I've noticed women who have high cal diets...how?

Most of the women I know in real life, do not get ANY exercise. The 40 somethings that have been on this site for any length of time, are exercising more than their peers in real life.

I'm 40, and exercise about 30-45 minutes a day, six days a week, and eat about 2300 calories to maintain.

Honestly, I do exercise more than most of my peers in real life. I'm also a lot happier with both my body and food consumption than most of my peers. I don't consider the 3-4 hours I spend each week weight lifting or running to be an excessive amount of exercise. I think of it as a damn good hobby to have, and a wonderful trade-off for being able to live the rest of my life the way I want.

By comparison, I spend about 5 hours a week watching Big Bang Theory reruns. I spend about 10 hours a week with Good Morning America on in the background. I don't want to think about the amount of time I spend on Words with Friends, SongPop, Facebook or MFP. I just know it's a lot more than the amount of time I spend exercising.

I am not implying that you working out 6 days a week is excessive, I was just saying, like you said, that you work out more than the average woman your age. The reason that you can eat as much as you can is because you work out as much as you do, and you have a higher LBM. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, just that it is why you can eat at a higher cal level.

The OP asked why some women can eat so much more. The simply answer is that they work out more. Didn't realize this was going to take the turn that it did. I am not bagging on anyone that works out and eats more, just pointing out that is the reason that they can.

Did not mean to offend anyone. So sorry if I did.

There are many people that are confused about the Eat more to lose plan, as they think that simply upping their calories will result in them magically starting to lose a bunch of weight. When people post that when they started eating more, and the weight started falling off of them, then it is a little misleading.

You can eat more if you either work out and burn more calories, or lower your loss rate expectation.
SImple science says that you can't have a 200 calorie deficit and lose 2 pounds a week.

Like others have said, if you know your numbers, you can figure out a deficit that works for you.

Hmm.. let me check my calories.. lol I don't even know what they're set at.

Heavy workouts definitely give me more wiggle room with diet. I can't eat everything I want, but I can can eat most of what I want within reason. I can't outrun an entire pizza but I can have plenty just by eating 50% of my exercise cals back. Doing it this way has made me lose 60 lbs in 6.5 months, and over 50 cumulative inches from neck, chest, under bust, upper arms, waist, hips, thighs, and calves. We all have to do what works for us. My mom has lost the same amount of weight in that time through mostly diet with minimal fitness. But she consumes about half the calories I get and I have built more muscle. Evaluate your needs and adjust your plan until you find what works for you.

Yes it's true. I'm 39 y/o and only 5'4" and net 1400 but I can bump that up to almost 1700 net and still lose. I usually eat 1600-1800 calories with exercise. My TDEE is somewhere between 1700-1800 calories. I don't always eat back all my exercise calories but then I don't always stay under net so it evens out.