2000 calories for women too much?

KBurkhardt08

forgtmenot wrote: »

KBurkhardt08 wrote: »

forgtmenot wrote: »

What is your current weight?

154. As of now my goal is 130. I dont know what 130 looks like on me though so I'm not sure yet if that is too low or too high.

2lbs/week is too high at your weight/height. You need to lower it to 1 or 1.5 lbs a week. I am your height but 20lbs heavier and I had to lower mine to 1.5 lbs a week. As you lose weight you need to reevaluate your goals and readjust them.

I think I will change it to 1 pound a week and see how it goes. Thank you for the advice.

ExRelaySprinter

311snowwhite wrote: »

In my humble option, blindly saying that a woman should be eating at least 2,000 calories a day with out exercising seems high.

I personally think it's from a younger age that you can probably get away with eating 2000 cals with no exercise.
As you get older, you do have to start watching how many calories you consume.
But, as we now know.... exercise sorts that out!

89Madeline

I think it's also high. I'm not sure how it's calculated, but if they use the average women's weight it might be correct since most people are (a little) overweight? At my heaviest, I was 84 kilos and 1.76 tall. I don't remember exactly how much cals I was allowed to have, but it never exceeded 2000 calories and my BMI was too high. So I don't understand how 2000 could work for the average woman to maintain. Sure if you're overweight, but a 'healthy' body would gain from 2000 I suppose. I definitely would go back to 'overweight' according to BMI cals and similar and I would look (slightly) overweight as well.

eseeton

I am eating an average of 2000 cals/day. Depends on how much I'm moving around that day.

physioprof

I'm 5'0, 127 lbs, exercise hard 1-1.5 hrs/day 5-6 days/week, and I can maintain at ~2100 calories.

89Madeline

Oh, sorry I should add that with less than 2,000 I did mean with 'little to no exercise' since I log extra calories from exercise only when I worked out. So yes, in those days I could easily go over 2,000 (after a 1,5 mile run). But I don't think the 'average person' the 2000 is targeted at is someone who works out 5 days a week... I still wonder if it really is the average that women need. Interesting to see all these differences

365andstillalive

myfitterlife wrote: »

I think it's also high. I'm not sure how it's calculated, but if they use the average women's weight it might be correct since most people are (a little) overweight? At my heaviest, I was 84 kilos and 1.76 tall. I don't remember exactly how much cals I was allowed to have, but it never exceeded 2000 calories and my BMI was too high. So I don't understand how 2000 could work for the average woman to maintain. Sure if you're overweight, but a 'healthy' body would gain from 2000 I suppose. I definitely would go back to 'overweight' according to BMI cals and similar and I would look (slightly) overweight as well.

As others in the thread have said, it completely depends on you as an individual.

Even at my goal weight (which is mid-range BMI and body fat wise) I would lose weight eating 2000 calories and I'm shorter than you are.

I do also acknowledge however that I meet a lot of the criteria for a population based statistics like that.

89Madeline

365andstillalive wrote: »

myfitterlife wrote: »

As others in the thread have said, it completely depends on you as an individual.

Even at my goal weight (which is mid-range BMI and body fat wise) I would lose weight eating 2000 calories and I'm shorter than you are.

I do also acknowledge however that I meet a lot of the criteria for a population based statistics like that.

Yes, interesting I love statistics (studied quantitative sociology) so would like to know on what criteria they based it on. I wish I could eat 2000 lol!

callsitlikeiseeit

2000 is getting close to my maintenance for my current weight (Which is not my goal weight)

calorie needs are going to be different for everyone. Someone who is 4'10 is going to need much fewer than someone who is 6'8. Not to mention additional differences for goal weights, ages, activity levels, etc.

wolfsbayne

I'm 40, 5'7", 180.4 lbs (I only added the .4 because it's what I've weighed every single morning for the past 2 weeks.) and at maintenance right now. MFP sets my calories at 1900 before exercise.

Need2Exerc1se

myfitterlife wrote: »

365andstillalive wrote: »

myfitterlife wrote: »

As others in the thread have said, it completely depends on you as an individual.

Even at my goal weight (which is mid-range BMI and body fat wise) I would lose weight eating 2000 calories and I'm shorter than you are.

I do also acknowledge however that I meet a lot of the criteria for a population based statistics like that.

Yes, interesting I love statistics (studied quantitative sociology) so would like to know on what criteria they based it on. I wish I could eat 2000 lol!

I think it's an average created by the USDA based on this.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_patterns/EstimatedCalorieNeedsPerDayTable.pdf

89Madeline

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

myfitterlife wrote: »

365andstillalive wrote: »

myfitterlife wrote: »

As others in the thread have said, it completely depends on you as an individual.

Even at my goal weight (which is mid-range BMI and body fat wise) I would lose weight eating 2000 calories and I'm shorter than you are.

I do also acknowledge however that I meet a lot of the criteria for a population based statistics like that.

Yes, interesting I love statistics (studied quantitative sociology) so would like to know on what criteria they based it on. I wish I could eat 2000 lol!

I think it's an average created by the USDA based on this.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_patterns/EstimatedCalorieNeedsPerDayTable.pdf

Thanks for sharing!