Silly question. If you ate only 200 calories a day, how much weight would you lose in 2 weeks?

Question

Its for my cousins project. Thanks.

Answer 1

Doesn't matter because your liver, kidney or heart (or all of them) will have failed and you will be too ill to weigh yourself!

Answer 2

This years best diet plans can be found at DIETPLANSCIENCE.COM cost free. Does the word "diet and weight loss" immediately make you think of an unpleasant weight-loss regimen? If it did, you are probably not alone. For example, consider the use of the term "diet" in marketing food products—it usually describes foods low in calories, such as diet soda. But there is another meaning of this word. Diet can also refer to the food and drink a person consumes daily and the mental and physical circumstances connected to eating. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives two definitions of nutrition: "the sum of the processes by which an animal or plant takes in and utilizes food" "the act or process of nourishing or being nourished" While both are correct, the second definition is more inclusive and suggests that food involves many different things, including love, satisfaction, and enjoyment. Nutrition involves more than simply eating a “good” diet—it is about nourishment on every level. It involves relationships with family, friends, nature (the environment), our bodies, our community, and the world. Choices about nourishment are very much linked to other human beings and other life forms on this planet, so healthy (and unhealthy) decisions have great impact. lose weight in a month.

Answer 3

If calories consumed = calories burned, you will remain the same weight. If you have a deficit of 3500 calories, you will lose 1lb. A man on average needs about 2500 calories a day to stay the same weight, so 200 calories a day would give a deficit of 2300 calories a day. Over two weeks, that's 32200 calories, so dividing this by 3500 gives an estimated loss of 9.2lbs.

Same formula for women, but they only need 2000 calories a day to maintain the same weight.

Answer 4

That's an odd question to ask for a teen project.

How much your "cousin" would lose depends on how much she weighs and what calories she presently needs to maintain that weight. A rough multiplier is 12X current weight.

Take that number, subtract 200, multiply by 14 and divide by 3500. That's the answer.

We do weight loss projections at the Kimkins website.

Answer 5

The sad, and dangerous thing about this weight-losing obscession among so many people is that while you are starving yourself to lose the pounds, you are simultaneously starving every one of your body organs that desperately need nutrition to function. Your heart, and brain, and even your joints etc, etc. can't make you feel THEIR hunger pangs, and the dangerous thing about this is that by the time you come to realise that you have damaged these vital body organs and parts, it might be too late for them to make a full recovery.
It's just now been on the news that some Spanish model has died from her self-imposed starvation. She was five feet eight inches, and weighed, I think it was slightly under 90 pounds. Her body organs simply could not tolerate this horrendous level of starvation.. Your "cousin" (or you) don't even want to find out how much weight you might lose. Matter of fact, on 200 calories a day, done suddenly, you would probably collapse quite soon.

Answer 6

The average amount of calories someone should eat in a day is 2000. So I would say that if one ate only 200 calories that is 10% of the average caloric intake one should be getting per day. 2000 times 14=28000. 200 times 14=2800. So if you weigh 150 I would guess you would lose 15 lbs. Just a guess. :)

Answer 7

That would depend on how many calories you are burning in those 2 weeks. But roughly 7 pounds. Average person burns 2000 calories a day..so you are burning roughly 1800 extra calories...3500 calories to a pound...1 pound every 2 days.

Of course with that low of a calorie intake your metabolism will slow down and your burn rate will drop.

Answer 8

It would be difficult to tell, because metabolism and exercise habits would be unknown. However, the person would be working significantly under (1300 calories at least) the generally accepted amount of calories a day. This would promote the use of reserves in the form of fat or atrophied muscle.

Answer 9

You don’t need to exercise for hours on end. Short, sharp sets of exercise will produce better results in the event you work hard. Get a missing rope, skip for two moments, do push ups for 60 seconds or so, skip for two minutes, rest for one minute. Then change the push approximately something else like sit ups as well as do the set again. Repeat it five times and it’s a simple, effective workout that will advance results than a long manage or swim.

Answer 10

You don’t need to exercise for hours on end. Short, sharp sets of exercise will produce better results when you work hard. Get a passing up rope, skip for two units, do push ups for 1 minute, skip for two minutes, rest for example minute. Then change the push around something else like sit ups and do the set again. Repeat it five times and it’s a rapid, effective workout that will recover results than a long manage or swim.

Answer 11

It would really depend on how many calories you are using throughout the day.
You would have to find out your basal metabolic rate and then add in any activities you do throughout the day.
find basal metabolic rate:
http://health.discovery.com/tools/calculators/basal/basal.html
then calories burned from activities:
http://www.caloriecontrol.org/exercalc.html

once you find all that out... for every 3,500 calories that you are burning and not eating back that's one pound.

if anyone actually did it they'd be a very ill person at the end of two weeks. they would lose a lot of body fluids, nutrients and muscle mass. then as soon as they began eating again they would gain all that weight plus more back.