> With every one kilogram you lose, your appetite goes up above baseline by 90 or so calories per day If that were the case, it doesn't seem to apply to me. W

> With every one kilogram you lose, your appetite goes up above baseline by 90 or so calories per day If that were the case, it doesn't seem to apply to me. When I was on a fat-loss journey, I had gone from ~102 kg down to 72.5 kg, which I stayed around for several years. That's a difference in 29.5 kg. 29.5 * 90 = 2,655 kCal Not that I didn't get very hungry at times, but I'm failing to wrap my head around what this guy was saying. If it's true, then either my daily energy expenditure would be more than twice what it currently is (which I've measured through respiratory gas analysis), or I'm hungrier than I know and I'm just shitting out all those extra "calories" that I'm not turning into fat mass. > Ard says, so walking that normally burned 100 calories might now burn only 90. By making you want to eat more and burning fewer calories, your body is eventually able to slow weight loss down to zero. The problem here is in believing that the level of perceived hunger has a linear relation to "calories" burned which, if we are going to be accurate, describes a unit of heat. The body doesn't directly delegate heat because photons have no mass. All the body cares about having different kinds of mass in the optimal places at the current time. Just because you feel more hungry than usual doesn't mean that your body demands to burn X number of calories. Because there's more in play than just energy-in-energy-out, in order to overcome those plateaus, you have to either alter the fuel mixture to optimize for hormone levels, or you have to eat such little mass that it can't make up for all of the mass that your body loses otherwise. This isn't even counting the psychology behind hunger, and how people can think they are hungry with relatively low ghrelin levels because they are relying on food for psychological comfort.