Well then it sounds like your degree of restriction is fine and if you do start feeling tired or hungry, you can always be less restrictive. Clearly you aren't on the 300 calories of saltines and cigarettes diet! lol.
Heck I survived on nothing but bread and Nutella (4k calories) and people are stunned I didn't get skurvy or anything. The most nutritious food I ate as a child was the free school lunch/"cheapo" version of McNuggets, otherwise, I had to hunt for any convenience store cookies. It might not be the same for everyone, but I find that I can live on pretty much trash, so ehhh as long as its a relatively sound plan (like you are getting your necessary nutrients/not eating like 200 calories a day) you will be fine.

I know BF burns cals but in order for me to lose weight I had to eat at 1,300-1,500 every single day. Eating at 1,800-2,000 is more maintenance level.

Some studies show that longterm dieters (e.g., those who yo-yo) have a lower metabolism than people who are the same weight but have never dieted. That makes me believe in "starvation mode"---but it must take a while for it to happen.

The question is how low in calories one would have to go and for how long in order to do damage. I remember when I tried the 17 Day Diet (which I still think of as a solid plan), the doctor who authored the book presented a study (maybe even more than one---can't remember) indicating that people who lost weight quickly were more motivated to continue and that group did not regain the weight on any larger a scale than those who lose weight slowly. I know that when I first started losing, I needed to see some fast results initially to get me motivated. I stayed on the 17 day diet for about a week, the waist of my pants became a bit lose (so I probably lost about 5 lbs---not uncommon for that diet), and that motivation encouraged me to start counting calories (1400 per day initially).

Also, many years ago in the 80s, there was a diet called The Rotation Diet and the plan for women was 600 calories for 3 days, 900 calories for 4 days, 1200 calories for the entire following week and start the process over the next week. According to the research presented in that book, the participants' metabolism did not slow down and, in fact, increased just a bit (they were doing some form of exercising as well).

That's all just some anecdotal food for thought. I don't have the answer, but I wonder whether if going on a one-week low-calorie diet and then getting back on plan might help. It might be enough to get you motivated if you see the scale move, but not so much that it would do serious damage.

Well, I can tell you from my experience, that just guesstimating and not really strictly following my plan does not lead to weight loss. If I'm lucky I can maintain.

As far as starvation/conservation mode, I know from my experience, I have a sweet spot where I will lose, I did WW when they had the eat less/basic/eat more exchange program, it worked really good for me at the basic and even eat more, but I wouldn't lose on the eat less, just me.

In order to eat much lower calorie you'll have to be stricter, maybe that in itself will get you going. I have no experience with BF but have seen another poster who had some issues with milk production on too low calorie, so that may be something to be on the lookout for when you go lower calorie.

Best of luck to you :

Your pain after exercising will cause water retention for sure. Sounds like you are pushing your exercise too much.

I also think the wine is a problem. Three glasses is more than recommended for women's health. And wine certainly has calories you can't ignore. I don't agree with your carbs being too high. But i have to say that not eating breakfast is probably not smart. Food kicks starts your metabolism after rest. So if you are up in the morning but not taking in any calories, your metabolism is probably still in sleep mode which is slower. I find eating earlier in the day is better. I finish my evening meal before 7pm. In fact i've even started eating as early as 5pm. And don't need to eat more in the evening except sometimes perhaps a piece of fruit.

The problem with the starving mode is a myth assertion is the assertion itself. Starving mode is real but people seem to have a few misconceptions about it and the assertions such as you've put it are wrong. I realised this the other day when i read something along the lines of studies have shown that severe restriction of calories prevents weight loss. Now that is just stupid.

Yes if you don't eat enough calories you will continue to lose weight. No question. I recently saw a picture of corpses from the death camps of germany. All those guys had been starved to death. And they were extremely skinny. Not a pinch of fat on their poor bones.

The assertion of the starvation mode theory should be more like. Calorie reduction causes slowing of the metabolism and extreme calorie restriction causes the body to compromise functionality. But anorexics can end up with hypothyroidism)but its temporary), infertility . And all sorts of other permanent and less permanent damage to their bodies.

Below a certain limit, i guess its your resting metabolic rate (RMR) your body will make compromises about how it functions taking calories for some functions to provide for energy because that is the most urgently needed. This is why anorexics end up losing their period and growing hair in strange places and losing bone density. Less strict reductions cause less obvious changes, most being reversible, but also its the reason why people put the weight back on. The compromises your body makes cause more difficulties with losing weight and keeping it off but so even do less strict reductions. I learnt more about this and became convinced of its accuracy from reading the book The don't go hungry diet. I've now incorporated some elements of her ideas into what i do. But what she says in there is confirmed by other sources as well. The author of that book is a scientist on the subject.

The solution to the problem is to take weight loss more slowly. The faster you lose weight, the stricter your strategy has to become to get rid of the last few pounds. And people then start to become more stressed and suffering with less food and more exercise than they are even comfortable with.

If you take it more slowly, it will go easier and your methods won't have to be so strict even at the lower end. Its simply more sustainable.

Ways to slow down should probably include a variety of strategies. First don't restrict so severely. Second take a break from time to time by increasing the amount your eat but trying not to make that permission to eat lots of junk foods and trigger your old eating habits. I find it better to keep on eating healthy foods but more of them. Some people suggest having a big meal once a week. Others take a few weeks break from time to time. I've just experimented with 3 months of diet, then one month off. And it was great. I didn't gain any weight by eating more. And now i'm thinking to continue with one month of diet and one month off.

If you want my advice, cut back your exercise a lot and concentrate on improving the quality of your diet. For proof that my approach works, you can read my diet blog thread in the bottom link below. I cut calories minimally. Ate really well and after three months of steady weight reduction, took a break for month without regaining anything. Now i've started losing again and i'm still now where near 1200 calories. Go and plug your numbers into a calorie calculator to find out your resting or basal metabolic rate and don't go below that for your diet. Preferably eat as much over that as you can while still losing weight.

If what you're doing isn't working, try something different?
I lost the most weight consistently while being active, running/cycling daily, eating 1600 - 1800 daily (which is not as restricted at all as you are.) i also gained it back.

I don't know enough about breast feeding to offer any weight loss advice other than this:

You really need to do a bit of tracking for a couple weeks to see what your actual intake is.

Your metabolism isn't damaged.

The scale isn't tracking your fat. Just your weight. Water can be retained for a long period so you may be due for a whoosh but then again, maybe not.

This is a common misperception. The research shows that the people who lost weight have similar metabolisms but they are more efficient with their movement. (Less NEAT) It's an important distinction because you can do something about your movement but you can't do anything about your metabolism.

There are pros and cons to big and little deficits. It's not cut and dry and it is highly dependent to the individual.

I added my own commentary in red to your remarks. Some of what you're saying is really fantastic. It's too bad you're stuck in the paradigm of losing slow as the best alternative and everything else is going to cause problems.

That's encouraging---much more hopeful than the idea that we cannot do anything about it.

Thanks for the thoughts. I only have about 10 pounds to lose--5 to get to an "okay" weight, 15 to get to my "happy" weight--so I know it's going to require a lot of tightening up to make it happen.

I think I'll start by dropping the wine... or at least reducing it. Then maybe try to calorie cycle.

I don't want to cut back on the exercise. I don't do that much, and it makes me feel good. History also tells me that working out keeps me motivated to eat clean.

right now i'm not really in the mood for responding to your post John but i will say something about the exercise thing. in fact, i'm not even going to read your post. I just don't want to have to deal with you at all to be frank.

This will do for now and even if she's not doing resistance training, muscle soreness is muscle damage so i'd think its all much the same thing. It seems to be a pretty standard explanation.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/39...ance-training/

I think that something to consider is if any of this really in the long run, will hinder us. I mean, perhaps my metabolism has slowed down or I have reached some set point or something, but it hasn't been the point where I have to go hungry to maintain weight - and its been awhile. I guess that only time and experimentation with eating at maintenance after reaching goal will reveal that.

Muscle soreness does technically indicate muscle damage, which will cause temporary pain and water retention, but that doesn't mean, as you stated, that banananutmuffin is pushing exercise too much.

I sat technically, because there is no way to strengthen and add muscle without such "damage." It's the microdamage to the muscles that triggers the body to strengthen existing muscle and lay down new muscle tissue. So the "damage" is actually a good thing, as long as you control the damage to a pain level you can tolerate. There's no need to debilitate yourself, but there's nothing wrong a little sorenedd and water retention. In fact, a little soreness and water retention just indicates that the body is doing what it's supposed to do.

If the soreness is intolerable, cut back, but if it's mild there's no need. The temporary water retention is a good thing (because it's being used to heal/build muscles), so don't worry about it. Your body will release the extra water when it's no longer needed for healing.

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but I know when Im breastfeeding my body tends to hold on tight to those last 10 pounds. Im breastfeeding right now actually, but my baby is now a toddler and is nursing a lot less so I don't have that ravenous feeling all the time that I did when my baby was younger.

The only thing that worked for me in the early stages of weight loss with breastfeeding was to count the calories that I ate. I always discovered I was eating way more than I thought I was. Another thing I have read though, is if you eat too little while nursing your body will hold onto weight even more.

Good luck, I know how frustrating it is.