Everyday Systems

S., and found a site https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm that's pretty dense, but the stat that stood out to me is that the AVERAGE caloric intake by women in 1971 was 1542. That's what I at times was recommended to eat for weight loss. I know it wasn't the proverbial 1200, but it still sounded like a diet amount. Our expectations have grown so much that what previous generations thought of as quite enough now sounds almost like deprivation. But if you aren't eating a lot of refined dense foods, you can actually eat a fair volume of food. However, if you are, it's not hard to go over this amount.

If I had to guess, I'd say that is about what I'm averaging, maybe a little more but some days less. But I don't aim at that amount. It's just the meal routines I've developed come out to about that or at least have so often when I have for the heck of it calculated it that I am guessing it's about right. And given what I weigh and the fact that statistically, most women of the same height, weight and age are actually eating within a few hundred calories per day of each other, I'd say I have to be.

This 2,000 a day for women is way overshooting what they need and has needlessly led them to feel deprived and resentful for eating what others felt was perfectly adequate.

Anyway, I think it's a useful way to see the situation. We're not being deprived, for goodness' sake. We're just eating as if the last 40 years haven't happened. I know I'm not saying anything new, but that calorie number really brought it home to me.

"But if you aren't eating a lot of refined dense foods, you can actually eat a fair volume of food. However, if you are, it's not hard to go over this amount. "

I think this is the difference in today's average calorie consumption. We have come to expect refined dense foods which are highly palatable. If we didn't already realize this, the requirement for calorie information on menus should open our eyes. Most meals exceed the DAILY calorie total needed.

I have known for a long time that eating veggies and lots of them helps fill me up. I have many issues with Weight Watchers, but the original program of the early 1970s with the exception of the extreme fat reduction (1 T a day) was really pretty close. We had 5 fish meals a week, 3 beef meals, 3 fruits daily, limited cheese and eggs (not necessary now I think) and limited starches. But you didn't even need to count all the vegetables. The protein amount was 10 oz. daily for women which is substantial. But it was all those veggies that kept the calorie totals low.

Somewhere along the way all those dense cheesy, pasta, creamy dishes came in as well many sweetened, fatty sauces. I think the highly palatable foods as well as the fact that more people were eating out contributed to the uptake in calorie consumption. I have many vintage cookbooks. Most of the dishes would seem very plain and bland to us today.

As an older woman of 70 I have found that my body just needs fewer calories so I have kept the volume up with veggies but the calorie count has been lowered. I don't think I need 1500 calories a day to maintain so I have to get my mind around that and let go of the deprivation mentality.

I have lost about 20 pounds following NoS with less dense highly palatable foods which are also very easy to overeat. I think of S Days now as a time to have one of those types of meals but I still follow the No Seconds guideline.

I agree with you guys. If you eat the way people did a few generations ago. 1500 calories would be enough because you'd be getting those calories from veggies, fruits, meats,etc. not candy bars or fast food. Unfortunately, I grew up eating processed foods and I still eat too much of it. When I was counting calories, if I avoided fast food and tried to eat " healthy", I had no trouble staying under my goal of 1700 calories. But when I ate my usual diet, I always went over., or like you Saud, felt deprived.

I've posted this on some other thread, but I was reading a blog of a woman who married a European man and learned a lot about meal planning and cooking from her MIL. She said she's gotten used to much smaller meals at her husband's insistence! She posted a recipe for a lamb dish that used 10.5 ounces of lamb and it was meant to provide TWO dinners for BOTH of them! Of course, there were other foods in the meal, but four dinners from 10.5 ounces of meat. It was not a low fat entree.