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?

Salads can be highly calorific. Dressing, olives, avocado, cheese, nuts/seeds, croutons, it all adds up.

I've lost 7 stone and not counted a single calorie. I did have to become more portion size aware though, and cut down on snacks/alcohol/high calorie foods - so I reduced calories instinctively without having to count or log anything.

I've never been a huge junk food addict but even eating "clean" can be very high in calories. Handfuls of almonds, nut butter, avocado, smoothies, coconut oil, granola and "healthy" snacks like those protein ball things are very calorific, add a couple of lattes in a day and a couple of glasses of wine and I was eating way more than I needed. I got to my peak weight when DH was eating "paleo".

I'm now 9 stone and very active walking 20,000 plus steps a day and working out 6 days a week and am eating much more than I did when I was losing weight, no idea how much though. I go by my hunger and energy levels. I've maintained for a couple of years, don't see that changing.

I have no idea how many calories I eat. If you eat mostly homemade food, how do you even go about accurately counting??

It's easy when you're used to it, I have a set of my own recipes and the key point is to weigh out the ingredients.

Crisps1. I do LCHF. I’ve been eating that way for about 3 months. I have lost a stone. However if my cals go over 1200, I don’t lose. I need to still stick to around 1200 to see any loss. Plus I’m sedatary and around 5ft.

This way of eating does help balance blood sugar, repair a fatty liver and generally stop food cravings.

Fantastic progress Chimp’. How long did it take? How long to lose the last 2 stones? (That’s what I’ve left to lose)

I'm slim...a uk size 10. Don't know what I weigh or how many calories I eat a day.

I suspect it's under 2000 though/.

Banana for breakfast, coffee with skimmed milk and one sugar. Lunch...often don't have any or if I have time, then I eat a vegetable soup or curry and often with rice or bread. Dinner I might have a thin beef sandwich with salad. Or chicken curry.

I eat ONE main meal a day. If I've had curry for lunch then probably won't eat dinner.

If no lunch or just snack, then I eat dinner. Whatever I like...but lean towards lean meat or fish with veg and a serving of carbs.

Sometimes I have cake...or icecream. About three times a week. I walk everywhere as can't drive.

There was a post on here a little while ago and everyone was saying 2000 calories was too much and it should be lowered to 1200. So you can't please everyone.

Well no you can't please everyone because if I ate 1200 calories a day I would end up severely underweight. To some extent at least different people need different amounts.

I agree with you OP. I think one of the issues is that many overweight people underestimate how many calories are in meals so they think they are eating fewer calories than they are. I'll never forget woman who I used to sit next to at work telling me a takeaway chicken chow me in was 500. O...K... then.

I don't think 2000 calories is difficult to eat at all although I'm not disputing that the average person doesn't need that many.

I don't agree that a calorie is a calorie either.

The Atkins diet (although not necessarily healthy) definitely works despite being able to eat as much protein as you like and quite a lot of fat- no way is that low calorie but you still lose weight because you avoid carbs/sugar. Sugar is undoubtedly the biggest cause of weight gain.

I'm not disputing that the average person doesn't need that many.

I disagree. A small woman doesn't. But it's about individuals. 2000 is about right for me, I'm 5'10 10 3/4 stone ish so am a fairly average-sized adult if you take birth men and women.

I agree 2000 calories is very easy to eat or go over if you're not focusing on low cal low fat food. And many people don't understand what constitutes a healthy diet or adequate portion sizes.

I'd also say for many woman 2000 calories a day will lead to weight gain. I think the guidance is wrong and for women it should probably be closer to 1500. Of course some women will need more due to height or lifestyle and some women will need less for the same reasons, but 2000 is probably a misleading stat and too high.

Is it easy to eat though, sure it is. Add some crisps, full fat yoghurt. Chocolate, peanut butter on your toast, and you're there basically. It might not even be daily. People can eat properly through the week, then at the weekends it's booze, big Sunday roasts and takeaways and they are way over for the week.

I think the challenge is the things that increase the calories in food often aren't what people think.

DH lost a lot of weight a few years ago with My Fitness Pall, but it wasn't about restricting calories so much as spending a month or so logging everything, figuring out how much he was eating (some days it was 3500 calories) and switching out the unhealthy and surprisingly high calorie stuff for lower options. He was on 1700 calories for a while and after a month or so there were days when at ten o clock at night he was struggling to identify a 200 calorie snack because he was under his intake and not v hungry. But prior to that he could eat 3500 calories and still be hungry.

The thing is, carbs and oil are v high in calories and most of our meals are based around them. Vegetables really aren't. We were having veg curries with lentils instead of rice for dinner, made with a carefully measured out teaspoon of oil, and a huge portion was working out at 300 calories. Prior to this, he would often eat a tub of hummus and several pitta in his office as a snack. When he counted it, it turned out that was an extra thousand calories a day- of food he barely registered eating.

The challenge now I think is so much eating out means we no longer are as in tune with what we're eating, and regular dieting makes it harder. I've never dieted: I put on a bit of weight at Christmas, or on holiday, then I lose it over several months. I'm a size 12 and have been within about half a stone, give or take, of the same weight for my whole adult life. This is entirely because I feel full easily, and my body seems able to self regulate itself, rather than because I exercise any self control. For others, including my husband, maintaining a healthy weight requires huge self discipline and calorie counting, and that is really difficult.

He was on 1700 calories for a while and after a month or so there were days when at ten o clock at night he was struggling to identify a 200 calorie snack because he was under his intake and not v hungry.

So why didn't he just go to bed?

My husband is on a strict 1800 calorie a day regime, he records EVERYTHING it's extremely tedious.
He has lost quite a bit of weight.
However he is having pretty normal meals tbh, obviously avoiding high calorie foods.
But he's not snacking at all which takes a lot of willpower. Also he needs his dinner every day by about 6.30pm.

@Talkinpeace

Thanks for mentioning TDEE, that does show how different we all are. I need 1298 if sedentary and would have to be an athlete to need 2000 calories a day, which explains why I'd find it tough.

Would recommend everyone to look at this, though your link didn't work so I've added the one I use
tdeecalculator.net/

Because I am actively looking to lose weight i do count everything. But you get to the point where you know how many calories are in a sandwich, how much a 30g portion of cereal looks like so it becomes easier. For homemade meals you can put the ingredients into the recipe section of mfp and it will work out the calories for you. I've lost 9lbs in 5 weeks. Ds2 has lost 12lbs.

We eat pretty well but the Dc are not great with veg so have more fruit. I'm trying a quorn Bolognese later to save a few calories without losing protien. As over 50s and teenagers in the house, our protein needs are higher than average.

According to that I need 2019,I know this would increase my weight.Since menopause I have put weight on eating the same food as normal and same exercise/activities.

Thanks for mentioning TDEE, that does show how different we all are. I need 1298 if sedentary and would have to be an athlete to need 2000 calories a day, which explains why I'd find it tough.

We are indeed so different - I need 1898 if completely sedentary (which I'm not - I walk my 10,000 steps a day and then exercise three times a week) at my ideal weight (it takes more to maintain my actual weight, which at a BMI of 25.5 is a little overweight), according to that calculator. Which is why 2000 can leave me a bit hungry, and surviving on 1200 seems pretty unrealistic to me, certainly as a permanent lifestyle rather than an occasional very sparse day. We are indeed all very different!

I disagree. A small woman doesn't. But it's about individuals. 2000 is about right for me, I'm 5'10 10 3/4 stone ish so am a fairly average-sized adult if you take birth men and women.

But the 2000 calorie recommendation is for women only. For men it is higher. And at 5'10 you are definately not average for women. So I think the original point still stands.

At 5 foot 4 with moderate exercise TDEE comes out at a shade under 2000 for me. So in terms of averages, the suggestion of 2000 for an average sized women doing a recommended amount of physical activity seems about right.

The fact that many people are sedentary is the bigger issue.

The point is professional that it is individual, you cannot give a recommended number of calories for 'people' or 'men' or 'women'. It's a daft way of managing weight anyway because if you cook ingredients then life is too short to make every meal into a maths exercise.

I am hypothyroid and it is not advised to eat less than 1400 calories a day because the underactive thyroid needs the calories to support its function.

I'm 5'9. Mine comes out under 2000, can't remember exactly as it was last week and brain is like seive. I'm 51 though and she makes a difference. Being past the menopause reduces required calories. This is the reason for middle age spread. We continue to eat as we always have but our needs are less. Now I have a stone and a half to lose. Just a few rounds to get into normal weight category though.

Remember too that the calculation will be higher for those who who are overweight already so it isn't giving you the recommended calorie intake, but what you need to eat to maintain your present weight

My calculation was with a BMI of 22 and age of 36.

So 5 foot 4, moderate exercise, healthy weight, not particularly young or old = 2000 calorie requirement

I don't care what the calculations say Paris I know my own body.

Tbh I do eat 50 calories a day, but is mainly consists of bags unwashed spinach. It's hard going getting all my calories, but I think chewing uncooked veg burns a lot of calories as I only weigh 3 stone and am a size 0. Some days I supplement the spinach with the white of hard boiled eggs...