However, my 238 is correct. 248 is wrong. If you weigh 220 at the end of 2013 and gain 2 lb/year for 9 years (end of 2013 to 2023 -- let's say the beginning of 2023) you will weigh 220 + 18 = 238.
Ah, OK. Got it. Good good. But, we're not done just yet.
So what's the mechanism behind the change in direction -- weight loss turning to weight gain? It appears that SLD lowers the set point so the weight falls to 220 but then at some point -- i.e. at the point where the dieter's weight has dropped to correspond to that set point? -- the set point then goes back up, even though the dieter is still consuming the same amount of LOFC. Is that mechanism understood yet?
Also, you've said earlier that if the dieter *stops* using LOFC when their weight loss bottoms out, they will actually gain weight *faster* than they were originally. Is that because all else being equal, a pre-SLD dieter will tend to have a lower set point than a post-SLD dieter who stops taking the LOFC? That sounds like the consumption of LOFC has not only stopped being as effective as it was, but in fact it has modified something in the person's neurophysiology. Yes, no?
In fact, a more general question. Exactly what is set point, in terms of the level of weight loss induced? I mean, does a person's set point correspond to an absolute weight? As in:"You're lucky! My set point is 250lbs. I wish I had your 120lbs set point."
Or is it in some way relative to *today's* weight? As in:"Sigh, my set point is effectively 5lbs (or 7%) above whatever I weigh now :-("
Or what? (My own experience suggests the latter; or at least the former with a set point of something well north of 300lbs).
 In one go, or gradually, I'm not sure, but I don't think it matters for this topic.