Is it possible to lose 100 pounds in 10 months?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
billiejaime, how tall are you? She's already at 1200 calories. Tell me exactly how she can keep eating the same exact amount the whole time and losing at the same rate.
I'll wait.0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »You can sustain that level of loss for a while, but once you get closer to your goal weight, you'll likely have to make adjustments, as the calorie deficit to required to get that kind of loss will become more and more significant.
JD has yoda power. She's right, the closer you get to your goal weight the slower it will come off. 2.5lbs loss a week closer to your goal weight is unreasonable. So no, i don't think it's realistic. If you're 200-300lbs over weight then yeah it reasonable, but you're not in that situation. In other words, your weight loss will slow down over time.
I keep saying that my goal is:
1. 250 lbs to 150 lbs = 2.5 lbs per week
2. 150 lbs to 130 lbs = .5 lb per week
Is that not reasonable? That is a major slow down isn't it? Each phase will be 10 months for a total of 20 months. To lose 120 pounds...i would think that is reasonable. The last 10 months I can tinker with calories as I get closer to my ultimate goal of 130. That way I'll know exactly what it will take to keep me at that weight.
Why? If you can handle 2.5 lbs through 150 lbs, there's no reason why you can't handle 2 lbs through 130 lbs. Though 1.3 lbs per week seems more realistic as you approach your goal.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
billieljaime wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »billiejaime, how tall are you? She's already at 1200 calories. Tell me exactly how she can keep eating the same exact amount the whole time and losing at the same rate.
I'll wait.
I am 5'3''
There are many things she can do I already think 1200 is too low as it is. At 250 to lose 2.5 lbs per week with the amount of excersie she says she does she should be eating more and be able to lose 2.5 lbws a week.
Hmmmm... she's older than you, though. And if she's shorter? OP, how tall are you? That might be what she needs to eat to get the rate of loss she's shooting for. She can't get around the math.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »You can sustain that level of loss for a while, but once you get closer to your goal weight, you'll likely have to make adjustments, as the calorie deficit to required to get that kind of loss will become more and more significant.
JD has yoda power. She's right, the closer you get to your goal weight the slower it will come off. 2.5lbs loss a week closer to your goal weight is unreasonable. So no, i don't think it's realistic. If you're 200-300lbs over weight then yeah it reasonable, but you're not in that situation. In other words, your weight loss will slow down over time.
I keep saying that my goal is:
1. 250 lbs to 150 lbs = 2.5 lbs per week
2. 150 lbs to 130 lbs = .5 lb per week
Is that not reasonable? That is a major slow down isn't it? Each phase will be 10 months for a total of 20 months. To lose 120 pounds...i would think that is reasonable. The last 10 months I can tinker with calories as I get closer to my ultimate goal of 130. That way I'll know exactly what it will take to keep me at that weight.
Why? If you can handle 2.5 lbs through 150 lbs, there's no reason why you can't handle 2 lbs through 130 lbs. Though 1.3 lbs per week seems more realistic as you approach your goal.
No. She's eating 1200 calories NOW. There is no way she could create a deficit to lose weight at the rate of 2 pounds a week when she's at 130 pounds. Look at the data before you give bad advice.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
billieljaime wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »You can sustain that level of loss for a while, but once you get closer to your goal weight, you'll likely have to make adjustments, as the calorie deficit to required to get that kind of loss will become more and more significant.
JD has yoda power. She's right, the closer you get to your goal weight the slower it will come off. 2.5lbs loss a week closer to your goal weight is unreasonable. So no, i don't think it's realistic. If you're 200-300lbs over weight then yeah it reasonable, but you're not in that situation. In other words, your weight loss will slow down over time.
I keep saying that my goal is:
1. 250 lbs to 150 lbs = 2.5 lbs per week
2. 150 lbs to 130 lbs = .5 lb per week
Is that not reasonable? That is a major slow down isn't it? Each phase will be 10 months for a total of 20 months. To lose 120 pounds...i would think that is reasonable. The last 10 months I can tinker with calories as I get closer to my ultimate goal of 130. That way I'll know exactly what it will take to keep me at that weight.
Why? If you can handle 2.5 lbs through 150 lbs, there's no reason why you can't handle 2 lbs through 130 lbs. Though 1.3 lbs per week seems more realistic as you approach your goal.
No. She's eating 1200 calories NOW. There is no way she could create a deficit to lose weight at the rate of 2 pounds a week when she's at 130 pounds. Look at the data before you give bad advice.
ok IF you READ my advice BEFORE you called it BAD i told her ONCE she got down to 150 she should adjust her rate of loss to .5 per week
How ever at her size NOW (250-150) yes her goal is do able
I think YOU should read ALL of peoples advice before YOU react
I wasn't posting in response to you? That was a reply to TimothyFish.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
billieljaime wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »billieljaime wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »You can sustain that level of loss for a while, but once you get closer to your goal weight, you'll likely have to make adjustments, as the calorie deficit to required to get that kind of loss will become more and more significant.
JD has yoda power. She's right, the closer you get to your goal weight the slower it will come off. 2.5lbs loss a week closer to your goal weight is unreasonable. So no, i don't think it's realistic. If you're 200-300lbs over weight then yeah it reasonable, but you're not in that situation. In other words, your weight loss will slow down over time.
I keep saying that my goal is:
1. 250 lbs to 150 lbs = 2.5 lbs per week
2. 150 lbs to 130 lbs = .5 lb per week
Is that not reasonable? That is a major slow down isn't it? Each phase will be 10 months for a total of 20 months. To lose 120 pounds...i would think that is reasonable. The last 10 months I can tinker with calories as I get closer to my ultimate goal of 130. That way I'll know exactly what it will take to keep me at that weight.
Why? If you can handle 2.5 lbs through 150 lbs, there's no reason why you can't handle 2 lbs through 130 lbs. Though 1.3 lbs per week seems more realistic as you approach your goal.
No. She's eating 1200 calories NOW. There is no way she could create a deficit to lose weight at the rate of 2 pounds a week when she's at 130 pounds. Look at the data before you give bad advice.
ok IF you READ my advice BEFORE you called it BAD i told her ONCE she got down to 150 she should adjust her rate of loss to .5 per week
How ever at her size NOW (250-150) yes her goal is do able
I think YOU should read ALL of peoples advice before YOU react
I wasn't posting in response to you? That was a reply to TimothyFish.
Well my bad then
Sorry
No worries... it's the weekend and still early. I know I need more caffeine!
0 -
Im 5'5" tall and 45 years old everyone. Sedentary job. I guess I still dont understand a couple of things. If the minimum can never be below 1200 calories for a female then when I'm 160 pounds you're saying I'm not going to be losing at 2.5 pounds per week? Like I said my workout routine will be 90 min a day by that point. So let's say I just did 2 pounds per week for the last two or three months wouldn't that be possible? There have got to be 160 women out there that are losing at least 2 pounds per week. Or is my metabolism going to slow much by that point that my body will go into starvation mode and i just won't lose the weight? But that just goes against everything I thought was true. Won't my metobolism be what every other 160 female would be (roughly of course)? Is now one at 160 pounds at 5'5" and 45 years old able to lose 2.5 pounds per week? Why would I be any different? .....very confused.0
-
I'm 5 foot 6 and 160 pounds. I have only ever lost 2 pounds a week when I was at 180. Because I am so close to my goal I only lose half a pound a week at best0
-
At 160 pounds, the amount of calories needed to maintain your weight (calculated for being sedentary) according to Scooby's Workshop is 1916. To lose 2 pounds a week at that point, you'd have to create 1,000 calorie daily deficit. WHICH IS NOT A SAFE INTAKE. You should only ever eat below 1200 calories.
You can make up the 200 calorie difference with exercise, but as your weight drops further, the numbers are still going to catch up to you. The level of calories required to maintain your weight keeps dropping the smaller you get.0 -
billieljaime wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »You can sustain that level of loss for a while, but once you get closer to your goal weight, you'll likely have to make adjustments, as the calorie deficit to required to get that kind of loss will become more and more significant.
JD has yoda power. She's right, the closer you get to your goal weight the slower it will come off. 2.5lbs loss a week closer to your goal weight is unreasonable. So no, i don't think it's realistic. If you're 200-300lbs over weight then yeah it reasonable, but you're not in that situation. In other words, your weight loss will slow down over time.
I keep saying that my goal is:
1. 250 lbs to 150 lbs = 2.5 lbs per week
2. 150 lbs to 130 lbs = .5 lb per week
Is that not reasonable? That is a major slow down isn't it? Each phase will be 10 months for a total of 20 months. To lose 120 pounds...i would think that is reasonable. The last 10 months I can tinker with calories as I get closer to my ultimate goal of 130. That way I'll know exactly what it will take to keep me at that weight.
Why? If you can handle 2.5 lbs through 150 lbs, there's no reason why you can't handle 2 lbs through 130 lbs. Though 1.3 lbs per week seems more realistic as you approach your goal.
No. She's eating 1200 calories NOW. There is no way she could create a deficit to lose weight at the rate of 2 pounds a week when she's at 130 pounds. Look at the data before you give bad advice.
ok IF you READ my advice BEFORE you called it BAD i told her ONCE she got down to 150 she should adjust her rate of loss to .5 per week
How ever at her size NOW (250-150) yes her goal is do able
I think YOU should read ALL of peoples advice before YOU react, I in no way said she should keep going with a 2 lb loss, I was strictly talking about the initial 100 lb loss
And I really think you should stop shouting, but somehow I don't think that's gonna happen, either...0 -
ETA: for the general audience. that TDEE - 20% that's thrown around is simply just wrong. My TDEE is 2,500. 2500 - .20 = 2499.8, makes no sense. it should be TDEE*.80. 2500 * .80 = 2000. But I don't agree with this approach either, it's a cookie cutter method. Deficit can range from 30-10% defending on your body fat%.Nony_Mouse wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »You can sustain that level of loss for a while, but once you get closer to your goal weight, you'll likely have to make adjustments, as the calorie deficit to required to get that kind of loss will become more and more significant.
JD has yoda power. She's right, the closer you get to your goal weight the slower it will come off. 2.5lbs loss a week closer to your goal weight is unreasonable. So no, i don't think it's realistic. If you're 200-300lbs over weight then yeah it reasonable, but you're not in that situation. In other words, your weight loss will slow down over time.
I keep saying that my goal is:
1. 250 lbs to 150 lbs = 2.5 lbs per week
2. 150 lbs to 130 lbs = .5 lb per week
Is that not reasonable? That is a major slow down isn't it? Each phase will be 10 months for a total of 20 months. To lose 120 pounds...i would think that is reasonable. The last 10 months I can tinker with calories as I get closer to my ultimate goal of 130. That way I'll know exactly what it will take to keep me at that weight.
Number 2 is reasonable, number 1 isn't, for all the reasons people have pointed out to you. Two and a half pounds a week is pretty aggressive for the lower end on your first stage, and I actually doubt you'd be able to do it and still net 1200 cals a day.
Haha I'm not sure anyone sees "TDEE - 20%" and thinks it's actually TDEE - 0.2. It means TDEE - 0.2*TDEE...which, yes, is the same as TDEE*0.8.
0 -
I started at 311 lb and it took me 15 months to lose 100 lb. Your goal is doable, but might be a little aggressive. If you find that your energy is low or you are hungry all of the time, you might want to change your goal a little so you are losing less per month.
Break up your goal into smaller increments and re-evaluate each time you reach one of those mini goals. Mine were: 10% of body weight, 50 lb., 1/2 of the amount I want to lose, 100 lb. gone, Onederland, BMI out of the obese range, final goal. I have reached the first four and am 4/10ths of a pound away from Onederland.0 -
I know some of you guys think an agreesive plan puts me at higher risk of falling off the wagon but I can tell you now that's just not going to happen. As I've told other people on this forum "you'll lose the weight when you finally say to yourself that's enough and you'll just do it". We'll I'm 45 years old and I'm at that point. There's no falling off the wagon or gaining it back. I've never been more determined in my life. In my phase two part of my plan I'm taking that last 10 months really slow to establish a workout routine and an eating pattern that I can stick with for the rest of my life. Exercise 30 min in the morning and 30 min at night. Eating healthy food choices. Eating the appropriate size food portions. Getting enough sleep. This is a whole lifestyle change for me. I've never been one to eat sweets or chips or things like that so I'm not tempted by donuts or cookies or things like that. My problem was portion control. I ate healthy foods but I just went with too large of portions. No more 16 or 24 oz steaks in my future. No more 18 pieces of Buffalo Wild Wings. A 6oz steak tastes just as good.
I've always been really good about eating veggies and fish. I've upper my portions on broccoli and things like that to help me feel full and they're a lot less calories. I'm going to get down to 130 pounds...wait and see. I'm gonna try and do it in 20 months maybe it will take longer I don't know but it won't be because I stopped or fell off the wagon. I am going to be 130 pounds and I won't stop EVER until I am there. There is no going back. The size 24 pants have been burned. The size 22 pants are looking ready for the trash heap. I'm already into 18s. I'm already sizing up my teenage daughters size 7 pants. I'm gonna get there. You guys just wait and see. 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I know some of you guys think an agreesive plan puts me at higher risk of falling off the wagon but I can tell you now that's just not going to happen. As I've told other people on this forum "you'll lose the weight when you finally say to yourself that's enough and you'll just do it". We'll I'm 45 years old and I'm at that point. There's no falling off the wagon or gaining it back. I've never been more determined in my life. In my phase two part of my plan I'm taking that last 10 months really slow to establish a workout routine and an eating pattern that I can stick with for the rest of my life. Exercise 30 min in the morning and 30 min at night. Eating healthy food choices. Eating the appropriate size food portions. Getting enough sleep. This is a whole lifestyle change for me. I've never been one to eat sweets or chips or things like that so I'm not tempted by donuts or cookies or things like that. My problem was portion control. I ate healthy foods but I just went with too large of portions. No more 16 or 24 oz steaks in my future. No more 18 pieces of Buffalo Wild Wings. A 6oz steak tastes just as good. I've always been really good about eating veggies and fish. I've upper my portions on broccoli and things like that to help me feel full and they're a lot less calories. I'm going to get down to 130 pounds...wait and see. I'm gonna try and do it in 20 months maybe it will take longer I don't know but it won't be because I stopped or fell off the wagon. I am going to be 130 pounds and I won't stop EVER until I am there. There is no going back. The size 24 pants have been burned. The size 22 pants are looking ready for the trash heap. I'm already into 18s. I'm already sizing up my teenage daughters size 7 pants. I'm gonna get there. You guys just wait and see.
Do it your way ...you are the only one in control
There's plenty of advice on this thread ...some good, some bad ..use your intelligence to work out what's worthwhile
Just be willing to adapt your goals to empirical evidence from your journey
0 -
Just curious... why not try just losing weight reasonably without a time goal? Will you be horribly disappointed in 10 months if you "only" lose 50 pounds? You will still be 50 pounds lighter, and feel loads better. And the alternative is to decide it is not possible and give up, in which case in 10 months you will be exactly the same as now or possibly worse.0
-
To lose 2.5 lbs a week at 160 pounds, you'll need to eat about 800 calories per day, assuming you exercise alot. See the problem?0
-
I eat about half my calories back so by the time I'm up to a 90 min workout routine my NET calories would still be around 1200. This week I am doing 1200. I've been dieting for 8 weeks now and I was rotating every two weeks between the 1200 and 1400. Just to mix it up to where I'm not always at 1200. Keep my body guesaing.0
-
Go for it, possible but only time will tell if you have the motivation to make it work. Its easier in the beginning, but the unknown is you. What bemuses me more is why you set yourself such a target, lots of people sabitage thesmelves this way, so its importnat you get the balance right.0
-
sheldonklein wrote: »To lose 2.5 lbs a week at 160 pounds, you'll need to eat about 800 calories per day, assuming you exercise alot. See the problem?
She'll see what happens when she gets there.
OP, your burns are going to decrease as your weight goes down and your fitness level increases unless you keep increasing the intensity and length of your workouts far beyond what you plan.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I lose a average 2.5 pound a week. Down 37 lbs in 100 days. I am eating lots and exercising. I need to lose a total of 118lbs, would like to have that gone by May 2016. So yes it is doable, but if you don't reach that goal, don't give up, the important thing is to stay focused and positive.0
-
It's a bit aggressive, but not overly so. Not impossible, but not super easy, though. I find it hard to keep that pace up for more than 6 or 8 weeks.
My wild-assed guess is that maybe a quarter the folks out there could do it if they tried.
0 -
I can only speak for myself but over the years, I'd lost weigh but always with a fixed goal in mind (ie; party, etc.). I'd lose the weight and find it hard to maintain once I'd reached my goal. This time, I started in January of 2014 hoping to lose about 60 pounds. When I've done this in the past, I'd always hoped to lose a certain amount each week but it didn't always work out that way. This time, once I'd reached a day I had hoped to be a certain weight and I wasn't, instead of freaking out, I reminded myself that this is about consistency and permanence. If it takes me longer, so what? I'm doing it right this time. No special occasion to get thin for, only me. I'm still not at my goal but time has passed without getting to my perfect weight, more time than I'd planned but I'm down 58 pounds. This thing is open ended and doesn't have an end date. Instead of reaching my goal with fireworks and excitement, I plan on reaching it quietly and serenely with a smile and relief.
Sorry to be so long winded but my point is that it's great to have a fixed goal but in my case, if I'd taken that fixed goal to heart I'd have given up and not continued on. Goals are great but goals are merely guidelines and if we aren't flexible with them, then we set ourselves up for failure. Just my 2 cents.
I just want to add that I'm also 5'5" and I'm going to be 54 in 9 days. SW 193, CW 1350
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions