Beyond the Calculator: Why Your Metabolism Isn’t a Math Problem, and the Feedback-Driven System That Actually Works

My name is Dr. Evelyn Reed.

I hold a PhD in nutritional biochemistry and I’m a NASM-Certified Nutrition Coach.¹

For years, I’ve dedicated my life to understanding the intricate dance between the food we eat and the bodies we live in.

But my most important lesson didn’t come from a textbook or a research paper.

It came from a failure.

It came from a client I’ll call Sarah, and a weight-loss plateau that shattered my confidence and forced me to question everything I thought I knew.

Part 1: The Plateau That Broke Me (And My Faith in Calculators)

The Story of Sarah and the “Perfect Plan”

Early in my coaching career, I was a true believer in the power of numbers.

Armed with my certifications and a deep trust in the established science, I saw the human body as a complex but ultimately solvable equation.

If you could just get the inputs right, the output—weight loss, muscle gain, better health—was inevitable.

Sarah was the perfect client to test this belief.

She came to me motivated, organized, and ready to follow a plan to the letter.

She was tired of the guesswork and wanted a scientific, no-nonsense approach.

I was thrilled.

This was my chance to prove that the system worked.

We started, as I was taught, with the “gold standard” of online tools: the Mifflin-St Jeor basal calorie calculator.³

We plugged in her age, sex, height, and weight.

The calculator spit out a number, her estimated Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), which felt precise and authoritative.

From there, we calculated her Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) and created what should have been a perfect, moderate 500-calorie daily deficit—a plan designed to produce a steady, sustainable loss of about one pound per week.⁵

Sarah was meticulous.

She weighed her food, tracked every gram in an app, and hit her calorie and macronutrient targets every single day.

And for the first three weeks, it was magic.

The number on the scale dropped consistently.

We were both ecstatic.

The plan was working.

The numbers were right.

What I didn’t fully appreciate at the time was that this initial, rapid drop was largely an illusion.

When you first cut calories, your body uses its stored carbohydrates, called glycogen, for energy.

Glycogen is bound with water, so when it’s burned, it releases that water, resulting in a swift but temporary loss on the scale.⁶

It wasn’t fat loss, not really.

It was just the system clearing its cache.

Then, around week six, the magic vanished.

The scale stopped moving.

Completely.

For a week.

Then another.

Sarah’s meticulous tracking didn’t change.

Her adherence was still perfect.

But the progress had slammed into a wall.

Her frustration was palpable, and it mirrored my own growing panic.

I reviewed her food logs, searching for hidden calories or miscalculations.

There were none.

We tweaked her exercise.

Nothing.

The numbers said she should be losing weight, but her body was telling a different story.

One day, in a voice laced with despair, she asked the question that would change the course of my career: “I’m doing everything right.

Why isn’t this working?”

I had no answer.

My entire framework, built on the seemingly solid foundation of metabolic equations, had crumbled.

The failure wasn’t just Sarah’s; it was mine.

It was a heartbreaking realization that the “precision” I had sold her was an illusion.

This experience exposed a deep and unsettling truth about the fitness and nutrition industry.

The path to becoming a certified coach can be surprisingly accessible.

Many certifications, including the one I held, involve self-guided online material and open-book exams.¹

This system produces thousands of well-intentioned coaches who, like me, are equipped with foundational knowledge but may lack the deeper scientific literacy to question the very tools they are taught to use.

They are handed a hammer—the BMR calculator—and suddenly, every client’s metabolism looks like a nail.

When the tool fails, the blame is rarely placed on the tool itself.

It’s placed on the client’s “lack of willpower,” their “secret snacking,” or their “broken metabolism.” My failure with Sarah forced me to look at the hammer and ask if it was the right tool for the job at all.

Part 2: The Epiphany: Your Metabolism Isn’t a Static Map, It’s a Live GPS

Sarah’s plateau became my obsession.

It represented a fundamental gap in my understanding, a ghost in the metabolic machine that my textbooks couldn’t explain.

So, I went beyond the coaching manuals and dove headfirst into the primary scientific literature—the dense, jargon-filled world of metabolic ward studies, indirect calorimetry, and the statistical deconstruction of the very predictive equations I had once trusted implicitly.

I spent months buried in research papers, tracing the origins of these formulas and the data they were built on.

And slowly, a new picture began to emerge.

The breakthrough, when it came, was not a new formula or a better calculator.

It was a complete paradigm shift in how I viewed metabolism itself.

My epiphany was this: I had been treating the BMR calculator’s output as a static, unchanging road map.

I believed that if I could just draw the map accurately at the beginning of the journey, all Sarah had to do was follow it to reach her destination.

But a human body is not a fixed landscape.

It is a dynamic, complex, and constantly adapting system.

It responds to every change in diet, activity, stress, and sleep.

The real key wasn’t to find a better map, but to learn how to read the live GPS signal the body sends out every single day.

This analogy became the cornerstone of my new philosophy.

• The Map: The traditional BMR calculator approach. It gives you a single, predictive snapshot based on a few variables at one point in time. It’s static. It doesn’t account for real-world changes, detours, or traffic jams.
• The GPS: A dynamic, feedback-driven system. It uses real-time data from your own body to constantly update your position and recalculate the best route forward. It’s responsive, adaptive, and based on reality, not prediction.

The fundamental error of the calculator-centric model isn’t just that the math is often wrong; it’s that it represents the wrong way of knowing.

It prioritizes a single, upfront prediction over a process of continuous observation and adaptation.

Think about it: a calculator takes your inputs at Day 0 and gives you a number to follow for the next 90 days.⁵

But during those 90 days, your body changes.

As you lose weight, your muscle mass might decrease slightly, and your body becomes more energy-efficient—your metabolism adapts.⁶

The “territory” of your body has changed, but the “map” you’re following has not.

A mismatch is not just possible; it is inevitable.

The failure is baked into the methodology.

The GPS approach, by contrast, is built on the very premise of constant updates, correcting this fundamental flaw.

Part 3: Deconstructing the Map: A Scientist’s Guide to Why BMR Calculators Fail

To understand why the GPS approach is so superior, we first need to take a closer look at the map itself and understand its components and its deep, inherent flaws.

Understanding the Engine’s Components

Your body’s total daily energy burn, its TDEE, is made up of several parts.

Think of it as your total fuel consumption for the day.

• Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): This is the true, clinical baseline. It’s the amount of energy your body would burn over 24 hours if you were in a coma-like state—awake but completely at rest, physically and mentally, in a thermally neutral environment, after a 12-hour fast.⁹ It’s the energy needed for life-sustaining functions like breathing, circulation, and cell production.¹¹ BMR is the biggest piece of the pie, accounting for about 60-70% of your total daily calorie burn.⁹
• Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR): This is BMR’s more practical, real-world cousin. It’s measured under less strict conditions and includes the energy cost of very light activities like sitting up or fidgeting.¹² For this reason, RMR is usually about 10% higher than a true BMR.¹⁰ When you use an online calculator, it’s almost always estimating your RMR, not your BMR, even if it uses the term “BMR”.¹¹
• Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE): This is the grand total of calories you burn in a day. It is your RMR plus all other energy expenditures ¹⁵:

• Thermic Effect of Food (TEF): The energy used to digest, absorb, and store the food you eat. This accounts for about 10% of your TDEE.¹⁷
• Activity Thermogenesis: All the energy you burn through movement. This is further broken down into:

• Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (EAT): Calories burned during intentional exercise like running or lifting weights.¹⁷
• Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT): All the calories you burn from movement that isn’t formal exercise—walking to your car, typing, fidgeting, doing chores. This can vary wildly between people, accounting for anywhere from 100 to 800 calories per day.¹⁷

The Architects of the Map: A Tale of Two Formulas

Online calculators use mathematical equations to estimate your RMR.

The two most famous are the Harris-Benedict and the Mifflin-St Jeor equations.

• The Harris-Benedict Equation: Developed in 1919 and revised in 1984, this is the original blueprint.³ It’s important to understand its historical context. It was created based on data from a group of young, healthy, predominantly white adults over a century ago.¹⁴ Lifestyles, body compositions, and ambient environments were vastly different then. This historical disconnect is a major reason for its limitations today.
• The Mifflin-St Jeor Equation: Introduced in 1990, this formula was developed using modern statistical methods and a larger, more diverse sample of people, including individuals with obesity.³ For this reason, it is almost universally cited by health websites and fitness professionals as the most accurate predictive equation available.⁴ This widespread belief, however, sets up what I call the “Accuracy Paradox.”

The Map’s Known Flaws: The Shocking Truth About “Accuracy”

When a study claims a formula is “accurate,” it’s crucial to ask what that word actually means.

In metabolic research, “accuracy” is often defined as predicting an individual’s RMR to within 10% of the value measured by a highly sensitive lab instrument (a process called indirect calorimetry).

A 10% error margin is not precision.

For someone whose true RMR is 2,000 calories, a “successful” prediction could be anywhere from 1,800 to 2,200 calories.

That 400-calorie range is the difference between a successful weight loss plan and a frustrating plateau.

Even with this generous definition, the performance of these formulas is shockingly poor, especially when you look at specific populations.

This brings us to the Accuracy Paradox of Mifflin-St Jeor.

While countless sources hail it as the best, recent, rigorous studies paint a very different picture.

A landmark 2023 study published in a peer-reviewed journal examined the accuracy of these formulas in a population they are frequently used for: older adults with obesity.

The results were stunning ²²:

• The “gold standard” Mifflin-St Jeor equation was accurate (within 10%) only 43.1% of the time.
• The older, supposedly less accurate Harris-Benedict equation was actually more accurate in this group, hitting the target 53.5% of the time.
• Most critically, the Mifflin-St Jeor equation showed a powerful and consistent bias toward underprediction. It underestimated the subjects’ metabolic rates by an average of 5.1%. This means it systematically told people they were burning fewer calories than they actually were, a recipe for creating an ineffective diet plan.

Other research confirms this is not an isolated finding.

One systematic review found that the typical error for these equations is between 150 and 400 calories per day.

Even in the most optimistic scenarios, the best equations are still wrong by more than 10% for at least 20% of the population.²³

These are not minor rounding errors; they are fundamental flaws that render the map unreliable for navigation.

To put this in stark relief, consider the following breakdown:

Feature	Harris-Benedict Equation	Mifflin-St Jeor Equation	Katch-McArdle Formula
Year Developed	1919 (Revised 1984)	1990	(Varies, based on LBM)
Key Variables	Age, Sex, Height, Weight	Age, Sex, Height, Weight	Lean Body Mass, Total Weight
The Popular Claim	The old standard, generally considered less accurate than newer formulas.	The “most accurate” and preferred modern formula for both non-obese and obese individuals.3	The most accurate option for lean individuals who know their body fat percentage.3
The Scientific Reality	Accuracy ranges from 45-80% in validation studies, often overestimating RMR.19 In a 2023 study of older adults with obesity, it was more accurate (53.5%) than Mifflin-St Jeor.22	Highly variable accuracy. In the same 2023 study, it was accurate only 43.1% of the time and consistently underestimated energy needs.22 The typical error across populations is ~150-400 kcal/day.23	Its accuracy is entirely dependent on an accurate body fat percentage measurement. Since most at-home methods have significant error margins, this often introduces another layer of guesswork.24

Part 4: Navigating the Uncharted Territory: Why the Map Fails in the Real World

The problem with the map isn’t just that its ink is faded and its lines are blurry.

The bigger problem is that it’s trying to chart a territory that is fundamentally un-mappable with simple equations.

The “You Are Here” Problem: The Wild West of Individual Metabolism

The single greatest flaw in the calculator approach is that it ignores the vast, untamable wilderness of individual metabolic variability.

A groundbreaking 2021 study by Pontzer and colleagues analyzed the energy expenditure of over 6,400 people worldwide.

Their findings demolish the idea of a “normal” metabolism.

They found that two men of the exact same weight—say, 155 pounds (70 kg)—could have wildly different daily energy expenditures, ranging from as low as 1,200 calories to as high as 3,600 calories.²⁵

This isn’t a small variation.

It’s a three-fold difference.

One man could maintain his weight on 1,200 calories, while another man of the same size would need 3,600.

No formula based on just weight, height, age, and sex can possibly account for this chasm.

This variability is driven by a host of factors the calculators can’t see: genetics, hormone levels (like thyroid and cortisol), the composition of your gut microbiome, and subtle differences in lean muscle Mass.³

A huge part of it is that invisible calorie-burner, NEAT—your tendency to fidget, maintain posture, and move throughout the day.¹⁷

The Compounding Error Effect

The calculator’s journey from input to output is a cascade of compounding errors.

• Error 1: The Flawed Formula. As we’ve seen, the initial RMR estimate is already a guess with a significant, built-in error margin of hundreds of calories.²³
• Error 2: The Activity Multiplier Guess. The next step is to multiply this flawed RMR by an “activity multiplier.” You are asked to subjectively lump your entire, varied week of activity into one of five generic buckets like “Lightly Active” or “Moderately Active”.⁵ This is a massive source of error. Research and experience show that most people, no matter how educated, tend to overestimate their activity level and underestimate their food intake.²⁴
• Error 3: The Wearable Device Lie. Many people, frustrated with the vague activity multipliers, turn to their fitness trackers for a more “accurate” calorie burn number. This is a trap. A 2020 systematic review of popular wearable devices came to a brutal conclusion: while they are decent at tracking heart rate and steps, for estimating energy expenditure, “no brand was accurate”.²⁵ Errors in individual studies often exceeded 50%. This means your watch telling you that you burned 500 calories on a run could be off by 250 calories in either direction.

The result of this process—a guess (RMR) multiplied by a bigger guess (activity)—is a final TDEE number that is so potentially flawed it becomes practically useless for the precise planning required for consistent weight management.

Metabolic Headwinds: Your Body Fights Back

Finally, the map fails because it cannot account for the fact that the territory changes as you navigate it.

When you create a calorie deficit and start losing weight, your body doesn’t just sit back and let it happen.

It fights back.

This is called metabolic adaptation or adaptive thermogenesis.

Here’s the chain of events that leads to the dreaded plateau ⁶:

1. You eat in a calorie deficit.
2. Your body burns stored fat for energy, but it also, unavoidably, breaks down some muscle tissue.
3. As your body weight decreases and your muscle mass (a metabolically active tissue) declines, your BMR naturally drops. You are now a smaller, more energy-efficient machine.
4. Your body becomes more efficient in other ways, too. It reduces your NEAT, making you subconsciously move less. It becomes better at extracting energy from food.

The 500-calorie deficit that was working wonders for you in week one might now only be a 200-calorie deficit by week eight, even if your food intake and exercise have remained exactly the same.⁶

You’ve hit a plateau.

But because you are still trusting your original, static map, you don’t see this as a natural adaptation.

You see it as a personal failure.

Part 5: Your Personal GPS: The 4-Step Dynamic Feedback System

It’s time to throw away the flawed, frustrating map.

It’s time to turn on your personal GPS.

This system is not a prediction; it’s a process.

It embraces your unique variability and adapts with you.

It uses the most accurate data source on the planet—your own body’s response—to find the truth.

Step 1: Get Your Starting Coordinates (The Educated Guess)

We still need a place to start, but we will treat it with the skepticism it deserves.

1. Go ahead and use an online calculator (the Mifflin-St Jeor is fine for this purpose) to get an estimated TDEE.
2. Write this number down, but mentally label it “Hypothesis #1.” This is not truth; it is a starting point for our experiment.
3. The Golden Rule: Look at the BMR number the calculator provides. Your daily calorie target should never go below this number. Your BMR is the bare minimum your body needs to run its essential systems. Consistently eating below it is a fast track to muscle loss, a slower metabolism, and potential health problems.⁵

Step 2: Begin Your Journey & Collect Data (The 3-Week Calibration Phase)

This is where we stop guessing and start listening.

For the next two to three weeks, you must be ruthlessly consistent with two things:

1. Consistent Calorie Intake: Eat the exact same number of calories every day—the TDEE estimate you got in Step 1. For this short period, consistency trumps everything. Track your food intake as accurately as you possibly can.
2. Consistent Weigh-Ins: Weigh yourself every morning, under the same conditions (e.g., after using the restroom, before eating or drinking anything). Write down the daily number, but do not react to it. Daily weight can fluctuate wildly due to water, salt, and glycogen.²⁶ At the end of each week, calculate your
   weekly average weight. This is the number that matters.

Step 3: Analyze the Real-Time Feedback (Reading Your GPS)

After at least two, preferably three, weeks of consistent data collection, it’s time to analyze the trend in your average weekly weight.

This trend tells you the truth about your metabolism.

• If your average weekly weight is stable (it hasn’t changed by more than a fraction of a pound): Congratulations! Your initial calculator estimate was surprisingly accurate. The number of calories you’ve been eating is your true, current maintenance TDEE.
• If your average weekly weight has gone down: Your actual TDEE is higher than the calculator estimated. Your body is burning more fuel than the map predicted. We can quantify this using the general rule that one pound of body fat contains roughly 3,500 calories.

• Example: If you lost an average of 0.5 pounds per week, you were in a weekly deficit of about 1,750 calories (0.5 x 3,500), which is a daily deficit of 250 calories (1,750 / 7).
• Your True TDEE = Your Daily Calorie Intake + 250.
• If your average weekly weight has gone up: Your actual TDEE is lower than the calculator estimated. Your body is more fuel-efficient than the map predicted.

• Example: If you gained an average of 0.5 pounds per week, you were in a weekly surplus of about 1,750 calories, which is a daily surplus of 250 calories.
• Your True TDEE = Your Daily Calorie Intake – 250.

Step 4: Adjust and Recalculate (Charting Your New Course)

You now possess something incredibly powerful: a real, evidence-based, personalized number for your TDEE.

This is your true north.

Now, you can make intelligent, data-driven decisions.

• For Sustainable Weight Loss: Subtract a moderate, sustainable number (300-500 calories is a good starting point) from your newly discovered, true TDEE.⁵
• For Lean Muscle Gain: Add a modest surplus (250-400 calories is a good starting point) to your true TDEE.⁵

This is not a one-time fix.

This is a continuous feedback loop.

Your body will continue to adapt.

Every 2-3 months, or whenever you hit a plateau, you simply repeat the process: run a new 2-3 week calibration phase at your current intake to find your new, updated TDEE.

This is how you keep your GPS calibrated to your body’s changing needs.

This system does something far more important than just giving you a number.

It transforms you from a passive follower of a flawed map into an active, empowered scientist of your own body.

The calculator approach fosters dependency; when it fails, you are lost.

The GPS system teaches you a lifelong skill: the skill of self-observation, data collection, and logical adjustment.

It removes the mystery from the black box of your metabolism and replaces it with a transparent, repeatable process.

Part 6: Your Journey, Your Destination

Let’s go back to Sarah.

After my epiphany, I went back to her, not with a new formula, but with a new approach.

I explained the flaws in our old map and proposed the GPS system.

She was skeptical at first, but she was also desperate, so she agreed.

We spent three weeks with her eating at a consistent calorie level.

We tracked her daily weight and took the weekly average.

The data was undeniable: her true maintenance TDEE was nearly 300 calories lower than the “gold standard” calculator had predicted.

Our “perfect” 500-calorie deficit had, in reality, been a meager 200-calorie deficit, which her body had quickly adapted to, causing the plateau.

Armed with this real-world data, we made a small, intelligent adjustment.

We created a true 400-calorie deficit based on her actual TDEE.

The next week, the scale started moving again, steadily and sustainably.

The relief on her face was a sight I will never forget.

It wasn’t just about the weight loss; it was about the return of her agency.

She finally understood her body’s language.

Your journey to health and your goal weight is uniquely yours.

It’s time to stop the frustrating search for a perfect calculator or a magic number that doesn’t exist.

The most sophisticated and accurate metabolic calculator on Earth is your own body, and it’s giving you feedback every single day.

The journey isn’t about finding a better map; it’s about learning the language of your own personal GPS.

You already have the tool.

Now you have the user manual.

Works cited

1. Become a Certified Nutrition Coach | Promote Health through …, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.nasm.org/continuing-education/certified-nutrition-coach
2. Personal Trainer and Nutrition Coach Certification – Bethel College, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.bethelks.edu/certificates/program/personal-trainer-and-nutrition-coach/
3. BMR Calculator, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.calculator.net/bmr-calculator.html
4. Which Calorie Calculator Is Most Accurate? – MedicineNet, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.medicinenet.com/which_calorie_calculator_is_most_accurate/article.htm
5. How to Use BMR to Lose Weight Effectively – InBody USA, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://inbodyusa.com/blogs/inbodyblog/49311425-how-to-use-bmr-to-hack-your-diet/
6. Getting past a weight-loss plateau – Mayo Clinic, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/weight-loss-plateau/art-20044615
7. Nutrition and Fitness Coach Bundle – NASM, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.nasm.org/fitness-certifications/fitness-nutrition-bundle
8. Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) Calculator – Forbes Health, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/health/nutrition/bmr-calculator/
9. Basal Metabolic Rate Calculator | Garnet Health | Mid-Hudson Healthcare System, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.garnethealth.org/news/basal-metabolic-rate-calculator
10. BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate): What It Is & How To Calculate It, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/basal-metabolic-rate-bmr
11. www.garnethealth.org, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.garnethealth.org/news/basal-metabolic-rate-calculator#:~:text=BMR%20Definition%3A%20Your%20Basal%20Metabolic,stayed%20in%20bed%20all%20day.
12. BMR vs. RMR How Should Your Fitness Center Be Tracking Them – Styku, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.styku.com/blog/bmr-vs.-rmr
13. BMR vs. RMR – Which is Right For You? — VO2 MAX SF, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.vo2maxsf.com/blog/bmr-vs-rmr
14. Revised Harris–Benedict Equation: New Human Resting Metabolic Rate Equation – MDPI, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1989/13/2/189
15. Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) Calculator (Forbes Health), accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.acefitness.org/about-ace/press-room/in-the-news/8172/total-daily-energy-expenditure-tdee-calculator-forbes-health/
16. en.wikipedia.org, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_expenditure
17. What Is TDEE? Understanding Total Daily Energy Expenditure | Good Health by Hims, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.hims.com/blog/what-is-tdee
18. Metabolism and weight loss: How you burn calories – Mayo Clinic, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508
19. Which formula are recommended by nutritionists and scientists to measure “BASAL METABOLIC RATE” ? | ResearchGate, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/post/which_formula_are_recommended_by_nutritionists_and_scientists_to_measure_BASAL_METABOLIC_RATE
20. How To Calculate BMR & TDEE (& Why It’s Important) – Myprotein, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.myprotein.com/thezone/nutrition/how-to-calculate-bmr-tdee/
21. BMR Calculator – Calculate Basal Metabolic Rate for Men & Women Online, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.maxhealthcare.in/calculator/bmr
22. VALIDATION OF RESTING ENERGY EXPENDITURE EQUATIONS …, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9761489/
23. Why is my Expenditure in MacroFactor Different From the Output of a TDEE Calculator?, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://help.macrofactorapp.com/en/articles/126-why-is-my-expenditure-in-macrofactor-different-from-the-output-of-a-tdee-calculator
24. Why Your Calorie Calculator Is Off Course And How To Renavigate Your Success Journey, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/why-your-calorie-calculator-is-off-course-and-how-to-renavigate-your-success-journey
25. The Problems with Calorie Counting – MacroFactor, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://macrofactorapp.com/problems-with-calorie-counting/
26. How do I lose weight past this plateau I’ve hit? Currently in a 500cal deficit. – Reddit, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/EatCheapAndHealthy/comments/r6dv91/how_do_i_lose_weight_past_this_plateau_ive_hit/