This was one thing that I intuitively felt had to be true, but there is a lot of misinformation on the web about this. It is human nature for all of us to think that some invisible force is keeping us from losing weight. LOL I know I spent a long time feeling that way.

First off let me say that if you do not follow good nutritional practices and cut your calories too low, you can put your body into starvation mode. Most of the studies I have seen puts the limits to that at a maximum of about 15%. Take my RMR. I had it measured using a body gem several times and it is about 2250. If I put my body into starvation mode, it would go down to about 2000. Would that hurt my weight loss? Sure. Would it stop it if I were tracking my calories that I consumed and my exercise calories correctly? Nope. We should all try to avoid starvation mode. No doubt about it. I also think there is a difference in how our bodies respond to very low calorie diets vs feeding your body correctly and burning more calories through exercise and physical activity. I believe you are much less likely to enter starvation mode when a good part of your calorie deficit comes from energy expenditures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=145408 4&dopt=Abstract

What was the bottom line?

CONCLUSIONS. The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis.


I think that sometimes we sabotage our own weight loss by looking for some magic combination of foods - cutting out sugar, carbs etc when what we really need to do is take a hard honest look at calories in vs calories out. I am not preaching or trying to be condescending. I have fought this tendency in myself for the last 22 months. It is HARD to stay honest with yourself. I find little rationalizations and justifications slipping in all the time. What I have also found is that as regular as clock work - if I really am honest and log with precision - I lose weight - consistently.

It is hard to do. It can take a long time - but I know that we can all do this.

I wish everyone the very best.

I've seen reports on tv where they would watch someone during the day then ask them to report what they ate. What they reported from memory and what they actually ate often weren't the same. I think it is natural for us to under report our food and over report our exercise. I don't count calories currently but I have in the past and honestly it is hard. What I currently do is watch my portions, trim out fat and sugar wherever possible and read labels. I am also in the process of cutting out some of the higher fat/sugar foods in my diet (sigh I love nuts and dried fruits/raisins) because I can't always control my portions with those items even if they are "good for you".

I think this is true for me. It sure is easy to let a little nibble slip now and again, or to skip a walk or other exercise if I'm feeling extra tired. It's a lot of work and commitment losing weight.

Charles, I think that every word you say is true.
Actually, your post sounds exactly like something my dad would say. Back in the early 90's he lost over 100lbs on Optifast - but it wasn't just the Optifast... he exercised every night, he wore out 2 treadmills from running on them every chance he had, and he rode his bike everywhere. He kept most of the weight off for about 4 years.
He did not regain weight until he was laid off from his job, and the emotional eating kicked in. He started doing the reverse: eating unhealthy, large portions and got almost no exercise.
He is once again attempting to lose weight, and because he is older now, it is harder for him to do it, but he ALWAYS tells me that the bottom line is: CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. It doesn't matter what else is going on with your body or what combination you eat your calories in; the bottom line is you will never lose weight without burning more calories than you take in.

I understand that this is the truth... however, I also think we ALL know from personal experience, that that is a simple answer for a hugely complex problem.
Calories in vs. calories out is the right mindset; but certainly not the whole picture of weight loss.

Can you explain to me what "RMR" is and how it is determined. You totally lost me in your post at that point.

I believe RMR is resting metabolic rate. It is basically how many calories your body burns to keep itself going on a day to day basis. Factors in it include how much muscle you have, how much fat you have and heredity. Muscle can burn lots of calories while fat burns some but a lot less.

Interesting article. What strikes me when reading the abstract is just how "off" the obese participants were. They "underreported their actual food intake by an average (+/- SD) of 47 +/- 16 percent and overreported their physical activity by 51 +/- 75 percent"... that data must be really skewed, because the averages and standard deviations are enormous!

While the obese participants had a history of "diet resistance", I do know I see something of myself in them, as perhaps many of us do.

I agree that people tend to underestimate food and over estimate exercise but...

When I was HONESTLY eating 1200 calories a day I didn't lose a pound. I am now steadily losing on 1800 calories a day. Just my experience.

Stacey said a mouthful with the word 'honesty'. When I see posts about plateau's I want to suggest vigilance and careful measuring BEFORE changing anything else. I'm afraid folks will think I'm calling them liars or deceitful. Maybe I should just do it and take my lumps.

Thanks Charles for posting this article. I am a firm believer in calories in/calories out. In the past I have caught myself lying to myself about what I ate during the day. I find when I do not write down what I eat on a daily basis, I have the most amazing select memory. It does show up in the scale, and then I get all mad and claim that the diet does not work. They all work, because the all diets use the same principle. You just need to find which one you can live with.

I definitely encountered starvation mode when I was just cutting calories and not exercising. I lost 15 or so pounds over 4 months of trying to just cut calories, but I was incredibly inconsistent and it was very hard. I would lose for a couple of weeks, and then hit a plateau. A couple of times I found I had to eat MORE to get back to losing weight. I had been too ambitious in the calorie cutting. The calorie restriction did seem to trip "the switch" that was discussed in another post. It takes less to satisfy me now.

About a month ago, I realized how much I need to exercise (to feel better, to be healthier, AND to lose weight). Since I started exercising and more or less ignoring my calorie intake, I have been losing at a faster rate - almost 10 lbs in one month. I still try to eat less, but I'm not restricting myself to any set number of calories. I may have to do that again at some point. I imagine that this increased weight loss rate is only temporary and will level off as my body gets used to the exercise, and I'll either have to exercise more or eat less.

I had a similar experience. I lost 50 lbs eating around 1400 calories a day. After I reached 140 lbs - no weight loss at all from March 2005 to June 2005. I was very honest with calories, I was obsessively tracking everything that went into my mouth to try to break the plateau.

In June 2005, I decided that I looked great at 140 and I really didn't need to lose the last 5 lbs to reach my goal of 135. Over a period of 2 months, I slowly raised calories (by 100 a day a week) until I was eating between 1800 and 2000 calories a day.

Very slowly, between June 2005 and December 2005, I lost an additional 13 lbs eating around 1800-2000 calories a day.

I definitely think it is MOSTLY calories in vs. calories out but sometimes there are other factors at play. It is my opinion that if you reduce your calories your body starts to make due with the calories it gets. If you keep the calories low over a long period of time, the body interprets that as a famine. The body wants to keep you alive - so it makes some changes to deal with the lower calories.

Metabolism slows down so you need fewer calories a day. The body cannabilizes muscle since muscle needs more calories a day to maintain. The body holds on to fat reserves because if it's a famine now, it could get worse and you may NEED that fat reserve to survive.

It has only been within the last 100 years and within a very few places on the globe that people haven't had to struggle daily to obtain sufficient calories.

After struggling to lose weight for my entire adult life, I was finally successful when I realized my body behaved exactly like I would want it to behave if I were stranded on a desert island. I thank my ancestors for their ability to survive droughts, bad harvests, long boat rides and wagon trains across the country - they lived to pass down those genes to me. I am a genetic lottery winner - my body's ability to survive on reduced calories is an amazing survival ability. An amazing survival ability that is currently unnecessary in my modern life of fast food convenience and grocery stores bursting with food - but that's a very recent phenomenon.

My additional weight loss took almost a year. It was so gradual, I barely even noticed. I can only imagine that my body adjusted to the additional caloric intake, realized that I wasn't in any immediate danger of starving and was able to let go of fat reserves it was hoarding just in case.

Just to note - at 1800-2000 calories I was STILL under the maintenance calories for a person my height/weight/age/gender/activity level (although those calculators are definitely not exact for everyone). In my opinion, that is why I was able to lose the additional weight. I was eating PLENTY so my body didn't freak out and think I was starving, but I was eating a 100-200 calories a day less than it should take me to maintain. Small caloric deficit = big win for me.

I definitely am not a scientist or a nutritionist - I have no idea if my opinion is correct. It definitely explains my recent experience and some other less fortunate dieting "adventures" of my life.

Thanks for the link Charles,

A friend of mine once gave me a chat about this issue, but since i am a bit stubborn, i had to see for myself.

A very large calory deficit will cause rapide weight loss on the moment. However, after a few weeks, body enters starvation mode and then nothing comes off.

I kept training and training, but at 1500 or so calories a day, it just did not worked out.

Oh, yeah, I eat 1800, so eating a couple of extra things can shoot my calories up to 2000 or a little more, that's enough to stall the loss. I can see coming to a stop on 1200.

The other thing to keep in mind is that you will NOT eat the same number of calories day in and day out (unless you are on a super-controlled plan, like Jenny Craig, where they make the food for you). I find the weekly, bi-weekly, and monthly reports on Fitday eye-opening.

I aim for 1500-1800 calories a day. Some days I go less. Some days I go toward the higher end. Most days I'm around 1700. One day a week I do not limit calories (but I still record what I eat).

I find myself pretty consistenly averaging 1700 calories a day, whether looking at the last week or the last month. I figure if I can do that, and I'm losing about a pound a week, I'm doing it right.