oh good greif, I didn't think I'd have to post a thesis and insult the OPs' intelligence.
OF COURSE you still have to watch your calorie intake
I've had the same issue as the OP for the past 3 years. I went on a starvation diet for a year--1300cal, lost 60lbs--was a miserable SOB
Tried another "plan" for 8 months while going to the gym, didn't work an I was stagnant from a slow metaolism.
5 months ago I started working with a Professional bodybuilder (all natural-no roids, with his pro card)
The "gist" if my eating schedule is 2500 cal, broken into 7 meals a day. Lean protien and veg.
everyones body is different, you have to find what works best for you and your fitness level/goals
if the OP wants more details, he can email.
BTW, one big problem with "diets" and fitness plans is that there's a million places on the net that will tell you a million differing opinons.
You only need substantial protein intake to BUILD NEW MUSCLE. If you take in plenty of calories from carbs and fats such that glucose is available for the brain, you don't NEED protein. Your muscle tissue will be fine and simply sit there. It won't get any bigger, but it certainly won't shrink either
in about 10 seconds I found an article written by a guy who master's degree in exercise science, is a certified personal trainer and has been featured on BBC TV and radio, as well as in Men's Health, Men's Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Fit Pro, Zest and other popular fitness magazines that doesn't agree with you.
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/blog/losing-muscle-as-well-as-fat
One good illustration of these principles comes from a research team led by Dr. Donald Layman, professor of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois.
In the study, researchers compared the effects of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet against a high-carbohydrate, low-protein diet combined with exercise in 48 obese women. Both diets contained 1,700 calories, 30% of calories from fat, and about 17 grams of fiber.
However, women on the high-protein diet substituted high-protein foods (e.g. meats, dairy, eggs, and nuts) for foods high in carbohydrate (e.g. breads, rice, cereal, pasta, and potatoes) to get about 30% of their total calories from protein (1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight).
Women on the high-carbohydrate diet ate about half that amount of protein (0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight) and got about 60% of their daily calories from carbohydrate.
The women also followed two different exercise programs.
Exercise in group one involved voluntary "light walking activity." Women in this group averaged about 100 minutes per week of added exercise.
While group two walked a minimum of five days per week, they also did resistance exercise (30 minutes of weight
training) twice weekly. The exercise was supervised and averaged 200 minutes or more each week.
After four months, both groups of dieters lost weight. Not surprisingly, body composition tests show that women who did resistance exercise lost less muscle and more fat.
- High-protein dieters who did resistance exercise group lost an average of 22 pounds and less than one pound of muscle.
- High-carbohydrate dieters who also did resistance exercise group lost an average of 15 pounds. But they also lost over 2 pounds of muscle.
So, nearly 100% of the weight lost in the high-protein group was fat, while around 15% of the weight lost in the high-carbohydrate group was muscle. This was due mainly to their low protein intake, which averaged just 0.7 grams per kilogram of bodyweight per day.
What about the group who only did the walking?
The high-protein dieters in this group lost an average of 19 pounds. However, over 4 pounds came from muscle. The high-carbohydrate group lost 17 pounds, but nearly 6 pounds came from muscle.
"Both diets work because, when you restrict calories, you lose weight. But the people on the higher-protein diet lost more weight," says Professor Layman. "There's an additive, interactive effect when a protein-rich diet is combined with exercise. The two work together to correct body composition; dieters lose more weight, and they lose fat, not muscle."
The main weakness with the study is that calorie intake was self reported. This is a notoriously inaccurate way to measure calorie intake, and goes a long way to explaining why the high-protein group lost more fat than the high-carbohydrate group.
Anyway, that's enough of the theory. Let's get to the practical application.
If you want to lose fat without losing (or even gaining) the precious muscle tissue you've worked so hard to build, here's what to do...
- Don't let daily calorie intake drop below 8 calories per pound of bodyweight (e.g. a 200-pound person wouldn't eat less than 1600 calories per day).
- Set your protein intake at a level that's adequate to preserve muscle (around 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight). This number assumes that you're doing some form of resistance exercise twice a week, which I consider the bare minimum for anyone wanting to lose fat while preserving muscle.
- Get around 20-30% of your calories from fat, ensuring that you get roughly 2 grams of the essential long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.
- Adjust your carbohydrate intake according to how active you are without exceeding your daily calorie intake goal.
If you're a subscriber to the Members-Only Area, there's an easy-to-use
Calorie Calculator in
How To Burn Fat Without Losing Muscle that works it all out for you. These guidelines are not ideal for people who are extremely overweight, as those with a lot of fat to lose can generally sustain a larger calorie deficit than leaner individuals without running the risk of losing muscle.
Now, although these numbers are based on the results of several well-designed studies, I've had e-mails from a couple of readers who think that the recommended level of protein is too high.
"On a 1600-calorie diet," wrote one reader, "200 grams of protein comes to 800 calories, or 50% of someone's total calorie intake. Isn't that a bit high and not what you intended?"
Firstly, I should point out that the 8 calories per pound of bodyweight number is a suggested
lower limit and not a figure I consider optimal. But if somebody does little or no exercise, their calorie intake will need to be on the low side if they're going to lose weight at a decent rate. Normally, I'd recommend a figure nearer to 10-12 calories per pound of bodyweight (depending on how much exercise you're doing), which would change the percentage of calories from protein.
Second, I don't consider expressing nutrient intake in percentages to be a particularly accurate or effective way to evaluate your diet. That's because they depend to a large extent on your total calorie intake.
For example, let's say that you consume 200 grams of protein per day. On a 1600-calorie diet, that comes to 50% of your total calorie intake, a number that some would consider too high. But when that same 200 grams of protein comes from a 2300-calorie diet, the percentage is only 35%, a number considered by even the Institute of Medicine (an organization that helps the US Government set dietary guidelines) as a
safe level of intake.
"people on the higher-protein diet lost more weight," says Professor Layman. "There's an additive, interactive effect when a protein-rich diet is combined with exercise. The two work together to correct body composition; dieters lose more weight, and they lose fat, not muscle."
I guess my body is happy again . I started dropping weight again at a good clip . I tried the 1200-1400 calorie a day thing but did not like it so I went back to a 1000 calories a day and increased my work outs each day . 
