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.
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.
That doesn’t seem related to my comment, are you sure that you can read English?
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod