Gained 4lbs over two days?

It sounds like you are eating way below what your body requires, thus I can only assume your metabolism is slowing to a stop. Have you tried calculating your BMR?

Your BMR is the amount of energy your body needs to function. We use about 60% of the calories we consume each day for basic bodily functions such as breathing. I won't go into the rest :-)

But here's a quick guide to help you calculate what you truly need:

Note: this is the formula for women.

655 + (4.3 x weight in pounds) + (4.7 x height in inches) - (4.7 x age in years)

If you are trying to lose weight then apply the next formula:

If you are sedentary : BMR x 20 percent
If you are lightly active: BMR x 30 percent
If you are moderately active (You exercise most days a week.): BMR x 40 percent
If you are very active (You exercise intensely on a daily basis or for prolonged periods.): BMR x 50 percent
If you are extra active (You do hard labor or are in athletic training.): BMR x 60 percent

Add this number to your BMR. The result of this formula will be the number of calories you can eat every day and maintain your current weight. In order to lose weight, you'll need to take in fewer calories than this result. I suggest taking off 500 calories.

It's worth working out!! I bet your body needs way more calories to be super efficient at burning off the fat.

Take care! Lauren.

my net calories for Monday and Tuesday were 167 and 590

and stop starving yourself. This number needs to be at least 1200.

Stop throwing around that 1200 number. More misinformation after misinformation.

my net calories for Monday and Tuesday were 167 and 590

and stop starving yourself. This number needs to be at least 1200.

Stop throwing around that 1200 number. More misinformation after misinformation.

eating consistently below BMR is not smart.

I am tiny, and my BMR is right at 1200. She has some weight to lose, which MOST LIKELY means her BMR is a bit MORE than 1200.

Logic concludes that for her, 1200 is low, seeing as though she has less than 30 pounds to lose, is a teenager, and should not be in a huge deficit.

I am not "throwing around" arbitrary numbers. I know that 1200 is not a magic number for everyone. But I am smart and know numbers, thank you. Not going below 1200 is the best advice I can give this person who won't say her height and won't open her diary.

It sounds to me like you're putting your body in starvation mode.

Nope, it's not that. Why? Because starvation mode is a myth.

No offense to you, though... I know you're just trying to help her out. :flowerforyou:

even though its already been said 10 or 15 times, I will say it again, PLEASE eat more! I know it sounds like the opposite of what you should do, but you need more net calories. 1200 is low, even for myself at 5'1". Netting anything below 1200 will most certainly NOT help you lose weight.

It most certainly has helped me lose weight.

eating consistently below BMR is not smart.

Why?

Errrybody needs to EAT MOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAR!

Eating that low is not sustainable, and why would you want to do that? Food is delicious.

eating consistently below BMR is not smart.

Why?

because it's extremely difficult to get the nutrients your body needs long term in that few calories unless your eating is spot on. Notice I said consistently. One or two days here and there of really low cals won't cause any problems.

And I never said you can't lose weight, I just said it's not SMART. Nutritionally.

and stop trying to start arguments. It's not working.

metabolism slowing (adaptive thermogenesis) is a completely different story.

Long story short, your metabolism will never slow down to the point where a defecit wont cause you to lose weight, but it definitely can decrease the amount you can eat when you hit maintenance.

this is true.

you can eat less and less and keep losing weight. You will never hit a point where you will GAIN weight from eating too little. That is a complete misconception and bastardization of adaptive thermogenesis, which people have coined "starvation mode"

But you won't be very healthy. Your body does need nutrients. The balance is finding the calories that will allow you to lose weight WHILE maintaining your energy, hair, nails, skin, etc.

Which in MOST CASES, is 1200 or more. Rarely is it possible to meet all of a person's nutritional needs CONSISTENTLY on less than 1200. Yes there are exceptions. A 4'10" 96 lb woman could probably do it on 1000 just fine. But for the most part, MOST humans need at least 1200 calories to get in adequate nutrition.

If my body has 90 pounds of fat

apples and oranges.

we're talking about a 19 year old girl who wants to lose 25 more pounds. She is probably in a healthy weight range already, but we don't know her height so who knows.

Morbidly obese people can have huge deficits for a while because they DO have all that fat. This girl doesn't.

If my body has 90 pounds of fat

apples and oranges.

we're talking about a 19 year old girl who wants to lose 25 more pounds. She is probably in a healthy weight range already, but we don't know her height so who knows.

Morbidly obese people can have huge deficits for a while because they DO have all that fat. This girl doesn't.

You wrote, "eating consistently below BMR is not smart." You didn't limit it to a 19 year old girl wanting to lose 25 pounds.

If I understand you, you weren't intending to make a general statement about eating below BMR not being smart, you were talking specifically about the 19 year old but that there are scenarios in which eating below BMR might not be problematic at all. Is that a fair characterization?

I was speaking directly to the OP.

I would never make a generalized statement referring to ALL humans. *kitten* varies based on age, weight, height, sex, and medical conditions.

Yes, in the case of a morbidly obese individual, eating under BMR with medical supervision is sometimes even the best course of action for that person.