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.