>Be 19 y/o kissless virgin >6'3, but a small dick

This sounds like a subconscious way to avoid having to lose weight. You've got it backward; you're not going to get a girlfriend as a fatass. At least not the sort you're probably hoping for. By setting an unlikely goal you're just pushing back the timetable on weight loss.

Plus the vast majority of weight loss comes from what you eat. Eat a reasonable quantity (1900 Calories) of healthy foods (lean meats, vegetables/beans, limited starches, no liquid calories) every day and the weight will evaporate. How will having a girlfriend help you with that since, for at least the amount of time it'll take to lose the weight, you'll only be sharing an occasional meal with her? It's the other 90% of the meals you eat which will determine the course of your weight loss.

Get your body together first. Then fix your personality. Then get a girlfriend.

File: skeltal computer.jpg (13KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x200px

>>16668788
>6'3
>210lbs
>fatass
Holy shit, you must have like no muscle.

t. 6'4 275 pounds, not fat
>>16668816
>reasonable quantity
>1900 kcal
Spooky

>>16668788
>6'3
>210
>fatass
Worst bait this year

I'm 6'1 and 210.
Not fat by anyone's standard.
Also, you may be retarded.

>>16668828
At 6'3" he's at his ideal weight around 175 (center of the normal BMI range). The rule of thumb is weight in pounds times 11 to get the minimum calories just to maintain a weight. That would be a bit north of 1900 Cal for him. Moving around or (God forbid) exercising would increase that, but 1) he didn't get to this point by exercising and 2) he needs to maintain a deficit regardless of how much he starts exercising now. It's once he starts packing on some muscle that calculations based off of BMI can be better replaced with stuff like TDEE.

So yeah, it's a bit spooky to consider that 2000 Cal is the benchmark for adults. Who the fuck are they assuming to be the typical person when even a sedentary 6'3" guy doesn't need that much?

>>16668851
If you have even a modicum of muscle and do even a modicum of physical activity, 1900kcal is not enough for any grown man.

I myself need like 5000kcal just to not lose weight.

>>16668848
You're overweight by BMI. That's not a problem if you have significant muscle mass, but going off sheer demographics that would make you an exception to the norm.

>>16668848
Well, if OP does literally nothing but sit around all day, he's probably pretty flabby.

>>16668860
>If
>two supplementary conditions
Yeah and since we're talking about an actual person and not a hypothetical, let's apply reality. He doesn't have a modicum of muscle and he doesn't do physical activity. That's part of the lifestyle of a 19 year old kissless virgin with a dumpy body.

For a sedentary 6'3" guy, 1900kcal is enough to keep him at a svelte 175. That's not aesthetically ideal but it's medically amazing. So unless you expect him to eat what he does right now and burn the entire excess on weights--which is an absurd amount of work every single day, that itself a bad idea--he should cut down the calories first. Eat for the weight you want while building your body.

File: 20160110_144950.jpg (569KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1920x1080px

>>16668861
>overweight
Where?
Post some sources please

exericse and do stuff :/

>>16668828
>>16668838
>>16668864
I may actually be 220lbs or 230lbs. Since im a computer programmer all i do is sat on my ass all day.

>>16668880
The National Institutes of Health has an online BMI calculator available at:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm

At 6'1" 210 lbs. you have a BMI of 27.7. The range for overweight is 25 to 29.9.

>That's not a problem if you have significant muscle mass, but going off sheer demographics that would make you an exception to the norm.

>>16668880
BMI you retarded nigger.

By BMI I'm literally medically obese, but I'm healthy as a horse.

>>16668893
>>16668894
No need for name calling
I only asked for a source. Thanks