too few calories does not always =faster weight loss

Cby60

Hi. I had done intermittent dieting and quickly lost weight. The weight loss stalled after I had lost a little over 20lbs. This site has been very helpful and I read it every night. What had puzzled me was how many people said eating too few calories didn't work.. and that it was when they upped their calories to 1200 or a bit more that the weight started coming off again. It didn't make sense to me because I figured it was math "calories in vs calories out". But figured it was worth trying. So last week I upped my calories to 1200 or bit more and it worked. I went down 2lbs. I did not exercise more - less really because the weather here is so bad and it still made a difference. When I was eating below 1000 calories I would get really tired while biking or roller blading and figured this must mean that I am burning up the fat on my body for fuel....but the weight loss did not show that. When I eat more I bike/roller blade the same distance and don't get weak feeling and the weight has gone down. So if you are like me and thinking less calories = quicker weight loss and find it's not working ...I recommend upping your calories a bit. It did work for me.

Jeneba

What good news! Happy for you!

Jannalicious

For me personally I couldn't survive on only 1200 cals. If it works for you that's awesome. But when I get that low I feel like I'm gonna pass out. Just be careful. The more you exercise the more calories you'll need to take in to compensate. You want to lose body fat not muscle.

amwbox

Its different for different people. In my case, eating more causes me to lose slower, and eating less causes me to lose faster. Which is straightforward logic that I'm perfectly happy with.

"Starvation mode" and metabolic damage are both *massively* overestimated around here. At least in my case, as I've been able to calculate with spreadsheets, the metabolic efficiency loss that comes with caloric restriction below that threshold is about 11% max. I don't personally have any energy problems from low calorie intake. Some people talk about literally fainting...I've never experienced anything remotely like that, even during 7+ day fasts. Different people have very different experiences.

Obviously, it goes without saying that losing weight slower and taking in more nutrients is the healthier option for most people, and the closer you get to a healthy weight the loss the less effective serious caloric restriction is. Very obese people on the other hand can get a very efficient fat burn from low calorie consumption, at least until they lose a lot, then it needs to be modified.

SezxyStef

For me personally I couldn't survive on only 1200 cals. If it works for you that's awesome. But when I get that low I feel like I'm gonna pass out. Just be careful. The more you exercise the more calories you'll need to take in to compensate. You want to lose body fat not muscle.

x2

lemurcat12

Its different for different people. In my case, eating more causes me to lose slower, and eating less causes me to lose faster. Which is straightforward logic that I'm perfectly happy with.

Same here, within the calories I've been aiming for--that is I've never had a situation where I was eating more and burning the same and yet losing better--but I also have never been eating less than 1000 (or even 1200) for any extended period of time. Even without getting into "starvation mode" (on which I agree with you), if you feel low energy because you are eating too little quite likely you aren't being as active, even with those little things that we wouldn't think about or log, and you probably aren't burning as much when you do exercise. That can make a difference, as well, perhaps taking longer to recover and thus having more water weight, etc.

Personally I'm losing as much or often more now eating 1400-1500 than I was at 1200, because I'm working out more. Would I be working out as much if I was committed to staying at 1200 no matter what? I suspect not, but I also just don't want to.