Hello all, have a question about a calorie deficit calculation.

30 y/o M starting weight 260, 5-8

So using calorie calculators of my base "caloric need" comes to 2200-2400. Over the past 6 months pretty much no exercise I've stayed right around 260, and after doing some calculations about calorie intake I'm pretty sure my old diet I ingested an unhealthy 3200-3500 calories per day and stayed at the same weight.

I carry a decent amount of muscle, all the men in my family are what can only be described as stocky, I essentially have the choice to be fat or muscular, super lean doesn't appear to be in my genetic cards which I have no issue with.

So now that I am solving the weight and diet problem, I am wondering which is a more accurate measurement of caloric deficit.

A: ~2300 + exercise burned - calories consumed
or
B: ~3300 + exercise burned - calories consumed

The answer doesn't really matter too much I'm going to stick in the 1800-2000 range daily at this point I think but I was just curious. I have lost weight before pretty fast when combining good eating and exercise and am wondering if it's more just because I'm a guy, or because I have a larger caloric deficit than I think I am creating.

Welcome to 3FC!

I haven't spent a lot of time playing with calorie calculators, but I think your situation points out how generic they can be. If you found you could eat 3300 calories and maintain your weight, whatever your exercise expenditure, then that's what you required at that weight for maintenance. Eating in the lower calorie range would result in a loss. What the calculators can't take into account is your particular body makeup. If you have more muscle or a higher resting metabolism than the hypothetical person they are basing their calculations on, then it's not going to be accurate for you.

It comes down to trial and error for each person. I think your plan for aiming for around 2000 calories to start is great. you can always adjust up or down as you go.

I have never "eaten back" my calories. Right now it's time for you to swim to shore--not analyze your backstroke. It may take some tweaking. If I were you I would focus on festidious calorie counting right now with an emphasis on whole foods. Many people have success with lean proteins, veggies and limited complex carbs. The hardest part is the beginning. If you can get through the first few days, I think you will find the rest to come to you a bit easier.

Somebody here has a quote saying something to the effect of losing weight while eating as many calories as possible. I think that would be a great way to start. That way, as you become lighter, you have more wiggle room so you can decrease your calories. If you start off at a low amount, what will you eat when you lose a bunch of weight? It will be that much harder. I also rarely eat the calories I burn through exercise. Anyway, I hope you will like this forum and WELCOME!!!

I think B.

I got up to 240 and figure I was easily eating 3000+ cals a day (I'm almost 50). If you read here a lot, people VARY a lot in what they can or cannot do and still lose weight.

I got down to 220 (mostly thru exercise and one lifestyle change) before I got more serious about calories. I started with 2000 cals a day limit and have lost about 1-1/3 pounds a week over the first 3 months.

Personally I would not recommend a big calorie restriction. Losing the weight is not the hard part IMO, the hard part is losing the weight at a rate commensurate with sliding into maintenance as easily as possible - like setting a jet down on the runway, nice and easy. Losing weight too fast is not a good idea. I figure it took me years to get to this weight, there is no reason I can't wait one lousy year to take it off. Faster is going to be more painful, more likely for you to quit, more likely to have health problems, etc. Slow and easy I think. At your age, just by exercising consistently and dropping to 2500 cals, you are going to be losing a pound or two a week, that is plenty.