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?

No idea i don't think all this diet and planning or keeping up with calories is healthy to start with

I think as you get older you need to eat less calories. I think if you have never dieted and eat well - you will maintain a health metabolism.

Most public health advice is based on the average person and even then it’s a really rough guide as people have different metabolisms and different foods will be absorbed in different ways. You might not need 2000 based on your height, metabolism, diet and activity levels but other women will need far more. 2000 calories of a nutrient rich diet high in fruit and vegetables will probably have a different effect to 2000 calories of ultra processed foods. That doesn’t fit neatly into the back of a food packet though.

I’m pretty much an armchair expert at this shiz, seeing as I’ve hovered on the cusp of anorexia for 40 years. Calorie intake/expenditure is completely individual. The way our bodies process food and calories is different for everyone. I’m extremely active, I don’t own a car and walk long distances every day. I never stop moving! I probably eat around 1000 calories on a good day. If I eat more than that, I gain weight. It’s always been like this for me. I have a friend who eats “normally” as in proper meals at various times of the day.. she isn’t that active really, but she’s very thin. She says she never gains weight whereas I eat 100 calories more than my usual 1000 and I do.
It depends on your body, how it responds to energy intake, how it burns calories etc.

Similar to me. I’m shorter but do comparable exercise.

However, I also have low blood pressure and a very low resting heart rate. Essentially my metabolism is really slow, which means I am likely to live longer and I feel fuller for longer but also means I need fewer calories. It can be an unexpected side effect of fitness in some people.

Like all things health related, these things are guidelines based on averages and we all have to do understand our bodies and personalise a little.

So you honestly believe that, regardless of height and activity level, no woman could possibly burn 2000 calories a day? That's insane.

Personally I think the ‘2000 calories a day for women’ thing has done a lot of damage. It’s quite clear that the variables involved are massive. At 2000 calories a day, I would gain weight. I’m about 1750 calories a day to maintain weight as a moderately active, short, normal BMI person. For others, 2000 is under what they need.

I think we just need to get away from blanket statements about calorie intake and educate that everyone’s requirements will be different based on body type, activity levels, height, weight they already are, etc. I think more people are learning that now.

On these threads I'm equally fascinated by the women who eat frighteningly low amounts (there are so many of them and it's terrifying) but also by these speedy pre-schoolers who keep their mums running around. When mine were toddlers they were really slow! We dawdled everywhere at a snail's pace, stopping to admire every leaf. And I was so sleepy deprived I could never face the gym and lived off sugary carbs haha. I do much better now with teens that stay in their own beds and go striding off on walks with their long legs so I have to keep up! I found the early years terrible for my activity levels and always wonder how other people manage to run around with little ones so much.

Agree! Don't think I had to run once when dd was a toddle or pre schooler

Obviously everyone is different. I need 3k calories to maintain my weight (62kg at 5"9), not an athlete but very active very low fat % high muscle mass (no I don't gym).

I didn't know until I went to a dietician with bloods, scans, garmin data etc. Unfortunately this was privately but if you want accurate information on how many calories you need, then you need to go to people who know. Bmi is deceiving too. I went with years of garmin data and fresh medical results and dietician also did tests and discussion and came with her number. She then created a diet, warned me if my fat % drops more I have to go back for a different diet (it will cause problems with thyroid so hormones allegedly, would need a different diet) and if anything change for 3 to 6 months in my activity level etc it would also change my needs.

So who'd have thought, change in activity level means change in calories and diet. Every day your needs may be different depending on the day you have.

Everyone is different, the word "women" is far too generic.

I put on a lot of weight from drinking too much wine, lost it on Mounjaro, due to my age (59) and a slight loss of muscle tone I expected my new calories to be around 1800. I still use MFP every day.

I am active, do minimum 10500 steps a day but often nearer to 15000. 1800 calories meant I was still losing weight, albeit slowly, I now eat around 2000 calories and my weight is stable.

I've just spent a weekend with a number of different women, one who is a sports teacher and clearly works out never stopped eating all weekend, portions twice the size of everyone else. She has a banging body, she needed all that food it was clear.

What you mean OP is, YOU don't need 2000 calories.

There are all those moments when you think 'they've gone quiet' and have to run to find out why - and then the hours of scrubbing Sudocreme out of the carpets; that burns quite a lot of energy.

One thing that often strikes me with the women on here who claim they can only eat half an almond and a green salad a day or they'd be enormous, is that they are probably trying to stay exceptionally slim.

That's fine if that's worth it to you but you don't need to be exceptionally slim to be healthy. You don't NEED to be teeny tiny.

I don’t know when the original numbers were calculated and what they were based on, but not so long ago both men and women - not all, but many - had occupations that required far more physical effort than today. Simply keeping house and looking after children was hard work. Shopping had to be done every day and heavy bags lugged home. I’m in my 70s and remember those times (which were even than easier than when my mother was young).
I suspect that “they” worked out what a man doing a physically active job might need and then estimated what a woman might need by reducing it by 20%. Of course, I might be wrong.

Obviously you will gain weight if you've starved yourself for years, your metabolism is broken. That is not an example of a normal person's body function. Honestly I understand, I was anorexic when younger then have flip flopped for years. It is fixable. You can eat more and not gain weight if you do it right. See a nutritionist and get help

Edited to say the physical side is fixable. The physiological side of anorexia is much harder

Just checked my garmin and for the last 7 days it says I have used on average 2450 calories a day. I’m 5”6 and fairly active. 2000 would be about right for me, I eat 1750 when on a diet and lose weight.

I did HIIT training plus calorie counting and didn’t start to lose weight until my calorie count (Myfitnesspal) was 1000 ( lots of protein, lower carbs so didn’t feel hungry )
Even doing HIIT 3 times a week ( 40 min sessions), if I started to eat more carbs the weight increased.

I have found HIIT and lower carbs the only way to reduce belly fat.

If I ate 2000 cal I'd be seriously overweight !

The nhs estimates that 1800 is the typical for a uk woman today as daily living is so much less physical

not sure why the advice isn’t changing- food industry pressure ?

I really feel that OP is lacking basic critical thinking skills. 2000 calories is an average. Some people need less, some people need more.

As someone who is almost 6ft tall and used to be really active, I could eat over 2500 and still not gain weight.

Now I'm mid peri-menopausal and my lifestyle is less active, it's closer to 2000.

I used to live with someone who was 5ft tall. Her portions were noticeable smaller than mine, we were both crazy active, and both of us were slim. I used to feel greedy eating twice as much as her, but I clearly needed it!

My BM4 is 1467, according to my smart scales. If I eat 2000 cals, I put weight on

Haha yes I wonder this too. I mean I went for long walks with the pram and stuff but I have always been into weightlifting and running, I really did not get the same sense of activity "running around after pre schoolers" and pottering around the house. Maybe my preschoolers were exceptionally lazy 🤔

Same boat. I eat about 1500 on a bad day and I'm barely losing weight. Doing 2 miles walking daily, it's not that much but more than the recommended amount. Anyone I know who is a runner / slim doesn't eat much if we go for dinner. They are extremely strict with their intake. I wish I had the same willpower , mine goes out the window at weekends 🤣

Thank you for your empathy 🩷
Yeah I agree that my metabolism is not a good example of “normal”, but it just shows that how we behave around food has an impact on how it behaves in our body.

Surely it depends on the type of food as well as the person?

If you're eating 1600 calories and not losing weight but you're eating 1600cals of biscuits, chocolate, fries etc, it's the type of food. If you're eating 1600cals of lettuce then you probably actually need more...

It's the TDEE you need to focus on, not the BMR