Has anyone broke their plateau by eating more??

Hondo_Man

I did from 1200 and less to 1500 -1700 and still losing

as a male why would you eat the min requirement for a women???

I mean seriously...even 1500-1700 is too little for a man...I eat 1700 a day and lose 3/4lb a week..

You are losing muscle mass with such a low calorie intake...

As a newbie I was following what the 1200 MFP was saying regarding calories intake
my current goal is 1750 NET calories ... I'm aware that still a bit low but not by much
my BMR = 1,792 Calories/day

So if your BMR is 1792, why would you want to eat under that? Your BMR is your bottom line. That is the amount of calories your particular body needs to function at an absolute least. Although it is not a perfect number. Could be off by +/- 50. A great example of this that I enjoy quoting is think of that amount of calories your body needs if you were comatose. You cannot get any more in a resting state than that! For you, it's 1792. So, if you're eating 1750, and you're obviously not comatose, then your body is not getting the minimal amount of calories it needs for proper function.

Are you exercising as well? If so, you're losing muscle mass.

I'm a bit older than you are and my maintenance is 3100. I'm presently eating 2800 for cutting purposes. Of course your lifestyle and work is unique compared to mine. But I truly believe you need more calories per day than 1750.

stef_monster

Like people said - increasing calories will not on its own break a plateau.

However, it can certainly help you increase your energy, workout performance, retain LBM and adherence to your diet (amongst other psychological benefits).

THIS! Eating at a very deep deficit (especially if you don't have much weight to lose in the first place) saps your energy and, in my case, discourages logging accurately. If you're only allowed 1200 calories, you may not record things you grazed or nibbled on to avoid seeing your numbers go into the red. My TDEE on a very sedentary day is usually something like 1500 or 1600 according to my FitBit. If I work out, it's closer to 1900 or 2000. I simply wouldn't have the energy required to sustain that level of activity if I was netting BMR, or barely above. If you're close to goal weight, it's less frustrating to eat at a very small deficit so you don't feel miserable. The weight will come off more slowly, but it's worth it.

Another factor to consider is recalculating BMR and TDEE after a significant amount of weight loss. Hitting a plateau after losing steadily for a while may just be the fact that your calorie requirement for maintenance has decreased, but you haven't adjusted your diet to match the lower number. What was a deficit 20 pounds ago may be maintenance, or a little above, now.

Hondo_Man

When I first came here I logged 1380 net calories...for 1lb a week weight loss...I was only loseing 1/2lb...because I wasn't accurate (accurate=weighing solids and choosing correct entries) and as soon as I did get accurate I lost 1lb a week on a net of 1380...or gross of 1600.

I now eat 1700..and still lose weight...3/4lb a week.

That's the problem I have with the whole "eat more to lose" mentality. Most people who say they're eating 1200 or 1400 calories and aren't losing weight are simply logging inaccurately (and/or inconsistently). While their log says 1200 net calories, they're actually eating quite a bit more than that and/or they're overestimating their caloric burn from exercise. And that's not me picking on people for lying or sneaking treats and not logging them... it's just a matter of people not using food scales and logging inaccurate data (and many of us have been there before). It just makes me cringe when someone comes along and says "Oh you just need to eat more!" which is the opposite of what said person needs to do.

There are plenty of other reasons why many people should eat more than 1200 calories, but breaking plateaus and losing weight faster aren't on the list. Then again, people try all sorts of weight loss voodoo to "break plateaus," and I've personally seen friends try "cleanses," fat fasts, and so on. Eating at maintenance or a lesser deficit is hardly the most destructive thing to try - but a bit of patience and maintaining your caloric deficit is almost certainly more productive.

Perhaps it's me as English is not my first language. But you seem to have me confused or you are contradicting yourself. I'm thinking you are in favour of daily calories above 1200. Hard to tell.

Regardless.

Not necessarily correct about those eating at 1200 and losing. They are losing, but at first it's mostly water weight. They aren't eating the amount of calories as before, less sodium and less water retention. At a large deficit (1200 per day diet), fat will be burned, but so will muscle. After time, the body will go into preservation mode, which could be where this "plateau" thinking is coming from. When more calories are consumed, the body is happier and healthier and no longer feels threatened by possible starvation and will begin to release fat stores as energy.

1princesswarrior

I've been stall for almost 3 weeks and the last thing I'm going to do is get all stressed over it for several reasons:

1. Weight loss is not linear
2. I am meticulous about weighing and measuring my food except when I eat out
3. I have been sloppy with what I am eating (a lot of fast food)
4. I have been having some GI issues
5. I have not been exercising as hard as I could be

I'm still eating at a deficit but I'm not meeting my macros as close as I could be and I've slacked off with additional workouts at home. So I'm not surprised my weight loss has slowed. I know I'm retaining water and waste products because I'm having IBS issues due to all the fast food.

So in essence it's all my fault the scale isn't moving. But I took measurements this morning and I'm still losing inches so there really is nothing to stress over.

Edit: I can't type

psuLemon

Let me be very clear here...I am not against upping calories. As I mentioned I eat 1700 a day on average...I think as we lose weight we should eat the maximum number of calories we can and still lose.

I also agree that hormones can have an effect....to a degree esp for women.

What I don't agree with is "plateaus"...esp those that are only 2-4 weeks....
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/of-whooshes-and-squishy-fat.html

If you are not losing for a long period of time(6-8 weeks)[b} (barring medical conditions)[/b] chances are you are not in a calorie deficet....and that happens because of two things...either inaccurate logging and/or over estimation of burns...

That is very easily fixed by being accurate with logging and finding a better way to calculate burns or only eating back half those of those burns....

I just have on too many occassions seen posts by people who were told to up their calories to lose "more" weight who follow the advice and end up gaining and are very very upset....because of the above mentioned items...

Personally, i have worked with many members who I have increased their calories after 4+ week plateau's and see weight loss increases. Who knows, it's possible they start logging more consistently or more accurately. I would agree that regardless if you increase calories, that it's required to be in a deficit to lose weight. From the few articles I have seen, its possible that cortisol increases can increase water retention which prevents weight loss (fat loss + increase water = 0 sum gain/loss). It's possible if the calorie suppression over prolong periods of time has cause their RMR to reduce and become more efficient, which then causes a reduction in TDEE.

Honestly, I don't know enough about how hormones effect people in large deficits outside of the below article. For one I do not advocate to have a large deficit as it can lead to increase muscle loss and increase metabolic adaptions. It would personally be interesting to see a 6 month or longer study looking at the effects of calorie suppression on RMR and EE.

The big benefit from the EMTLW philosophy is finding a balance between enough energy to push hard and make exercise gains vs a deficit to have weight loss. Additionally, it's a mentality that shows people its OK to eat good food and still lose weight.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

parkscs

So if your BMR is 1792, why would you want to eat under that? Your BMR is your bottom line. That is the amount of calories your particular body needs to function at an absolute least. Although it is not a perfect number. Could be off by +/- 50. A great example of this that I enjoy quoting is think of that amount of calories your body needs if you were comatose. You cannot get any more in a resting state than that! For you, it's 1792. So, if you're eating 1750, and you're obviously not comatose, then your body is not getting the minimal amount of calories it needs for proper function.

Are you exercising as well? If so, you're losing muscle mass.

I'm a bit older than you are and my maintenance is 3100. I'm presently eating 2800 for cutting purposes. Of course your lifestyle and work is unique compared to mine. But I truly believe you need more calories per day than 1750.

BMR doesn't work that way and it isn't some magical threshold at which point your body goes into "preservation mode". Your body will burn muscle for energy when it cannot pull the necessary calories to make up your caloric deficit from your body's fat stores. That threshold is almost certainly not your BMR, however, unless you are incredibly lean already and have very little stored fat that your body can pull from. It's simply a myth that eating under your BMR is somehow problematic.

Not necessarily correct about those eating at 1200 and losing. They are losing, but at first it's mostly water weight. They aren't eating the amount of calories as before, less sodium and less water retention. At a large deficit (1200 per day diet), fat will be burned, but so will muscle. After time, the body will go into preservation mode, which could be where this "plateau" thinking is coming from. When more calories are consumed, the body is happier and healthier and no longer feels threatened by possible starvation and will begin to release fat stores as energy.

Sorry but that's simply not accurate. Your body doesn't just hang onto fat when it feels like it. When you run a caloric deficit of X, your body still burns those X calories every day - it just has to pull them from sources other than your dietary caloric intake. The goal is for your body to be able to pull those X calories from your fat stores, but in the event your body cannot pull enough energy from your fat stores, it may turn to catabolizing your muscles for energy. One study on the topic has suggested the body can pull roughly 31 kcal/lb of fat/day, with some people claiming this number if quite a bit higher. Regardless, if your deficit exceeds the limit of energy your body can pull from your fat stores, your body will have to burn muscle for calories to make up the remaining X calories of deficit - and that's a bad thing.

But there's no "preservation mode" or any other nonsensical state that your body enters where you defy the laws of thermodynamics and somehow starve yourself into maintaining your weight. Again, if such a preservation mode existed, there would be no such thing as starvation. While there's certainly evidence to suggest that metabolic slowdown is a real thing, we're talking about diminishing returns in weight loss rather than a plateau that can be broken by eating an extra donut every day.

Dkeshia

My 1st week of eating 1200 has caused me to gain 5 lbs verses losing. Going to change to 2000 per day to see if that helps me. I have been watching everything I put in my mouth but was told by trainer that I was starving my body and body would store the fat and it's made me gain. Thanks

lindsey1979

I agree with the folks that speak of the "sweet spot" for a deficit and how hormones can affect weight loss. For people that don't think hormones can affect weight loss, I think they're terribly wrong. The body is extremely good at sustaining itself through times of famine -- a basic evolutionary adaption. There is a point where too large of a deficit will cause a hormonal response in your body that shifts the energy expenditure paradigm -- so rather than releasing fat, it restricts other aspects of homeostasis -- like regulation of body temperature, digestion, etc. That's why folks that are literally starving have lower body temperatures, constipation, etc.

Some will decree "you're not really in a deficit" and the danger with folks that are already in a large deficit is that the response to cut more will just further the stress response in the body. Will you eventually lose weight over time doing this? Sure. Just as anyone would that cuts down calories enough. But, it's not a good way to go about it and is the very reason that MFP discourages calorie intakes below 1200. You'll lose weight on a VLCD, but it's not healthy for most and can cause severe hormonal and mineral/vitamin imbalances. It also ends up catabolizing a lot more muscle versus fat for the weight loss in non-severely obese people. That's why folks on VLCD should be under the supervision of a doctor.

When you increase your calories (or reduce your deficit) to hit that sweet spot, the body returns to "normal" operations and is back to releasing fat as it normally would. This is the scenario where increasing calories or reducing exercise temporarily can help you though it at first seems counterintuitive. This is also the theory behind calorie cycle or carb cycling -- to avoid the stress hormonal response of the body.

Or at least that's my understanding of it, and what I've seen play out in my own life.

I_Will_End_You

My 1st week of eating 1200 has caused me to gain 5 lbs verses losing. Going to change to 2000 per day to see if that helps me. I have been watching everything I put in my mouth but was told by trainer that I was starving my body and body would store the fat and it's made me gain. Thanks

You will not gain 5lbs of fat eating 1200 calories a day for a week. If I were you, I'd pay attention to your logging more closely.

tech_kitten

I had great results with this before. I will be at a deficit and losing regularly, and then I hit a plateau, and it's SO frustrating! So I ate at maintenance for awhile (2-3 weeks) just to prove to myself that I actually could maintain if I wanted to, and then went back to my deficit, and BOOM! I was losing weight again. I think our bodies sometimes need a break from the deficit for whatever reasons. Some say it's nutrients, others metabolism, and so many other things, but all I know is that it worked for me. If it works for you go for it! This is all a process, and it's just like if we go on vacation and splurge a little, it means nothing in the grand scheme of things. We get back to our plan and continue our weight loss. Also, more (or less, or different types of) exercise will help too. I am not as good at that part as I tend to go overboard when I freak out about plateaus, but that has helped a lot of people too. So, play around with your calorie count (or macros, or exercise amounts/types) and see what works for you.

dmenchac

I did! I was not eating my exercise calories and my net was 800 to 900 a day. It worked wonders to begin with but then I hit that wall for 4 weeks! All that starving and not an ounce lost! I started to eat back my exercise calories and BAM! I dropped a few right away.

Barring any medical conditions, consuming 800 calories per day for a months will automatically cause you to lose weight unless you are a cat. What really happened is that you thought you were only consuming 800 but you were consuming much more.



AND

to all the people claiming that "we aren't in her body," yes you are correct. But this is science and weight loss science IS THE SAME FOR EVERYONE. Create a deficit, you will lose weight. Thinking you are at a deficit is not the same as actually being in one.

If you were not losing weight at 1500 calories, and you started losing when you upped to 1800 you are a modern marvel of science and please message me as I could make some money off of you.

Barring that you are not a science marvel, this is what happened: you weren't eating 1500 to start off with and 1800 is still below your TDEE thus you lost weight.

Be honest with yourselves.

Hondo_Man

So if your BMR is 1792, why would you want to eat under that? Your BMR is your bottom line. That is the amount of calories your particular body needs to function at an absolute least. Although it is not a perfect number. Could be off by +/- 50. A great example of this that I enjoy quoting is think of that amount of calories your body needs if you were comatose. You cannot get any more in a resting state than that! For you, it's 1792. So, if you're eating 1750, and you're obviously not comatose, then your body is not getting the minimal amount of calories it needs for proper function.

Are you exercising as well? If so, you're losing muscle mass.

I'm a bit older than you are and my maintenance is 3100. I'm presently eating 2800 for cutting purposes. Of course your lifestyle and work is unique compared to mine. But I truly believe you need more calories per day than 1750.

BMR doesn't work that way and it isn't some magical threshold at which point your body goes into "preservation mode". Your body will burn muscle for energy when it cannot pull the necessary calories to make up your caloric deficit from your body's fat stores. That threshold is almost certainly not your BMR, however, unless you are incredibly lean already and have very little stored fat that your body can pull from. It's simply a myth that eating under your BMR is somehow problematic.

Not necessarily correct about those eating at 1200 and losing. They are losing, but at first it's mostly water weight. They aren't eating the amount of calories as before, less sodium and less water retention. At a large deficit (1200 per day diet), fat will be burned, but so will muscle. After time, the body will go into preservation mode, which could be where this "plateau" thinking is coming from. When more calories are consumed, the body is happier and healthier and no longer feels threatened by possible starvation and will begin to release fat stores as energy.

Sorry but that's simply not accurate. Your body doesn't just hang onto fat when it feels like it. When you run a caloric deficit of X, your body still burns those X calories every day - it just has to pull them from sources other than your dietary caloric intake. The goal is for your body to be able to pull those X calories from your fat stores, but in the event your body cannot pull enough energy from your fat stores, it may turn to catabolizing your muscles for energy. One study on the topic has suggested the body can pull roughly 31 kcal/lb of fat/day, with some people claiming this number if quite a bit higher. Regardless, if your deficit exceeds the limit of energy your body can pull from your fat stores, your body will have to burn muscle for calories to make up the remaining X calories of deficit - and that's a bad thing.

But there's no "preservation mode" or any other nonsensical state that your body enters where you defy the laws of thermodynamics and somehow starve yourself into maintaining your weight. Again, if such a preservation mode existed, there would be no such thing as starvation. While there's certainly evidence to suggest that metabolic slowdown is a real thing, we're talking about diminishing returns in weight loss rather than a plateau that can be broken by eating an extra donut every day.

You should do a bit more reading. You are way off. Not just on what I wrote but on your response. I never wrote that BMR is the baseline and under that one's body goes into preservation mode.

I have 30 years of fitness and diet experience so I have a wee bit of knowledge about this. Go back and read what I wrote. Obviously you didn't read correctly.

From the fitday.com site:

"Basal Metabolic Rate is the amount of energy expressed in calories that a person needs to keep the body functioning at rest. Some of those processes are breathing, blood circulation, controlling body temperature, cell growth, brain and nerve function, and contraction of muscles. Basal metabolic rate (BMR) affects the rate that a person burns calories and ultimately whether you maintain, gain, or lose weight. Your basal metabolic rate accounts for about 60 to 75% of the calories you burn every day. It is influenced by several factors."

from fitwatch.com

" you should know that eating a very low calorie diet can also wreak havoc on your metabolism. Initially you’ll probably lose a fair amount of weight, but then it will slow down dramatically as your body tries desperately to survive your self-imposed famine. If you continue to eat so little over a long period of time and then return to eating normally again, you will find yourself quickly gaining weight back, even if you aren’t overeating."

I have books only in German so to quote them would involve more than I wish to expend here.

And yes, preservation mode is not some nonsensical state but a reality on VLC type diets. Preservation mode or survive a self-imposed famine. Same thing, different wording.

dmenchac

I agree with the folks that speak of the "sweet spot" for a deficit and how hormones can affect weight loss. For people that don't think hormones can affect weight loss, I think they're terribly wrong. The body is extremely good at sustaining itself through times of famine -- a basic evolutionary adaption. There is a point where too large of a deficit will cause a hormonal response in your body that shifts the energy expenditure paradigm -- so rather than releasing fat, it restricts other aspects of homeostasis -- like regulation of body temperature, digestion, etc. That's why folks that are literally starving have lower body temperatures, constipation, etc.

Some will decree "you're not really in a deficit" and the danger with folks that are already in a large deficit is that the response to cut more will just further the stress response in the body. Will you eventually lose weight over time doing this? Sure. Just as anyone would that cuts down calories enough. But, it's not a good way to go about it and is the very reason that MFP discourages calorie intakes below 1200. You'll lose weight on a VLCD, but it's not healthy for most and can cause severe hormonal and mineral/vitamin imbalances. It also ends up catabolizing a lot more muscle versus fat for the weight loss in non-severely obese people. That's why folks on VLCD should be under the supervision of a doctor.

When you increase your calories (or reduce your deficit) to hit that sweet spot, the body returns to "normal" operations and is back to releasing fat as it normally would. This is the scenario where increasing calories or reducing exercise temporarily can help you though it at first seems counterintuitive. This is also the theory behind calorie cycle or carb cycling -- to avoid the stress hormonal response of the body.

Or at least that's my understanding of it, and what I've seen play out in my own life.

What you are describing is adaptive thermogenesis. And it does exist. But it only exists if you sustain a very low calorie diet for years and years and years, which is why its called adaptive. Animals don't adapt to their environments in a week, it takes generations.

If adaptive thermogenesis was quick, anorexics wouldn't be deathly frail and concentration camp survivors wouldn't be skin and bones.

smn76237

Like people said - increasing calories will not on it's own break a plateau.

However, it can certainly help you increase your energy, workout performance, retain LBM and adherence to your diet (amongst other psychological benefits).

If you are a person who is in a large deficit, and you find yourself bingeing too often (you gotta be honest with yourself here) then I would highly suggest increasing your calories slightly per day (depending on individual goals of course).

For me - my "plateau" was nothing more than me ruining my deficit with ****ty weekends. Upping my cals helped me limit my ****ty weekends. Also had more energy - and it helped me progress in both my Bench Press and OHP which had stalled.

So technically, number wise - no it won't break a plateau.

However, there are other related benefits that may help you depending on your situation (avoiding bingeing, retaining more LBM, increasing diet adherence, personal happiness, more energy).

EDIT: weighing food and accurately and honestly logging is the first step for anyone who feels like they are plateauing. This way you have the power of data that you can take advantage of!

This is a great response from someone who clearly knows what they're talking about (based on their ticker)! I could not have said it better myself.

dmenchac

Like people said - increasing calories will not on it's own break a plateau.

However, it can certainly help you increase your energy, workout performance, retain LBM and adherence to your diet (amongst other psychological benefits).

If you are a person who is in a large deficit, and you find yourself bingeing too often (you gotta be honest with yourself here) then I would highly suggest increasing your calories slightly per day (depending on individual goals of course).

For me - my "plateau" was nothing more than me ruining my deficit with ****ty weekends. Upping my cals helped me limit my ****ty weekends. Also had more energy - and it helped me progress in both my Bench Press and OHP which had stalled.

So technically, number wise - no it won't break a plateau.

However, there are other related benefits that may help you depending on your situation (avoiding bingeing, retaining more LBM, increasing diet adherence, personal happiness, more energy).

EDIT: weighing food and accurately and honestly logging is the first step for anyone who feels like they are plateauing. This way you have the power of data that you can take advantage of!

This is a great response from someone who clearly knows what they're talking about (based on their ticker)! I could not have said it better myself.

Yes that response was spot on. Well done.

AthenasWiseOwl

This does not work for me.
When I start eating more in order to break my plateau, I usually gain weight because I lose control and can't stop.

lindsey1979

I agree with the folks that speak of the "sweet spot" for a deficit and how hormones can affect weight loss. For people that don't think hormones can affect weight loss, I think they're terribly wrong. The body is extremely good at sustaining itself through times of famine -- a basic evolutionary adaption. There is a point where too large of a deficit will cause a hormonal response in your body that shifts the energy expenditure paradigm -- so rather than releasing fat, it restricts other aspects of homeostasis -- like regulation of body temperature, digestion, etc. That's why folks that are literally starving have lower body temperatures, constipation, etc.

Some will decree "you're not really in a deficit" and the danger with folks that are already in a large deficit is that the response to cut more will just further the stress response in the body. Will you eventually lose weight over time doing this? Sure. Just as anyone would that cuts down calories enough. But, it's not a good way to go about it and is the very reason that MFP discourages calorie intakes below 1200. You'll lose weight on a VLCD, but it's not healthy for most and can cause severe hormonal and mineral/vitamin imbalances. It also ends up catabolizing a lot more muscle versus fat for the weight loss in non-severely obese people. That's why folks on VLCD should be under the supervision of a doctor.

When you increase your calories (or reduce your deficit) to hit that sweet spot, the body returns to "normal" operations and is back to releasing fat as it normally would. This is the scenario where increasing calories or reducing exercise temporarily can help you though it at first seems counterintuitive. This is also the theory behind calorie cycle or carb cycling -- to avoid the stress hormonal response of the body.

Or at least that's my understanding of it, and what I've seen play out in my own life.

What you are describing is adaptive thermogenesis. And it does exist. But it only exists if you sustain a very low calorie diet for years and years and years, which is why its called adaptive. Animals don't adapt to their environments in a week, it takes generations.

If adaptive thermogenesis was quick, anorexics wouldn't be deathly frail and concentration camp survivors wouldn't be skin and bones.

My understanding is that this is not adaptive thermogenesis. Adaptive thermogenesis is the adjustment of the actual metabolism -- lowering or increasing -- in response to deficit or surplus, not a near-term shifting of the energy expenditure away from non-essential bodily functions in order to maintain fat stores for longer. It's my understanding that adaptive thermogenesis is a long term effect and it takes quite awhile until the body adjusts -- months and months of deprivation -- but that the energy expenditure paradigm shift occurs in the near term. If the body is not given fuel (either by increasing calories or reducing deficit), adaptive thermogenesis will eventually result in the overall metabolism slowing but that that big of a shift takes a much longer time.

What I'm describing is a shorter term effect. Not an overall reduction in metabolism, but a shift in the energy expenditure paradigm (i.e. the overall numbers are the same, but less fat is being released for the deficit, instead other bodily functions are being decreased or being more "efficient"). And that's why people in large deficits for a prolonged time usually feel pretty crappy -- fatigue, sometimes cold, lethargic, unable to exercise as much, poor sleep, etc.

There is also the water retention issue, which is probably largely the case for most people that see a plateau of only 3-4 weeks. But, refeeds are one of the things that some advise to induce the "whoosh". And, it's my understanding, that it goes back to the stress hormone response as well. Same thing with calorie cycling or carb cycling for the LCHFers.

sarainiowa

I have. it kind of happened by "accident". I thought I was just "falling off the wagon" after no scale movement but sure enough, the scale went down as I ate more calories.

dmenchac

I agree with the folks that speak of the "sweet spot" for a deficit and how hormones can affect weight loss. For people that don't think hormones can affect weight loss, I think they're terribly wrong. The body is extremely good at sustaining itself through times of famine -- a basic evolutionary adaption. There is a point where too large of a deficit will cause a hormonal response in your body that shifts the energy expenditure paradigm -- so rather than releasing fat, it restricts other aspects of homeostasis -- like regulation of body temperature, digestion, etc. That's why folks that are literally starving have lower body temperatures, constipation, etc.

Some will decree "you're not really in a deficit" and the danger with folks that are already in a large deficit is that the response to cut more will just further the stress response in the body. Will you eventually lose weight over time doing this? Sure. Just as anyone would that cuts down calories enough. But, it's not a good way to go about it and is the very reason that MFP discourages calorie intakes below 1200. You'll lose weight on a VLCD, but it's not healthy for most and can cause severe hormonal and mineral/vitamin imbalances. It also ends up catabolizing a lot more muscle versus fat for the weight loss in non-severely obese people. That's why folks on VLCD should be under the supervision of a doctor.

When you increase your calories (or reduce your deficit) to hit that sweet spot, the body returns to "normal" operations and is back to releasing fat as it normally would. This is the scenario where increasing calories or reducing exercise temporarily can help you though it at first seems counterintuitive. This is also the theory behind calorie cycle or carb cycling -- to avoid the stress hormonal response of the body.

Or at least that's my understanding of it, and what I've seen play out in my own life.

What you are describing is adaptive thermogenesis. And it does exist. But it only exists if you sustain a very low calorie diet for years and years and years, which is why its called adaptive. Animals don't adapt to their environments in a week, it takes generations.

If adaptive thermogenesis was quick, anorexics wouldn't be deathly frail and concentration camp survivors wouldn't be skin and bones.

My understanding is that this is not adaptive thermogenesis. Adaptive thermogenesis is the adjustment of the actual metabolism -- lowering or increasing -- in response to deficit or surplus, not a near-term shifting of the energy expenditure away from non-essential bodily functions in order to maintain fat stores for longer. It's my understanding that adaptive thermogenesis is a long term effect and it takes quite awhile until the body adjusts -- months and months of deprivation -- but that the energy expenditure paradigm shift occurs in the near term. If the body is not given fuel (either by increasing calories or reducing deficit), adaptive thermogenesis will eventually result in the overall metabolism slowing but that that big of a shift takes a much longer time.

What I'm describing is a shorter term effect. Not an overall reduction in metabolism, but a shift in the energy expenditure paradigm (i.e. the overall numbers are the same, but less fat is being released for the deficit, instead other bodily functions are being decreased or being more "efficient"). And that's why people in large deficits for a prolonged time usually feel pretty crappy -- fatigue, sometimes cold, lethargic, unable to exercise as much, poor sleep, etc.

Do you have a name for this short-term effect? Can you provide any studies? Or just give me the name and I will do my own search on it. I have never heard of this and I have my doubts.

rileamoyer

Yes, it only worked for me if I ate more for just a day or two and went back to 1200 after. But it worked every time.