3500 cals per pound is "wrong" but it's good enough

Options
2»

Replies

  • ryry_
    ryry_ Posts: 4,966 Member
    Options
    I'm sticking with 3500. Nothing in your post told me another # was better and it has worked so far.

    Go Canes!!!! And since you are from Tampa go Bucs and Go Rays!!!!
  • Kotuliak
    Kotuliak Posts: 259 Member
    Options
    Good post, thanks!
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,927 Member
    Options
    :flowerforyou:
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    *dances*
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    Options
    I'm sticking with 3500. Nothing in your post told me another # was better and it has worked so far.

    I feel like...never mind. Just...never mind.
  • HeidiCooksSupper
    HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,831 Member
    Options
    Where's that like button!?!?

    And, of course, calorie counts for foods are equally squishy but "close enough" based on assumptions from the 1950s, industry pressure, and a whole passel of other variants.

    But, as another MFPer once said, just because one tire is flat doesn't mean we go stick nails in the other three. Do the best you can with what you've got.
  • towens00
    towens00 Posts: 1,033 Member
    Options
    In to follow
  • bound4beauty
    bound4beauty Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    I like this post. That's a very informative way of saying "stop expecting weight loss to be linear and perfectly predictable." Very much appreciated!

    Exactly this. I can do virtually the same thing week after week but one week I'll be up .6 and the next week I'll be down two. It's the overall trend and what works in the long run. Everyone has to tweak their calories until they find what works for them. And then after awhile, you have to tweak it again. It's people's impatience that causes all the frustration and constant searching for something "new and improved"

    Thanks for the great post!