Greentext

3994 readers

1845 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

766

Anon figures out how dieting works (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

172 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh and a 52% increase compared to average isn't way more then?

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

3350/2200 = 1.52 -> 52% more than normal

Just using the numbers you provided

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago

Just going by average number based on my local health guidelines.