Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?

I wonder how much of this "need" to eat so few calories to see weight loss is the result of long-term undereating and adaptive thermogenesis.

I also wonder how often people assume their threshold is lower because they tried eating a little more for too short of a period of time and misinterpreted the temporary increase in weight when increasing calories (because glycogen restoration and other factors) as evidence.

ETA: My own n=1, my calculated TDEE continues to increase slowly as I continue to increase my calories. I suspect with consistent effort the other direction (say, if I increased the duration of my cutting cycles and decreased the duration of my bulking cycles), I would see my TDEE decrease slowly.

I think long-term undereating usually results in low body fat, which is not what those of us here on the Weight Loss forum eating at deficits are trying to combat. Adaptive thermogenesis happens to everyone at a deficit, to some extent.

I think people usually think their TDEE is low because it is, because they're female and/or shorter and/or older and/or not obese, not because they eat more one week or lift one week and see a gain. Though there may be a few in that category, too. I think most of us have been at this long enough to know. A lot of people have been wearing Fitbits for years, too. That actually shows the main part of adaptive thermogenesis-- decrease in activity. So it can be combatted.

Well, my own N = 1 study: my need to eat at a relatively low amount (1460) to lose weight was not based on any long term under eating at all - I don't think I ever under ate, certainly not in the last 20 years or so - in fact I made no serious attempts to lose weight at all in that time and for most of my life was not over weight.
But gradually I ate more and probably moved less and my weight crept up (middle aged spread, it used to be called ) until I was 10 kg over weight and joined MFP and calorie counted to 1460 net amount and got to where I am today.

So, yes, I thought my TDEE was low, because it was - I am in the reasonably large category of older, shortish, not super active women and I don't think my numbers were low because of any miscalculations or misunderstandings - I think they were low because I fit into the category of people for whom that low is the right number.

Yes jofjltn, and results bore that out.

My point was really that people (using Me as an example) saying a low number is right for them aren't always confused or victims of adaptive thermogenesis from chronic under eating or having unrealistic expectations or beginning lifters or anything else.

1460 was right for me - I don't think it is unfeasible that 1200 would be right for someone 10 years older than me, 4 inches shorter and having a sedentary job.
a 60 year old 5 foot tall office worker is not an extreme outlier of the population -ie that number would be right for such a person - and such a person is not that uncommon.

There was recently a thread where OP said LISTEN EVERYBODY, 1200 IS NEVER OKAY!!!!! and to me that is just as wrong as someone saying "I am a 6 ft tall 20 year old male bricklayer, should I set my calories at 1200?"

This is actually what I wish people had to do first, just accurately track your intake and weight fluctuation for one month, no lifestyle changes, no added activity, just you doing your normal thing for one month, THEN make the adjustments you'll need to get the calorie deficit necessary for the speed of weight loss recommended for your current stats. This of course will NEVER happen, but gosh wouldn't it be wonderful and make everything here so much less dramatic.

I think people love drama.

What I find fascinating about weight loss, actually, is that the calorie deficit needed for losing weight is smaller than a calorie deficit that makes you hungry. If you add time to the equation. But many people don't want to spend time doing things that aren't fun. I think dieting is fun, but that's probably because I'm strange.