"Based on a 2,000 Calorie Diet" really makes me angry.

Ok, so I'm 5'6"--just about average height for a woman.  And when I just started back up here a few weeks ago, the site told me to maintain my OBESE (BMI of 30ish) weight, I needed 2,000 calories per day.  This week, I finally broke out of the obese levels to just plain old overweight, and sure enough, the site is telling me I need fewer than 2000 calories/day to maintain my current weight.  So the only way I get to eat 2000/day is if I, an average height woman, want to be obese.   So why in the heck are supposed "NUTRITION" labels always "based on a 2000 calorie diet?  Until two years ago  I thought the average, non-dieting person was SUPPOSED to have 2000 calories per day, not that it would lead to obesitiy.  And if the excuse is that its based on an average man's size, then I'm even more angry that I was mis-led about health information because of some sort of sexist male default.  Particularly when it doesn't even make sense, since more women statistically do food shopping then men.

Sorry, I just needed to rant.

rant away.  2,000 is supposedly what the "average American" needs to maintain a healthy weight.

Women almost always need less than that, and besides, 2000 calories assumes a pretty active lifestyle.

I agree with pompey, it depends heavily on your lifestyle.  I too am 5'6 and weigh 127 and am 31 years old...I can take in 2300 calories to maintain, but I have a relatively higher metabolism and am very active. Average for men is 2500.  When I want to loose weight, I cut my calorie intake to around 1500 and 30 grams of fat.  It is different for everyone.  Don't let it discourage you, i know it is confusing and frustrating.  It takes time to find out what works for you and hope you find motivation from all the wonderful people on this site =)  Best of luck!

cuz america is fat. im sry but that's how i see it.  and 2000 sounds "nice".

Well everyone is different! Obviously a 6'5" body-builder would need to consume more than a 4'11" couch potato! I guess it's an average. Few people are actually supposed to consume exactly 2,000. But yes, it can definitely be misleading! 

My understanding is that the "based on a 2000 calorie diet" is related to the RDA guidelines, which are specifically designed to cover 98% of the population's needs for certain nutrients to prevent widespread deficiencies that were more common before the RDA was developed.

What that means:

1) It is NOT a suggestion that 98% of people need 2000 calories a day. It's just a convenient number to hang the percentage of nutrients on. If you only need 1500 calories per day, then you don't need 100% of the RDA amounts, you only need 75%. If you need 2500 calories per day, then you need more than 100% of the RDA.

2) The 98% encompasses everyone - young and old, fit and unfit, active and inactive, pregnant or not, children, teens, adults, bodybuilders, tall and short. Everyone except those with illness and disease. And it applies to nutrients, not calories.

3) Before the RDA, people were getting deficiency-related diseases such as rickets, etc. The RDA led to manufacturers enriching processed grains and cereals to boost the nutrient content, which is why such deficiencies are quite rare today.

4) If manufacturers were required to list RDAs for several caloric levels, not just 2000, there simply wouldn't be enough room on the packaging label.

But I do agree with you that it is frustrating. I use fitday to log my calories. It has a report you can run to analyze whether you are reaching the RDA. But the report is based on 2000 calories a day. So it gets frustrating because it'll show that I'm not at 100% for certain nutrients. I have to continually remind myself I only need 75%.

Thank you jenmcc for clearing that up!  It tends to be confusing.

I just came off a 3 month, 2000 diet, to correct the damage I'd done to my metabolism by undereating.  I did gain back 7 pounds, but my weight stabilized.  Under the advice of a nurse/nutrtionist, I've cut back 100 calories per day each week.  I'm now at 1600 calories a day and I'm losing again.  This is a lot more than the 1000 to 1200 that I was on to lose weight!  I'm really happy that I can eat this much and still lose!

What I'm trying to say is, you need to find your level.  It's different for everybody.

I totally agree, however think of it this way...  Before I joined CC I was eating out (fast food) DAILY.  There wasnt ONE day that didnt go by that I didnt eat some sort of fast food.  I was consuming 3500-4500 calories per day!!  So, if you think about it 2000 was actually a good standard for me.   I dont know if most overweight Americans eat this way, but I rarely witnessed a thin, fit, person in front of me at McDonalds.    This is just my expierience.

Ramason - I agree with you!!!   Looking back on my life before CC, I wouldve though "2000 calories, no way!!!"  now, I get upset if I "over eat" to 1800 calories!!!  :)  Good luck, and hang in there!!

your welcome, claire!

I shoulda added one thing, that's really important: when you cut calories, you don't want to cut nutrients.

For example, my maintenance/expenditure is around 1500 calories per day. So as I noted in my previous post, this means I need to aim for about 75% of the RDAs, not 100%.

When I am dieting with an allowance of 1200 calories, I still need 75% of the RDAs... not 60%!! So this is where the challenge comes in: when you are on a 1200 calorie allowance, you need to eat really clean and make every last bite count. If you fill your 1200 calorie allotment with empty junk food, you will be cheating your body.

Yeah, they should just leave that out or something cuz when U think about it, it is a lot of calories. 1 lb= 3,500 and it's very easy to get carried away.

Sorry, I ment 2 put 1 Lb=3,500 calories.

Before I found this site, I began trying to eat healthy foods.  I used the food pyramid as my guideline for getting nutrients, but I also assumed that a 150 lb person needed 2000 or so, and figured that because I am smaller I needed 1800.  I would aim for the classic # of servings from the food pyramid we're taught in school since toddlers, and totals of about 1600-1800.  I also exercised daily.

I used this site often (and calorieking) to get the # of calories in the food I was eating.  One day, I stepped into the forums.  I read maybe two posts, joined, and made my account so that I could comment on something posted here.  Then I took a peak at the tools, and realized I could track everything online... I used the tools, and found out that my 1600-1800 daily caloric intake was WAY TOO HUGE for what I was doing.  On an average day, including exercise, I burnt about 1700.  So all that time I thought I was burning AT LEAST 2000 cals because of my exercise... but instead I was eating maintenance (sometimes above!) and still working my butt off for basically nothing.

The point is, yes it's frustrating... but I actually tried to rely on it, wrongly, and wasted a lot of time and energy on worthless goals.  Now THAT is frustrating. 

Now I'm down to 1200-1400 depending on exercise... and have lost, binged and gained, but I'm back on track to lose again, thanks to C-C.

Good luck everyone.

the mypyramid.gov states that 2000 is appropriate for a female 19-30 who is NOT active and IS active also for active females 31-50 and 14-18. this doesnt sound to right to me but not everything is right for everyone

I'm 19-30, female, and active, and 2000 is too high for me at my current weight. That was about my maintenance number at 145-150 pounds, while working working full-time at jobs much more physically intense than most women's careers, though not extreme (think "light industrial" or equivalent). I don't think that it would be appropriate for many.

i eat no less then 2500 usually around 3000

200o aint **** and i dont get how some of you can eat like 1200 thats **** impossible

(Worth pointing out that the above ^^^ poster is 15 and male.)

I will be maintaining on about 2000 calories as long as I am at "light activity". I'm 5'8" though.

Ramason, are you sedentary? That would help explain why your intake needs are lower. Also, one's caloric needs drop by about 100 cals/day every decade or so (as muscle percentage drops and body fat increases, with age).

I'm 5'8", a healthy weight, and CC tells me that I burn 1800 a day being sedentary -- so if I want to eat 2,000 cals to maintain, all I need to do is jump on an elliptical machine for half an hour.  I think part of the 2,000 cal diet is also the fact that doctors now recomend at least an hour of physical activity every day of the week in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

I'm a woman, 5'6, and at my current activity level, if I were to weigh at a healthy BMI, I would be burning 2100 per day to maintain.  So yes, it's an average.  Some will be more, some will be less.

More adapted to my lifestyle would be "Based on a 2000 calorie MEAL". 

It's also interesting to think that 2,000 calories has been the label on there FOREVER.  Think it'll ever be changed to reflect the ever-expanding waistlines of the general population?

Part of it is that it balances out. Yes it is true that most women need below 2000 calories a day. But on the other hand, men tend to have much greater muscle mass and consequently need a higher calorie intake. For example, I'm a 5' 9", 195 pound college student with less than 20% body fat and I need nearly 3200 calories a day to maintain weight.  Because of the fact that men generally need above 2000 calories a day and women generally need less, it averages out to be about 2000 calories.