To think that women don't actually need 2000kcal a day

[Croissantsfordinner]

I am barely losing weight eating 1600kcal a day and most of the people I know who are slim and fit definitely do not eat 2000kcal (I am referring to family, friends, colleagues, what I read here on MN and also celebrities diet, lol). So where does this guideline come from?
Unless you are almost an athlete, I don't think all those calories are actually needed, AIBU?

You doubt people eating more calories than required isn’t causing people to be overweight? What else would be? If you gain weight, and I do quite often, it’s because I am eating more than my body requires. Many people don’t know how many calories their body needs.

I agree, and I think the Government needs to advise people to check their TDEE, not give an average. Most of my friends are similar height to me, not all, but the average woman isn’t 5ft 9.

@Picklepower can you explain more about metabolism and how it is affected by dieting?

I think she means that women believe they MUST eat 2000 and so they are, even if they don’t want or need them - that it’s the blind following of this guideline that is causing people to be obese

Very easy to Google

I mean factually, no, many people do not “need” 2000 calories a day if they’re trying to lose weight. Many people need more to maintain their weight. You can easily calculate your TDEE online.

If I was sedentary or even just lightly active I wouldn’t be able to eat anywhere near 2000 without gaining weight due to my height. I can due to my activity level.

It’s not an accurate amount for everyone and it’s not a bad thing to eat the right amount of calories for your height and activity level, whether that’s more or less.

No one is saying the average woman is 5’9”.
I imagine they use 5’4” or 5’5”

Until it is properly understood that we do not all metabolise calories the same, people will struggle.
I know people who can’t gain on 3500 calories.
I know people who have to go to 1200 to lose weight.
You have to evaluate your own needs, and stop being influenced by others.

I literally have never come across anyone either in real life or mumsnet that behaves like that.

They aren’t calorie counting though are they? So the quoted number is irrelevant to them.

Exactly. The guidelines are not why people are obese.

Thing is, how many people really accurately track what they eat? How many people weigh everything? Track the calories in oil used for cooking? The scraps that you nick from the kids plates? Very few of us truly know how many calories we consume. If we are guesstimating then we inevitably underestimate so most people probably eat more that they think.

That’s quite an overreaction to pp’s suggestion women should be able to eat more than salad leaves with no dressing and steamed chicken.

Lol bus!

Go down to 1400 cal a day then to lose weight.

Every step goal number, calorie number given for a group is subjective - it will be an average of figures that has a range of ages and physical abilities in.
Obviously if you had to walk 3 miles to/during work you may well need that.

This is true. I worked with a lady who was always on a diet and trying to lose weight. She would maintain that she 'only has salad' for dinner and a small sandwich for lunch - but she'd forget all the 'oh, just a small slice' of cake that she'd eat in the office during the day. In her head she hardly ate anything, but that was because her brain would forget anything she ate while working, as though those calories didn't count.

I think people do understand this.
I know that my giant sons eat a lot more than I do.
I know that in the last years of year life my tiny MIL ate a lot less.
I don't really know what my peers eat, but from what I see when we get together, some eat more than me, some eat less.

A bit anecdotal, but I work in retail (fashion) and I’ve noticed that clients who tend to put an emphasis on how slim they are (saying things like “I’m quite tiny, I’m sure this’ll drown me!”) are often middle-aged or older. Of course not all of them do it, but when they do, it’s usually that age group.
Younger women I’ve encountered seem more relaxed about it and also not afraid to size up if their size is sold out and the next one still looks good albeit a bit oversized.
Most of them seem normal size/ weight.
It would be great of women started prioritising being healthy and strong to being teeny tiny.

Of course! Who could possibly manage a whole egg in one go? Better to save the rest for dinner.

Not many, because this is obsessive and quite disordered behaviour which impacts on a person's quality of life. On Mumsnet, it's accepted by many as normal - and I think it is normal for a lot of those of us who came of age in the diet obsessed 80s, 90s and 00s when heroin chic and size zero were forced on us along with a heap of shaming condemnation of women eating any amount of food ever.

But actually, attempting to track every single calorie every single day is extreme - and most people just don't do it and shouldn't start either! It takes you down a slippery slope.

Here of course, there are hundreds of posts insisting that it's normal and that it's great. There are tons of women on this website who not only track every morsel of food they eat but apparently monitor their friends, family and coworkers and are able to confidently report back on how many calories some women who works in their office eats, or the daily intake of all their friends and attach it to judgements about that person's size but again, that is quite frightening behaviour and speaks to a deeply fucked up relationship with food and body size.

I'm eating 1600ish calories a day and losing weight. I'm 5'9" and 99kg (BMI 33, so very overweight). Due to chronic illness, I do zero exercise. I'll soon have to cut down to 1500ish a day to keep losing.

When I was fit, slim and (very) active, I probably needed over 2000 calories to maintain my weight.

There is also a wide margin of inaccuracy on calorie counts for all foods as well - what gets put on the packet is not a rigorous, failsafe procedure; there's a lot of guesstimating that goes into attributing a calorie value to any foodstuff. It's not the perfect scientific process people like to imagine, and nor are our bodies perfectly functioning machines that process calories in a reliable and predictable manner. There is so much variation and so many different ways for bodies to behave. Trying to impose unfailingly rigid control over it is not a healthy or sustainable way to live.

I agree, at least from my personal experience.
Tracking calories might be beneficial in some circumstances, but in my case it lead to stressing about food all the time. I would avoid going out for drinks with friends in the evening, avoid dinner invitations and so on.
I’ve stopped doing that many years ago and replaced religious calorie counting with regular exercise and it works well for me.

I don't think calorie counting generally is very helpful tbh, as not all calories are created equal in terms of nutrition.
I don't calorie count so I honestly have no idea how many calories I eat a day, but I'm fairly sure it varies quite a lot for me day to day depending on activity levels and hunger levels. My Fitbit reckons I need 2300 ish on active days (particularly running) but no idea if that's true or not (and on days I'm fairly inactive it floats just under 2000 instead). My BMI is in the middle of the healthy range and I feel good, so eating to appetite works for me (at the moment anyway, 44 and perimenopausal so just waiting for the fall off the cliff on the weight front along with everything else that seems to be collapsing!).