5 ms·

Not trying to attack here - I'm seriously trying to help - but you must have been consuming calories you weren't aware of. For example, in my own experience co

Not trying to attack here - I'm seriously trying to help - but you must have been consuming calories you weren't aware of. For example, in my own experience counting calories, oil is always the killer - it's so calorie dense and sneaks into everything when you're cooking. You need 2400 calories a day to maintain weight, were supposedly consuming 2000, and were (off the cuff) burning close to 1000 a day from running and other activity. There's no way you'd gain weight at 220 lbs effectively consuming 1000 calories a day. I've lost weight eating more than that at 180 lbs body weight. Counting calories is very difficult. It's so easy to over- or under-estimate.

cptskippy 10y ago
I was consuming one 2000 calorie packet of Soylent a day and nothing else. No snacks, no cheating, just the one a day.
vidarh 9y ago
> You need 2400 calories a day to maintain weight No, his sources estimates 2400 calories a day. You're right to question if he's consumed more, but taking his claims at face value, they match my own experience and many, many anecdotes I've seen over the year to indicate that advice of maintenance levels around that range are way too high for most people. > and were (off the cuff) burning close to 1000 a day from running and other activity. I very much doubt that. My own off the cuff estimate is ~500 calories a day for that activity. > There's no way you'd gain weight at 220 lbs effectively consuming 1000 calories a day. I've lost weight eating more than that at 180 lbs body weight. More like 1500 by my account, possibly more depending on the intensity of his exercise. And if you assume lack of substantial muscle-weight in that, it matches pretty well with my own experience from before I started lifting weights - I had diets where I had to drop to around 1200/day before it made a noticeable difference. Once I started adding muscle, I could get away with more, but not a lot more. I don't doubt your numbers, but to me they'r why we shouldn't listen to estimates, but measure, as activity level (all day long, not just during exercise) and body composition makes the error margin on estimates of metabolic rate crazily high.
- brandonmenc 9y ago
  I don't disagree with you, and I agree the numbers are slightly off (more like 2200 per day required and 800 per day burned, according to a number of calculators.) But even still, at 220 lbs, your estimate of 1500 calories a day should not cause weight gain.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    As I said, at about the same weight when I didn't have much muscle, 2000 calories less ~500 spent on exercise each day would have caused weight gain for me. And did, for that matter until I'd adjusted my intake further down. To notice much in terms of a loss I had to go below about 1600kcal before factoring in the exercise. I believe my maintenance level at the time was ~1800kcal. If you're largely sedentary outside of your exercise, you can end up burning exceedingly little.

cptskippy 10y ago

I was consuming one 2000 calorie packet of Soylent a day and nothing else. No snacks, no cheating, just the one a day.

vidarh 9y ago

> You need 2400 calories a day to maintain weight No, his sources estimates 2400 calories a day. You're right to question if he's consumed more, but taking his claims at face value, they match my own experience and many, many anecdotes I've seen over the year to indicate that advice of maintenance levels around that range are way too high for most people. > and were (off the cuff) burning close to 1000 a day from running and other activity. I very much doubt that. My own off the cuff estimate is ~500 calories a day for that activity. > There's no way you'd gain weight at 220 lbs effectively consuming 1000 calories a day. I've lost weight eating more than that at 180 lbs body weight. More like 1500 by my account, possibly more depending on the intensity of his exercise. And if you assume lack of substantial muscle-weight in that, it matches pretty well with my own experience from before I started lifting weights - I had diets where I had to drop to around 1200/day before it made a noticeable difference. Once I started adding muscle, I could get away with more, but not a lot more. I don't doubt your numbers, but to me they'r why we shouldn't listen to estimates, but measure, as activity level (all day long, not just during exercise) and body composition makes the error margin on estimates of metabolic rate crazily high.

brandonmenc 9y ago
I don't disagree with you, and I agree the numbers are slightly off (more like 2200 per day required and 800 per day burned, according to a number of calculators.) But even still, at 220 lbs, your estimate of 1500 calories a day should not cause weight gain.
- vidarh 9y ago
  As I said, at about the same weight when I didn't have much muscle, 2000 calories less ~500 spent on exercise each day would have caused weight gain for me. And did, for that matter until I'd adjusted my intake further down. To notice much in terms of a loss I had to go below about 1600kcal before factoring in the exercise. I believe my maintenance level at the time was ~1800kcal. If you're largely sedentary outside of your exercise, you can end up burning exceedingly little.