder! :o

Small changes can make a decent difference though, especially with oils and fats and cheese and rice/pasta. having a bit less of all these things would probably do the trick for most people with just a little to lose.

I used to just chuck in a 500g bag of pasta for the 4 of us. Now I weigh out 100g each if its the main part of the meal - e.g. spag bol or about 75-80g if it's a side dish with chicken or something. What I then tend to do is not dish it evenly so I have a little less and DS1 and DH have a little more. I used to dish every meal up 4 ways equally which is mad really as obviously my need of calories being the smallest and only female, are a lot less.

The large chains may be wary of underestimating as if found out this could lead to bad publicity.

What, worse publicity than every person who comes in seeing an inflated total on their menu and thinking their food is worse for them than it is? Sorry, but you're kidding yourself if you think that chains would want to make their food look more calorific than they know it to be.

Waxon I found that the main thing I took away from calorie counting when I stopped doing it (I'm pregnant now so not dieting) was to always weigh out both pasta and rice. My natural inclinations weren't miles above the 'right' portion - around 100g dry weight rather than 75g - but that's over 100 calories right there, and I don't notice the portion being smaller.

When trying to work out my chicken drumsticks yesterday, I eventually used the figure for a Nandos drumstick as it looked neither the highest or least and the drumsticks I had looked medium to small. I used nandos spice on them too so felt it was likely to be the most accruate. I took the skin off mine though so they were probably less than that.

I would imagine that restaurants- especially chains will be reasonably accurate and more consistant than most. in a non chain place then it can be down to which chef is on as to how much butter/cream they've chucked in even though they will try to maintain consistency from a cost per portion pov.

I find the amount of rice looks tiny as I'd obv been overdoing that rather than the pasta so much. We like our carbs, DS2 in particular loves cheese so he is missing that but I've got some slightly lower fat stuff so he can have a bit on some crispbreads without it looking like I've shaved it from the block so thinly he can see the crispbread through it.

If you eat at a restaurant or take away the calories will be way higher

Just totted up what I’m planning to eat today and it would be just short of 2000 cals (1950):

-2x oat milk latte (made at home with nespresso machine)
-1x slice of toast with peanut butter and banana

• spicy bean burger in whole meal pitta with vegan mayo, sweet chilli sauce, 1/2 avocado and rocket
• green smoothie made with coconut water, kale, spinach and mango
• oat milk latte
• black bean chilli (black beans, tomatoes, onions, red pepper, chilli, paprika, olive oil) with baked sweet pot and 1/2 avocado

I think that’s all pretty healthy! If I have a few raspberries and blueberries with coconut yoghurt as a pudding after supper, I would go over! I could lose the lattes and save some cals, but coffee is my only vice (don’t drink) and I really enjoy them.

I am 35, 5ft 6in and currently about 10lbs overweight. Interestingly, I have lost weight eating this way, despite it being fairly high in cals. I sometimes eat more than this too. I walk my dog and do yoga several times a week - no high impact exercise.

It's been shown scientifically that the average adult needs around 2800 calories a day.

I googled that and that's the number for "moderately active" men, for women it's 2000.
www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Good-nutrition-Should-guidelines-differ-for-men-and-women

What, worse publicity than every person who comes in seeing an inflated total on their menu and thinking their food is worse for them than it is? Sorry, but you're kidding yourself if you think that chains would want to make their food look more calorific than they know it to be.

Not everyone is on a diet or counting calories though. Some people don't care that much especially if they only eat out very occasionally. Those that do will probably just have a salad or something else which is seriously overpriced....

I'm eating out this week with friends and I'm mid diet. I'm hoping for gammon, mash and peas or something on the menu rather than salad, salad can be deceiving too. We booked the place staright after we last met up and before I went on this diet or otherwise would have chosenn elsewhere maybe. Anyway, I won't let it spoil my night. I'll try to choose wisely and I wont have dessert but otherwise it's one night and I don't go out often. We don't drink as everyone (except me will be driving), I can walk which will help!

Margaret I agree about weighing pasta and rice. I weigh out 75g and it seemed tiny at first but I soon got used to it and now that is the correct weight for me.I also weigh out cheese and measure out oil and butter when I'm cooking, I use 1 teaspoon per portion, 45 cals. Other things that people tend to underestimate is butter on bread or toast - some people really spread it on thickly, and drinks.

What struck me little peas is how many of your calories you are drinking (3x lattes and a smoothie in one day). It is well known that the body "doesn't recognonise" calories that are drunk in the same way as those which are eaten...

champagne thats a very interesting link. I didn't realise excess protein could lead to osteoporosis.

Other things that people tend to underestimate is butter on bread or toast - some people really spread it on thickly, and drinks.

Yes, and again advertised calorie counts don't help here. A tub of butter will tell you that a portion is 7g - who knows what that looks like? So people assume that's what they've had, when often they'll have had considerably more than this.

Yes noeffing I've changed to a softer spread so I can spread it more thinly as I still like the bread to have a coating of some sort when having a sandwich. becasue we've switched to a thinner bread it also stops it ripping when spreading.