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?

I log everything and count my cals properly. I'm loosing 1lbs a week on between 1500-1600 cals. I spend my calories wisely so not filling up on poor quality foods and I never eat low fat or diet foods.

I'm not very active at the moment due to injury but when I wear my watch I still do 6-10k steps daily.

Are you weighting and counting everything?

My three year I don’t have to run after but my 20 month old is a different story, she is impressively fast and a very skilled climber. She require some running from me when she is on her bike on we are near open water.
That said I don’t really take not of calories just eat three meals a day and try to make them balanced and eat too much chocolate when running low on sleep. My BMI is around 20.

If I was active all day like that I still don't think I would be able to eat that much and not gain weight. I'm the same height as you and walk 10,000 steps per day, plus my job involves a lot of running up and down flights of stairs all day. I am still overweight.

Exercise burns hardly any calories, height is the biggest advantage.

Given the average height is only 5'4', I think 2000 cals is wildly off.

5”8, 9 stone, 27. If I were to eat 2000 calories a day I’d balloon.
I do have Pcos though so the weight creeps up easily (I used to be obese). I probably eat around 1400/500 to maintain. I walk a lot but no exercise. If I eat late or night or meals consisting of rice/pasta, I also gain.

But if it says 'women leading an average lifestyle require 2000 calories a day' then many will require less, especially those who are less active and smaller than average.

If you're short, light and inactive, it's not hard to work out that you'll need less than someone who's taller and more active/trains, so the guidance doesn't need changing, people just need to read and understand what it says.

The TDEE calculator linked above tells me I need over 2200 calories to maintain my weight and that's as someone who's 52, moderately active (varied job, some office, some walking/carrying things), 5'7 and 12 stone so overweight. So if I could stick to as little as 2000 calories a day, I'd lose weight.

I used to think I definitely needed 2000cals a day but given that I have a gallbladder full of stones and eating anything other than salad leaves and fruit makes me physically ill for 48hrs I am willing to concede that I was wrong. On the plus side, 16kg lost.

I have actually no idea what I get through in a day as I've never tracked calories. I just eat when I fancy it, but I like to eat well and am not greedy. I think I'm lucky as I see food as a pleasure and also fuel, don't use it as a emotional crutch and stop when I'm satisfied. Simplicity is key, we know if we are eating too much by using a mirror. The whole diet/health/fitness industry is thriving as people overcomplicate things.

thanks I'll go find that!

I agree. A 16 year old male who is growing and developing needs 2500-3000 even if he doesn’t do any kind of exercise. That’s to maintain his growth and development. An adult woman only needs 1200 to maintain her weight if she is of average height and weight (average of course changes according to many factors). It’s individual. If a woman is 5’1” and weighs 8 stone and isn’t doing much manual labour or exercise, then 1200 is plenty. A larger woman who runs daily or works in a physical job will need up to 2000.

It’s just an average which depends on multiple factors. The actual amount will depend on the woman.

It's completely generalised. You need to calculate your personal BMR to work out your required calorie intake to maintain or lose weight.

For your average woman, 2000kcal a day is far too much. You’d have to be either very tall or very active (or both) to need that amount, and it really is a lot.
I am not very tall, and 15-1600kcal a day is perfectly adequate for me to maintain my weight. If I ate 2000kcal a day I’d end up being wider than I am tall!

It’s honestly going to depend on age, muscle and activity level. I can absolutely tell you my body is very happy maintaining weight at around 1000 -1200 cals. If I ate 2000 cals I’d put on weight.

Exceptionally slim, or just slim? No food is worth the extra fat on my body, and all the issues that come with it. I am exceptionally vain though, I suppose, because I like knowing that I can wear anything and look good in it, so there’s that I guess.

But no, I’d hate to put on weight. These joints won’t be young and strong forever, and I’d rather keep them healthy for as long as I can. And obesity increases the risk of cancer, and I’d rather do what I can to Not get cancer!

@Croissantsfordinner YANBU OP - all women do not need to eat 2000 calories a day, but this is an average figure, so there will be women who lead very active, physical lives who need to eat more than that, and women who lead very sedentary lives (like me!) who don't.
I know that many people wouldn't want to count calories, but I've been using the "Myfitnesspal" app (other apps are available!) to record my daily intake for almost six years now and all those years of data have shown me that I can routinely eat no more than 1,700 calories per day if I don't want to gain weight. Eating 1,200 - 1,400 calories per day I lose weight easily, 1,400 - 1,700 per day and I can maintain my weight, but more than 1,700 per day and I'll put on weight (I have a tiny friend who can't eat more than 1,500 calories per day unless she dramatically increase her activity levels). I've found (honestly!) recording my calorie intake every day has been incredibly useful as it's personal to me and my metabolism. It's also taught me that I don't need to stress about having treats e.g. I went out to lunch yesterday and I'm having a cream tea this afternoon, but I'll control my calorie intake for the rest of this week and won't put on weight. 😃

Oh good. Another woman bashing thread.

Listen up all you hussies! Remember that you have to be thin and hot (if you can possibly help it). You have a duty here and don't you dare be selfish, or something.

/sarcasm

I don’t count calories or no how many I need but one thing I do know is in my 50’s I need a gem of a lot less than in my 30’s however much movement I do/dont do.

I eat this much. I'm average height and probably averagely active though (7-9000 steps a day).

Your correct the guidelines are out of date for many of us with sedentary jobs.

I spent quite a while wondering why I wasn't losing weight when everything was weighed out etc. Turns out because I only burn 1500-1600 calories a day so dropping to 1500 calories made zero difference.

Since wearing a fitbit and working out deficit I have lost 3 stone (also 1200 calories) and it's stayed off. Its no longer a diet to me just how I eat to stay healthy and now at a maintain level of 1500.

It is an average. Some will need more or less.

I do. And I’m not over weight.

I eat 2000 cal a day to maintain my weight whilst exclusively breastfeeding, walking 20k+ plus steps a day, running 4 times a week (35k-40k a week). I am also 165 cm tall (which of course makes a difference). So no, I don't think most women need 2000 calories. If you are physically very active, taller etc. then yes. If I ate 2000 a day as a 165cm 52 kg woman in my late 20s without my level of activity I would absolutely gain weight.

I agree with the point OP has made, which is that the always cited 'adult woman needs 2000 cals daily' is so generalised as to be almost completely meaningless! Most of us aren't 'average' either in terms of height, weight, activity levels etc. I think perhaps there needs to be a rider for this statement, which you see expressed everywhere, but particularly above the nutrition chart on packaged food. But what food manufacturer is going to put 'your nutrition needs will vary depending on your weight, height, age, sex and activity levels, please consult a TDEE calculator for more information' on their chocolate bar packaging?

I'm currently trying to lose weight and going by what I've seen on the weight loss boards here, I should be aiming to eat 500 cals less daily than my TDEE (or 3500 cals fewer over the week) which is BLOODY HARD. Going on the TDEE calculation, I need to be on 1000 a day, which I'm finding pretty hard to adapt to. (I'm short and currently sedentary as I have chronic sciatica which sometimes makes even short walks impossible.) I downloaded MyFitnessPal and it actually thinks I should be aiming at 1200. Confusing. I'm trying to land somewhere between and managing most days. I'm eating a lot of salad and vegetables and eggs, and have pretty much cut out white processed carbs for the moment. I'm pretty fed up and I don't think this is really very sustainable long-term.

How do you calculate how many you even eat? Do you have to fiddle about weighing everything?
I've had a bowl of oats+milk+sugar+fruit for breakfast. I have no idea how many calories it is.

Agreed. I'd gain weight on 2,000 a day (or anything over 1,600).

I don't really know how many calories I consume or how many I need, because I've never been overweight so I've never bothered checking.

But all bodies are different with different metabolisms.

I wonder if it's too many for some people because they drive everywhere, or WFH at a desk all day?

Either way if it's too many for you, don't take any notice of it.