I am quite sincere while typing this - and I mean to cause only a debate (no unproductive arguing).

I've found that the most famous advice at 3FC, when someone hits a plateau, is "You simply need to UP your calorie intake - you are eating too few calories."

I find this to be terrible advice! I understand the reasoning and logic fully, so, no one needs to explain to me 'how it works'. I've even tried it in my life. I did break my plateau - but only with weight gain.

Ok, so before everyone chimes in (which I am excited about), I would like to first state:

If someone, for example, weighs 250 lbs, he/she should probably be eating WAY more than 12-1300 calories a day and he/she will still probably lose weight. So, if someone around this size hits a plateau eating only 1200 a day, then I understand what could cause someone to say - "Hey man, Eat More!"

However, I would like to say, someone with 20-30 lbs to lose (such as myself), will not benefit from this advice.

In general, I find the "eating more" advice to lose weight to be really not much more than a rumor that has, especially as of lately, been taken to the EXTREME. You can find these 'pearls of wisdom' in most every post, with disclaimers such as "I know, I know, it sounds counter-intuitive to eat more calories AND then lose weight, BUT it REALLY WORKS!"

To that, I would like to say, If it SOUNDS counter-intuitive, then it probably IS counter-intuitive.

I say we need to start talking about more exercise and lowering our insulin levels- not eating MORE.

I've heard conflicting advice about it, so I honestly don't know. I see the logic behind the advice to eat more, but I've also heard people say (and reason) that the body, after a while, simply adjusts its metabolism to a lower caloric intake and carries on losing (this statement was accompanied with quite a bit of frustration at the "starvation mode myth").

So I honestly don't know

Oh yeah, salsa chip, I almost forgot - 'starvation mode' - I have researched this for ages and ages. Of course, starvation mode kicks in on the anorexics and allows them to live a lot longer than normal - but that is such an extreme.

If I am 170lbs (with plenty of fat there to live off of) and eating around 1200 healthy calories to lose- I don't think I'm really going to go into this so-called 'starvation mode'.

worrying about starvation mode and 'eating more' seems to be what we WANT to hear. I'm just not convinced it has any merit in the real world.

The longer you've been trying to lose weight, the more your body thinks it's in a crisis so it's trying to put the breaks on your weight loss - no matter if someone is underweight or obese. You probably should up your caloric intake a *little* bit. Find your suggested calorie intake (use one of the many calculators online, one that considers your weight, gender, level of activity) and try to eat just a little below that (maybe 200 cals less). Don't do more cardio/high calorie burning exercises than you're already doing (unless you're not doing any at all, then this might be the reason for your plateau!!), but try to build some muscle from lifting weights.

Your body lowers its metabolism in several ways, the main one here is muscle loss. This is really not a good thing, so you need to build back your muscle mass - this will increase your metabolism for the long run (not just to axe the plateau) and will sculpt your body.

So, yes, you might want to eat a few more calories... But that doesn't entitle you to a piece of cake lol, you can get a healthy 200 cals by eating a handful of nuts (which btw won't cause your insulin levels to spike). =)

"Starvation mode" refers to the fact that when you eat less calories your body becomes more efficient performing basic metabolic functions. If you are eating 2000 calories a day to maintain your current body weight and you drop down to 1000 calories a day then you would expect to lose about 2lb a week. This is under the theory that a 3500 calorie deficient equals a 1lb weight loss which is obviously an estimate. Because of "starvation mode" your body will become more efficient with the 1000 calories than it was with the 2000 calories and you will actually lose less than the 2lb expected. "Starvation mode" does not mean you can gain fat while eating way too few calories. If this were the case then famine would lead to obesity.

I do wonder if increasing calories works for psychological reasons though. People are less like to "cheat a little" and they are more likely to exercise. Exercising more may mean working harder on a planned workout or just choosing more active things to do during your free time.

Lizzie, If your body has been losing weight for awhile, and then suddenly 'puts the breaks on' and says "NOnono, I'm not letting go of one more pound" -

then, you are suggesting that consuming an extra 200 calories will reassure your body again that it is not in a crisis. Your body, reassured, will then continue to let go of weight.

I say no. According to this logic, if your body is really in this 'crisis', then, the moment it get the extra 200 calories its going to STORE store store, resulting in a weight gain.

Maybe what I am also trying to express is: starvation/crisis mode obviously kicks in when we are actually starving.... but really, none of us are starving- or even close to it.

I do agree with your suggestion about weight lifting.

bonnnie, your body doesn't understand "logic."

Sure, LOGICALLY you're not starving. But your body isn't adapted to the last 50 years where people have had an excess of food all over the place. Your body is adapted to thousands of years of little food available.

When you eat less than your maintence calories, your body DOES think that there is a famine going on. You will lose weight, but you are also going to lose muscle mass. When you bump up your calories, you WILL initially gain weight, but then it'll drop back down again when your body realises that it's no longer in a famine.

If bumping up your calories doesn't work for you, or you don't want to try it, then that's fine. But this IS SOUND advice and IMO you are only putting a grain of doubt in peoples minds who could benefit from it.

BTW, I weigh less than you, and I can loose off of 1600 calories per day, and I am close to goal.

Uh, I'm not sure about this. This might be getting too philosophical/technical, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a black box in the body whose task it is to make us miserable when we're trying to lose weight. All debates about the mind and soul aside, the body is a machine which takes in fuel in order to do its thing. It burns energy according to a whole load of variables. I'm of the opinion that when we talk about our bodies "not understanding logic" or whatever (I do it myself), it's simply that we do not understand all the variables in what is nevertheless a deterministic procedure.

I think that plateaus are caused by several different things, and that they need different treatments.

There are enough people that have reported success with eating more that there may well be something to that. It's certainly worth trying for a couple-few weeks. This is a life-long change, and an extra 2400 calories for 2 weeks won't destroy it. However, this would be the third thing I'd try, after I'd given the following possibilities some serious thought:

Many other people have reported that the plateau just passed after a while. Sometimes it just works that way. Waiting it out for a month or so might be a good idea.

The third possibility is calorie creep. At the start of a diet, people are very good, and tend to err on the side of caution--a cup is really a little less than a cup, just in case. They don't have even a single chip at happy hour. With success, however, comes complaisance. People tend to estimate more often. They feel confident they won't fall totally off the wagon if they have a tiny bite of cake, so they have a tiny bite of cake. Someone may feel like they've been on 1400-1500 calories/day for months and out of nowhere, bam, a plateau, but what's really happened is they started on 1350 calories a day and now they are eating 1550. The first thing I would do if I were to hit a plateau is to seriously reassess my diet for this sort of creep. I wouldn't "eat less"--that's not a cycle that ends well--but I would make sure that I was eating exactly what I thought I was. However, I would never recommend this to another individual because it sounds like an accusation and overweight people hear so many of those and we get sensitive. But I think calorie creep does happen and people need to self-monitor against it.

I'm not sure what to believe either. I think people are different, and have different bodies, and we each have to find our own best path, and what works for someone else doesn't always work for us. But being helpful, nice people, of course we want to try to help, that's just part of being a nice human being, you know?

I guess if I were on a bad plateau, and my calories were already adequate, not too low, I would probably choose to up my exercise a little bit first and see if that did anything. Then I would try upping the calories next. But that is only if my calorie intake were already adequate and not too low. If I had been starving myself, I would up my calories as the first move.

But that's just me, I don't know what the right answer is for anyone else, I really don't even know what the right answer is for me much of the time, LOL.

I guess I just find this weight loss thing really complicated and sometimes very confusing.

Free Spirit, our bodies have no logic- but you wrote that it is still 'thinking' and 'realizing'?

Bumping up calories is popular advice that is freely given here - I'm challenging the advice, so that, in the long run- people can read the posts and form their own educated opinion. We have no scientific evidence.

I really mean this to be a good, informed discussion. If I do instill doubts in people about upping their calories - then that is good. We learn from having doubts, trial and error, and seeking answers, not merely from simply believing what everyone else says. Doubt is exactly what keeps people learning and progressing. I think this forum is great because it has SO many opposing opinion.

Maybe we just don't understand our bodies logic.

My $.02 is, if you up your caloric intake by having, say, a snickers bar...that's not the same as adding another serving of green beans. Not saying anyone's doing this but...just sayin'.

Different things work for different people. And I am one of the people in the last month who used the exact words 'I know it sounds counter intuitive to weight loss to up your calories', so I figure I must be one of the people to whom you are referring to giving out poor advice.

Let me give you a little background on me and why I suggest that people raise their calories. I exercise anywhere from 9-14 hours per week. I regularly raise my heart rate close to 200bpm. Sometimes I run for two hours at a time. I don't discount the merits of exercise, nor do I ever tell anyone not to exercise. When I was losing I started at 148 pounds this time around and 1200 calories. I wanted to lose 20 pounds. On 1200 calories I was losing at an average of about .5 pounds per week. Several weeks I didn't lose at all, gained some weeks. Raised my calories by 200 per day, started losing at an even pound per week. Raised more, lost more faster. Met goal, raised to 1700, lost ten more pounds.

Can low calorie consumption lead to 'starvation mode' in a very short time? No, probably not. What it can do is lead to water retention (which shows as plateau or weight gain), binging, loss of muscle mass, and yes, retention of calories for survival.

It doesn't work for everyone, but it does work for many. I personally know several people who raised their calories to break a plateau. Has it worked for everyone? No. Do I believe that a 170 pound person will hit a starvation survival level like prisoners of war and anorexics? Of course not. Do I think a person trying to lose 'only 20-30 pounds' on 1200 calories might be setting themselves up for failure? Yes. Do I think that same person could succeed on 1200 calories a day and keep the weight off? Again, yes. It depends on the person and their level of will, in my opinion. I don't think starting at the bottom of the healthy range at the beginning of a diet is the wisest choice for anyone.

But that is just me, and my opinion.

that is an interesting point DCHound - instead of just advising someone to 'up' their calories, you could specify that they should add an extra 100-200 calories of fibrous veggies.