Does it mean I am not in a deficit?

Because they don't know the science and believe the mantra that a calorie is a calorie. Based on a variety of clinical studies here is some interesting news:
* Reducing calories below 1000 per day on average slows metabolism by 16%
* Exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 calories but exercising 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 480 calories
* High-fat, low-carb diet gave a 300 calorie/day metabolic advantage.
So basically, eat less and exercise more isn't necessarily true. Your body doesn't know math.

I am so conflicted on this discussion because I hear two different things and I also have experience for myself. When people say on the forums "I eat this much, burn this much" a lot are quick to jump to the "you are not in a deficit".

Then there are those that say "You are not eating enough".

For myself, I was stuck in an 8 month plateau...and after getting my Bodymedia Armband, I discovered I was not losing weight because I was in too much of a deficit, not eating enough and my body plateaued hard because of it. Now for those 8 months, many people kept saying "your not in a deficit"...well yeah I was, it was just too much of a deficit.

Why are so many quick to jump to the "you are not in a deficit" answer to someone who is not losing weight?

I think you are not in a deficit comes up first because it is the most likely answer. You ask the person how much they're eating and they don't know. Do you really think it's more likely they're eating too little than they're eating too much,

Also I notice it's not called "starvation mode" but if someone's really eating too little they will get a recommendation to eat more to fuel their body. Just out of curiosity, how much weight did you have to lose and how much were you eating/exercising to create this 1000 calorie deficit?

Eating below your BMR will cause a plateau IMHO. You're losing muscle starving yourself. Muscle burns calories. Hence your metabolism slows waaay the hell down causing you to lose less weight. A TON of people on here in "success stories" have cautioned and wondered that eating more causes weight loss.

If you aren't logging your intake right (weighing food accurately) you do not know how much you are actually eating. This can cause weight gain that a person might not be catching.

Because they don't know the science and believe the mantra that a calorie is a calorie. Based on a variety of clinical studies here is some interesting news:
* Reducing calories below 1000 per day on average slows metabolism by 16%
* Exercising 30 minutes at 300 calories actually burned 550 calories but exercising 60 minutes at 600 calories only burned 480 calories
* High-fat, low-carb diet gave a 300 calorie/day metabolic advantage.
So basically, eat less and exercise more isn't necessarily true. Your body doesn't know math.

Yes eating a VLCD can cause adaptive thermogenisis but it takes a long time for that to happen but at the same time it is still CICO and even eating VLCD people lose weight otherwise actual starvation doesn't happen.

Low carb, High fat, high protien it doesn't matter...

as well please produce those studies that show HFLC give 300 calorie a day metabolic advantage...

To the OP a plateau happens when you are not in a deficit...an armband bodymedia device, HRM etc are not known for their accurarcy. Being in too much of a deficit causes rapid weight loss, which includes muscle and fat. And again if you stopped losing weight in "too much of a deficit" you wouldn't have people starving ever...

It really is CICO....

I am so conflicted on this discussion because I hear two different things and I also have experience for myself. When people say on the forums "I eat this much, burn this much" a lot are quick to jump to the "you are not in a deficit".

Then there are those that say "You are not eating enough".

For myself, I was stuck in an 8 month plateau...and after getting my Bodymedia Armband, I discovered I was not losing weight because I was in too much of a deficit, not eating enough and my body plateaued hard because of it. Now for those 8 months, many people kept saying "your not in a deficit"...well yeah I was, it was just too much of a deficit.

Why are so many quick to jump to the "you are not in a deficit" answer to someone who is not losing weight?

Because of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Everyone's bodies are somewhat different, but unless there is a significant medical condition at work, human A works much the same as human B.

In my experience its very mathematical. I chart caloric deficits against weight loss in Excel and I find that, at least in my case, a pound of body weight is worth about 2900 calories. Yes, 3500 is a pound of body FAT, but body weight is more complicated than pure fat, and you lose overall weight a bit faster than pure body fat.

I've charted about a 12-15% metabolic disadvantage to extreme deficits when doing a VLCD over 30 days. I can eat practically nothing...and with the exception of that 15% efficiency loss, weight gain continues very closely in line with the caloric calculations. If I eat more, I lose less. If I eat less, I lose more. They are inversely related. The math seems to be extremely reliable.

Just have to remember that heavy deficits are not a sustainable condition. But I don't doubt the numbers.

I am so conflicted on this discussion because I hear two different things and I also have experience for myself. When people say on the forums "I eat this much, burn this much" a lot are quick to jump to the "you are not in a deficit".

Then there are those that say "You are not eating enough".

For myself, I was stuck in an 8 month plateau...and after getting my Bodymedia Armband, I discovered I was not losing weight because I was in too much of a deficit, not eating enough and my body plateaued hard because of it. Now for those 8 months, many people kept saying "your not in a deficit"...well yeah I was, it was just too much of a deficit.

Why are so many quick to jump to the "you are not in a deficit" answer to someone who is not losing weight?

the reason is because it is true. we all overestimate how much we burn and underestimate how much we eat. if you are not losing weight, you are not in a deficit. a plateau is nothing more than the maintenance for the weight you are at based on your eating and activity. if you were in "too much of a deficit" you would have been losing weight, period.

http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/weight-loss-plateau-myth-muscle-weighs-more-than-fat/

All true.

1) Even if the metabolism slows while eating at a severe caloric deficit (say, for hypothetical purposes, 16%, as another poster wrote), weight loss would obviously not stop. The RATE of weight-loss might slow, but you would still be losing weight.

2) Some people may appear to be maintaining on a severe caloric deficit because they binge sometimes, and don't remember it, adding to the total number of calories they're actually eating. Also, people definitely underestimate the number of calories they eat, and overestimate their exercise.