At my wits end, really need some advice.

Sounds like your body has gotten use to the routine. You need to change it up. When your body does the same workout and eats the same calories day after day, week after week it get use to it. Maybe next week change your exercise routine, then the following week go back to your regular schedule and so on. See if that does anything. Good luck!

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.

Eat less?

Errr no. The opposite actually. Burning 4500 calories a week is 640ish calories minus'd from your daily 1800, which means you are eating less than 1200 calories a day. You don't eat anywhere near enough to provide the energy needed to fuel your workouts, therefore your body is keeping hold of everything you do consume and not letting go of excesses. NET 1800 and you'll lose weight.

This is actually a myth. Google "Starvation myth" for details. If in is less than out, you lose weight, first law of thermodynamics ensures that, your metabolism may slow (and you have to adjust the calories you eat to cater for that) but you will lose weight.

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.

The OP has lost a huge amount of weight on what calculates to be extremely minimal on a long-term basis. Then for the past five months has survived on approx 1200 cals a day, which is never maintenance for a 5ft 7 person by the way. Please explain how reducing even more would benefit the OP in any way, shape or form. Doing this would have only negative effects as food = fuel. There is no arguement for that. Surely you can't believe that metabolism reduction is a positive thing?

The OP has lost a huge amount of weight on what calculates to be extremely minimal on a long-term basis. Then for the past five months has survived on approx 1200 cals a day, which is never maintenance for a 5ft 7 person by the way. Please explain how reducing even more would benefit the OP in any way, shape or form. Doing this would have only negative effects as food = fuel. There is no arguement for that. Surely you can't believe that metabolism reduction is a positive thing?

I did the google search I suggested. Here is what WeightWatchers say -

"Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.

For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.

While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioral reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss"

QED.

The OP has lost a huge amount of weight on what calculates to be extremely minimal on a long-term basis. Then for the past five months has survived on approx 1200 cals a day, which is never maintenance for a 5ft 7 person by the way. Please explain how reducing even more would benefit the OP in any way, shape or form. Doing this would have only negative effects as food = fuel. There is no arguement for that. Surely you can't believe that metabolism reduction is a positive thing?

I did the google search I suggested. Here is what WeightWatchers say -

"Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.

For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.

While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioral reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss"

QED.

I think you misunderstand me. I''m not saying that the OP is in "starvation mode". I am saying a person needs 2000 calories (for example) for a REASON. Also, I'm not talking about the ebb and flow of high/low consumption. The OP has consistently consumed approx 1200 for eleven months. Nearly a year. That is a long time to eat at such a reduced amount by anyone's standard. And the same source you cited also recommended to the OP to consume the 'extra' exercise calories. The source you cited is in contradiction to the statement you're trying to make.

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.

The OP has lost a huge amount of weight on what calculates to be extremely minimal on a long-term basis. Then for the past five months has survived on approx 1200 cals a day, which is never maintenance for a 5ft 7 person by the way. Please explain how reducing even more would benefit the OP in any way, shape or form. Doing this would have only negative effects as food = fuel. There is no arguement for that. Surely you can't believe that metabolism reduction is a positive thing?

Actually, read the OP's original posting again, they said they were on 1800 calories per day.

Yes, then minus their exercise calories, which worked out to be approx 640 cals per day.

Plateauing can be very demoralizing. Been there! The best thing I read in all of the other posts is - change your routine. That's what I have done.

Read up on the fast diet (Michael Mosley) or 5:2 (same thing). See if that might be something for you. There is a group on MFP with lot's of good infos to this too. I'm in my fourth week and it is very easy for me to follow and I have seen weightloss and energy increase like never before.

Just an idea. Something new for your body might help.

Good Morning: I've read all the replies to your weight loss challenge.
May I suggest you read "The Eat-Clean Diet" by Tosca Reno
Good Luck!

You may benefit from getting your body composition tested. You have been working hard in your classes and have probably been building up muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. There is a chance you are closer to your goals than you think.

I recently got my body composition tested, and found out that my goal of weighing 130 lbs was unrealistic as I have about 120 lbs of lean mass. A more realistic weight for me is 150 lbs. Had I not gotten the composition test, I would have had no idea.

There are different ways to get it tested, from calipers or electrical impedance testing to using a measuring tape and plugging your measurements into a formula.

Try to have patience with your body, too -- and like others have said, maybe play around with the amount you eat. You could try eating some of your exercise calories for a couple weeks and see if it makes a difference. Or, cut back a little, and see if that helps. When I reach a plateau, I like to calorie cycle, where you vary the amount you eat each day to keep your body guessing. There are some good calculators for that online.

Good luck reaching your goals!

Honsi, how long have you been went training for?
If you're a newbie, sure you might put on some muscle weight, but it is not likely in a caloric deficit.
If you've been lifting a while like me, there's no way you'd put on any weight in a caloric deficit