No one stepped in because it's not ridiculous. My wife is 5'5" and weighs 100 lbs. and I can assure you that she is neither underweight nor anorexic. She eats like a truck driver--at dinner we evenly split 3 pounds of meat without difficulty. She can also eat an entire 5 pound chicken. (Sorry, I like to brag about her) She was 105, and after eating VLC for a year (for health), dropped down to 100 and stayed there. It does depends on frame size, but barring an unusual disorder, as long as she (Fauve, that is) eats enough fat and protein she'll never be underweight. And if 105 happens to be underweight for her, she'll never achieve it anyway.

I happen to think that most of the goal weights here are set are too high, but I can understand wanting to set incremental goals for motivational purposes.

I am really confused at the responses I'm getting.
Might I point out you are 4'10 while fauve is 5'3? 95 pounds is not very underweight for you, for fauve it would be considerably underweight. Even you admit that at 95 pounds you would be skeletal - imagine how you would look if you were 5 inches taller.
You think it is a good idea to advice Fauve to obtain a BMI of 16?

Remember people, this is first and foremost about health not about "lets see how skinny I can get!"
I don't doubt I could obtain a similar BMI as well. Anyone can. You just don't eat. It's not hard at all. My low weight was 104 and I could have easily dropped under 100 pounds provided I did not make the effort to stop (I am 5'5).

Is it healthy, though? Will you look good or feel good? Definitely not.

Just so you know, if your wife is a grown woman who is indeed 100 pounds at 5'5 and healthy, she is most definitely an anatomical anomoly. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm just saying it's really, really rare to the point of being pointless to the discussion. Especially when we have established Fauve's high weight is 195, implying she is NOT a tiny girl by design.

The vast majority of women who are 5'5 in height would be infertile, sickly, underweight and likely starved or afflicted with some kind of wasting disease to weigh 100 lbs. Again, this is a BMI of 16.6. That is an anorexic weight.

Fauve is counting calories. She is not eating ad lib. Therefore, she has the control to make her body the weight it's going to be. When you restrict intake, your weight is limited only by how little you eat. While I think she should go for the weight she wants to be (if 125 was a comfortable weight for you - try for it!) she should not be advised to aim for an underweight size.

It is irresponsible and frankly it scares me that so many in this thread are encouraging such actions. THen again, considering the thread I'm in... really it doesnt.
Going back to lurking now.

e,

How did you opt for so many posts on each page, if you only have 7 pages? I have mine set to 30 posts per page... giving me a bit over 27 pages! Just curious? I thought I had my options set to the most posts per page I could get. Can I set it to show more than 30 posts per page?

Thank you all so very much for your concern.
I can assure you though that I will let my body dictate the best weight possible. I am NOT going to starve myself. I am eating about 1500 cals a day, 70% fat 30% protein, absolutely no carbs. I was eating basically the same way before Bear's post, except for the level of carbs (under 20 gms). I feel no hunger and I feel terrific for the moment, but if at some time that changes, I will reconsider. I am pretty good at listening to my body.
Thanks again, you are a terrific group.

When you go to the first page of the thread the top looks like this:

1/2/3/4/5/6/7/>/Last>> I think that is where "7+" pages came from.

Yes, this thread does seem to have an excess of pages.

This is the BEST advice! To hell with the scales... or "weight goals". The real goal should be to be healthy, and find your way there by listening to your body and trying to eat correctly for your body. Obsessions with numbers or time frames to get there are VERY unhealthy, IMHO!

Thanks... now I get it. I am currently on page 28 in my view (with 30 posts per page!)... this post is #818! This thread may become the longest on the entire forum!

Woo, I was saying that she SHOULD go for a more realistic goal of like 125, I don't think she should go for 95 pounds!!! I think I would be ok at that, and to me that is stretching it...but not for her.

I thought a BMI of like 18 or 19 was ok? Because 16 IS underweight.

Deano, if enthusiasm is a measure of the success of not eating carbs, then you make a very good case for it!
BTW I'm on page 55!

Sorry. Just a little pet peeve of mine... people focused on weight instead of health. Hopefully, even someone who is really obese will benefit so much from eating properly, that they will be able to lose slowly, and therefore not have to worry about their present weight.

I'll stop the enthusiasm now!

When I was in my late teens early twenties, I weighed between 104 and 112. I am 5'5" and I have a very tiny frame. Recently, I have weighed as much as 183. Right now, I am trying to get back down to at least 120. Unless you are large framed at 5'3", I don't see any reason to not try for 105.

Bear- Thank you for this thread, it's been most informative.

Rain

I have to object to this assumption. This is not necessarily an "unhealthy" weight for that height. I have a weightlifting friend, a woman in her 50's, who is 5'2", and fluctuates between 100-103#. She is certainly not unhealthy or underweight, and is actually looking to drop another few pounds of fat. IMO, a 5'3" woman could hit this range just fine.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/attachme...achmentid=11952

Bear -

this is definitely a problem for me then, as I am eating very high fat, and moderate protein. For me that means that I will have say 3-4 oz of meat at a meal but with a lot of added fat if the meat isn't fatty enough (like chicken etc). Breakfast is hard for me - I usually manage about 2 eggs with lots of butter but don't have an appetite at this time.

This is what I don't understand - how can I eat high protein and high fat? It is one or the other and I really can't eat that much protein or I don't feel great. A pound of red meat, unless I suppose it is ridiculously fatty is too much protein for me.

I too don't think too much calcium is good - I actually think magnesium is more important, but the two minerals do need to be balanced. I don't have issues with a low calcium diet - just a low magnesium one.

Currently this thread has 825 posts and 25,847 views.

Just browsing around the Daily Low-Carb Support sub-forum, I found three threads under a couple other "eating plan" sub-forums that have longer/more read threads.

Under the Semi Low-Carb Plans sub-forum there are two such threads:

GI Diet support here! thread
1,935 posts
41,312 views

Anyone do the Warrior Diet? thread
382 posts
41,611 views

And under the South Beach Diet sub-forum there is one thread, that for obvious reasons, has many posts/views:

South Beach Babes! thread
3,963 posts
109,459 views

Surely every male who has seen the title of that thread has "viewed" it... and undoubtedly were disappointed in not finding lots of pics!

Now, Bear, if only you'd named this thread Naked Cavewomen Only Eat Meat!... who knows how many views it would have by now!