Anyone increase their calories for weight loss?

A 1000-1200 calorie deficit worked at first but progress stopped early in month three. Raising intake to leave only a 500-600 calorie gap let the scale keep moving, though more slowly. Keeping protein high while staying in a moderate deficit seems key, and very large deficits appear to make the body hold onto stores more tightly.

You would need to drop well below 1000 calories before metabolic adaptation could fully protect weight. Raising the dose of reta or adding cjc would probably move the scale faster.

Raised daily calories to at least 2300 after realizing previous targets were too low. Strength in the gym improved within two weeks and scale weight stayed the same while body-fat estimates looked stable or slightly better. Planning to run the higher intake for six weeks and recheck caliper measurements.

The biggest error is guessing both intake and expenditure instead of tracking them. Most people do best with a 500-700 calorie deficit; bigger gaps tend to produce stalls as the body adapts. Increasing the GLP dose will not correct poor tracking, and larger deficits also risk more muscle loss along with fat.

Energy needs drop with the 20 kg already lost and some adaptation may be occurring even if six months is early. Calculator estimates can be off by large margins, food tracking is rarely exact without weighing everything, and added muscle from training could mask fat loss on the scale. Raising the GLP dose remains the simplest next step if more loss is the goal.

Repeated training makes the same workout burn fewer calories over time because the body becomes more efficient at the movement.

Still eating in the 2000-2500 range most days, sometimes a bit higher or lower. The activity level makes a 3300 BMR plausible, yet the scale is flat. Replies so far suggest either moving to a smaller deficit, dropping calories further, or raising the GLP dose. Raising the dose is not appealing because appetite is already controlled and protein intake might suffer.

If weight has been stable for months at 2000-2500 calories then that range is the actual expenditure, regardless of any calculator. Thermodynamics still holds: sustained lower intake than expenditure produces loss. Weight change itself is the best real-world measure of energy balance outside a lab.

A sedentary person of similar size would need roughly 2000 calories, yet the current intake plus heavy training still produces no loss. Occasional days at 1000-1500 calories leave me too tired to train the next day. Testing a strict 2000-calorie week against a 3000-calorie week might clarify what is actually happening.

The idea that weight stability directly reveals true expenditure makes sense. Earlier experiments with adding long daily walks produced no detectable change in loss rate despite constant intake. Short controlled tests at 2000 versus 3000 calories for a week or two would give clearer data.

Daily intake still needs to be tracked consistently rather than estimated. Eating the same number of calories every day and then slowly adding until the scale moves is the only way to learn true maintenance. Glycogen refill can cause a small temporary jump when calories rise after a deficit.

Two thousand to twenty-five hundred calories holding weight steady for months is the best evidence of current maintenance. Calculators are overestimating. Metabolic adaptation slows things but does not cancel a real deficit. Raising calories does not directly cause fat loss except when it first restores a suppressed metabolic rate.

Katch-McArdle gives a reasonable BMR once body-fat percentage is estimated with calipers. Tracking is done with a basic app and scale only when needed. Protein and fat stay high while carbs usually land between 40-60 g.