Quick weight loss
elfb33
Posts: 5 Member
Hi!
I am trying to lose 10lbs in 3 weeks.
I currently weigh 123 and my BFP is around 24.5%. My main goal is fat loss. I want to get my BFP down to 19-21%. I am 5"4'. I eat healthy food almost all the time (with a few treats here and there) and my carbs are around 40% of my diet while my protein and fat make up about 30% each. I have karate 3x a week for an hour and I go running/jump on the trampoline on the remaining days. I also do strength training 3-5 days of the week.
My net calorie average is 754 and my total average is 1245.
If I continue on my current weight loss path do you think I'll reach my goal?
Thanks.
I am trying to lose 10lbs in 3 weeks.
I currently weigh 123 and my BFP is around 24.5%. My main goal is fat loss. I want to get my BFP down to 19-21%. I am 5"4'. I eat healthy food almost all the time (with a few treats here and there) and my carbs are around 40% of my diet while my protein and fat make up about 30% each. I have karate 3x a week for an hour and I go running/jump on the trampoline on the remaining days. I also do strength training 3-5 days of the week.
My net calorie average is 754 and my total average is 1245.
If I continue on my current weight loss path do you think I'll reach my goal?
Thanks.
-1
Replies
-
10lb in 3 weeks is unreasonable. Those who have a lot to lose may see 2lb a week, but at the weight you are already at, .5lb/week is a more reasonable goal. Doing all of that exercise, you may actually need to increase your calories if you start to feel tired, or weak.1
-
Okay, so should I get my net calories to around 1000-1200?
0 -
Only someone with a lot to lose can shed 10lbs that quickly. You should be eating 1200.0
-
If you lose that fast I would say not a lot of it would be fat.3
-
I do eat 1200 - but not my net cals. Should my net be 1200?MissusMoon wrote: »Only someone with a lot to lose can shed 10lbs that quickly. You should be eating 1200.
0 -
I do eat 1200 - but not my net cals. Should my net be 1200?MissusMoon wrote: »Only someone with a lot to lose can shed 10lbs that quickly. You should be eating 1200.
Yes, if not more. Losing as quickly as you want to will lead to more muscle loss than fat. Is there a reason for the deadline?0 -
I do eat 1200 - but not my net cals. Should my net be 1200?MissusMoon wrote: »Only someone with a lot to lose can shed 10lbs that quickly. You should be eating 1200.
Yes, if not more. Losing as quickly as you want to will lead to more muscle loss than fat. Is there a reason for the deadline?
Not really but it's when I'll be going swimming and spending more time in the hot weather so if like to be in better shape.
0 -
LOL3
-
Maybe there is a need for clarity on the definition of the word "net." If you have a net calories count of 1200 you'd actually be gaining weight. When a business talks about their net profit they're referring to the gross income (sales, etc) - Expenses... The same point is made here. Your net calories would be your gross calories (total caloric consumption) less your calories burned. To lose weight you actually need to be in a net caloric deficit. So if you're trying to lose a lb a week at 1,200 calories you daily net calories would need to be -500. So you would need 1700 = your bmr + calories lost from exercise.0
-
Isn't net calories = total - calories burned from exercise?rldeclercq4 wrote: »Maybe there is a need for clarity on the definition of the word "net." If you have a net calories count of 1200 you'd actually be gaining weight. When a business talks about their net profit they're referring to the gross income (sales, etc) - Expenses... The same point is made here. Your net calories would be your gross calories (total caloric consumptio) less your calories burned. To lose weight you actually need to be in a new caloric deficit. So if you're trying to lose a lb a week at 1,200 calories you daily net calories would need to be -500. So you would need 1700 = your bmr + calories lost from exercise.
1 -
Isn't net calories = total - calories burned from exercise?rldeclercq4 wrote: »Maybe there is a need for clarity on the definition of the word "net." If you have a net calories count of 1200 you'd actually be gaining weight. When a business talks about their net profit they're referring to the gross income (sales, etc) - Expenses... The same point is made here. Your net calories would be your gross calories (total caloric consumptio) less your calories burned. To lose weight you actually need to be in a new caloric deficit. So if you're trying to lose a lb a week at 1,200 calories you daily net calories would need to be -500. So you would need 1700 = your bmr + calories lost from exercise.
Consider your bmr too. That's the calorie burn you body goes through to simply keep you alive. You mentioned about your net calories is over 700, which would mean you're gaining over a pound a week instead of losing.
0 -
10 pounds is about 40 000 kcal. You got 21 days. Thats a deficit a grown man can live on.0
-
rldeclercq4 wrote: »
Isn't net calories = total - calories burned from exercise?rldeclercq4 wrote: »Maybe there is a need for clarity on the definition of the word "net." If you have a net calories count of 1200 you'd actually be gaining weight. When a business talks about their net profit they're referring to the gross income (sales, etc) - Expenses... The same point is made here. Your net calories would be your gross calories (total caloric consumptio) less your calories burned. To lose weight you actually need to be in a new caloric deficit. So if you're trying to lose a lb a week at 1,200 calories you daily net calories would need to be -500. So you would need 1700 = your bmr + calories lost from exercise.
Consider your bmr too. That's the calorie burn you body goes through to simply keep you alive. You mentioned about your net calories is over 700, which would mean you're gaining over a pound a week instead of losing.
What? I think you are confused and confusing the OP. She is talking about her net calories left after total consumption minus exercise. Not a calorie surplus of 700 cals.
3 -
OP your goal is unrealistic. You are already at a healthy weight, so you would probably benefit more from recomposition than losing another 10 lbs. Recomp is essentially eating at maintenance calories while focusing on strength training. You might not see the results you want in 3 weeks but by the end of the summer you might.
At the most you should be aiming for 0.5 lb/week loss, or a 250 cal deficit from your maintenance level.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »rldeclercq4 wrote: »
Isn't net calories = total - calories burned from exercise?rldeclercq4 wrote: »Maybe there is a need for clarity on the definition of the word "net." If you have a net calories count of 1200 you'd actually be gaining weight. When a business talks about their net profit they're referring to the gross income (sales, etc) - Expenses... The same point is made here. Your net calories would be your gross calories (total caloric consumptio) less your calories burned. To lose weight you actually need to be in a new caloric deficit. So if you're trying to lose a lb a week at 1,200 calories you daily net calories would need to be -500. So you would need 1700 = your bmr + calories lost from exercise.
Consider your bmr too. That's the calorie burn you body goes through to simply keep you alive. You mentioned about your net calories is over 700, which would mean you're gaining over a pound a week instead of losing.
What? I think you are confused and confusing the OP. She is talking about her net calories left after total consumption minus exercise. Not a calorie surplus of 700 cals.
Net, per dictionary.com: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross ): net earnings.
Would you not count your TDEE as a part of that equation?
I may have confused the OP but at the end of the day were just talking about math and she shouldn't think she can have 700 net cals and still lose. Perhaps it's just my interpretation of what needs to be taken into consideration.0 -
even if her net calories were 700 she would not be gaining. say she eats 1200 calories and she burns 500 that gives her a net of 700 calories. but if she were to eat 1700 and burn 500 she would have a net of 1200 calories which is what she should be aiming for. anything less than 1200 net is not advised except for under the care of a dr(you may get away with it for a short time if you have a LOT to lose). MFP has a caloric deficit built in,so anything you burn through exercise is an extra deficit,which is why they advise you to eat all those calories back(you would still be in a deficit),but most just eat back 25-75% of those calories back,because calories burned are always inflated on MFP. to gain weight you have to eat over your maintenance calories. to stay the same weight you eat at your maintenance level.0
-
rldeclercq4 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »rldeclercq4 wrote: »
Isn't net calories = total - calories burned from exercise?rldeclercq4 wrote: »Maybe there is a need for clarity on the definition of the word "net." If you have a net calories count of 1200 you'd actually be gaining weight. When a business talks about their net profit they're referring to the gross income (sales, etc) - Expenses... The same point is made here. Your net calories would be your gross calories (total caloric consumptio) less your calories burned. To lose weight you actually need to be in a new caloric deficit. So if you're trying to lose a lb a week at 1,200 calories you daily net calories would need to be -500. So you would need 1700 = your bmr + calories lost from exercise.
Consider your bmr too. That's the calorie burn you body goes through to simply keep you alive. You mentioned about your net calories is over 700, which would mean you're gaining over a pound a week instead of losing.
What? I think you are confused and confusing the OP. She is talking about her net calories left after total consumption minus exercise. Not a calorie surplus of 700 cals.
Net, per dictionary.com: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross ): net earnings.
Would you not count your TDEE as a part of that equation?
I may have confused the OP but at the end of the day were just talking about math and she shouldn't think she can have 700 net cals and still lose. Perhaps it's just my interpretation of what needs to be taken into consideration.
MFP goals are based off of calculation of NEAT, Which includes your BMR plus any non exercise activity that you do.
If MFP says I need to eat 1500 cals to lose 1 lb/week, that is not including any exercise. If I eat 1500 cals but exercise, burning an additional 300 cals through that, my net cals are 1200. I should be consuming 1800 so that my net cals stay at the 1500 cal goal MFP provides in order to lose 1 lb per week.
When OP said her net cals were 700 she means her net calorie consumption is 700, FAR below her TDEE and below her 1200 calorie goal that MFP set for her.
You are using dictionary definitions and the paycheck example correctly but not understanding how MFP goals are set and the common terminology used on this site.
1 -
rldeclercq4 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »rldeclercq4 wrote: »
Isn't net calories = total - calories burned from exercise?rldeclercq4 wrote: »Maybe there is a need for clarity on the definition of the word "net." If you have a net calories count of 1200 you'd actually be gaining weight. When a business talks about their net profit they're referring to the gross income (sales, etc) - Expenses... The same point is made here. Your net calories would be your gross calories (total caloric consumptio) less your calories burned. To lose weight you actually need to be in a new caloric deficit. So if you're trying to lose a lb a week at 1,200 calories you daily net calories would need to be -500. So you would need 1700 = your bmr + calories lost from exercise.
Consider your bmr too. That's the calorie burn you body goes through to simply keep you alive. You mentioned about your net calories is over 700, which would mean you're gaining over a pound a week instead of losing.
What? I think you are confused and confusing the OP. She is talking about her net calories left after total consumption minus exercise. Not a calorie surplus of 700 cals.
Net, per dictionary.com: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross ): net earnings.
Would you not count your TDEE as a part of that equation?
I may have confused the OP but at the end of the day were just talking about math and she shouldn't think she can have 700 net cals and still lose. Perhaps it's just my interpretation of what needs to be taken into consideration.
If OP nets 1200 calories she will lose weight.0 -
rldeclercq4 wrote: »Maybe there is a need for clarity on the definition of the word "net." If you have a net calories count of 1200 you'd actually be gaining weight. When a business talks about their net profit they're referring to the gross income (sales, etc) - Expenses... The same point is made here. Your net calories would be your gross calories (total caloric consumption) less your calories burned. To lose weight you actually need to be in a net caloric deficit. So if you're trying to lose a lb a week at 1,200 calories you daily net calories would need to be -500. So you would need 1700 = your bmr + calories lost from exercise.
You are confused. And a net of only 700 calories is not healthy, you need to eat more. There is no way you would gain with that little.0 -
Hi!
I am trying to lose 10lbs in 3 weeks.
I currently weigh 123 and my BFP is around 24.5%. My main goal is fat loss. I want to get my BFP down to 19-21%. I am 5"4'. I eat healthy food almost all the time (with a few treats here and there) and my carbs are around 40% of my diet while my protein and fat make up about 30% each. I have karate 3x a week for an hour and I go running/jump on the trampoline on the remaining days. I also do strength training 3-5 days of the week.
My net calorie average is 754 and my total average is 1245.
If I continue on my current weight loss path do you think I'll reach my goal?
Thanks.
Large deficits make it harder for your body to support existing lean muscle mass. If fat loss is your goal (lowering your overall body fat%).....this is not the route you want to take.
You want to "net" at least 1200 for adequate nutrition. Say MFP gave you 1200 calories.....and you exercised for 300. That means you eat 1500 for a 1200 calorie net (1500 - 300 = 1200). This is because MFP gave you a calorie deficit with zero exercise factored in. Keep in mind MFP calorie burn estimates are generous, most people eat back 50-75%.0 -
rldeclercq4 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »rldeclercq4 wrote: »
Isn't net calories = total - calories burned from exercise?rldeclercq4 wrote: »Maybe there is a need for clarity on the definition of the word "net." If you have a net calories count of 1200 you'd actually be gaining weight. When a business talks about their net profit they're referring to the gross income (sales, etc) - Expenses... The same point is made here. Your net calories would be your gross calories (total caloric consumptio) less your calories burned. To lose weight you actually need to be in a new caloric deficit. So if you're trying to lose a lb a week at 1,200 calories you daily net calories would need to be -500. So you would need 1700 = your bmr + calories lost from exercise.
Consider your bmr too. That's the calorie burn you body goes through to simply keep you alive. You mentioned about your net calories is over 700, which would mean you're gaining over a pound a week instead of losing.
What? I think you are confused and confusing the OP. She is talking about her net calories left after total consumption minus exercise. Not a calorie surplus of 700 cals.
Net, per dictionary.com: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross ): net earnings.
Would you not count your TDEE as a part of that equation?
I may have confused the OP but at the end of the day were just talking about math and she shouldn't think she can have 700 net cals and still lose. Perhaps it's just my interpretation of what needs to be taken into consideration.
You are confused.
She's saying her XXXX calories - XXX exercise= 700 calories. This is very low. She will not gain on that.0 -
I do eat 1200 - but not my net cals. Should my net be 1200?MissusMoon wrote: »Only someone with a lot to lose can shed 10lbs that quickly. You should be eating 1200.
Yes, if not more. Losing as quickly as you want to will lead to more muscle loss than fat. Is there a reason for the deadline?
Not really but it's when I'll be going swimming and spending more time in the hot weather so if like to be in better shape.
At your height and current weight Losing 10 lbs in 3 weeks will do anything but leave you in better shape. Bye bye energy and lean body mass.0 -
Want to go swimming so you need to lose 10lbs? If you go swimming that actually should aid in healthy exercise and being in better shape if that's what your true goal is. But to want to lose weight that fast to jump into bathing suit, I'm gonna guess you're not 18y/o like your profile says. Sounds more like something my high school aged daughters would say0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions