At my wits end, really need some advice.

alyhuggan

No study has ever found a point at which anyone loses more by eating more. It becomes less efficient to reduce intake at some point (removing 10 more calories might only add 7 to the deficit as metabolism slows) but it never starts going the other way. NEVER.

I was eating at 2000 and losing around 1 and a half pounds to 2 pounds a week right up till I lost around 28 pounds, I then stalled for a week completely, upped my calories to 2600 and lost another 4 pounds in the following 3 weeks. There are several posts a day of people saying they can't lose weight while eating 1200 calories and I have seen many posts of people saying they stalled and then started losing again when they upped their calories by 400-800.

There are also several saying its not so and offering experience in the other direction. The assertion you make is only supported by unproven internet postings. The other position in the debate has unproven internet postings also and has science and studies to back it up. For some reason, every time one of these people who says they will gain weight or stall at a lower calorie intake is placed in a clinical environment and every calorie of food eaten and effort expended is recorded it doesn't happen.

I have made some of my friends who are "trying" to lose weight upset when they asked me what is working so well for me this time (I have had failed attempts to lose in the past). I tell them the truth - this time I am really doing what I say I am doing. When I cut out snacks I really cut them out; I have none at all. This time whenever I go out to get some exercise I run for miles (lately it is usually 5 or more) and I do this 3 times a week. I do some dumb bell work every day. I look them in the eye and say that every plan I have tried in the past would have worked if I were this faithful to it. They often infer correctly that I am also saying that they are not really doing what they say they are doing.

People are more likely to stick to a plan if it is easy; I get that. A smaller deficit is easier. Pretending it is somehow better through mumbo jumbo bro-science rubs me the wrong way.

You are missing my point completely, my TDEE is 3600+ (I do intense weight work 6 days a week for 1 and a half to 2 hours each day) and trolleys for 30-90 minutes 4 times a week, this would have made me in a deficit of 1600 calories yet I stopped losing at that huge a deficit? Then by upping my calories to a deficit of 900-1000 I then started to continue to lose weight, I am just stating my point from personal experience, it was not easier for me, I didn't enjoy eating more at that point and it wasn't easier but I still lost more weight by having less of a deficit. I also stated this has happened to A LOT of people who have previously stated that they were losing weight by eating 1200 calories. They then upped it to around 1600-1800 and started losing again. Bodies do not like having exceptionally small amounts of nutrition, so go continue telling 18 year old females to have a net of 800 calories to lose weight is safe

alyhuggan

1) When they say 1 cup of lettuce = XX calories.... do you ever wonder if they placed the lettuce in the cup loosely or packed it in as tightly as possible? The volume is different either way, even though you've used a real measuring cup.

2) Unless you are using a heart rate monitor and an accurate formula .... do you ever wonder if you're burning more or less calories?
And while we're questioning it... there are other factors to consider when trying to lose weight.

1. That is exactly why I use scales.

2. I watch my body for changes and readjust my calorie intake accordingly

susant1999

It seems that you have replaced a lot of your fat with lean muscle. Muscle has a higher energy requirement than fat so although you are eating the same amount you are not losing weight because that's how much energy your newly toned body requires. Have you ever had the fat content of your body measured with one of those machines that passes a small current through your body? The "average" woman has about 25% fat in their body. I had mine measured today at 34.9%. Although my BMI is in the healthy range I have the wrong ratio so need to lose some of the fat and replace it with muscle. Body builders often have a BMI that puts them in the clinically obese category but have a very low fat percentage so are in fact healthy. See if you can find out what your percentage fat is. Perhaps if you want to lose weight you need to cut down on both calories and exercise.

55in13

You are missing my point completely, my TDEE is 3600+ (I do intense weight work 6 days a week for 1 and a half to 2 hours each day) and trolleys for 30-90 minutes 4 times a week, this would have made me in a deficit of 1600 calories yet I stopped losing at that huge a deficit? Then by upping my calories to a deficit of 900-1000 I then started to continue to lose weight, I am just stating my point from personal experience, it was not easier for me, I didn't enjoy eating more at that point and it wasn't easier but I still lost more weight by having less of a deficit. I also stated this has happened to A LOT of people who have previously stated that they were losing weight by eating 1200 calories. They then upped it to around 1600-1800 and started losing again. Bodies do not like having exceptionally small amounts of nutrition, so go continue telling 18 year old females to have a net of 800 calories to lose weight is safe

And you are missing mine. I think the reason no one has ever been able to demonstrate this in a clinical setting is abundantly clear.

alyhuggan

You are missing my point completely, my TDEE is 3600+ (I do intense weight work 6 days a week for 1 and a half to 2 hours each day) and trolleys for 30-90 minutes 4 times a week, this would have made me in a deficit of 1600 calories yet I stopped losing at that huge a deficit? Then by upping my calories to a deficit of 900-1000 I then started to continue to lose weight, I am just stating my point from personal experience, it was not easier for me, I didn't enjoy eating more at that point and it wasn't easier but I still lost more weight by having less of a deficit. I also stated this has happened to A LOT of people who have previously stated that they were losing weight by eating 1200 calories. They then upped it to around 1600-1800 and started losing again. Bodies do not like having exceptionally small amounts of nutrition, so go continue telling 18 year old females to have a net of 800 calories to lose weight is safe

And you are missing mine. I think the reason no one has ever been able to demonstrate this in a clinical setting is abundantly clear.

Alright, go on the forums and find me someone successful on losing 80lb+ by having a net of 800 calories.

55in13

You are missing my point completely, my TDEE is 3600+ (I do intense weight work 6 days a week for 1 and a half to 2 hours each day) and trolleys for 30-90 minutes 4 times a week, this would have made me in a deficit of 1600 calories yet I stopped losing at that huge a deficit? Then by upping my calories to a deficit of 900-1000 I then started to continue to lose weight, I am just stating my point from personal experience, it was not easier for me, I didn't enjoy eating more at that point and it wasn't easier but I still lost more weight by having less of a deficit. I also stated this has happened to A LOT of people who have previously stated that they were losing weight by eating 1200 calories. They then upped it to around 1600-1800 and started losing again. Bodies do not like having exceptionally small amounts of nutrition, so go continue telling 18 year old females to have a net of 800 calories to lose weight is safe

And you are missing mine. I think the reason no one has ever been able to demonstrate this in a clinical setting is abundantly clear.

Alright, go on the forums and find me someone successful on losing 80lb+ by having a net of 800 calories.

Even more obvious you are missing the point. I don't accept forum posts as proof of anything. If you do, then you have to stop arguing because I have made a forum post that says that "eat more to lose" is wrong. Show me a peer reviewed study where it is proven that someone can lose weight at a given calorie consumption level, drop to a lower calorie level and stop losing weight or where the person wasn't losing weight and increased calories and began to lose.

bcattoes

You are missing my point completely, my TDEE is 3600+ (I do intense weight work 6 days a week for 1 and a half to 2 hours each day) and trolleys for 30-90 minutes 4 times a week, this would have made me in a deficit of 1600 calories yet I stopped losing at that huge a deficit? Then by upping my calories to a deficit of 900-1000 I then started to continue to lose weight, I am just stating my point from personal experience, it was not easier for me, I didn't enjoy eating more at that point and it wasn't easier but I still lost more weight by having less of a deficit. I also stated this has happened to A LOT of people who have previously stated that they were losing weight by eating 1200 calories. They then upped it to around 1600-1800 and started losing again. Bodies do not like having exceptionally small amounts of nutrition, so go continue telling 18 year old females to have a net of 800 calories to lose weight is safe

And you are missing mine. I think the reason no one has ever been able to demonstrate this in a clinical setting is abundantly clear.

Alright, go on the forums and find me someone successful on losing 80lb+ by having a net of 800 calories.

People who have weight loss surgery typically lose that much or more. And see significant health improvement while doing so.

LongIsland27itl

People are not understanding that you need to dial in your weight loss while eating as many calories as you can and still lose. Then when you plateau, you have more room to drop more calories and still not starve. If you start by eating say 8-900 cals per day sure you'll lose weight, and physically suffer and eventually have a metabolic shutdown where your body is used to running on such little calories.
So it's better to find your TDEE, and subtract 3-500cals and eat that amount, then recalculate every 5lbs weight lost.

55in13

People are not understanding that you need to dial in your weight loss while eating as many calories as you can and still lose. Then when you plateau, you have more room to drop more calories and still not starve. If you start by eating say 8-900 cals per day sure you'll lose weight, and physically suffer and eventually have a metabolic shutdown where your body is used to running on such little calories.
So it's better to find your TDEE, and subtract 3-500cals and eat that amount, then recalculate every 5lbs weight lost.

Oh no, the dreaded plateau...
Also never happens in clinical settings. People with normal to high BF% eating at a substantial calorie deficit do not plateau. They continue losing weight until they get to a below normal BF% (like the MN study participants) and then crazy stuff does happen or they increase their intake or they decrease their burn. There are a few elephants in the room that we often all too politely ignore...

alyhuggan

Oh no, the dreaded plateau...
Also never happens in clinical settings. People with normal to high BF% eating at a substantial calorie deficit do not plateau. They continue losing weight until they get to a below normal BF% (like the MN study participants) and then crazy stuff does happen or they increase their intake or they decrease their burn. There are a few elephants in the room that we often all too politely ignore...

Go tell this individual they needs to lower their calories then

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1007865-not-sure-what-i-am-doing-wrong

I don't think there is a problem with people lowering their calories to around a 1000 calorie deficit, it's when people on here are litteraly on a 1500+ deficit that I think they should eat a little more, the OP is 5'7 at 13 stone so should not be eating ridiculously low calories...

__Di__

Oh no, the dreaded plateau...
Also never happens in clinical settings. People with normal to high BF% eating at a substantial calorie deficit do not plateau. They continue losing weight until they get to a below normal BF% (like the MN study participants) and then crazy stuff does happen or they increase their intake or they decrease their burn. There are a few elephants in the room that we often all too politely ignore...

Go tell this guy he needs to lower his calories then

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1007865-not-sure-what-i-am-doing-wrong

I don't think there is a problem with people lowering their calories to around a 1000 calorie deficit, it's when people on here are litteraly on a 1500+ deficit that I think they should eat a little more, the OP is 5'7 at 13 stone so should not be eating ridiculously low calories...

That profile is for a female.

Unfortunately, as do so many on MFP, they keep their diary private and so it is next to impossible to make any reasonable suggestions.

For instance they may guess at the weight of food and so underestimate the real total.

So many people on MFP write threads saying they cannot lose any weight and yet when you go to see their diary, it is private, impossible to comment on those.

55in13

Oh no, the dreaded plateau...
Also never happens in clinical settings. People with normal to high BF% eating at a substantial calorie deficit do not plateau. They continue losing weight until they get to a below normal BF% (like the MN study participants) and then crazy stuff does happen or they increase their intake or they decrease their burn. There are a few elephants in the room that we often all too politely ignore...

Go tell this guy he needs to lower his calories then

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1007865-not-sure-what-i-am-doing-wrong

I don't think there is a problem with people lowering their calories to around a 1000 calorie deficit, it's when people on here are litteraly on a 1500+ deficit that I think they should eat a little more, the OP is 5'7 at 13 stone so should not be eating ridiculously low calories...

An anonymous post by someone who joined that day, did not fill out the profile and never posted in any other thread besides that one? That's your evidence? I hope you don't use the internet for investment advice. You take too much at face value from postings. You used the word "literally" to describe the information you have surmised about deficits people are eating at.

alyhuggan

Oh no, the dreaded plateau...
Also never happens in clinical settings. People with normal to high BF% eating at a substantial calorie deficit do not plateau. They continue losing weight until they get to a below normal BF% (like the MN study participants) and then crazy stuff does happen or they increase their intake or they decrease their burn. There are a few elephants in the room that we often all too politely ignore...

Go tell this guy he needs to lower his calories then

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1007865-not-sure-what-i-am-doing-wrong

I don't think there is a problem with people lowering their calories to around a 1000 calorie deficit, it's when people on here are litteraly on a 1500+ deficit that I think they should eat a little more, the OP is 5'7 at 13 stone so should not be eating ridiculously low calories...

An anonymous post by someone who joined that day, did not fill out the profile and never posted in any other thread besides that one? That's your evidence? I hope you don't use the internet for investment advice. You take too much at face value from postings. You used the word "literally" to describe the information you have surmised about deficits people are eating at.

Says they joined January, not today. You have not filled out your profile. And I've seen you've commented on many posts just like that one saying it is not proof of anything. It certainly works for a strangely large amount of people, especially ones that have been eating very low calories. Please stop trying to sound so clever in front of everyone with your facts and go and tell more teenage girls to lower their calories to 1200

Mich4871

I know the frustration - I am a healthy eater, very conscience about what I eat. I have a good work out routine and in addition work 2x/week with a personal trainer.

In November (2012) I started to plateau. However it was more than a plateau as it is now June and the scale has not budged. My trainer and I have tried everything, to jump start my weight loss again with zero results. At his recommendation, I went to see an endocrinologist and we found that I have zero Vitamin D in my body. There was no reason why based on my excercise and eating habits my weight should have stalled, or even on the rare occassions I'd have excessive weight gain following the same routines. I am now on a very high dose of Vitamin D and was told it could take up to 8 weeks to see any changes. Something to consider....

honsi

I know the frustration - I am a healthy eater, very conscience about what I eat. I have a good work out routine and in addition work 2x/week with a personal trainer.

In November (2012) I started to plateau. However it was more than a plateau as it is now June and the scale has not budged. My trainer and I have tried everything, to jump start my weight loss again with zero results. At his recommendation, I went to see an endocrinologist and we found that I have zero Vitamin D in my body. There was no reason why based on my excercise and eating habits my weight should have stalled, or even on the rare occassions I'd have excessive weight gain following the same routines. I am now on a very high dose of Vitamin D and was told it could take up to 8 weeks to see any changes. Something to consider....

honsi

I have recently , about a month ago started taking a Vit D supplement. I know if you are deficient it can cause fatigue.

honsi

Here's food for thought:

If you over-eat 20 calories a day, you will gain 2 pounds in one year.

If you over-eat 20 calories a day, you will gain 50 pounds in 25 years.

...... How easy it might be to under or over estimate your calorie intake when you take a few things into consideration...

1) When they say 1 cup of lettuce = XX calories.... do you ever wonder if they placed the lettuce in the cup loosely or packed it in as tightly as possible? The volume is different either way, even though you've used a real measuring cup.

2) Unless you are using a heart rate monitor and an accurate formula .... do you ever wonder if you're burning more or less calories?
And while we're questioning it... there are other factors to consider when trying to lose weight.

1) What about hormones? What if you are insulin resistant and don't know it? What about cortisol? You know the hormone that increases when you're stressed and makes you gain weight whenever you so much as look at food. (Not really, but if you're super stressed then it just makes losing weight that much more difficult).

2) What about sleep?

It seems like you need to be a nutritional expert/chemist/biologist/crazy mad scientist to really know what's going on inside your body. Doctors go to school for years and years to study the human body and they still haven't figured it out.

I don't know the answers, but I think it's interesting that so many people think they do. Just an observation. Good luck and I hope you find the "right" answer soon.

Those are some good points, I am a highly stressed person and am prone to putting on fat around my middle as a result and my sleep is affected as well. My insulin is fine as I had a load of blood tests in April. I have huge problems with fatigue and muscle pain for years and no one knows why.

honsi

As I have mentioned already I only started actually using MFP on Friday ,although I signed up to it a while ago, I was finishing my subscription to Weight Watchers first. So if I made my diary public I would rather wait a couple of weeks so it gives a more information.

777twist

You have to "Roller Coaster" your calories as I have coined it...when I put a similar client on a caloric fun ride of 2000 , 1500, 1800,
2200, 1300 etc. weight loss water loss and fat loss occurred..The problem I see with alot of posts here are people pretty much sticking to 1200 calories a day or 1800 etc. But everyday your activity changes...so you have to eat to support your activity! I hope this helps
Happy Sunday from NYC:)
Kristian Rocco

I think goodtimezzzz has it right. I think when you lock yourself into X amount of exercise, and X amount of food, you will have some trouble losing at times. I eat like a crazy person some days. Shoot Saturday I think I was close to 6000 calories. I'm not suggesting that everyone eat that much, but I tend to lose more weight when I my calories go up and down throughout a period.

I'm a firm believer in switching things... EVERYTHING up. The OP says she does some workouts that are varied, but the point is switch it up. One day go in and just lift weights, another day do some sore of cardio, another day do some kind of routine or workout. Or do one kind of thing for a period of time and then switch to something else. But they should be very different. Not necessarily just doing back one day, chest the next, etc... Even the times of day and durations of your workouts should change.

55in13

Oh no, the dreaded plateau...
Also never happens in clinical settings. People with normal to high BF% eating at a substantial calorie deficit do not plateau. They continue losing weight until they get to a below normal BF% (like the MN study participants) and then crazy stuff does happen or they increase their intake or they decrease their burn. There are a few elephants in the room that we often all too politely ignore...

Go tell this guy he needs to lower his calories then

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1007865-not-sure-what-i-am-doing-wrong

I don't think there is a problem with people lowering their calories to around a 1000 calorie deficit, it's when people on here are litteraly on a 1500+ deficit that I think they should eat a little more, the OP is 5'7 at 13 stone so should not be eating ridiculously low calories...

An anonymous post by someone who joined that day, did not fill out the profile and never posted in any other thread besides that one? That's your evidence? I hope you don't use the internet for investment advice. You take too much at face value from postings. You used the word "literally" to describe the information you have surmised about deficits people are eating at.

Says they joined January, not today. You have not filled out your profile. And I've seen you've commented on many posts just like that one saying it is not proof of anything. It certainly works for a strangely large amount of people, especially ones that have been eating very low calories. Please stop trying to sound so clever in front of everyone with your facts and go and tell more teenage girls to lower their calories to 1200

I said they joined "that day" meaning the day of their one and only post which you linked to and it was in January. Joined that day, made that post, followed up in it a couple of times and never posted anything else since. It looks very much like that "person" was an ID created solely for the purpose of making a post like that. I do not know that for sure, but this topic is hotly debated and it is more than a little suspicious that someone would post only that and never anything else.

No, I haven't bothered with a full profile here. I started out using the logging here late last year but quickly abandoned it, finding other things that are working better for me. But I have continued tracking weight and following some discussions and participating in others. It does irk me that this baseless idea of "eat more to lose" is bandied about so much and that people like yourself even ask me to stop using facts to try to sound clever.

I don't suggest that everyone lower their calories to 1200. I do tell people who say they are physically active and restricting their calories but not losing weight to try restricting further because in all likelihood their figures are wrong and their deficit is non existant or very small. The law of thermodynamics is just a theory, kinda like gravity, but I think it does apply to everyone. And yes I may sound like a broken record but there is not a single medically verified case of someone increasing calories and losing more weight. Pointing to posts as suspect as the one you linked really makes me wonder what the motive of the disinformation campaign is. Very strange.

JessHealthKick

...following from the arguments about increasing or decreasing.

Well can't it be agreed that having a NET under BMR is a bad thing? From what the OP says, given the measurements are correct, they are netting about 1200 - unless you have a very very slow metabolism or thyroid problem, that is under their natural BMR.

Ashleyxjamie

How can you gain 5 pounds a week if you eat 2400? if you eat that much depending on your weight and height, and if you exercise, you will still have a deficit. my TDEE shows I can eat 2600 to maintain my weight or 2077 to lose one pound a week. I've been eating around 1800-2000 a day and working my butt off and it's working for me!

^ Thank you for speaking some sense! :flowerforyou: it would take a surplus of 2500 calories a day to gain that kind of weight which for a female would be around 5000ish calories every day after exercise...

aww a flower and you are welcome!!! It makes no sense to gain 5 pounds unless they eat 3500 calories OVER their TDEE to gain even ONE pound. so for 5 pounds its 17500 OVER their TDEE in one week??? Unless they drink about a gallon of canola oil I think they are in the clear of gaining that quickly :laugh:

stellafgus

Hi I was just wondering how you found out how many calories to eat with Weight Watchers?

55in13

...following from the arguments about increasing or decreasing.

Well can't it be agreed that having a NET under BMR is a bad thing? From what the OP says, given the measurements are correct, they are netting about 1200 - unless you have a very very slow metabolism or thyroid problem, that is under their natural BMR.

Can we agree that having a true net under true BMR will always result in weight loss? The main reason I debate the issue is that it gives people a crutch to explain away lack of progress by not taking responsibility. Without this irrational notion, people would get called out for posting numbers than make no sense. If the OP was eating below BMR, there would be loss of weight.

EDIT - I am not saying that would be a healthy rate of weight loss, just that there would be weight loss. The body can't run on air and water.

chatogal

Hi just logging in with what I have learned. I am 71 yrs old, started at 265 lbs am now at 232.6 lbs.

1. If you put all of your data into My Fitness Pal it will tell you how many calories you should eat.
Your data must include your height, weight, and level of activity - sedentary, moderate activity, active.
2. If you eat only those calories and exercise you will lose weight.
3. If you eat those calories plus all the calories you have burned off exercising your weight loss will be less.
4. You will have periods of time where you will not lose weight - I went 3 weeks with no change.
That is your bodies way to adjust to your previous weight loss.
It seems we ladies have bodies that need time to adjust before weight loss can continue.
I don't know about men. It is kind of like when you read something then take time to assimilate it.
Your body has lost weight and then takes time to tell all your body components you are ok.
Then you will start to lose again.
5. Once you are on maintenance you can exercise so you can eat more calories -
but if you want to lose you don't eat those calories you burned exercising.
EXAMPLE:
Say you are to eat 1500 calories according to My Fitness Pal and are moderately active and you burn 500 calories exercising.
Now if you eat only 1500 calories you and not exercise you will loose very mildly. Maybe 1/8 lb to 1/2 lb a week.
Now if you eat only 1500 calories and burn 500 calories you may lose up to 1 1/2 lbs or more a week.
As long as your are eating the 1500 calories you are getting all the nutrition you need - you do not have to worry about your health.
But you will still have a week or two with no weight loss but will fine on week three and four you may loose 3 lbs. It will all even out.
Your reasons for exercising are multiple. 1. To get healthier 2. To lose weight 3. To maintain weight while eating more (this is for maintenance only)

There will be times while you are dieting that you will exercise because you ate more - say at a dinner out and that is ok sometimes. But for regular weight loss that should not be the rule but the exception.

I do hope this helps you. I have found it to work for me quite well.

Remember when you are exercising you are not burning off vitamins, protein, and minerals, you are burning off fat. Your body will maintain the vitamins, protein, and minerals that keep you healthy.

While trying to loose do not consider exercise as a way to eat more. It is a way to lose more. Again once you are on maintenance you will find if you want to eat more than the allowed maintenance calories you will need to burn them with exercise.

Don't give up, Keep on keeping on and you will succeed.
Wilmakt

I like this....simple, to the point and with common sense thrown in....wtg :-)

danimalkeys

Oh no, the dreaded plateau...
Also never happens in clinical settings. People with normal to high BF% eating at a substantial calorie deficit do not plateau. They continue losing weight until they get to a below normal BF% (like the MN study participants) and then crazy stuff does happen or they increase their intake or they decrease their burn. There are a few elephants in the room that we often all too politely ignore...

Go tell this guy he needs to lower his calories then

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1007865-not-sure-what-i-am-doing-wrong

I don't think there is a problem with people lowering their calories to around a 1000 calorie deficit, it's when people on here are litteraly on a 1500+ deficit that I think they should eat a little more, the OP is 5'7 at 13 stone so should not be eating ridiculously low calories...

An anonymous post by someone who joined that day, did not fill out the profile and never posted in any other thread besides that one? That's your evidence? I hope you don't use the internet for investment advice. You take too much at face value from postings. You used the word "literally" to describe the information you have surmised about deficits people are eating at.

Says they joined January, not today. You have not filled out your profile. And I've seen you've commented on many posts just like that one saying it is not proof of anything. It certainly works for a strangely large amount of people, especially ones that have been eating very low calories. Please stop trying to sound so clever in front of everyone with your facts and go and tell more teenage girls to lower their calories to 1200

I said they joined "that day" meaning the day of their one and only post which you linked to and it was in January. Joined that day, made that post, followed up in it a couple of times and never posted anything else since. It looks very much like that "person" was an ID created solely for the purpose of making a post like that. I do not know that for sure, but this topic is hotly debated and it is more than a little suspicious that someone would post only that and never anything else.

No, I haven't bothered with a full profile here. I started out using the logging here late last year but quickly abandoned it, finding other things that are working better for me. But I have continued tracking weight and following some discussions and participating in others. It does irk me that this baseless idea of "eat more to lose" is bandied about so much and that people like yourself even ask me to stop using facts to try to sound clever.

I don't suggest that everyone lower their calories to 1200. I do tell people who say they are physically active and restricting their calories but not losing weight to try restricting further because in all likelihood their figures are wrong and their deficit is non existant or very small. The law of thermodynamics is just a theory, kinda like gravity, but I think it does apply to everyone. And yes I may sound like a broken record but there is not a single medically verified case of someone increasing calories and losing more weight. Pointing to posts as suspect as the one you linked really makes me wonder what the motive of the disinformation campaign is. Very strange.

55in13, how long have you been on your weight loss venture? How long has it taken you to drop your nearly 50lbs? 6 months, a year, 2 years?

I lost 50lbs in 6 months, without counting or weighing anything, just using portion control- I basically ate half what I used to. I cut out snacks and a lot of carbs like pasta and bread. The weight melted off, along with 8 inches off my waist, and as I came to fine out later, a lot of muscle mass. I hit my goal of 50lbs, decided to keep going and lose another 25 but my weight loss completely stopped, and I actually put about 5lbs back on, even eating at a deficit. So, like so many other people, I figured I needed to eat even less and exercise more. I did this for another 6 months. It didn't work, my weight stayed the same. So in February, I decided to eat more, going from 1700 to 2400 calories a day. I still haven't lost any more weight, but I have not gained any, and even better, I'm not tired, light headed and hungry all the time like I was when I was eating 1700 calories. I figured out the so called "bro science" to at least get an idea of how much I should be eating at a minimum, and figured out TDEE to see what I at least should try to stay under. It's pretty simple, but it's more than "eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight" because at some point your body adjusts to that and the loss stops.

My point is- that people do plateau, and sometimes it's very difficult to break through. Maybe, if your weight loss timeline is like mine was, you just haven't seen it yet?

55in13

My recent loss has been fairly quick, but please do not try to base the credibility of science on my personal experience, even though it is consistent with it. I am debating a notion that isn't supported by science and has not been observed in any documented medical studies.

danimalkeys

My recent loss has been fairly quick, but please do not try to base the credibility of science on my personal experience, even though it is consistent with it. I am debating a notion that isn't supported by science and has not been observed in any documented medical studies.

I'm just saying- you might think you have it all figured out because it's working for you right now, but like many, myself included, who lost a lot of weight fast, they soon find out that it doesn't always continue with that same ease. That's where a lot of people who are using the eat more and other alternative methods end up going when they find out the big calorie deficit method isn't good for long term loss or as a sustainable lifestyle once you have lost the weight. What will you do when you reach your goal, to maintain your weight?

55in13

My recent loss has been fairly quick, but please do not try to base the credibility of science on my personal experience, even though it is consistent with it. I am debating a notion that isn't supported by science and has not been observed in any documented medical studies.

I'm just saying- you might think you have it all figured out because it's working for you right now, but like many, myself included, who lost a lot of weight fast, they soon find out that it doesn't always continue with that same ease. That's where a lot of people who are using the eat more and other alternative methods end up going when they find out the big calorie deficit method isn't good for long term loss or as a sustainable lifestyle once you have lost the weight. What will you do when you reach your goal, to maintain your weight?

Good question; I am wrestling with that one myself. The first time I got overweight was almost 30 years ago. It was at a small startup where I worked long hours for a big guy and started eating like he did - donuts in the morning, monstrous lunch burgers, chips and soft drinks through the day, pizza and beer at night. I went from about 160 to 200 in about 8 months. I freaked when they had to move the big weight on the tri beam at a doctor's appointment. I bought my first scale and the next morning I weighed in at 197 and started an insane diet. I lost 42 pounds in 2 months (ahh, to be 25 again :bigsmile: ). I stayed under 175 for about 15 years after that and then started letting it creep up. A couple of years ago at 220 I decided to attack it in stages and lost back to 200 but then let it creep back up and past 220 to 225. I am not sure what is making this time seem different; maybe my kids being old enough to understand and tell me it's important to them that I be healthy or maybe closing in on retirement (still a few years out) and wanting to be active. But something is very different. I am more driven to do this than I have been since that first time.

So, maintenance... I still have a few pounds to lose to get there but I am trying to adjust some already. I would like to say that I will eat just right and everything will be wonderful, but the more likely answer is that I will be a short string yoyo. That's a dangerous answer but it is likely to be accurate. I am planning to go below my goal by a few pounds and do plan to try to maintain by eating right. The most obvious first step to me is to eat a little more early in the day. I eat a fairly normal dinner now after eating a very light breakfast and light lunch. I think the daytime snacks have to be gone forever. That has been easier to do for me than it seems to be for most people.