this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
763 points (97.2% liked)
Greentext
4412 readers
1653 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, switching to water can drastically reduce the calories in my example.
Daily Calorie use starts at around 2100 for a male 35 y/o at 5'9" and only goes up with physical activity. The number I cited for a big mac meal, 1350, is basically a consumption limit for dieting. Extreme diets go as low as 850 or even fasting. You can in theory still lose weight by consuming any number less than 2100 but the effectiveness will be hard to see and there will be a margin of error in nutritional labeling for calories.
I've personally found lower deficits to be more maintainable over time, with a big deficit you can see the effects really fast but I also find that my weight was more prone to rubberband very quickly after stopping the diet.
If you can maintain a super low deficit and then keep the weight that way after that's great, I just don't think it's really universally applicable.
Lower deficits and exercising are much more effective to lose weight long term instead of doing the yo-yo like the majority of people who believe in diets.
I didn't have much money, and my doctor told me I was eating twice as much as I should so I figured I'd cut my grocery bills in half. One trick I learned was that if I was hungry I'd drink a big glass of water and wait fifteen minutes. If I was still hungry I'd have more water and wait another fifteen minutes. If I was still hungry I'd have a small bowl of pasta or rice with vegetables.
Got down to my ideal weight in about six months, alongside a lot of manual labor getting and keeping a house ready for sale. It also helped that I didn't have a significant other, so mealtimes weren't social.
1 pound of body fat = 3500 calories, so if your normal caloric requirement is 2500 calories a day and you instead eat 2000 calories a day, you will lose one pound a week. Which doesn't sound like a lot but if you keep that up for one year you can lose 52 pounds - which is a lot.
Alright, but the daily expenditure will go down alongside your current weight. The average* 35 y/o 5'9" man, who exercises at least 30min a day 5 days a week, who weighs 217 will maintain weight at 2,871 while at 165 lbs will maintain at 2,452.
*average is emphasized to help explain why the calorie number is larger than in previous comments, which were a minimum estimate.
A 420 calorie drop from a 52-pound weight loss implies a resting metabolic requirement for body fat tissue of about 8 calories per pound, which I think is a serious overestimate but I'm not sure. I've seen some sources claim 2 calories per pound for fat and 6 calories per pound for muscle, but other sources have claimed significantly higher amounts.
Yeah it's really hard to pin down consistent numbers on this subject due to both interpersonal differences and demographic trends in data.
Goes up with physical activity AND weight no matter the source (muscle or fat).
You need to keep eating way more than 2200 calories a day in order to be stable at a weight of 300lbs even if you don't do any exercise.
I wouldn't say way more. If you cut your weight in half then you can expect to cut your calorie requirements by at most a third.
https://www.livestrong.com/article/360894-weight-loss-plans-for-a-300-pound-man/
4200 for a 300lbs man that doesn't exercise.
That doesn't seem related to my comment, are you sure that you can read English?
Me: You need to keep eating way more than 2200 calories in order to be stable at 300lbs
You: I wouldn't say way more, you'll cut your calories by a third of you lose half your weight
Me: 300lbs sustenance is 4200 calories for someone who's inactive
Do you think a 150lbs man needs 2800 (2/3rd of 4200) calories a day to sustain that weight if it's not someone that's active?
If anything you've highlighted the discrepancy between maintaining 300lbs at both 2200 and 4200, but more importantly my comment was about how calorie requirements go down pretty moderately as your weight decreases and your response to that was "at 300 very big number of calorie".
According to THIS calculator your estimate is 900 calories too high.
Part of the reason for my condescending reply was you linking that garbage tier magazine article to me.
Oh and a 52% increase compared to average isn't way more then?
3350/2200 = 1.52 -> 52% more than normal
Just using the numbers you provided
2200 isn't "normal." Both numbers are "normal" at different weights. If you reverse the ratio then you see 2200 is 0.656% of 3350 or that it has...
DECREASED BY A THIRD. WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT...?
Also, you randomly reused the 2200 you spouted earlier instead of running the calculator again for 150 lbs which would be 2,352. So it's actually even less than that.
Just going by average number based on my local health guidelines.