Is my weight loss goal realistic?

I wanted to post this because I have seen dozens of discussions going on about eating too few calories, and I myself have been taunted for my 1400 -1500 calorie intake.

There is absolutely no data showing any significant issues with VLCD plans. People with a BMI over 30 are sometimes put on VLCD plans by their doctor.

That said, there is one thing you need to be aware of. You still need to hit your macros. That's right, you still need the same amount of nutrients to maintain your body.

I try to get as close as possible to all of my macros. I may be lacking here or there, but generally I do well at getting close.

I don't feel like crap...I have lost 2.4lbs a week consistently with no plateau.

800 calories is a little low. You need to at least get the right amount of carbs, fats, protein, and fiber. You don't need to be depriving your body of essential nutrients.

However, a low calorie diet is just fine for some people. It isn't a bad choice for everybody.

A goal weight of 140 at your height is perfectly fine. So is losing 18 lbs in about six months. However, if you weigh 158 lbs, there is no reason for you to reach this goal through a VLCD. VLCD should only be done among severely fat individuals under strict medical supervision - not someone whose already in a healthy weight range but wants to lose under 20 lbs.

Punch in your numbers into a TDEE calculator such as this:
http://www.weightrainer.net/losscalc.html

*For weekly fat loss, enter 0.75 lbs.

Use a food scale, weigh literally everything you eat and drink and eat the number given for a at least a month.

eating little to no calories and over exercising is very close to anorexia, my friend whom i have known for a while was that way, only eating 400-800 calories per day but working out enough to lose 1,200 calories... thus meaning your actually depriving your body of nutrition. her nutritionist and my medical training states that doing this does not make you lose weight, in actuality your body will eat your own muscle tissue before it consumes the fat it tries to store for energy... your making yourself highly unhealthy.... if you want to lose your few pounds, eat healthy amounts of food going no less then 1,400 calories per day... otherwise your damaging your body...

Also be aware that every lowish carb program out there, Paleo, Primal, Atkins, ect, all discuss NOT doing much cardio with their regular plan.

The Primal and Paleo sites both conceded to the fact people did want to do cardio, marathon training and such, and have modified instructions for when people do want to do the "chronic" or "killer" cardio, as they call it.
Not sure what Atkins calls it, but same principle. Though I thought their advice was to skip it during initialization.

Unless that cardio is in the bad fad named fat-burning zone, it's using decent amounts of carbs, that just can't be converted quick enough from protein at any decent effort.
Your first big loss of weight was greats amount of water weight, associated with less glucose stored.

That's a stressful situation for your body. Most of those on VLCD's aren't doing much exercise - they can't move much usually yet.

Just a thought to your exercise choice. The exercise isn't going to be the reason for the fat/weight loss anyway, that's about improving your body, which usually has weight gain as side effect.

I'm going for the vote that if this is kept up, you won't lose the 18 lbs by June.

Read the forums, there are so many that have done things so ineffectively that they stalled themselves for 6-12 months easily, or weight loss was a crawl.
I'm guessing you'll either lose the weight faster, but it'll be muscle mass, and then you'll gain back decent amounts attempting maintenance.
Or it'll slow to crawl and you won't make it.
Purposely slow weight loss because of smart knowledgeable decisions is one thing, but the body adapting and forcing it slow because of undereating is totally different.

Also be aware that every lowish carb program out there, Paleo, Primal, Atkins, ect, all discuss NOT doing much cardio with their regular plan.

The Primal and Paleo sites both conceded to the fact people did want to do cardio, marathon training and such, and have modified instructions for when people do want to do the "chronic" or "killer" cardio, as they call it.
Not sure what Atkins calls it, but same principle. Though I thought their advice was to skip it during initialization.

Unless that cardio is in the bad fad named fat-burning zone, it's using decent amounts of carbs, that just can't be converted quick enough from protein at any decent effort.
Your first big loss of weight was greats amount of water weight, associated with less glucose stored.

That's a stressful situation for your body. Most of those on VLCD's aren't doing much exercise - they can't move much usually yet.

The goal of most low carb diets is to convert to fat as the primary fuel source, not protein. Low carb, high fat, moderate protein. Marathon runners can operate just fine in a keto-adapted state. Paleo and Primal (at least) advise against chronic cardio because it's overly stressful on the body (and does result in the body going after muscle for fuel), not because the diet doesn't allow for it.

Low carb, low fat, high protein is pretty much only used by niche groups and only for a very small amount of time and for very specific purposes (ie - "the world's toughest diet"). Doing it over any long term is a recipe for nutritional disaster (see also - rabbit starvation).

To the OP - you're already at a healthy weight. Perhaps it would be good to shift your focus from "weight loss" to body composition? Get to maintenance intake and get into a good strength training program. Your weight may not change (or may go up, since you're going from a VLCD), but your clothes should definitely start fitting differently within a few weeks.

I wanted to post this because I have seen dozens of discussions going on about eating too few calories, and I myself have been taunted for my 1400 -1500 calorie intake.

There is absolutely no data showing any significant issues with VLCD plans. People with a BMI over 30 are sometimes put on VLCD plans by their doctor.

That said, there is one thing you need to be aware of. You still need to hit your macros. That's right, you still need the same amount of nutrients to maintain your body.

I try to get as close as possible to all of my macros. I may be lacking here or there, but generally I do well at getting close.

I don't feel like crap...I have lost 2.4lbs a week consistently with no plateau.

800 calories is a little low. You need to at least get the right amount of carbs, fats, protein, and fiber. You don't need to be depriving your body of essential nutrients.

However, a low calorie diet is just fine for some people. It isn't a bad choice for everybody.

I agree with you here. I try and hit my macro levels and I feel great and losing consistently. After reading hour and hours of posts, some things work for some people and some don't. Seems like no two people will lose the same. As long as you aren't doing something totally crazy and you can stay in the game long enough to figure out what works for you without quitting, things will work out.

I'm your height, as of today 137 lbs and I eat 1500 calories a day, sometimes more. You can eat more and lose weight eating low carb. Please eat more. It can be done. I started eating keto at the end of july and my starting weight was 165. So yea....

Marathon runners can operate just fine in a keto-adapted state.

No, they cannot. There isn't a single competitive endurance athlete out there who doesn't eat tons of carbs. When "low carb" is used in conjunction with high performance athletes, they are referring to "limiting" carbs to 40-50% of caloric intake. IE, on a 2000 calorie intake, you eat 250g of carbs.

That is several universes away from what is being peddled to the public as low carb diets.

Well, there is perhaps a truthful caveat to that.

Does that marathon runner have to actually finish the marathon, or merely running in it up to a point but no finish makes them a marathon runner?

Also, what if they walked it and tripled the cut-off time, does that still count? That I could see easily. Others pull out energy gel, our keto runner pulls out slim-jims. Snap!

Marathon runners can operate just fine in a keto-adapted state.

No, they cannot. There isn't a single competitive endurance athlete out there who doesn't eat tons of carbs. When "low carb" is used in conjunction with high performance athletes, they are referring to "limiting" carbs to 40-50% of caloric intake. IE, on a 2000 calorie intake, you eat 250g of carbs.

That is several universes away from what is being peddled to the public as low carb diets.

Well, there is perhaps a truthful caveat to that.

Does that marathon runner have to actually finish the marathon, or merely running in it up to a point but no finish makes them a marathon runner?

Also, what if they walked it and tripled the cut-off time, does that still count? That I could see easily. Others pull out energy gel, our keto runner pulls out slim-jims. Snap!

Yep. Show me an athlete who performs well without carbs, and I'll show you an athlete who performs better with carbs.

There was a study done (someone after me will post it, I am sure) that worked out that body fat can only contribute about 30 calories of fuel, per day per pound of excess fat.

So if you only have (say) 20 lbs of excess body fat, that means you can only get 600 calories from fat to fuel your body each day.

Any deficit greater than 600 calories will be forced to burn muscle, the opposite of what you want.

This is why our weight loss has to slow as we get closer to our goal.

I think you need to eat about 1600 per day, burn 300 per day, and let the deficit do the rest.

Good luck.

This is interesting.

There was a study done (someone after me will post it, I am sure) that worked out that body fat can only contribute about 30 calories of fuel, per day per pound of excess fat.

So if you only have (say) 20 lbs of excess body fat, that means you can only get 600 calories from fat to fuel your body each day.

Any deficit greater than 600 calories will be forced to burn muscle, the opposite of what you want.

This is why our weight loss has to slow as we get closer to our goal.

I think you need to eat about 1600 per day, burn 300 per day, and let the deficit do the rest.

Good luck.

This is interesting.

http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/

Happy reading

There was a study done (someone after me will post it, I am sure) that worked out that body fat can only contribute about 30 calories of fuel, per day per pound of excess fat.

So if you only have (say) 20 lbs of excess body fat, that means you can only get 600 calories from fat to fuel your body each day.

Any deficit greater than 600 calories will be forced to burn muscle, the opposite of what you want.

This is why our weight loss has to slow as we get closer to our goal.

I think you need to eat about 1600 per day, burn 300 per day, and let the deficit do the rest.

Good luck.

Well, it wasn't a study, it was a theory study looking at data from another study.

So there was no setup done of participants and such for this specific purpose, the took the existing data and played with it and came to conclusions.
But never had their own theories tested in a study.

The problem with the description you give is the fact fat is not the only fuel source through the day, brains uses carbs unless in keto, any exercise is going to use some ratio of fat and carbs, more carbs as intensity goes up.

Your meals provide carbs and fat that are used right then as energy source, ect.

It's an interesting theory that would be nice to actually have tested with a properly setup study.

Nothing like a diet study coming from the dept of physics and astronomy after all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted. The transition between these two dietary regions is developed and a criterion to distinguish the regions is defined. An exact mathematical solution for the decrease of the FFM is derived for the case where the fat mass (FM) is in its limited energy transfer mode. The solution shows a steady-state term which is in agreement with conventional ideas, a term indicating a slow decrease of much of the FFM moderated by the limited energy transferred from the fat store, and a final term showing an unprotected rapid decrease of the remaining part of the FFM. The average resting metabolic rate of subjects undergoing hypophagia is shown to decrease linearly as a function of the FFM with a slope of (249+/-25) kJ/kgd. This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups. The disagreement is explained in terms of individual metabolic properties as opposed to those of the larger population.

The problem with the description you give is the fact fat is not the only fuel source through the day, brains uses carbs unless in keto, any exercise is going to use some ratio of fat and carbs, more carbs as intensity goes up.

I agree that I would have liked to see a proper study, but it is still a pretty interesting guideline when you see only slightly overweight people with ridiculous deficits.

By the way - does it matter that fat is not the only fuel source when we are talking about being in deficit for the day? The whole point is to work out what source of fuel will be used AFTER food consumed that day is burned off.

Very true it bears out the truth that the less you have to lose, assuming that is fat of course, the less deficit you should have to not risk muscle mass. Actually, study only talked about LBM, not specifically muscle mass. So there's more to LBM.

So if the point of their theory was that fat can only supply so much energy in a day before it magically turns off (is that in 24 hrs, from sleep to sleep, from awake to awake, a weeks or months data averaged out to daily level?), you could have a deficit at that max, and then include more deficit based on the fact much of your energy source is non-fat through the day.

That ability to figure out what the source of fuel is after insulin drops and you get back to normal would be very interesting, I have seen the chest or back packs carrying the CO2 collectors with person wearing the nose/mouth mask to collect and analyze their air, so it's easier than the metabolic cart now.

I just mean their assertion can hardly be followed because you would have no idea how much fat is being used as energy source, and even then how much of it is dietary or adipose supplied.

It would give some limits though, and actually it's rather extreme when you do the math on some.

180 lb male at 10% BF would appear to be able to have a safe deficit of 560 cal a day.
According to the study data they used, moderate activity daily, so perhaps say 3000 TDEE, eat about 2500.

But run the numbers on your little lady at say 120 that wants to lose 5 more lbs, and is at 20% BF, and is only lightly active now.

http://www.weightrainer.net/losscalc.html

At least that doesn't go below 1200 either.