Not to beat a dead horse....

just try it and see if it works for you.

I don't understand. I suspect it will "work" for 98% of people who try it, if by "work", you mean, "loses weight"...

...but that isn't really the question here, is it? It's whether or not it's "right"...and I would guess (and it's admittedly just a guess) that it's "right" for far fewer than who "try it" on MFP.

But honestly, I'm past the point of arguing it with anyone. Sure, I'll still post in the 1200 threads as I see them to suggest that not everyone should start at the bottom, but I'm not going to engage in the certain argument...and not because I think I'm wrong, but because I have no interest in persuading those who are convinced that 1200 is "right" for them, regardless of where they are on their "journey" or how many times they've previously tried it the 1200 way (because, they argue, it "works" for them).

just try it and see if it works for you.

I don't understand. I suspect it will "work" for 98% of people who try it, if by "work", you mean, "loses weight"...

...but that isn't really the question here, is it? It's whether or not it's "right"...and I would guess (and it's admittedly just a guess) that it's "right" for far fewer than who "try it" on MFP.

But honestly, I'm past the point of arguing it with anyone. Sure, I'll still post in the 1200 threads as I see them to suggest that not everyone should start at the bottom, but I'm not going to engage in the certain argument...and not because I think I'm wrong, but because I have no interest in persuading those who are convinced that 1200 is "right" for them, regardless of where they are on their "journey" or how many times they've previously tried it the 1200 way (because, they argue, it "works" for them).

this ...

:flowerforyou:

I can AIM for flying to the moon on the back of the cow while the cat plays the fiddle but that doesn't mean it will happen. It's less frustration, less discouragement, and more satisfying to have a reasonable and attainable goal.

Choose not to aim for 2 lbs/week yourself if you find it unrealistic. For the people that do make the choice, I don't think people should be telling them that it's unhealthy and unrealistic for anyone not obese. It's not unrealistic, which is why it's commonly referred to as the max you should aim for. Not the max IF you're >50 lbs. overweight.

People would agree that a person of any size can gain 2 lbs/week by eating 1000 calories a day more than they burn. Why would the inverse be false? The only reason it's unrealistic for many here is because it takes discipline and accuracy. But even if you lack those, it's probably better to shoot for 2 lbs. and achieve 1 then shoot for 1 and achieve 0.

I couldn't disagree more with the rationale and psychology behind this.

just try it and see if it works for you.

I don't understand. I suspect it will "work" for 98% of people who try it, if by "work", you mean, "loses weight"...

...but that isn't really the question here, is it? It's whether or not it's "right"...and I would guess (and it's admittedly just a guess) that it's "right" for far fewer than who "try it" on MFP.

But honestly, I'm past the point of arguing it with anyone. Sure, I'll still post in the 1200 threads as I see them to suggest that not everyone should start at the bottom, but I'm not going to engage in the certain argument...and not because I think I'm wrong, but because I have no interest in persuading those who are convinced that 1200 is "right" for them, regardless of where they are on their "journey" or how many times they've previously tried it the 1200 way (because, they argue, it "works" for them).

But you can tell that it works by the fact that they're back for the 6th or 7th or 30th time to lose the same weight that they couldn't keep off for any significant length of time.

Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?

I think something it doesn't take into account is height. I have friends who are not even 5 feet tall and in their case eating 1200 or below isn't a bad idea.

I am of the "eat more" club but honestly you have to do what works for you. Each body is so different that there is no blanket approach that is going to work for everyone all the time.

Not to beat a dead horse.... but does exactly that, use the search feature OP.

Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?

In many folks, there's a corresponding drop in general activity level as various aches and pains slow us down a bit.

In men, there is often a reduction in the production of testosterone, which most studies I'm aware of (Google your favorite medical sites) strongly correlate to a man's ability to produce muscle mass efficiently.

Please note the lack of absolutes in the above.

Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?

In many folks, there's a corresponding drop in general activity level as various aches and pains slow us down a bit.

In men, there is often a reduction in the production of testosterone, which most studies I'm aware of (Google your favorite medical sites) strongly correlate to a man's ability to produce muscle mass efficiently.

Please note the lack of absolutes in the above.

(Excellent...[Mr. Burns voice])

So it's likely more closely dependent on 1) activity and 2) muscle mass, right?

And what's one of the most important factors in maintaining high activity level and higher muscle mass, especially in those "dieting"/eating at a deficit?

I propose that it's an appropriate amount of calories/a reasonable deficit.

And thus completes the circle.

Can someone educate me on why age is necessarily correlated with a substantial decrease in TDEE (assuming no change in activity levels)?

In many folks, there's a corresponding drop in general activity level as various aches and pains slow us down a bit.

In men, there is often a reduction in the production of testosterone, which most studies I'm aware of (Google your favorite medical sites) strongly correlate to a man's ability to produce muscle mass efficiently.

Please note the lack of absolutes in the above.

(Excellent...[Mr. Burns voice])

So it's likely more closely dependent on 1) activity and 2) muscle mass, right?

And what's one of the most important factors in maintaining high activity level and higher muscle mass, especially in those "dieting"/eating at a deficit?

I propose that it's an appropriate amount of calories/a reasonable deficit.

And thus completes the circle.

I don't recall disagreeing in the slightest with the sentence I emphasized. I have merely suggested that, based on my own experience and reading on the subject, "an appropriate amount of calories/a reasonable deficit" is not a number that stays static from the onset of adulthood until death by old age, and, in general, will tend to decrease a bit over time.