Up my calories?

Either your workouts are extremely low intensity, or your food logging is messed up, because you cannot support that level of activity on that level of calories.

Open up your diary...

My workout intensity isn't low and my food logging isn't messed up. Not everyone is the same. I can workout this much with this amount of calories.

You can, but it's really not healthy hon. You eat 1200, how much are you burning? Your net is probably *super* low - and if so your body won't let go of a single pound because it's not getting enough nutrients.

Your plan to up your cals a bit is a good one. I hope you find success in it.

Either your workouts are extremely low intensity, or your food logging is messed up, because you cannot support that level of activity on that level of calories.

Open up your diary...

My workout intensity isn't low and my food logging isn't messed up. Not everyone is the same. I can workout this much with this amount of calories.

You can, but it's really not healthy hon. You eat 1200, how much are you burning? Your net is probably *super* low - and if so your body won't let go of a single pound because it's not getting enough nutrients.

Your plan to up your cals a bit is a good one. I hope you find success in it.

This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?

My doctor.

MY doctor (psychiatrist) told me if I continued to be friends with so many gay men, I'd become a lesbian.

Your doctor is wrong. What do you think happens to you if you continue to eat far to little. Do you just continue to maintain your weight indefinitely? If so is that now your maintenance level? Can you live for the rest of your life eating "far to little"?

Could I maintain my weight eating 1000 calories a day considering that is not enough for me? Or do I have to eat even less before I hit a level I can maintain at?

Dont you see the problem with that logic? Perhaps your doctor was just trying to convince you to eat more and used a scare tactic.

Eating to little is bad for you. It will result in muscle loss and decrease in bone density, lethargy associated with anemia and potential kidney and liver issues. What it wont do though is make you hold ont fat and maintain your weight. Just ask an anorexic.

Be sure your minimum calorific intake is at least 10x=body weight/lbs to avoid 'starvation response'.
Otherwise your metabolism will slow down and you'll find it harder to utilize stored fat as fuel.

The quote above is nonsense.

(I'm a professionally qualified nutritionist)

It's still nonsense.

That is the problem. Her weight is "stable" at essentially starvation mode. It is not her weight that needs to become stable, but her body needs to adjust to the new level of homeostasis. It is not healthy to be at a "stable" weight while eating at a starvation level of calories.

"This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?"

This idea comes from Biology.


Our body has biofeedback mechanisms that helps it to stay in homeostasis. ( For instance, we shiver when we are cold.) I think that as we begin to understand these biofeedback mechanisms in the area of weight loss, we will begin to be more successful in helping people loose weight. In reality, people's bodies, can literally change their metabolism so they can live on less and less food. In other words, the body becomes more and more efficient at getting energy from our calories and stores the rest for future use. It is an evolutionary mechanism that helps us survive when we are faced with frequent famines. It is these biofeedback mechanisms which are causing obesity in many people, in my opinion. This is why the men in the starvation experiment gained more weight and had a new "normal" weight that was higher than their original weight, after their period of starvation. Our body wants to find a place of stability. We can actually CAUSE illness by starving ourselves. Then we no longer fit in your bell shaped curve, but rather become "special snowflakes" who cannot loose weight to save our lives.

SSL_Runner: I agree we do need a calorie deficit, BUT the current model isn't true. We do NOT loose a pound for every 3500 calories burned. Not all bodies respond to calorie deficit in the same way, and in fact having too great of calorie deficit sets MANY people up for a lifetime of obesity. So, what I am saying is the "simple" idea that ALL you need for weight loss is calorie deficit and no other factors matter is what is false. There are other factors including hormones, sleep, medications, stress, emotional state, sex, age, weight, past history of dieting, vitamins, the types of foods you eat, your bodies biofeedback mechanisms, etc. etc. and etc. , that all come in to play. If the ONLY think that matters is calorie deficit, then how can the side effects for many medications be weight gain or weigh loss..... even when the patient doesn't eat more or less????? There are MANY more factors. It is NOT a simple mathematical formula that you can apply to all people. This is what I am saying.

"This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?"

This idea comes from Biology.


Our body has biofeedback mechanisms that helps it to stay in homeostasis. ( For instance, we shiver when we are cold.) I think that as we begin to understand these biofeedback mechanisms in the area of weight loss, we will begin to be more successful in helping people loose weight. In reality, people's bodies, can literally change their metabolism so they can live on less and less food. In other words, the body becomes more and more efficient at getting energy from our calories and stores the rest for future use. It is an evolutionary mechanism that helps us survive when we are faced with frequent famines. It is these biofeedback mechanisms which are causing obesity in many people, in my opinion. This is why the men in the starvation experiment gained more weight and had a new "normal" weight that was higher than their original weight, after their period of starvation. Our body wants to find a place of stability. We can actually CAUSE illness by starving ourselves. Then we no longer fit in your bell shaped curve, but rather become "special snowflakes" who cannot loose weight to save our lives.

You are referring to adaptive thermogenesis which at most can reduce your BMR temporarily by 40%. At no point does this make it impossible to lose weight and only occurs to that extent under true starvation conditions.

You are pointing to a real effect but assuming it does more than it can do. Adaptive thermogenesis will nrver make you maintain forever it will just slow dramatic weightloss during longterm starvation.

Not I am not talking about adaptive thermogenesis. You are able to starve yourself to loose weight- for the sort term. However, my concern is the biofeedback mechanisms that kick in after people diet, which cause them to gain more weight back after a diet. I am talking about the process by which we eat at a deficit calorie, and then our body resets its inner ability to use calories more efficiency and/or our hunger signals are change, so if we need to lose weight at a later date it is more difficult. If the current model of weight loss actually worked over the LONG HAUL, most of us would not be struggling so much. However I don't think there will be many studies done to find this out... why people who diet actually get fatter. The truth is most weight studies are conducted by those who profit by keeping people fat. LOL "Helping" people loose weight is a very profitable business. : ) It is also the perfect model, professional people do all that they can to "help" people, but then the poor, lazy, undisciplined and ungrateful people who just gave them thousands of dollars, will not heed to the wonderful "scientific" advice and simply "choose" to be fat. LOL

Again you are using exact percentages in talking about thermogenesis..." which can AT MOST, reduce your BMR temporarily by 40Percent" Again, there are no studies that look at all people, all ages, etc. I would actually be interested in the studies that you have found that talk about thermogenesis...I am interested in this also. Please share.