I’ve been watching this guy for a few days. He isn’t some influencer guy he just does his workouts and takes you over them all in his back garden and UK based. It’s pretty enjoyable to watch. https://youtube.com/@fullerstrength?si=RFae0zYzibZlJWrJ

How many reps on warm ups is everybody doing ? I’ve been doing 3 each warm up. Maybe need to do more 🤣

The guideline isn't actually wrong. I know I used the dreaded calories as an illustration only. The problem is that it just isn't measuring you. This is the conclusion of the whole series — the five gaps the label hides, the numbers, and where they compound. Gap 1 — the exercise you were pre-paid for. 2,000/2,500 kcal assumes a sedentary life plus 150 minutes of exercise per week, priced in ahead of time. Skip the training, and you're over-funded by roughly 179–224 kcal a day. That's about 9%, every day, on trust. Gap 2 — you might not be the reference body. The figures are an all-adult average. The official tables themselves run lower for older adults: a woman over 75 at the median activity level is funded at about 1,840 kcal — the label overshoots her by 160 before anything else goes wrong. Smaller and less muscled than average moves you down again. Gap 3 — the baseline has moved. Measured expenditure has fallen roughly 6–8% since the late 1980s, through resting metabolism, not activity. The tables predate that decline. No recalibration has been published. Gap 4 — "I eat 2,000" is a diary claim, not a measurement. In the direct isotope test, people's food records understated their measured expenditure by about 835 kcal a day. Not lying — under-counting. Oils, bites, drinks, weekends. Gap 5 — drinks jump the queue. Alcohol is 7 kcal a gram, needed by no tissue, oxidised first, and it suppresses fat oxidation by 73–79% while it clears. Two drinks are ~200 kcal that many trackers never see — stacked on top of Gaps 1–4. Now stack them. Missed exercise (~200) + a smaller-or-older body (~100–200) + a drifted baseline (~150) + diary undercount (potentially hundreds) = a "guideline-compliant" day that's genuinely in surplus. And in surplus, the fuel queue works against you: incoming fat is banked at 96–98% efficiency while the other fuels are oxidised ahead of it. What does that 9% compound to? Take just Gap 1 — the pre-paid exercise you didn't do — and let it run.

I've lost access to a thread elsewhere where I documented my journey with retatrutide so I thought I'd continue it here. It should always have been here tbh because the success im having with it is completely down to the excellent advice I've had from the man , the myth the legend, @Shaun Womersley It's only fair that present and future members here get to see how much a suitably qualified and capable advisor, I recommend Shaun unequivocally, can steer you in the right direction. So I began April the 8th with the following stats Weight 95.6kg Waist 38" Chest 48" Arms 17 1/2 Leg 26 1/2 Today I'm at Weight 80kg Waist 33 3/4 Chest 46" Arms 16 3/4 Legs 24 1/4 Okay I've lost a little muscle it would appear, however I'm in replacement dose try during this , wheres before I was running test a little higher ( still within human ranges ) but using the old dbol so there would have been some bloat in the first set of measurements. I'm hugely happy with the progress on appearance as a now look like ( and am ) a relatively fit and in shape bloke not a beer monster. It's really effective stuff if you can get into the mindset to go low and slow ( I was a diva a out this to begin with admittedly) In hunger free , have great energy and feel great. Stop me before I start looking like Kelly Osbourne but at this point I can't recommend this stuff , and the big homie Shaun , enough. Now I'm going out sprinting. Which if I did it when I weighed 95 kg , I think my hooves might have fallen off Dose as per Shaun was 0.5 mg first two weeks to acclimatise , then 1mg and my personal choice was not to go higher as it's enough to tickle this fat loss along with zero side effects and it means I get ten weeks out of a ten mg vial which isn't bad for a life changing result ( less than a tenner a week for the source I used )

Last but one. Thanks for staying.😁 Everything in this series hangs off one reference body: BMI 22.5. That is the low end of 22.5 to 25 — the range with minimum all-cause mortality across 57 prospective studies of 900,000 adults. Bray's 2023 review names three failures in BMI. 1. It does not measure where your fat sits, which matters more for risk than the number itself. 2. It is not a good measure of how much fat you have, which limits it badly for any individual. 3. It says nothing about why a given person is heavy. So the obvious objection: if BMI cannot tell muscle from fat, how can heavy bodies not be inflating the national eating figure? They can't — and the reason is duller than you'd expect. No real body enters that calculation. The reference weight is constructed: take the population's mean height, square it, multiply by 22.5. It's arithmetic. Nobody is sampled. Nobody's fat is in there. But the objection still lands somewhere, and it lands hard. Resting rate is driven by fat-free mass, and two people at BMI 22.5 do not have the same amount of it. A heavily muscled adult reads "overweight or obese" at BMI 30 while carrying very little fat, and the whole eat-toward-22.5 logic misfires for them. That is why their report states it in plain English on its first page. These values are for large groups and populations. ***They should not be applied to individuals, because physical activity and energy expenditure vary so much from person to person.*** Yet they always are The science underneath measured body composition properly. The single number handed to the public does not carry any of it. Has BMI ever labelled you wrong? I have been clinically obese from 17 yrs old with 9% body fat. The honest limit of the whole series, stated once and plainly: direct free-living measurement begins only in the mid-1980s. Everything before that is anecdotal, common-sense reconstruction, including mine.