Eat more calories and lose weight- What is really happening

Hey, y'all. I just wanted to make this post to shed some light from my experience as a private practice RD specializing in weight loss on a concept I see posted so often in these forums:

"Starvation Mode"

How is it that people who can't lose weight on say... 1500 calories, drop to 1200 calories and still don't lose weight? Or even yet, someone who is eating 1000 calories increases their intake up to 1400 and they start losing weight. How does this happen?

First, let's talk about some inconsistencies in the whole calorie counting process:
1. Values for foods in MFP- caloric variance in foods with the same name
2. Portion size estimations from user of MFP- there can even be variance when using measuring cups. Food scales are the most accurate.
3. Variance in reported caloric value from restaurants
4. Variance in the BMR TDEE and calories burned from exercise- these are all equations and estimations anyways

So right there, you have a lot of variance. We can safely assume that foods entered in MFP may have some inaccuracies.

Now let's look at the average MFP user
1. Probably not weighing out all foods. Estimates intake quite a bit.
2. May dine out at a restaurant or casserole dishes that are hard to estimate
3. May skip days or meals and have gaps in data from logging
4. May not be aware of extra calories in food, or simply forget to add certain ingredients
5. May not be accurately recording exercise (Choosing wrong intensity or including warm up and cool down time in workout)

Consider some special populations and individuals who are eating VERY low calorie diets, and are losing weight
- prisoners of war
- people with GI or absorption issues (crohn's disease, etc)
- bariatric surgery patients
- medically supervised protein sparing modified fasts
... all these individuals are on severely restricted calories and still lose weight

The ONLY way to sustain a fat loss is to sustain a caloric deficit: big or small

So here's my 2 cents on what really happens in "starvation mode"

Scenario A: Individual cuts calories and doesn't lose any weight
Possible reasons:
1. general inconsistencies in tracking (examples above) means the original or new calorie values were inaccurate to begin with.
2. this individual becomes less physically active after cutting calories
3. individual binges more severely or often from feeling overly restricted
4. individual is unaware of "sneaking" foods or bigger portion sizes

Scenario B: Individual eats more and loses weight
1. Greater accuracy is achieved as person consumes more, he or she pays more attention to accurate portion sizes
2. Individual begins exercising more
3. Eats more simple, single ingredient foods, which are usually easier to track and measure

The take home point is that to achieve a weight loss, you have to sustain a deficit. There's no other way to do it. So to the 200 pound person only eating 1,000 calories and not losing weight, I would say, your 1,000 calories is probably a misestimation OR you are indeed eating 1,000 calories until you binge and eat back your deficit. (Or you need to get your thyroid checked, but this post is in regards to individuals with normally functioning thyroids).

Bring on the flame posts and naysayers! My body is ready!

I believe that one of the problems is magnesium and/or iodine deficiency or deficiencies of other nutrients. Iodine deficiency is common--especially in areas where not a lot of seafood is eaten (plus, if your water is fluoridated, the fluorine ions fill the receptor sites for iodine to make matters worse). Makes for a wonky thyroid gland and lower metabolism.

When you go for a protracted period of time eating at a deficit, it is my theory that unless you are eating VERY well, you will develop nutritional deficiencies--with minerals being high on the list (yes, even if you take a multi every day). Studies show that about 85% of us have magnesium deficiencies (because we don't eat our veggies and fruits) which means that your body cannot efficiently convert T-4 (thyroxine) to the active form, T-3. So you could be pumping out T-4 but be clinically hypothyroid because you cannot convert it to T-3. And guess what? Your weight loss will stall.

Also, magnesium ions are essential for energy transport to the mitochondria. And while we are on the subject of energy transport, metabolizing sugar "uses up" ATP (involved with energy transport). You will feel sluggish if you are eating a lot of sugar and simple carbs. That is why you must eat VERY well on a caloric deficit.

This is quite interesting.

It does seem that we tend to focus too much on the macro-nutrients (as we have been taught directly or indirectly), while ignoring the micro-nutrients. Micro nutrients have zero calorie ratings but are absolutely necessary for proper metabolic processes.

This oversimplification of nutrition seems to be the root of alot of confusion.

Shouldnt we should be optimizing nutrition rather than fooling ourselves by focusing on calories (protein, fat, and carbs)? COunting calories is a good place to start gaining control of our eating habits, but it certainly only should be considered the starting point.

Doesnt this recognition of the micronutrients importance inevitably lead to one massively increasing their (green) veggies consumption to maximize nutrition per calorie in all weight loss strategies (including restricted calorie regimes) while avoiding the stall scenario?