K9Owner: You have such an unfortunate problem - I've read of many here with that problem.
Maybe you are losing, it is just 1 lb. every 4 months??
Maybe you are consistently gaining new muscle which disguises fat loss?
I'm thinking of buying one of those expensive, high tec scales that has the capabilities to activity weigh fat vs. muscle and create graphs on progress (or regress).
I do remember reading something or other about carb reloading when the weight stops coming off. I think I read that in a body builder's forum. I agree, the weight for me, at best, is .5 - 1 lbs a week (at best!). It gets super hard and is easy to become discouraged and give up the closer you are to goal weight.
it isn't exact cause of our bodies differing but i have found from experience its a very good guide. as i lower weight, say every 5-10 lbs i up my exercising a little or lower my calories a lil to compensate for my smaller form so that i am always roughly 1000 calories down. a lot of ppl don't adjust for their weight lost. they will eat the same amount of calories they did at 300 when they are 200 and then not lose any cause its now become maitenance calories. counting calories as always worked for me because i constantly adjust my formula. i used the simulation the lady posted and my calculations are pretty much dead on with the calc once i input my changes at certain weight changes. ive just found its about adjusting as your body changes.
A 300cal deficit, theoretically causing about 0.6lb/week weight loss, is not "way slow weight loss", it's actually a pretty reasonable turn of
speed.
Weight loss doesn't happen evenly, and often you have to look carefully at the data to see the overall trend. The slower the weight loss, the harder it is to see the overall trend and to calculate your exact rate of weight loss. Despite this, any calorie deficit should theoretically cause weight loss at some speed, with the exception of people with metabolic disorders and such.
If a 300cal deficit works for you, hon, go for it!
In addition also wondering, if our bodies can compensate (regulate themselves) to account for a deficit of 100 or 200 (reducing temp, etc.) to account for the small deficit? Meaning, then we won't be in a deficit at all.
Then, a 500 cal. deficit would be, in reality, merely a 200 cal. deficit. And a 200 cal. deficit actually would never cause a change on the scale. Our metabolism would just slow down a bit.
I don't mean to be a debbie downer here. Just considering, beyond the math, the reactionary mechanisms of the body....
One example, people who maintain calorie deficits, even increase exercise, but have stopped losing (many have posted on this site).
This hasn't yet happened to me. Just a curiousity.
I've found a long thread about weight in a CFIDS/ME forum where people talk about being unable to lose weight no matter how much they restrict their calories, and speculate that something indeed is working to mess up the usual rate of weight loss, as you suggest. I realise now that I'd really lucky not to have had this happen to me. I did get random unexplained weight gain typical of this illness (well, some people - others inexplicably lose weight and can't put it back on), but I've been losing nicely for seven months now.
You'd think there should be research on this subject in general (not in regard to people with ME/CFIDS, who get very little research), wouldn't you. I suppose it's very hard to be sure that people genuinely are sticking to a diet for research purposes, and probably the first thing any trial would do would be to eliminate all the people who might have this problem for assorted medical reasons.
i have luckily never encountered that problem either. I have had weeks were weight will stall but changing my calories up or increasing my fitness usually works and if thats not enough a greasy poutine will usually be enough to trick my body back into thinking im gonna eat a lot again until the next day when i eat 1500 again and then ill see a weight change. i dont weight lift i dont know if thats a factor, i dance, yoga, and do aerobics or walking. i like the tone look over the muscley look. people say muscles weigh more than fat but take up less space and its true but my cousin is my weight, 6'3, and hes all muscle (body builder) but hes got much bigger waist, arms, and leg measurements than me. so maybe ppl that get this problem of not losing or not losing inches really are just building huge muscles but can't see them yet under their weight?? i dont know just speculating.
I remember being utterly confused in the beginning to. 
