Has anyone broke their plateau by eating more??

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can't remember it. I had a discussion with a specialist a while ago about it and we talked water retention, hormonal response, RMR, etc. so I just remember the theories behind it and the mechanism -- not sure about the name or if it even had one.

But, it made a lot of sense to me. The funny part I have is that some people will say this is impossible and then at the same time admit that weight loss isn't linear. But, they never seem to think about why it isn't linear? Because if the deficit is linear and weight loss has a direct relationship with the deficit, then logic dictates that weight loss should be linear as well. But, almost everyone agrees that it often is not linear -- at least not in the short term.