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

BF% makes a HUGE difference. At 197, my BF% is still way over 40%. I am a housewife, no outside job, so other than riding my bike a few days a week, I get very little exercise thruout the day. The lower my weight drops, and the more I work out, the stronger I am getting. The extra activity now is making up for the decreased BMR due to the weight loss, so I can still eat at the same level I started at 4 months ago.
I also have a spinal disease and arthritis in my joints that has prevented me from lifting heavy weights and working out intensively, but I am improving and am able to do more than I could when I started. I did actually start doing a few dumbell curls (ok, I can do 5) with my real iron weights (15 lbs) I still have from my lifting days when I was 30. Before my accident. I have to be very careful not to aggravate my neck, but I am getting there. My 20s and 25s are still in the closet, where my hubby uses them now. Not sure if I will be able to get back to those again, but one can hope!
I have also added some Wii workouts, boxing and Wii Fit programs. That is helping as well.

Slightly off topic, but have you thought about swimming? - it is a form of resistance exercise (not progressive loading type but definitely beneficial) and low impact.

I do spend time in the pool during the summer months. I can't exactly 'swim' as to do so irritates my spinal nerves, but I do walk in the pool and do stretches and my version of water aerobics. It does help my flexibility, and is very relaxing, and probably does burn a few calories, but not a great deal. I will be curious to see how much more I am capable of doing by this summer. There isn't an indoor pool anywhere close to me.

Working out tons and eating to match your activity will make your metabolism soar. I found out the hard way

Working out tons isn't the answer either - in fact over training can be detrimental to weight/fat loss!

I am 44, 5'8", between 137-140lbs on any given day, and eating 1700 to 2000 calories per day. My average workout is less than an hour per day, alternating weights (I have dumbbells, would lift heavy with barbells if I had the funds for a gym or the big weights at home!) and running 3-6 miles, 3 days of each, and at least one rest day. I generally burn 250-350 calories per workout, except of the days when I run over 4 miles.

For most of us women in our 40s, this equates to 'working out tons'! lol

6 days a week, burning 250-350 in the gym 3 days and running 4 miles the other 3 days, is not the typical activity level for your average 40 something woman, or any person these days.
Bottom line is, if you want to eat more and still lose weight, you have to work out.. a LOT!

I beg to differ

I am 45 years old, weight train 4 days a week, have a desk job and lose on 2,000.

And my point is that the typical 45 yo woman today does not weight train 4 days a week. 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. Different people can also have different BMRs just due to genetics, or BF%, or activity levels. I don't lift heavy weights 4 days a week. I don't work outside the home. I have a BF% of well over 40%. I can't lose on 2000 cals a day. You can, and that is great, but you aren't the typical 45 yo woman today.
Just because you can lose on 2000 cals per day, doesn't mean that every 45 yo woman can. We have to burn more than we eat, to lose weight.

Everyone has to burn more than they eat to lose. If one is sedentary, it is likely they will not lose on 2,000 calories (female). But if one is active enough they can most certainly lose on 2,000 calories if 2,000 calories is less than they need to maintain or gain.

For example, my net goal is 1,800, but I usually consume gross calories around 2,050 because I've burned 250 calories doing my exercise for the day...my net stays the same because I've earned those extra 250 calories. And yes, I'm losing and have been since October @ a 1.3 Lb per week clip with a goal of 1Lb per week. So yes...it is possible

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.

Bump

Working out tons and eating to match your activity will make your metabolism soar. I found out the hard way

Working out tons isn't the answer either - in fact over training can be detrimental to weight/fat loss!

I am 44, 5'8", between 137-140lbs on any given day, and eating 1700 to 2000 calories per day. My average workout is less than an hour per day, alternating weights (I have dumbbells, would lift heavy with barbells if I had the funds for a gym or the big weights at home!) and running 3-6 miles, 3 days of each, and at least one rest day. I generally burn 250-350 calories per workout, except of the days when I run over 4 miles.

For most of us women in our 40s, this equates to 'working out tons'! lol

6 days a week, burning 250-350 in the gym 3 days and running 4 miles the other 3 days, is not the typical activity level for your average 40 something woman, or any person these days.
Bottom line is, if you want to eat more and still lose weight, you have to work out.. a LOT!

I beg to differ

I am 45 years old, weight train 4 days a week, have a desk job and lose on 2,000.

And my point is that the typical 45 yo woman today does not weight train 4 days a week. 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. Different people can also have different BMRs just due to genetics, or BF%, or activity levels. I don't lift heavy weights 4 days a week. I don't work outside the home. I have a BF% of well over 40%. I can't lose on 2000 cals a day. You can, and that is great, but you aren't the typical 45 yo woman today.
Just because you can lose on 2000 cals per day, doesn't mean that every 45 yo woman can. We have to burn more than we eat, to lose weight.

Everyone has to burn more than they eat to lose. If one is sedentary, it is likely they will not lose on 2,000 calories (female). But if one is active enough they can most certainly lose on 2,000 calories if 2,000 calories is less than they need to maintain or gain.

For example, my net goal is 1,800, but I usually consume gross calories around 2,050 because I've burned 250 calories doing my exercise for the day...my net stays the same because I've earned those extra 250 calories. And yes, I'm losing and have been since October @ a 1.3 Lb per week clip with a goal of 1Lb per week. So yes...it is possible

I'm sorry but this is a very confusing post. What are you saying is possible? We were discussing the exercise levels of the average 45 yo woman, so why are you, as a 38 yo man, comparing your calorie intake to mine? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Do you think that I should be eating the same amount as you do?

If you are losing 1.3 lbs per week, then you are eating at a 1300 calorie per day deficit. And your BMR and TDEE are considerably higher than mine.

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.