Is my goal realistic?

desnyder210

So today I weighed in at 177.6. I've lost 4.4 lbs since I started 25 days ago. Is that a decent amount to lose in that period of time?

Also, We are going on vacation this February and I'd like to be 145 by then. Is this goal realistic? I'd like to look good in a swimsuit for the trip.

alicebhsia

i'd think you could possibly look good in a swimsuit at the weight you are. i think looking good in a swimsuit has more to do with muscle fitness than overall fat. i guess how the fat is distributed matters too, but still. you can be plump and still look sexy/pretty in a swimsuit. in any case your goal does sound like it will take some strict calorie intake watching and lots of exercise but is possible. i've lost twenty pounds in a month before, but my calories were very low and i worked out a lot and pretty intensely.

Nony_Mouse

Yep, at your weight, 1 lb a week is a good rate of loss. You're slightly above that, but people often see a bigger loss initially due to water weight loss.

145 by Feb is probably over ambitious. Just concentrate on eating healthily at a sensible deficit (500 cals a day). I highly recommend doing some form of resistance training, even bodyweight, as it will help you to retain more muscle mass as you lose.

sgtx81

I've heard intermittent fasting helps cut weight faster though I don't know from experience. I'm not sure how it could make much difference without changing your caloric intake, but maybe it's worth a try.

Nony_Mouse

sgtx81 wrote: »

I've heard intermittent fasting helps cut weight faster though I don't know from experience. I'm not sure how it could make much difference without changing your caloric intake, but maybe it's worth a try.

No, it doesn't. It's just another method of creating a calorie deficit. At the same calorie intake, no method is superior over any other in terms of weight loss.

cbelc2

How tall are you?

desnyder210

I'm a shortie about 5'1"

fancynancysavvy

i'm 4'11 and 120 lbs. i want to be 107 lbs in 9 weeks. is this goal realistic?

Nony_Mouse

fancynancysavvy wrote: »

i'm 4'11 and 120 lbs. i want to be 107 lbs in 9 weeks. is this goal realistic?

No.

vonmarks

Most goals are realistic if you try hard enough. I've heard 2 lbs lost a week is safe so you could probably make it with some real dedication. I can drop a legit 5 in a week but only do it when I'm feeling down. All the hard work burns a lot of trouble away. I will gas myself out including water weight and weigh in. Then brutalize myself with workouts and 1500 cals a day and weigh in a week later full and watered up and still be five down. I typically eat 2500 cals a day. I get it's a little different for guys. If you want some ideas on grub I would say head over to Reddit and search for 1200isplenty. Then find a good program to burn some cals. I use Insanity and do two 60 minute sets and end my day with an indoor bike for an hour. All in all I estimate it burns at least 1200-1500 for me. Adjustable dumbbells are good and there are some full body programs all over the internet for those. I use my to build a little muscle from time to time and allegedly weights burn more but I couldn't tell the difference. Hope you make it.

dwilliamca

How many pounds per week did you choose when you set your profile? Looks like you are losing about a pound and a half a week, but that will probably slow down some as you reach your goal. Two pounds a week requires a 1000 calorie per day deficit, which is challenging, but still safe. I previously lost 30 lbs. in 3 1/2 months so it is possible, and currently am losing at that same rate. Good luck.

rickiimarieee

sgtx81 wrote: »

I've heard intermittent fasting helps cut weight faster though I don't know from experience. I'm not sure how it could make much difference without changing your caloric intake, but maybe it's worth a try.

No fasting just helps you keep within your calorie budget easier by only having a certain period of time to intake calories. Calorie deficit=weight loss

bribucks

If you’re only 5’1” then chances are, you aren’t given too many calories to begin with. Trying to lose 2 lbs/week (1000cal deficit per day, to reach 145 by February) is probably not realistic for you then. Unfortunately us shorties usually have to opt for a slower rate of loss because we don’t get to eat that many calories, plain and simple.

How many calories has MFP “assigned” you and how many are you eating?

dembly

sgtx81 wrote: »

I've heard intermittent fasting helps cut weight faster though I don't know from experience. I'm not sure how it could make much difference without changing your caloric intake, but maybe it's worth a try.

You mean the 5:2? Yes - that is about resetting hormones and ensuring your body doesnt get into a "starvation mode" - that is, it may be more sustainable and with less plateaus (for some people). It works well for my mother, I am more of the "all or nothing" type.. so it is better for me to avoid chips, not have them tomorrow instead of today.. so it might work for people!

TeaBea

sgtx81 wrote: »

I've heard intermittent fasting helps cut weight faster though I don't know from experience. I'm not sure how it could make much difference without changing your caloric intake, but maybe it's worth a try.

Not true.

Faster weight loss = larger calorie deficit period . Intermittent fasting is meal timing......with the usual deficit.

dembly wrote: »

sgtx81 wrote: »

I've heard intermittent fasting helps cut weight faster though I don't know from experience. I'm not sure how it could make much difference without changing your caloric intake, but maybe it's worth a try.

You mean the 5:2? Yes - that is about resetting hormones and ensuring your body doesnt get into a "starvation mode" - that is, it may be more sustainable and with less plateaus (for some people). It works well for my mother, I am more of the "all or nothing" type.. so it is better for me to avoid chips, not have them tomorrow instead of today.. so it might work for people!

Again - no. 5:2 is not about resetting hormones. The advertising may "say" differently, but there's no evidence, just anecdotal examples by people selling something. Starvation mode doesn't work this way.

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/49-intermittent-fasting

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/100058-5-2-fasting

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/761810/the-starvation-mode-myth-again/p1

callsitlikeiseeit

desnyder210 wrote: »

So today I weighed in at 177.6. I've lost 4.4 lbs since I started 25 days ago. Is that a decent amount to lose in that period of time?

Also, We are going on vacation this February and I'd like to be 145 by then. Is this goal realistic? I'd like to look good in a swimsuit for the trip.

you might be able to buy a suit one size smaller and be ok. i wouldnt go down any more than that.

besides, swimsuits by nature are pretty forgiving between sizes. if it were me, id buy something in my current size. if by some chance it fits HORRIBLY closer to your vacation, buy another one.

rickiimarieee

There is no such thing as starvation mode.

leggup

4.4 lbs lost in (about) 4 weeks. Do the math. That's 1.1 lb/week lost. It is 15 weeks until Feb 1. That means, if you maintain the exact loss rate you have right now, you can lose an additional 16.5 lbs by Feb 1, putting you at 161.1 lbs. However, weight loss is not consistent week-to-week. Maybe some weeks you lose a little more, some a little less. I think it's reasonable to think you could be 157-165 lbs by your trip. I'd assume higher because most people gain the most weight between Oct-Dec.

At your current rate (let's round down to 1 lb/week to account for it slowing as you get closer to your goal), you could lose 32.6 lbs in 32.6 weeks, which is June 4, 2018.

shaunshaikh

Man, this thread got filled with a lot of WOO's in a short period of time. @leggup has the right answer, and that rate of loss is appropriate.

AnnPT77

Make a distinction between whether a weight loss goal is realistic, vs. whether it's healthy or sensible.

For most people, it's sensible and likely to be healthy to lose no more than about 1% of your body weight weekly (less as you get within 25 pounds or so from goal).

Faster loss is risky, i.e. risks good health and good appearance (because hair loss, muscle loss, sallow complexion, listless and fatigued manner rather than energetic vivacity - those things don't make a person attractive).

Almost any weight loss goal can be realistic: Y'know, pretty much stop eating, force yourself to exercise as hard as you can manage in every spare moment . . . weight will drop right off, assuming you can keep it up. Won't be cute, though.

I'm assuming you wanted the healthy answer, though, so shoot for a max of 1% weekly, and slower is fine if it's more sustainable. Worked for me while losing 1/3 of my body weight in less than a year.

I don't mean to be harsh: Granny just wants you to stay strong and healthy!

tracymegan

This is why there are NSV...it doesn't always show on a scale. I saw a recent photo of someone who was the exact same weight but the difference in body composition was incredible. One they were flabby and looked "fluffy", the other they were ripped and muscular. Remember the scale is just a number.

desnyder210

brianneangell08 wrote: »

If you’re only 5’1” then chances are, you aren’t given too many calories to begin with. Trying to lose 2 lbs/week (1000cal deficit per day, to reach 145 by February) is probably not realistic for you then. Unfortunately us shorties usually have to opt for a slower rate of loss because we don’t get to eat that many calories, plain and simple.

How many calories has MFP “assigned” you and how many are you eating?

I get 1,510 a day to eat. I usually have 0-200 calories leftover at the end of the day. Which is usually fine for me and I'm not starving at any point in the day.

desnyder210

tracymegan wrote: »

This is why there are NSV...it doesn't always show on a scale. I saw a recent photo of someone who was the exact same weight but the difference in body composition was incredible. One they were flabby and looked "fluffy", the other they were ripped and muscular. Remember the scale is just a number.

You are right, it is just a number.

desnyder210

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Make a distinction between whether a weight loss goal is realistic, vs. whether it's healthy or sensible.

For most people, it's sensible and likely to be healthy to lose no more than about 1% of your body weight weekly (less as you get within 25 pounds or so from goal).

Faster loss is risky, i.e. risks good health and good appearance (because hair loss, muscle loss, sallow complexion, listless and fatigued manner rather than energetic vivacity - those things don't make a person attractive).

Almost any weight loss goal can be realistic: Y'know, pretty much stop eating, force yourself to exercise as hard as you can manage in every spare moment . . . weight will drop right off, assuming you can keep it up. Won't be cute, though.

I'm assuming you wanted the healthy answer, though, so shoot for a max of 1% weekly, and slower is fine if it's more sustainable. Worked for me while losing 1/3 of my body weight in less than a year.

I don't mean to be harsh: Granny just wants you to stay strong and healthy!

Thanks for looking out for me