Ok, technically you are correct, obviously. But starvation isn’t an ideal weight loss strategy.
Yep, this is pretty much what I do. The same thing I’ve been doing. And for no reason understandable to the laws of thermodynamics, eventually the weight loss starts again.
Cortisol is a good guess.
Also, I’m one of those dieters who gives myself a “free” day. Saturdays, I eat whatever the hell I want, in any quantity I want. Since my stomach is smaller than it used to be (no surgery, just not eating so much), I really don’t end up indulging quite as much as one might expect. But I give myself permission to if that’s what I want. This makes parties a whole lot more fun than they were when I was restricting my intake while staring longingly at the dessert table.
Sunday morning, I’m generally up 8 ounces to a pound, but it’s lost again by Monday morning. Again, maybe this reduces stress hormones. Maybe it “tricks” my metabolism. Dunno. But I know it’s worked for nearly a year now.
Plus, I know during the week that I can have whatever treat I want in 6 days or fewer, so it’s easier to resist in the moment. That keeps me on track those days.
And a worse yet health promotion approach.
How much do you weigh and how tall are you DummyGladHands?
You’ve been asked already but so not answered.
Or the opposite.
I don’t believe this is actually happening (stomach shrinking due to smaller meals). It’s often talked about but I think it’s more getting accustomed to smaller meals and feeling satisfied on less that it is the stomach physically shrinking. I don’t think this happens. Prove me wrong with a cite.
No, I won’t because you are correct. I was trying to make that clear with my parenthetical, that I meant “smaller” in the appetite sense, not that it was surgically reduced in volume. I apologize that my wording remained unclear. And it was unclear, totally, that’s not a snarky nonpology. For some reason, my brain was just blanked on the word “appetite”, which is what I should have used instead.
A big thing I always advise to anyone interested in weight loss is to understand the difference between scale weight and body fat. Your body brings a lot of stuff into it in a given day, a lot of weight in water comes in and a lot of weight in raw food. All food have different energy densities, some food weighs a lot but contains few calories for example. Your body will hold a variable amount of unprocessed food mass inside as well as water, that fluctuates every day. These fluctuations can be several pounds.
Most people start to get worried about a plateau if they have a few weekly weigh-ins in a row where their weight hasn’t moved much. That’s why, when I was losing weight some years ago (I lost a substantial amount and have kept it off), I weighed in every single day and calculated a moving average of my weight. This is a technique I’d long been familiar with in the stock market for “separating data from noise”, and it’s a similar application. Just like a stock lots of daily fluctuations are just “noise” and an averaged trend can show you a more accurate indicator of where the market is moving. Weight is the same weigh, there is a ton of noise to your scale number that has nothing to do with your goal of losing fat pounds off your body.
There are a lot of factors that need to be considered though:
-What’s your gender
-What’s your height/current weight
-What’s your current lean body weight? (I can give you some techniques on figuring this out)
-How do you track calories? (It’s possible you aren’t tracking them or are consuming significant calories you are do not recognize.)
Goodness, I wasn’t being rude, I’ve been offline. Working out. Ha ha.
5’9", currently between 190/195.
and 1200 was the goal the doc set.
A healthy, fit real world weight for someone your height should be between 135-160 lbs depending on your frame.
At 195 lbs assuming you are exercising 40 minutes everyday as you indicate you should require a minimum of around 11 calories per lb of body weight per day or around 2220 calories per day to support 195 lbs at this stage of your weight program. If you are eating as little as 1200 calories per day you have an approximate 1000 calories deficit per day or 7,000 per week and should be dropping 2 lbs per week (7,000/3500 calories per lb of fat = 2lbs).
If you at 195 lbs have dropped nothing for 4 weeks at 1200 calories per day, while exercising 40 minutes per day that’s amazing.
As a side note 1200 calories per day is a very low and hard to maintain intake level. 1500-1600 calories per day at a projected loss rate of 1.5 lbs per week would (IMO)_ make a lot more sense and be healthier and easier to maintain for someone your height. If you are 5’ 9" " and working out vigorously 40 minutes a day you need more than 1200 calories per day to stay healthy.
Starvation mode makes sense then?
At 1200 it might. I’m honestly surprised you have the energy to do 40 minutes of vigorious exercise per day at that calorie level. It’s way low, but still you should have lost something at that intake level. Have you checked your scale battery?
Dunno, it’s the scale at the gym, I don’t own one, but I can try another. 40 min. isn’t that much, and I will tell you, the stress just melts off. Sadly, not the belly 
Disputable.
BMI is about 28. While that is labelled “overweight” it is actually a number associated with pretty good health outcomes, and much better outcomes than 135 (BMI under 20) is. It is also in the middle third for adult Americans 30 and over. Where you come up with 160 as top of where weight “should be” is a bit beyond me. BMI 25 would be at 169 and the sweet spot for lowest mortality risk may be slightly higher than that.
The op has lost 13 to 14% of body weight. There is no medical/health justification for losing any more. Focus now on increasing fitness. How much farther can you run in that 40 minute block? How many sprint intervals can you do? How much more can you lift? What new skills can you master? Your weight is fine.
I’ve heard of studies that show that dairy fat actually helps women lose weight.
As others have said, 1200 per day for your size is way low. Although the doctor recommended that level, I think the doctor is in error. In my experience, doctors are not a good source of weight loss advice - one doctor told me, “Stop eating desserts.” as a weight loss plan - well, that’s not bad advice, per se, but as anyone who’s ever tried to lose weight and keep it off knows, it’s nowhere near that simple.
I saw a cardiologist this summer for what turned out to be a normal female heart (they have no normals for women, only for men, but that’s a story for another time), and he was so impressed by my incredibly good natural cholesterol that he wanted me to bring in my food diary for two weeks. I did that, and he basically threw it out because he didn’t think there was any way that my diet should produce my cholesterol numbers. I eat a little of everything, with nothing particularly “bad” or off limits. I guess that’s not what he wanted to hear; I guess he was looking for my only eating oatmeal or something.
Regarding the plateau, I think the more important idea is to eat sustainably - this is for life, not for a couple of months.
195 lbs is “fine” for 5’ 9" tall woman? I beg to disagree, it’s probably sustainable without huge cardiac implications, but it’s certainly not optimal by any means.
She’s a 5’9" woman who at 195 lbs is carrying approximately 30- 40 lbs of excess fat. This extra weight is is bad for your joints, limits your endurance, and makes it harder to get around. That extra fat also makes you more predisposed to diabetes, breast cancer etc.
If she had a very robust frame and was quite muscular pushing into the 170 - 180 lb or higher range might not be a big deal, but she gave no indication she was at that level of athleticism or had that kind of build. For women of average build 140-160 lbs is about right for 5’9". If she’s a shot putter or hammer thrower this obviously does not apply.
For reference here are some youtube vids of a 5’6" young woman with a medium to medium-robust frame moving from 190 lbs to to 145 lbs. Re NSFW she is in her underwear in some vids.
Before we hijack too badly, astro, please read up on some past threads with multiple references regarding BMI, fitness, and health risks (including diabetes risk). Such as this one, and this one. You have NO WAY to know how much excess fat she has from her BMI alone, let alone how significant that fat is to her health. Maybe if you also knew her waist circumference and her percent body fat, but even then the better health outcome predictor in that BMI range (yes, including diabetes and breast cancer) is fitness level. Exercise and diet, independent of weight loss improves cardiometabolic risk in overweight and obese individuals. Educate yourself, then come back.
Did not bother clicking on your vids of a 5’6" woman that do not apply to this discussion.
(ON edit, not sure if the op is male or female but the same stats apply.)
[/QUOTE]
I see a picture of an attractive, but chunky woman who is posing or posed at an angle to look slimmer. She could easily stand to lose 20 - 25 lbs.
Agreed.
astro, what you’re missing is that s/he used to be much heavier. The health risks you’re citing are not the same for a person who used to be obese and loses more than 10% of their highest weight. Those are the risks for someone within 10% of their highest weight.
Studies are now showing that losing just 5% (much less than we’ve ever thought) and keeping it off causes those risks to drop dramatically: http://shp.missouri.edu/vhct/case2500/benefits.htm
OP, I’m not trying to discourage you from losing more weight if that’s what you want to do. But I think it’s time for a doctor visit to check your fat percentage, do some blood tests and check your cholesterol and lipids, maybe your blood sugar, and have a conversation about your next step. Maybe it will be to set a new weight loss goal, maybe a new calorie allowance, maybe your goal will switch to maintenance and fitness rather than pounds. You’re the only one who can say, but if you’ve got a good doctor who knows nutrition and the latest research on obesity, s/he can help you with some more specific information.
But I’d like to give you a huge virtual high five. Holy cats, you’ve done an awesome job! 
She “could easily stand to lose 20 to 25 pounds” in order to meet your particular beauty standard. Not the “30 to 40 pounds of excess fat” you stated someone her height/weight is carrying, that would result in her having a hard time getting around, be bad on her joints, limit her endurance, and increase her diabetes and cancer risks, etc.?
You are entitled to your standards of what is most attractive. Telling someone who has lost 13 to 14% of his/her body weight and reached a BMI of roughly 28, who is exercising 40 minutes daily, eating a restrictive calorie diet (hopefully nutrient dense and with adequate protein), that his/her goal should be to lose at least twice as much as already lost, based on knowledge of a BMI NOT associated with significantly increased health risks and that alone, is however nearly as mean as it is ignorant.