I am sure a lot of it is mind games. Perhaps people who lose weight slowly keep it off because they have made a long term commitment to a healthy lifestyle. Physically there may be no difference at all between a slow or fast loss. I lost my weight fairly quickly and have maintained for years now. I may have just been impatient and wanted results as fast as was possible; others may take a different approach and enjoy as much food as they can while still losing.
Perhaps the people who claim to have lost weight after raising their calories were in a more comfortable zone and were able to be honest about their intake. Again I am not being facetious; I did not get to be 15 stone by being honest with myself. I was convinced I didn't eat very much and my metabolism was to blame. I guess that's why the diet industry does so well; when we are overweight we look for miracle cures for our problems and excuses when we fail. Sometimes in an effort to be supportive of one another we perpetuate the myths of the dieting industry. One thing I would like to say is that although I am a lurker, this forum has been an ongoing source of honest information, particularly from Meg and Mrs. Jim. Support and understanding is a wonderful thing but in the end we all have to face reality and we can't avoid the first law of thermodynamics.

Alberta said ..... "I did not get to be 15 stone by being honest with myself. I was convinced I didn't eat very much and my metabolism was to blame."

Mel said ... "When I see menus posted and a lot of the replies are "I don't think you are eating enough" I usually refrain from posting because IMO they are usually eating more than enough ....."

Ilene said ... "AMEN SISTAH"

And I concur.

Really good thread! Very informative.

alberta - check out your thermo-swotting!

V good thread! V controvertial! I like it! I'd just like to add one little thing! I've had the experience of eating 1200 cals for MONTHS, then it all came to a crashing halt! I upped to 1600 and the weight started coming off again! Of course now I'm seeing the importance of protein (well my nails are at least ) and good nutrition in that 1600cals!

So while starvation mode is probably bunkum and "not eating enough" is a bit of an ego massage, sometimes maybe we should look at % of calorie output. Perhaps 1200kcals for an active 20 yo IS "starvation" whereas 1200 for a 60 yo is probably just a coupla hundred below maintenance!

I guess you just have to tinker and tinker and tinker until you get it right for YOU!

I just don't think starvation mode is a real issue. Not consuming enough calories may slow weight loss but it certainly doesn't stop it. And, frankly, I think you'd have consume an incrediblely low number of calories for a significant period of time for it to really kick in.

I too have raised my calories in an effort to get over a plateau - and it worked. But, you know, my weight loss had been stalled for several weeks so it could have been just as likely that I'd have gotten over that hump around the same time even if I had made no changes. Personally, I have found that varying my day to day intake is a better booster than reducing or increasing my intake.

Well, I think it's all been said. Of course I want to add my 2 cents . I think that "starvation mode" and "plateaus" in some and even a lot of cases are peoples excuses for themselves for why they are not losing when they are really just ignoring what is really going on (no exercise, the wrong foods etc). What it basically comes down to, (and I hate the 1200 calories is the golden rule crap), is that it depends on you and your body and what works for YOU. Everyone's basal metabolic rate is different so not everyone needs the same amount of calories! Unfortunatly asking others what they do doesn't always help, it comes down to comitment and drive etc. I did 800-1000 calories for a couple months, I lost a lot but felt like crap and it had a lot to do with my attitude and over exercising etc. Now I do anywhere from 1200-1600 a day and I am losing steady and I feel so great. I may not always eat the most nutrient dense foods (I like the 100 calorie snack packs ), but it's balanced and more or less very healthy. It works for me and I can see myself sticking with this forever because it's doable, whereas for me 800 to 1000 calories felt like torture. To each his own right? If one thing worked, there wouldn't be a million diets, gyms, videos you name it. If you're losing great, if not, look honestly at what you're doing and eating, sometimes you just have to persevere through the slow periods and it may not have a name or have a cause. Great topic!

I just found this topic today... as someone linked to it on another thread (Meg, Mel or Mrs Jim...)

THANKS!! I was hoping this kind of info was here somewhere and I really enjoyed reading this thread. I learned a lot... of course a lot of what I learned is that we don't know everything, but that's what I've come to expect from any more thorough analysis of anything having to do with humans!

From personal experience, I think the starvation mode is largely a myth. Recently I fasted for 21 days (drinking only water). (Before anyone gets alarmed, weight loss was not the only reason for the fast, and I am not recommending it for anyone else.) At the beginning of the fast, I weighed 205 lbs (I'm 5'4"), and at the end of the 21 days I weighed 185 lbs (a 20 pound loss--clearly, not all of it was fat, but it had to come from somewhere). I started eating again gradually and counted calories very carefully working up to about 1200 in a couple weeks. I initially gained about 5 lbs the first week probably due to just having food in the system, but after that I continued losing. So, in my experience, a complete 21-day fast did not put me in any major starvation mode. It didn't seem to slow my weight loss. It may have slowed my metabolism but not noticeably. And, unless it's a very extreme situation, I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to actually lose more weight by eating more calories. It may be that there is a certain number of calories that would optimize the lbs lost/calories eaten ratio, but at least I lose more weight when I eat 1000 cals/day than I do when I eat 1600 cals/day. Just my 2 cents.

I think *chronic* deprivation can lead to a metabolism slowdown. I don't know that I'd call it 'starvation' but it can definitely lead to problems. When I was 15-18 I survived on < 1K calories a day after losing 60# on a weight loss plan when I was 13. If I ate even a bit more than this (some days were closer to 500), I gained weight! And I was exercising, no less. Now as a 38 year old with an age-slowed metabolism I can easily make it past 2200 without gaining - my 45# weight loss was done with a 1500 calorie a day plan, not some VLCD - and I had an all out free day per week to keep the fires burning. It is SO nice to be able to maintain weight and EAT.

A short term period probably won't damage anything, but when it's done over years, the body just has to learn to live with less.

Starvation mode or "calorie restriction" is a very real and thoroughly investigated subject. Normal weight individuals (lab rats, people, fruit flies, whatever) will go into a decreased metabolic state upon a significant calories reducton (IIRC ~2/3 maintainance) where reproduction and other important functions are shut down. It is of particular interest because the aging process is one of the functions which is turned off!

I had a long conversation with MIT researcher Leonard Guarrante on the subject, and he is of the opinion that all of the people trying to extend their lives through calorie restriction are a bit crazy. I was sort of hoping that extreme dieting would kick me into "calorie restriction" mode, but it looks like it just doesn't happen when you have plenty of stored fat. Oh, well.

So, on the plus side, if you do enter "starvation mode" dieting will be harder, but at least you stop aging for the duration.

About the 1200 cal rule...
I agree that this set-in-stone number is probably crap as far as it being set-in -stone goes. Everyone is different and everyone should tinker around and learn and figure out what number of calories (and what types of calories) work for them -- both for physical and psycological reasons.
But I think that as an initial rule, it's a good idea. I think people shoudl start off higher and then, if they are one of the ones who simply can't lose weight on more, reduce below 1200. I think that it's safe to say that for the vast majority, 1200 or above healthy calories and some working out will do the trick... as long as it's honest.

Amen to PhysDom about the 'honest' part and might I add 'healthy' 1200 cals. My favourite story is about the day I stayed under 1200 cals but some of it was donuts.

Bringing this back to the top.

Maybe the high-lites could be put in a sticky??

My fiance has been on what most would call either a crash or some stretch to the starvation diet.. For him he got good results and no bad effects when he jumped off it. I AM NOT SAYING TO DO IT, in fact I would rather he didn't do it. He has done it only twice in his life . One time years ago when he was 260lbs and he lost 45lbs in a matter of like 9 weeks, then about a year and a half ago he wanted to lose some more and he lost 20lbs very quickly. He didn’t gain anything back when he jumped off the first one, but in the past year and a half we were in the process of selling our house, moving, other stuff so we both ate HORRIBLE. Pizza, take out, burgers every single night. Needless to say he gained about 20lbs in the year and a half but no matter how he dieted before eating like hat will gain some weight.

So he has just started it again. He is around 220 or so I think and wants to lose 15-20lbs, he is just under 6 feet tall and sits at work 100% of the time. For his diet he eats very little to lose weight quickly between 800-1000 cals a day and never more and eats only healthy foods. He never ever cheats, which is pretty impressive to me. He only has to stay on this diet for maybe a month and a half though, then once ever few weeks if it starts to slow down he eats more 1 day. He says it kinda restarts his system and he goes back to losing pounds quickly. He exercises while on it, and when the weight slows down he does more and more.

Lot of people like to tell him how bad this is for him, but his reply normally is.. They watched me stuff my face with pizza, burgers, fries everyday and not 1 person ever said that was unhealthy, now I lose weight by eating small amounts of healthy food and people say I am killing myself..

I kinda have to agree with that.. Granted he fully admits he is hungry almost every minute of the day, and just has the will power to stick it out. He says he would rather be hungry for a month and be done than watch his cals for 5 months for the same result.

Once again, not saying its good, not saying to do.. Just that people sometimes get carried away saying its impossible to lose weight that way, works for some people.

I'm guessing its just a preference--as mentos illustrated, some people just prefer to go on a VLCD and be done and over with quickly rather than counting calories/fats/carbs for an extended period of time (I can also see how a VLCD can jumpstart results and give people the motivation to commit to a healthier lifestyle.)

Personally, I think its a bit too much "yo yo-ing" for me, but hey, if it helps them in losing weight (hopefully fat & not water/muscle)--more power to them.

I also don't think 1,000-1,200 calories/day is a crap number--yes everyone has differences, but most experts agree that's how much a body burns just doing nothing but breathing and staying alive (and actually larger people will have a higher total calorie requirement.) Yes, one can dip lower than this limit--but most likely not recommended for a prolonged period of time and definitely not without--like MrsJim says--medical supervision/consul. And the less calories one consume, the more careful he/she needs to be that its the right calories with all the needed micro- and macronutrients, as there's quite a few that needs to be replenished on a fairly frequent basis.

I was kind of wondering if my body is in it... I was on an extremely low calorie diet for awhile (500-800 cals a day), and I heard how horrible it was so I upped it to about 1200. I maintained 125 lbs for a long time, probably almost a month, even when I upped my calories to 1200. I've been keeping my calories at 1200 now, and suddenly I'm gaining weight! I weigh 133 now, and I have no idea where it came from! This has all come in the last two months. I've been eating right, with a few "cheat" days, but nothing too bad. I'm 15 years old, and I exercise 3-4 days a week by running about 6 mph for a half hour. Should I be having more calories? Could my weight gains be from muscle? I'm so confused! And it's so depressing to see the scale going higher and higher and higher!