I replied to someone's post in the Cohen's Forum accidently. I hadn't realized that I was actually in the Cohen's room, a place I like to stay out of. But, just to put my reply into context for you, the original poster was unsure how she could lose weight for weeks and then, simply plateau. It triggered this from me:

People will never get this on this board. Let's pretend your maintenance is 2500 calories per day. This means, you are eating 2500 calories worth of energy per day and you are expending roughly 2500 calories worth of energy per day. Results in a net break-even and theoretically, there is no weight gain or loss. Right?

BTW, 2500 calorie maintenance level would be for someone roughly 170 lbs. The bigger you are, the higher your maintenance level is.

INFORMED individuals looking to lose weight will cut calories by some small margin, say 10-20%. As they begin to lose weight, their metabolism will slow, even though they are going about weight loss in an appropriate fashion. You can't continue losing weight forever at your original deficit. Your metabolism catches up to you and it slows to a point where you won't see results. At this point, depending on a few factors, you could cut calories again to trigger another deficit based on your NEW maintenance level.

There comes a point where this will become counter-productive. You can't expect to continually play the "slashing calories" game and expect to be healthy AND expect to see results. There comes a point where you CAN'T eat any less and ideally, you don't follow the path this far! After a certain point, I recommend starting a cyclical diet where you bounce calories up and down. Or a diet including refeeds of carbs. There are multiple options you can execute once you come to this fork in the road.

Now, around here, most people cut calories originally by some ridiculous amount. Still using a maintenance of 2500 calories, I find many around here will slash to 1200, or something ludicrous like this. Why a 50% calorie slash seems OK to some of you I will never understand. Our bodies are very adaptive, finely tuned machines that are built to survive. And you better believe that you are sending many, many signals to your body that say, "Time to change physiologically because it looks like we are going through some hard times."

One of the greatest, actually, the greatest metabolic studies ever conducted was the Minnesota Starvation Diet. Here, they slashed calories by 50% off of maintenance to realize the impacts STARVATION had on post war and Jewish victims of the Nazis, and how to best go about rehabbing them. The sad thing is, I see a lot of people doing this same thing around here.

When you do this the right way, your body will adapt and progress will slow. What do you think doing it the wrong way does?

I have no idea any of the original poster's stats or how she is going about weight loss, so please don't think I am directing this at you.

But something that is directed at you is this. You say you don't understand how you can lose weight for weeks and then, plateau. That is because you don't understand how your body works. Your body adapts. The same technique, have it be a certain calorie intake, a certain way of exercising, or whatever have you will have to be manipulated and changed if you are going to realize continued success.

And for those of you who do things the least optimal way through starvation* are going to have a long, hard road ahead of you if your goal is actually looking and feeling good, and not just what the number on the scale says.

*realize that starvation does not actually mean eating nothing and being on the verge of death. i mean depriving your body of the basic macro and micro nutrients as well as sufficient calories in so that you are creating a below par atmosphere for your overall health and continued success.

END OF RANT AND THIS SHOULD BE STICKIED, NOT THAT ANYONE WILL.

Great information - thanks for taking the time to write it - and while some of us are slower to catch on to it than others - we're getting it eventually.

and worthy of a stick erm stuck... oh whatever -- you dared me to and I did it

Like Mal said - we will get it eventually. If you keep using such welcoming language like you did above I'm sure we'll be eager to get it sooner.

Steve, you have just said, but worded much, much better, what I have spent the last year saying to every friend, family member and co-workers who keeps telling me they are on a diet and how much weight they are losing through their "all I've had today is a carrot and a Lean Cusine" approach. I don't know how 1200 & 1500 calories became magical "one-size-fits-all no- matter-what-your-starting-weight" numbers, but I know from previous personal experience and the experiences of those around me that what you've said is dead spot on.

Wow great information.I am one that likes to stay around the 1200
mark for weightloss then when I get to my satisfying weight I will find
the calorie range to maintain.Tammy

Fine if that works for you. Most people, especially those with a lot of weight to lose, will not reach their goal weight before doing the damage and plateauing.

I never think it is wise to pick a random caloric intake that is not based on your current, personal characteristics.

Some of us are clueing in.

I guess i don't really understand why people find it is necessary to go to such low calories to lose weight. I"m eating 2300 calories/day and losing 2lbs a week. It isn't difficult, i took off 250calories from maintenance and then i'm exercising 4 or so days a week, and i'm not hungry.

I spent a couple months closer to the start of my journey eating 1400-1600 calories per day but i didn't like how i felt ..i couldn't think straight..i knew something was wrong.

Now i just find it scary when someone that weighs more then i do eats 1200 calories/day and says they won't change anything and they are doing things in a healthy way...sigh.

My understanding is this: the best way to keep your metabolism from slowing is to eat frequently, like say (if you could possibly handle it) 6 small meals at 250 to 400 calories each (so a total of 1500 for a small person trying to lose weight, and 2100 for a medium-to-largish person) AND combining weight training. When I was 19 (yeah, I know, my metabolism has changed since then) I got to 135 lbs and 18.5% body fat (according to a pinch-test), from155 lbs (I'm 5'7") by cardio and weights--not dieting. Mind you, I was lifting pretty heavy weights and I was really strong! That was in 2002, and there was a lot of "new" research about muscle and metabolism. So when I reach my plateau, that's my gameplan. To lift heavier weights--it worked last time!

1. Best of luck to you!

2. I do agree with eating frequently. However, studies are not conclusive that doing so speeds one's metabolism by any effective amount. I just think it is easier to get your macros in by splitting meals up into numerous, smaller feedings. The idea that it keeps your metabolism "revved" up is a myth though.

3. IMO, anyone and everyone should be lifting heavy weights, relatively speaking of course.

That's cute: )
Coming from you!

I just heard (regarding the metabolism thing with smaller, more frequent meals) that if you, say, skip breakfast, your metabolism supposedly can slow up to 20% that day because your body thinks food is scarce and is preserving reserves. Therefore, I guess, eating frequently assures you are "preceding as normal", and your metabolism is working like it should--instead of slowing down. In conclusion, you could be eating 1500 calories while dieting--but it is probably easier on your system if you spread it out throughout the day, rather than having 2 meals of 750 calories each. I don't really know, but it makes logical sense to me, so I'm trying to follow that. I guess I chose the wrong words with "rev" and such.

Oh no. You should do what is best for YOU. If eating small, frequent meals works, I am all for it. I recommend it actually. I was simply saying, the reason to do so is not so much to keep your metabolism boosted. That is a common myth that even many trainers go around spewing today, so I don't blame you.

Regarding your breakfast comment, your metabolism would NEVER drop by 20% in a day. The largest recorded reduction in metabolism was something like 30%. And that was after controlled, chronic, starvation level diets in a lab.

Yeah, I thought that was pretty high. What is up with all these magazines spouting out high %s? I get mad when I hear things that say, alcohol increases breast cancer risk by %30. I'm in the wine business. I am getting more educated about this type of thing, and I'm telling you--those numbers are absurd.

I don't read magazines. Only books.

And in order for me to believe something, especially when it comes to my body, it has to:

A) Be proven academically (Entrez PubMed)

B) Be proven empirically (see me )

i used wishes page to calculate my maintainance level and it was around 2700 and that i should be taking maximum 1650 cals. now i'm 220 lbs, and 5,5 tall, and by some calculations i average between 1400 and 1600 cals. on some days i do eat around 1200 but these are rare, and i rarely go over 2000.

is this right? because so far its going great. i lose up to 2lbs a week. i totally lost 16 lbs since january 5.

Lena