Something Paradoxical Here?

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Something not quite right about this. Anyone got the explanation?

I used the 'caloric requirement' calculator at .................

www.exrx.net/calculators/calrequire ........ to calculate my daily

caloric requirement (2279 calories) at my set point - which I think I

do know fairly accurately, my early 20s endurance training fit weight.

Then I calculated what 25% and 30% restriction would do to that

number (reduces it to 1600 to 1700 calories per day, approximately).

THEN ....... I used the same calculator in reverse .......... that

is, I used it to check what body weight (according to the calculator,

that is based on the -Benedict equation) those 1600 to 1700

calories would support on a sustained basis. I.E. I used it to

answer the question " given my height, age, etc., for what body weight

is the 1600 to 1700 calories the 'caloric requirement' " ?

The answer is quite sobering. My set point is ~170 pounds.

According to -Benedict 1655 calories would maintain a weight of

100 pounds.

As usual, when my weight recently dropped below 168 I started to

look 'gaunt'. Someone has already noted my now-gaunt appearance.

Clearly it would be ridiculous to drop to 100 pounds. (Indeed it may

be ridiculous to drop to even 150 pounds). My BF% at 100 pounds

would be minus 26%.

Not the first time the data appear to be internally inconsistent.

Rodney.