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.
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.