Weight loss and calories are not a linerer equation. Meaning that if you stave yourself, your metobolism slows down. Otherwise stated, if you are eating 1500 cal and burning 1400, then cut WAY down to say 800 cal, you may wind up burning only 900 (same net gain of 100 cal). This is because the body does a very good job at regulating itself (homeostatis). The body will slow brain function, cell development, etc. It goes into 'power conservation' mode.

In a related thought, let me tell you how I broke a stall. The second I woke up every morning I headed to the kitchen. There, I ate a BIG honking tablespoon of tuna fish. My body interpeted that dolop of protein as "Oh boy, we're gonna run on a full tank today, rev that engine up" So, the (fat) burning machine went to work ~~ and more calories were burned.

The body has an autotomic (automatic, if you will) response. You can not fool it. Better to understand it and work WITH it, not AGAINST it.

I have to agree with the above. Also in my case, I experienced what most of those people in the obese forum have posted. I exercised daily ( I have always enjoyed it) and did not loose any weight. I never kept track of my caloric intake, but I am sure ti was way low. I mean how many calories does a king size bar of butterfinger has? I would skip breakfast and have a candy bar with a regular soda for lunch. If I was hungry I would have another bar for dinner. If not, I would skip dinner all together. But religiously I would have some type of cookies & milk before bed. Oatmeal, Oreos, Pepperidge farms (anyone hungry yet?) LOL
So it is possible to eat very few calories in a day and exercise and not loose weight. Your metabolism is dead, you are eating empty calories (mainly sugar), what do you think will happen to your body? It will be like POW's? Ahhhh..... NAH!!
That's all I have to say about that!

Zuleikaa,

I have no doubt there is a great gulf of difference between person a's metabolism and person b's, even if both are the same age/gender/height/weight. Person a might burn 1600 cals at rest, person b might burn 1300. Difference like that I can see occurring. You are asking me to believe that person a can burn 2500 cals at rest (a healthy, typical, morbidly obese person), but person b burns less than 500. That I do not believe. I'm not arguing that there is differences between metabolisms (there certainly is), I am merely contesting that it is possible for human energy needs to vary so much to the point where a 300lb human being is maintaining weight on under 1000 calories a day. The body is capable of conserving energy, and yes disease can also cause your body to store more fat and/or burn less for energy (diseases which cause malnutrition/inability to burn sugar for fuel like type 2 diabetes/severe insulin resistance, or diseases which affect metabolic rate like hashimoto's disease can both affect how much energy your body burns vs how much it stores as fat). However, even when these factors are considered, you must realize there are limits to how far it can take things without rendering you incapacitated or forcing you to drop weight to make up the deficit.

I simply refuse to believe a morbidly obese person, irregardless of disease status or personal/familial background can survive - and not merely survive but do daily functions without much compromise of efficacy - on under 1000 calories per day, without that person catabolizing their own tissues for fuel. In other words, I seriously doubt the claims made by really fat people that they can't lose on under 1000 cals per day.

You say there are studies which show people gaining weight on 800 calories a day. Studies of men, even. Were these men emaciated starvation victims? I have no doubt a true worst case anorexic or starvation victim is going to gain both muscle and fat on 800 calories a day. Starved people have very little mass, and their bodies are at the limits of energy conservation. A very small starved person can maintain that state on a pittance of energy, because they've eaten away all the metabolically active muscle and fat tissue.

My original point of contention was not that it is impossible to not lose weight on 800 calories per day, if you are a 50 lb anorexic you won't lose weight on 800 cals per day, of course. My point was that it is impossible for a very obese person to not lose weight on 800 cals per day, and this is a position I will maintain. An obese person has very high energy needs, fat is metabolically active tissue. Obese people have more fat and muscle (insulin is an anabolic hormone that stimulates both fat and muscle growth, plus obese people do more weight-bearing activities than others just by existing) than thin people. Like I said, even if we assume the obese person in question has a myriad of metabolic abnormalities and thrifty genes, the human body can only go so far with energy conservation. I don't see how it's possible for a very obese, very large individual to be using less energy than a healthy very very small person (even a 90 lb healthy petite young woman burns more than 800 cals per day), without being reduced to an almost comatose state. I am open minded, so if you can provide evidence of obese people with such severe metabolic problems that they are not losing weight on starvation levels of calories, I'll be glad to admit I was wrong. Do you have a link to an abstract showing very obese people failing to drop weight on under 1000 cals per day?

If you want to see an example of the limits of energy conservation, take a look at starvation victims. People who are starving can barely even move because their bodies are using so little energy, as their bodies are trying in vain to preserve the precious resources on their body (muscle and fat). They can't will themselves to stand. They black out spontaneously. They can't think, because their brains are deprived of sugar. Their muscles spontaneously give out. This is what happens when your body doesn't have energy ... it starts to not work. One thing is certain, unless you feel like a 50 lb starved person - prone to passing out, not being able to move your own body, etc - you can be sure your body is not at the limits of its ability to conserve energy.

When the "metabolically resistant" morbidly obese are certain they're eating anorexia level cals, but the only abnormal symptom they experience is weight maintenance (and maybe feeling a little bit less alert/lively)... you can be sure that they are underestimating their calorie intake. You can't feed a very large body very little, maintain weight, and function effectively. Weight maintenance on extremely little calories (i.e. extreme energy conservation as seen in anorexics and starved people) is a mutually exclusive occurrence with being able to function like a regular person. If someone claims the two are occurring together, you can be sure they're over estimating their caloric intake. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising tomorrow.

I think my point is getting confused. Let me restate my position, and this time I will try to be clear and concise as possible.

My position: It is not physically possible for an extremely large person (i.e. 300 lb human being) to exists - and thrive (i.e. function effectively) - on the calorie levels more appropriate for an extremely small person (i.e. a house pet, or a very small child).

My position was not that it is impossible to gain weight or maintain weight on 800 calories. I believe this is possible.
What I do not believe is that it (weight maintenance on very little calories) possible is when all the above qualifiers are present together as a cluster (large amounts of metabolically active tissue, extremely low calorie levels, AND the ability to function more or less normally). An example of people maintaining or gaining weight on very low levels of calories, but there is an exclusion of one or more of these qualifiers, invalidates the case as evidence against my position.

Here are a few examples of invalid cases which do not count as evidence:
1) A case study of people with very low amounts metabolically active tissue. A 52 lb starvation victim gaining weight on 800 calories a day is not evidence against my original claim, because this person has very little metabolically active tissue. (One of the qualifiers of my original claim is that the person must have large quantities of metabolically active tissue, i.e. be obese. Furthermore, starved people also tend to show all signs in the most extreme manifestation of energy conservation, so examples of starvation victims are invalid cases on two counts.)

2) A case study of people who manifest extreme symptoms of energy conservation. A person - even an overweight person - gaining weight on 800 calories a day with simultaneously occurring symptoms of extreme energy conservation is not evidence against my original claim. Examples of extreme energy conservation include but are not limited to hair falling out in clumps, scaly flaky skin, blacking out or fainting, being unable to will yourself to move or get up when lying down, subjective reports of feeling half-dead, extremely tired, or otherwise a significant perception of lacking in energy, muscles spontaneously giving out, an inability to concentrate, think, or remember anything, etc. (This person, despite having lots of metabolically active tissue, is exhibiting signs of extreme energy conservation (i.e. their body is failing on them). This again does not count as evidence).
a) Please note that cases where the people are showing minor symptoms of energy conservation (some diffuse hair shedding, feeling less alert than normally, feeling physically weaker than normal, etc) do not count as examples of extreme energy conservation. When you restrict energy, even if slightly, your body tends to conserve energy which results in very minor manifestations of starvation symptoms. The presence of these symptoms, when minor, is not evidence that their bodies are in an extreme energy conservation mode (and via extension not evidence that the body is "starved" for energy to the point where they will maintain weight on seemingly impossibly low amounts of cals).

Like I said, it is important to remember that I am contesting the claim of weight maintenance on very low levels of calories only when these two qualifiers are present together: very large quantities of metabolically active tissue and the ability to function more or less like everyone else.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Well, I can jump in here, because one of the things that started me investigating low carbing was the experience of my mother, who was dealing with menopause when she discovered her previous weight maintenance strategies (low fat, lots of exercise) weren't working, and she was GAINING weight without changing her routine.

This got my attention, because it would be me in a decade or so...

And my mother was doing 600-800 calories and walking 5 miles a day. And GAINING.

What was happening was her body was cannibalizing the protein in her muscles and elsewhere (she had thinning hair and nails) while hanging on like grim death to the fat, since it wasn't getting any. She'd whacked out her metabolism over years of low fat/high exercise and it was doing the best it could with what it was given.

When she went on Atkins, she doubled or tripled her calorie intake, dropped the exercise, and lost weight. Because her body was getting plenty of fat, it didn't need to hang onto it. Because it was getting plenty of protein, it was able to build muscle, hair, and nails again.

That's my short, admittedly unscientific version. And yes, if she'd gone to a concentration camp, she would have lost weight. Because as little as she was eating, it was voluntary. Enforced starvation, whether from an external authority or your own brain, as in anorexia, will make you lose weight anyway. But thank goodness she didn't have to.

Interesting!

This is actually the premise of the BodyRX program by Dr. Scott Connelly.
He calls himself "a metabolic scientist with one foot in the medical world and one in the weight room."
Actually, it's one part of the premise.

He studied how people who ate the least are in fact the ones who gain the most...
AND (more well known) he studied and worked with wasting syndrome - patients, severely injured or ill, wasting away even though they are fed a high-calorie diet intravenously.

Anyway, it's an interesting read, and an interesting program.
But it does take a good 18 or so weeks to see some dramatic results...
Right now, I don't have the patience. :-)

But when I've dropped a decent amount, I'm going back on this program (it's 4 phases, and the 3rd phase - for fat loss - is basically Protein-Power levels of carbs).

-- Loretta Pioch