So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?

Most women need between 1600 and 1800 calories a day for maintenance. Eating more will just cause your body to store it as fat. It's excess food.

2000 calories is just a rounded down average of the requirements for women AND men. The average is actually 2350 but they were afraid that women would see this and overindulge. Also they don't have room for multiple listings on food labels so they picked this one number. Most women don't need this much food.

No I don't mean nutrient deficient, although that is probably likely. Actually it wouldn't be healthy to maintain intake at 2000 calories unless you are under 4' 5" and an adult.
Eating enough calories for your needs, including repairs of muscles, nerves, bones -- those hidden things that need attending to, plus needed effective mental energy and especially generating those all important hormones, not just for reproduction, but digestive hormones, leptin, dopamine to calm, opiates to lighten, requires over 2,000. All those things are made possible if we have plenty of caloric intake, not just attention to nutrient intake. Plenty of calories sre necessary, not to merely sustain life, (which we are designed to do on even severe caloric restriction for short periods of time for survival ) but also all the extras as I mentioned!

Its our choice, individually what we decide to do with our health and bodies. I'm not demonizing people who value thinness. Its just a question I have about how many of us are willing to take the chance of living at a calorie deficit for longer periods of time as if in survival mode. Some of us might plan to do so for the rest of our lives and ignore the possiblities of losing bone mass, muscle and even digestive functionality to sustain that lower bmi.

So for myself, at one time I was willing to do that, but now I'm not. :-)
How about you?

[/quote]

sounds like someone is looking for an excuse. uh, you realize that your body uses as many calories as it needs and stores the rest as fat. if you're overweight, it's because you're eating more than you need to energize all the functions you've mentioned, even if you're eating say, at 1800. we tend to highly overestimate what our bodies need to function. And strange, when folks eat fewer calories in order to lose weight, the result is often more energy, better concentration, less sleepy feeling after eating. And when you eat a calorie deficit to lose extra weight, your body is not calorie deprived. It does not suffer a deficit. It's getting as many calories as it needs in addition to what you're eating by burning off the fat you've stored. that's how weight loss works. we're not primitive humans that needed fat storage to make up for times when there was food scarcity. To get to the point where your body doesn't have enough calories to burn for proper functioning of all of its processes, you're going to have to literally be starving. My maintenance calories are below 2000 and I eat 3 nutritious meals every day. that's not starving. It's a nice idea that extra calories could somehow supercharge your body processes, but it's a myth. It takes as many calories to run a body as it does to run a body. It won't utilize extras to boost anything. It turns them into fat.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

RunRutheeRun wrote: »

@lemurcat12‌ which site did you get that calculation off? If you exercise 6 days that sounds wrong. My TDEE is 2600 for same amount of exercise and I'm 5ft 2.

IIFYM, either M-SJ or K-McC. Scooby is more (nowhere near 2600, though, more like 2200), not sure if that's because they calculate exercise differently or use H-B, which I don't think is reliable.

It depends on how much you exercise on those days. When I was doing the max exercise I have, including 2.5 hour long runs and lots of other running and biking I think my TDEE was about 2200. Now, with less cardio and more weights but 6 days of hard workouts still I think it's about 2000 or less--I'm losing less than .5 lb/week on 1750. I know I gained weight initially eating less than 2000 (pretty rapidly too), which is consistent with what my sedentary TDEE would be.

Clearly there is going to be some real life variation between people, but my numbers have generally lined up pretty well with the K-McC and M-SJ calculators.

@lemurcat12‌ you were more active than me, I run 6 days a week for an hour, plus 3 miles walking on top of that plus strength train x 3/wk ...I currently am reverse dieting and maintaining on 2200. I figure in a few months if I wanted I could maintain on 2400-2500. I'm 45 and range between 133-136 lb which on my medium frame is slim.
I realise everyone's metabolism is different. What works for some doesn't work for others. Just find what works for you and stick with it

cloudi2 wrote: »

Golly, did I say something inflammatory or what? Sheesh! Sorrrrrrrry!

Ok. Lets just say you are all correct, and I am vewy vewy wong and that eating under 2000 calories per day is proper caloric intake for maintaining your desirable body weight, or, no, as I understand it here from the most authoratative posters on this thread, that real maintenance for a women, is more like, under 1800.

My question IS: are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal excersize if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?

If your maintenance calories are truly 1800 calories...how would that impact your health? Any why would you undershoot that goal if you wanted to maintain? If you wanted to maintain you would eat to your maintenance goal.

Basically you make no sense.

Maintenance calories vary considerably from person to person...there is nothing magical about 2000 calories...this is what it seems you do not understand. 2000 calories isn't some generic maintenance number that is appropriate for everyone. If someone eats below 2000 calories this isn't necessarily a calorie deficit...if they're maintaining, they're maintaining...by definition and all.

cloudi2 wrote: »

My question IS: are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal excersize if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?

Mostly that's about a state of mind. If you see eating as your purpose for living then eating less will seem horrific. If you eat only to fuel the things you like to do then what does it matter if you need 1000, 2000, or 3000 calories per day? Live to eat, or eat to live. What's your point of view?

If you're one of those women that get angry when their husband eats a larger slice of pie then you're just going to be angry. Get your enjoyment out of doing things other than eating.

cloudi2 wrote: »

Golly, did I say something inflammatory or what? Sheesh! Sorrrrrrrry!

Ok. Lets just say you are all correct, and I am vewy vewy wong and that eating under 2000 calories per day is proper caloric intake for maintaining your desirable body weight, or, no, as I understand it here from the most authoratative posters on this thread, that real maintenance for a women, is more like, under 1800.

My question IS: are you able and willing to undertake eating below that caloric amount of 1800 and do the physical formal excersize if that is part of your plan, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, AND do you feel that might have ANY impact upon your health? Or quality of life?

I'm willing to do it for the foreseeable future. Why shouldn't I be? And honestly, it's not like you have to make a decision right now and commit to do it forever. If at some point a person decides they'd rather be fat, then well, there's always that option. If I decide I can't live with eating at my current level I have options-- bulking or raising activity level would be two of them.

I do think it impacts health to eat at the level I do. Positively. Not that it's healthier to eat less always, and generally I think a person should eat as much as they can, but that it's healthier to eat an appropriate amount for your body. As others have said in this thread, by definition maintenance means eating what your body requires-- no more, no less. Why would it be unhealthy to do that?

You still haven't provided sources for your belief that everyone should maintain on 2000 calories or be unhealthy.

If I ever get to a point where I will maintain under 2000 calories (which i doubt would happen - I'm big & tall & active) - then yes, I would definitely continue to do so for the rest of my life, especially at old age because your metabolism does slowly decrease as you get older. You'll never see an elderly woman at a healthy weight eat like a teenager.

Calories have very little to do with nutrition. Yes, you need protein to maintain and/or build muscle mass, and you need fat in order for your body to balance hormones and chemicals and such, but the only thing you require from carbohydrates is the energy it gives you to keep moving every day. Micronutrients (vitamins, folate, magnesium, riboflavin, etc.), the really important stuff, has nothing to do with calories and you can get nearly all of them while consuming a minimal amount of calories. The amount of protein and fat you require will never add up to 2000 calories in total.

If you chose to lay in bed all day, every day, which you may have to as an elder, due to sickness or whatever, you will be eating very, very, very few calories indeed, while maintaining your weight.

Unless you enjoy being obese.

This content has been removed.

As far as impact on your health there is none. Your body is a machine much like an automobile. Some days you drive around more and need more fuel, other days you drive less. Your fuel tank is your fat cells. If you get more gas than you need for the day then it stays in the tank. If you don't get enough then you draw reserves from the fuel tank. There's no need to use exactly the right amount of fuel each day. Your fuel tank is a buffer.

Of course if you don't put enough fuel in the car you'll eventually run out of gas. Likewise adding more fuel than the car needs every day will result in an unhealthy situation. Can you imagine strapping extra fuel tanks to the side and top of your car to carry all the fuel you keep adding? That's what overeating is.

You don't have to eat perfectly exactly what you need each day. You should however average out to what you need. Maintenance isn't about being perfect. It's about eating generally what you need to eat each day.

Are you more worried about filling up your gas tank, or more concerned with driving around in your car? Stop fretting about how often you stop at the gas station. Spend your time enjoying your drives around town. (Hopefully the traffic is good)

cloudi2 wrote: »

Ok, I seem to be hitting a nerve there wolfman. I don't know why. Are you ok with eating your maintenance cals for the rest of your life? I find most people here aren't really, that they struggle like hell to maintain and are hungry and eat reactivly on maintenance. I hear a lot of people having trouble when their appetite kicks them after restricting calories for so long when they start to eat to maintain.

I'm just asking if you plan to do it for life? To limit yourself to maintenance cals until you die and do you think you will be happy with that ongoing?

This isn't demon time! Just asking.

I've been maintaining for 2.5 years without issue and without logging. People have issues maintaining because they fail to actually adopt healthful habits...they return to old habits and fail on their fitness.

I have no such issues nor do I foresee any such issues. I really don't see eating to maintenance as a problem. If I didn't exercise that might be more of an issue...but I do exercise and love fitness...so again...no problem.

My maintenance is in the neighborhood of 2600 - 3200 calories per day depending on the time of year and what I'm doing...my maintenance calories aren't static.

cloudi2 wrote: »

Why is everybody so pissed? I just wanted to know if you all felt happy about the maintenance calories and planned to do it for ever, is it easy for yous and do you think its healthy. Looks like you all believe its very healthy and will happily go on maintaining at your MFP maintenance calorie set needs. i. will dig up the info about the 2000 cals at least tomarrow.

But I live in France and its getting a wee bit late tonight for that, gotta go get my zzz's and increase those leptins and so
bonne nuit and peace to all yous!

nobody is pissed...the way you worded your question didn't make any sense.

if someone feels that their maintenance number is too low then that just means they have to do more. without exercise my maintenance would be around 2300 - 2400 calories per day...I could do that if I needed to, but I'd much rather get in some regular exercise and be able to eat more. I'm also a former competitive athlete so going and getting a little exercise isn't really a burden.

cloudi2 wrote: »

Why is everybody so pissed? I just wanted to know if you all felt happy about the maintenance calories and planned to do it for ever, is it easy for yous and do you think its healthy. Looks like you all believe its very healthy and will happily go on maintaining at your MFP maintenance calorie set needs. i. will dig up the info about the 2000 cals at least tomarrow.

But I live in France and its getting a wee bit late tonight for that, gotta go get my zzz's and increase those leptins and so
bonne nuit and peace to all yous!

No one is pissed at all. It's the internet, don't take it so seriously.

But seriously, we are all simply questioning this "eating under 2000 calories is unhealthy" idea.

_Waffle_ wrote: »

Most women need between 1600 and 1800 calories a day for maintenance. Eating more will just cause your body to store it as fat. It's excess food.

OP is bonkers, but to be fair this is misleading as well. Plenty women maintain at over 2000 calories. Very petitie women (5'3" and under) who are lightly active do not. Just saying.

Pretty sure OP is trying to suggest that being heavy enough to maintain at 2000 is healthier than being a healthy BMI and maintaining at something under 2000. Which is, of course, nonsense.