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 am 38 ..., I have never followed a diet ... have butter full fat milk etc ... I dont have any low fat or low calorie products .,, normally such products have other nasties in them ...

Who really wants to follow a diet of eggs, soup and chicken for the rest of their lives ... jezzz ...

I think the other issue with generic calorie recommendations, has been highlighted by the secret eater points, most people underestimate their calorie intakes.

There was a program on Chanel four of whatever recently. I think it's how to diet well, and they tested all the calorie counting apps, inc my fitness pal etc and most of them were under. Some quite substantially.

So you can see why with a recommendation of intake that's too high and an underestimation of calories why some folks struggle to lose weight.

On a side note, I wouldn't be keen on a diet where I lost half a pound a week either, too slow for me. Plateaus are one thing and fine, but to lose only half a pound a week would not work for me personally. I prefer to see fast results.

I agree with you OP.

I think I probably eat a lot more than 2,000 calories a day! For breakfast I have cereal with lashings of double cream and full fat milk. I eat a 3 course lunch (usually soup, main then fruit for dessert). Then I have a meal in the early evening (usually duck, chicken or fish with lots of veg, with the veg often covered in tons of cheese) and a supper later on (usually cheese and tomatoes) and a few squares of dark chocolate. I rarely eat snacks between the meals.

I wonder how many calories that lot is!

80sMum, are you overweight?! Just that that sounds a lot.

I'm also curious if you're overweight or if you have a very active lifestyle?

Justoneme is also claiming to eat 5000-6000 kcal day but not be overweight or gaining weight.

I don't really believe either of them, but would love to see some numbers & science.

I watched a program on that once and they monitored the persons intake over a few days . The reality was they had days which were much lower and also reduced portion sizes so they weren't eating as much on an average day as they thought.

I thought it was less for women, I would even say it's a height / build / activity based calculation.

I'm all for eating what you want as it's your life. I spent a decade of adult life on every fad diet going, now I've given up I'm so much happier.

To lose weight 1,169, which is less than the 1200k that some people are giving as a minimum.

Have you worked out how to meet your nutritional requirements (minerals, vitamins, protein, fat for absorbing fat soluble vitamins) on 1167 cals?

If so, crack on. If not...

Also an age thing Daisy - when you hit menopause your body shape usually changes so any extra pounds goes straight on the belly.

lljkk

Mumsnet weight threads always seem to feature both people claiming to eat outlandish portions each and every day, and comments from others that wouldn't look out of place on a pro-ana board.

There is a surprising shortage of women who will admit to averaging 1800-2200 (depending on height, build and activity level). Mind you, if you naturally lead a balanced lifestyle that lands you in that range, I suppose you wouldn't have a need to tot up your calorie consumption, and so wouldn't be able to post about it!

"Have you worked out how to meet your nutritional requirements (minerals, vitamins, protein, fat for absorbing fat soluble vitamins) on 1167 cals?"

Um, no, I made it clear in my post that I was just quoting the website. Did you read my post properly?

Unless you weigh and measure absolutely everything that you eat then calorie counts are just an estimated. I bet a lot of people who think they are only eating 1200 calories a day are actually eating more than that.

"comments from others that wouldn't look out of place on a pro-ana board."

So you go on pro-ana boards? If not, how do you know?

Unless you weigh and measure absolutely everything that you eat then calorie counts are just an estimated.

Exactly.

I think there’d be less obesity if people didn’t count calories and use Fitbits, tbh.

"But that's not a healthy mindset for a diet at all. Everyone gets weeks where they plateau - and although it's usual to lose more at the beginning, you can't expect instant results."

I know what works for me.I don't mind weeks when I plateau, but I would need to see some progress to know I'm doing it right. If I didn't see anything, I'd think maybe I wasn't counting the calories correctly.

I felt I had read it. Another poster said it wouldn't be necessary to drop down that far to lose weight, and you said in a subsequent post that you thought it would, because otherwise your weight loss would be unsatisfactorily slow.

I feel that constitutes promoting eating beneath 1200 cals. 1200 calories is the famous nutritional minimum if you're not under medical supervision, because there is more to not damaging one's health on a diet than how much you lose a week. As well as limiting the calories that go in, you also need to maximise/maintain your nutritional consumption. The lower the calorie limit, the harder this is without professional support.

IMight - I wouldn't aim for less than 1200 just because when I calorie count it's approximate anyway. I don't even know how I'd be able to count 1169 as opposed to 1200.

I think I should be able to lose a pound a week on 1200, except for period weeks.

So you go on pro-ana boards? If not, how do you know?

Indeed I have done.

I suspect you thought this was a good point to pick up on, as a little way to cast a slur on my posts, did you? If so, I'm kind of cringing a bit for you.

I lurked on pro-ana boards a lot at one point, in order to develop insight into a close family member's behaviour. It helped a lot, actually. Sadly, she has now passed away, rather prematurely, as a consequence of a condition she developed as a result of malnutrition; that is, an unbalanced diet not just too little of it.

As I said in my second post on this thread, it is a matter of principle with me to highlight dietary misinformation, as well as a direct debit to the relevant charities.

But the science is based on flawed experiments many times. The famous 1,200 calorie quote is based on the crap diet of prisoners of war.
With the range of foods available today you could eat healthy meals with high nutrionially content on way less calories.

Can you do so without professional supervision, Somewhere?

And do you think people reading claims about the safety of sub-1200 diets go off and employ dieticians to develop a plan?

(Incidentally, for men the figure is 1500, not 1200.)

I disagree totally. I don't think 2000 is that much. (Isn't it now accepted that we never should have been eating as many as 2000?)
It's surprising how quickly calories add up.
I log on MFP and I'm regularly surprised how quickly a salad becomes 600 etc. Add a glass of wine and a treat of a biscuit of a cake and you have a lot of calories.

I saw that one, Bluntness. The programme actually really annoyed us as at the beginning it seemed to make out that the people they were following had some amazing secret / metabolism, when it actual fact it was just balancing high intake with low intake days. And the claim that they did 'no' exercise actually turned out to be bullshit as he was walking and doing something else, and she was actually fairly active too because of her job! It was 30 minutes of totally non-TV! #over-invested

Bugger. Just spotted this

on way less calories.

Well, this depends what you mean by way less, but I think this might be a good time to discuss BMR, or basal metabolic rate.

This is the quantity of energy you need if you literally don't move and just lie in bed watching reality TV. I find some people are surprised by how much it is. Even if I don't do any voluntary movement today, my heart must beat to keep me alive, my kidneys must process my waste, my lungs take in air, and my liver does its neat detoxing thing.

On this page, you can see a table of sugg calorie requirements for these major organs: bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html/

If I add up just the table figures for the brain, liver, heart and kidneys I will get:
(1.8×200)+(1.4×240)+(0.3×400)+(0.3×400)=936 calories. That doesn't include lungs, muscle tissue, fat tissue, getting up to go to the toilet, or going downstairs to make lunch.

Obviously, the table does not provide concrete figures for each and every one of us, being as we are different sizes, but it's illustrative of the concept that being alive consumes energy.