So for those maintaining below 2000/day, is this a lifetime commitment?

brianpperkins

cloudi2 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

Tomhusker wrote: »

I am 6'1" and 400 lbs. For the past two weeks I have struggled to hit 2000 calories per day, let alone the 2800 I am supposed to reach (before adding in the calories for exercise) . 2000 calories is a lot of food.

One does not reach 400 pounds by chronic undereating.

Brian, Tomhusker had the courage to post his experience here.
You shouldnt abuse or shame anyone about their body type.

No BODY is open for ridicule on this thread!

I didn't shame or abuse anyone. I pointed out a very simple, and obvious, fact. People do notbecome overweight by under eating. People become overweight by eating more calories than they need for their activity level. Your increased BMI over the past six months illustrates that this entire thread is based around an activity that is causing you to gain weight. Bodies do not have some magic weight where they stabilize in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

jazzine1

@cloudi2 I would like to hear more about your village/town and how you met your husband. After reading 17 pages I think I'm beginning to like you.

Yawnetu

DISCLAIMER: I read the first few pages of this thread and then skipped to p. 17 to see how the conversation had developed. Apologies if someone here already stated this obvious point, so let's say this is for those like me who jumped into the middle of the conversation:

The obvious fallacy here is that 2,000 cal = health.

2,000 cal a day does NOT ensure health. 2,000 calories could come mostly from fats or sugars, zero protein, etc. You could be missing micronutrients let alone macros. If someone is maintaining their weight on less than 2,000 AND they are paying attention to their macros and micros, they are going to be far healthier than someone who sets a random arbitrary baseline of 2,000 cal and assumes that that ALONE ensures you're likely to have all the health bases covered. A person of a certain age, height and activity level could well eat less than that and be healthier than someone who chomped through 2,000 calories with the assumption that that by itself would ensure good health. Yeah, I underscored that point.

If the reason for the 2,000 calorie baseline is because you as OP wouldn't be satisfied with eating less, then be honest about that. You want to eat more. It's a personal decision, well within your rights. But a 2,000 calorie benchmark does not equate to health in any way, absent any other details.