You're comparing apples and pears. A superheavyweight is a freak by definition. To be over two meters and be built proportionally as a middleweight just isn't how it works.
Jack while the number calculation of calories varies based upon things like folks having less meals & slowing their metablosim, I think that it is not huge-but how much folks need based upon size, activity level & to a lesser extent body composition varies. I when you say "take a break", I assume then you did not have such or maybe any calorie deficit, so that could largely account for your slower (& more sensible) weight loss. I think that even the sopisticated scales that measure FAT % can be off. The cheap ones are often utter junk-frauds that merely guess based upon height & weight, not really sending waves through your body to effectively distinguish fat from everything else. I do not think that regular weight measurement tends to be wrong-that is much easier to meaure. A one shot deal. Your story shows that even a good device may not be able to distinguish fat from food in various forms of digestion & water from fat! When I used my Sister's Wirthings scale over a year ago, scale, her employer, I came out at 21.6% body fat, averaging weighing myself a bunch of times. Before AND after a Thanksgiving meal There was no mean median & average difference when I "gained" 4 lbs. after dinner. So that means this scale did not have this problem. But I suspect it underestimated my body fat a bit, I believe I was & am ~25%. At ~both 6' & 225 lbs. unclothed in the morning. Hers I am pretty sure was off by more, just eyeballing her, & not having as much muscle.
So you got me kind of wondering so I went back and looked at Cronometer. Actually went from 197.4 on 8-27 to 179.6 on 9-19 but then stayed at that weight or went up a bit until hitting a low of 175.8 on 9-27. (Too fast, I know.) So I lost more than I thought a lot faster but I have hovered between 180 and 185 since then. When I said 3 months, that's about where we are now from when I started pushing it and I am 180ish. I think I have kind of stabilized. At any rate, tying back into this thread, it is amazing that Wilder has a 36" waist with such spindly legs. He must have enough muscle coverage of vulnerable areas, like his liver, to allow him to compete against men so much bigger. The tall fighters that seem really susceptible to body blows seem to have a very thin waistline. Wilder's is not that thin. Most of his weight is in his upper body. That is the only reason he is able to compete at this level, it would seem.
Bernard Hopkins was tall and had a really skinny waist. And he didn't seem too susceptible to body punches. But it would definitely make sense that a thin core would be more vulnerable to damage there. I dont think I've ever seen a top level fighter with his legs literally half the size of his waist. Shane Mosley was criticized for his skinny legs. He had 22 inch thighs and he was a Welterweight.
Hopkins was kind of a freak of nature. I am sure a doctor could explain why some are more vulnerable than others. You would think it would come down to muscle coverage of the liver and possibly the size of the liver. Maybe even the placement in the abdominal cavity. Obviously, preparedness, as well. Have we ever seen Wilder really get hammered to the body? I can't recall.