Losing 30 pounds in 3 months?
LegacyLion
Posts: 25 Member
I'm informed about limiting yourself to 2 pounds a week but I'm 210 pounds with an estimated 30% body fat. Is it possible for me to lose 30 pounds in 3 months if I keep track of everything and exercise a good amount?
0
Replies
-
If you want to lose a lot of muscle, sure4
-
Probably. If you're a male at 30%, you could aim for between 1-2lbs per week.2
-
I lost 30lbs in about 6 months went from 181 to 151 I'm 5ft tall female eating 1200-1400 calories a day7
-
If you want to lose a lot of muscle, sure
^^^^^
What Malibu said. 210 to 180 isn't a (relatively) lot to lose. 10lbs/month is dangerously aggressive weight loss that will likely bounce right back after the 3 months are over, and then you'll be back to trying all over again. It'd be easier and take less time if you lost at a more reasonable rate (1% of body weight-ish) to start with.5 -
age n height n gender?
have u ever exercise before?
were u ever on MFP before?
have u ever calorie count before?1 -
I started at 279 lbs I'm 5 feet 10 inches tall. I started this journey on April 13th and I've lost 23 lbs so far. I eat about 200-250 less calories than MFP allows me. Which means I take in about 1200 calories on average. I'm not hungry at the end of the day. Just bored with what I'm eating sometimes.2
-
sophie7591 wrote: »I started at 279 lbs I'm 5 feet 10 inches tall. I started this journey on April 13th and I've lost 23 lbs so far. I eat about 200-250 less calories than MFP allows me. Which means I take in about 1200 calories on average. I'm not hungry at the end of the day. Just bored with what I'm eating sometimes.
thanks for the stats. it is possible but u shouldnt set ur expectation that high. if u lose 20 to 22 lbs then it is still a job well done .
start exercising n pick something non impact like lane swimming, aqua aerobics, and/or weight training. start with 3 or 4 times a week (2 x weight n 2 x other stuff is most likely best for u rigjt now) ONLY eat back half of the calories u burned at most. at 1200, u most likely need to eat back some of those calories u burned. plz dont count on miracles but sometimes 1 + 1 = 3 if u do it right (ive seen it happened with 200+ lbs people enough to know)
good luck!1 -
amyrebeccah wrote: »If you want to lose a lot of muscle, sure
^^^^^
What Malibu said. 210 to 180 isn't a (relatively) lot to lose. 10lbs/month is dangerously aggressive weight loss that will likely bounce right back after the 3 months are over, and then you'll be back to trying all over again. It'd be easier and take less time if you lost at a more reasonable rate (1% of body weight-ish) to start with.
Agreed-and just so we're clear, in case you're thinking you're cool with the muscle loss, please be aware that your heart is a muscle.
Are you actually saying that the human body will consume its own heart to keep the body fat?4 -
moonstroller wrote: »amyrebeccah wrote: »If you want to lose a lot of muscle, sure
^^^^^
What Malibu said. 210 to 180 isn't a (relatively) lot to lose. 10lbs/month is dangerously aggressive weight loss that will likely bounce right back after the 3 months are over, and then you'll be back to trying all over again. It'd be easier and take less time if you lost at a more reasonable rate (1% of body weight-ish) to start with.
Agreed-and just so we're clear, in case you're thinking you're cool with the muscle loss, please be aware that your heart is a muscle.
Are you actually saying that the human body will consume its own heart to keep the body fat?
Actually, yes, it will. But not "to keep body fat." It is a matter of being unable to synthesize protein to repair tissue fast enough under high caloric stress situations.9 -
moonstroller wrote: »amyrebeccah wrote: »If you want to lose a lot of muscle, sure
^^^^^
What Malibu said. 210 to 180 isn't a (relatively) lot to lose. 10lbs/month is dangerously aggressive weight loss that will likely bounce right back after the 3 months are over, and then you'll be back to trying all over again. It'd be easier and take less time if you lost at a more reasonable rate (1% of body weight-ish) to start with.
Agreed-and just so we're clear, in case you're thinking you're cool with the muscle loss, please be aware that your heart is a muscle.
Are you actually saying that the human body will consume its own heart to keep the body fat?
Actually, yes, it will. But not "to keep body fat." It is a matter of being unable to synthesize protein to repair tissue fast enough under high caloric stress situations.
Nope, you're wrong. The body will not destroy vital organ tissue first. Obese people on a highly restricted diet saw less than 25% loss of muscle, none in vital organs, and people who performed resistance training saw no muscle loss at all. Instead of the body destroying vital tissue to rebuild muscles being worked, it will simply delay or slow the repair of those worked muscle groups so that recovery takes longer.7 -
LegacyLion wrote: »I'm informed about limiting yourself to 2 pounds a week but I'm 210 pounds with an estimated 30% body fat. Is it possible for me to lose 30 pounds in 3 months if I keep track of everything and exercise a good amount?
You could probably safely lose 1-2 pounds per week. And in the beginning might see a bigger loss from water weight. So I'd say it is potential for you to safely lose ~25-30 pounds in 3 months. Of course, if you go about it by eating at a reasonable deficit and 'only' lose 18-20 in that time frame, its not exactly a bad thing!5 -
I did at about that BMI. It slows down the closer you get to normal. I didn't do anything dangerous or unsustainable.2
-
I did it last year with keto, which is a muscle-sparing woe.
I'm currently keto-adapted with a slightly higher protein intake to protect muscle gains. I eat ~1100 a day (high fat, moderate protein), lift 3 times a week, and EC stack with excellent results. Very pleased with the way body recomposition is going, and my energy level is through the roof. Only unpleasant side effect is bewb soreness
0 -
I believe it is possible with the right advice.0
-
I only lost that fast when I was over 400. While it's possible to, I probably wouldn't advise it. What's the rush of trying to shoot for 3 months besides it sounding impressive? 12-24lbs in 3 months is still an amazing loss and a bit more manageable. Good luck.2
-
moonstroller wrote: »
Nope, you're wrong. The body will not destroy vital organ tissue first. Obese people on a highly restricted diet saw less than 25% loss of muscle, none in vital organs, and people who performed resistance training saw no muscle loss at all. Instead of the body destroying vital tissue to rebuild muscles being worked, it will simply delay or slow the repair of those worked muscle groups so that recovery takes longer.
I feel like you & tomteboda both said essentially the same thing...
"It is a matter of being unable to synthesize protein to repair tissue fast enough under high caloric stress situations."
3 -
I have healthily lost 54+ lbs in ~6 months. 30 is a little ambitious, but having a goal is super.
Eat sensibly, portion food properly. Weigh EVERYTHING. Don't over-restrict. Resistance and bodyweiught exercises are amazing.
Remember: It's not a race. But losing *some* is much better than losing none.
4 -
I'm 5' 10" and started out at nearly 270, I lost 30 pounds in the first 3 months and that came off pretty easy with just eating right, no exercise. Since then, I have cut back to about a pound a week and I exercise, and I feel great. Almost 40 pounds so far, 30 to go. So that initial 30 was about 40% of my overall goal. But I know that things are definitely different for us guys. Weight loss is a sexist beast for sure.2
-
WayTooHonest wrote: »moonstroller wrote: »
Nope, you're wrong. The body will not destroy vital organ tissue first. Obese people on a highly restricted diet saw less than 25% loss of muscle, none in vital organs, and people who performed resistance training saw no muscle loss at all. Instead of the body destroying vital tissue to rebuild muscles being worked, it will simply delay or slow the repair of those worked muscle groups so that recovery takes longer.
I feel like you & tomteboda both said essentially the same thing...
"It is a matter of being unable to synthesize protein to repair tissue fast enough under high caloric stress situations."
Sort of, however she's claiming the body will take protein (muscle) from the heart, thus weakening the heart, to restore other muscles in the body, and this is clearly not supported by any medical studies I've read. The human body will not weaken vital organs to repair non vital muscles. When a person gets to the point that his or her body is beginning to consume vital organs for survival that person will most likely be in a hospital.4 -
I went from 214 at Christmas to 185 at the end of March and successfully trained for my first Ironman 70.3 race. Adopted principally a vegan diet, with the exception of a morning whey protein smoothie, minor amounts of other dairy, and fish once every 1-2 weeks. Consistently lost about 2 pounds/week. I figured 1 pound diet and one pound from all the training volume.2
-
10lbs a month isn't too bad, that's only a half pound a week more than is recommended. Not everyone's body is the same so you could realistically lose this without really losing muscle.1
-
trigden1991 wrote: »Probably. If you're a male at 30%, you could aim for between 1-2lbs per week.
Uhhh, ... 2 lbs times 13 weeks (3 months) = 26 lbs
1 lb times 13 weeks = 13 lbs
How does aiming for a total of 13 to 26 lbs during the specified time period equal "probably" achieving goal of losing 30 lbs in said time period?0 -
moonstroller wrote: »moonstroller wrote: »amyrebeccah wrote: »If you want to lose a lot of muscle, sure
^^^^^
What Malibu said. 210 to 180 isn't a (relatively) lot to lose. 10lbs/month is dangerously aggressive weight loss that will likely bounce right back after the 3 months are over, and then you'll be back to trying all over again. It'd be easier and take less time if you lost at a more reasonable rate (1% of body weight-ish) to start with.
Agreed-and just so we're clear, in case you're thinking you're cool with the muscle loss, please be aware that your heart is a muscle.
Are you actually saying that the human body will consume its own heart to keep the body fat?
Actually, yes, it will. But not "to keep body fat." It is a matter of being unable to synthesize protein to repair tissue fast enough under high caloric stress situations.
Nope, you're wrong. The body will not destroy vital organ tissue first. Obese people on a highly restricted diet saw less than 25% loss of muscle, none in vital organs, and people who performed resistance training saw no muscle loss at all. Instead of the body destroying vital tissue to rebuild muscles being worked, it will simply delay or slow the repair of those worked muscle groups so that recovery takes longer.
Your heart is a muscle that gets "worked" every day, and needs to be repaired every day.3 -
Why the rush? and why specifically 30lbs?
My advice would be to just get on with losing the weight. Wherever you are in 3 months could be a big improvement on where you are now.
If you stick with it long term you may get to the goal you have in your head.
IMHO arbitrary over overoptimistic short term goals can lead to frustration and "falling off the wagon".
3 -
moonstroller wrote: »moonstroller wrote: »amyrebeccah wrote: »If you want to lose a lot of muscle, sure
^^^^^
What Malibu said. 210 to 180 isn't a (relatively) lot to lose. 10lbs/month is dangerously aggressive weight loss that will likely bounce right back after the 3 months are over, and then you'll be back to trying all over again. It'd be easier and take less time if you lost at a more reasonable rate (1% of body weight-ish) to start with.
Agreed-and just so we're clear, in case you're thinking you're cool with the muscle loss, please be aware that your heart is a muscle.
Are you actually saying that the human body will consume its own heart to keep the body fat?
Actually, yes, it will. But not "to keep body fat." It is a matter of being unable to synthesize protein to repair tissue fast enough under high caloric stress situations.
Nope, you're wrong. The body will not destroy vital organ tissue first. Obese people on a highly restricted diet saw less than 25% loss of muscle, none in vital organs, and people who performed resistance training saw no muscle loss at all. Instead of the body destroying vital tissue to rebuild muscles being worked, it will simply delay or slow the repair of those worked muscle groups so that recovery takes longer.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you. I was affirming that muscle mass is inadequately protected in very rapid weight loss situations, not through scavenging (as incorrectly attributed) but through lack of adequate repair. As others said, you are now arguing with me for making the exact same point you made later.3 -
I did it last year with keto, which is a muscle-sparing woe.
I'm currently keto-adapted with a slightly higher protein intake to protect muscle gains. I eat ~1100 a day (high fat, moderate protein), lift 3 times a week, and EC stack with excellent results. Very pleased with the way body recomposition is going, and my energy level is through the roof. Only unpleasant side effect is bewb soreness
Keto is only muscle sparring if you get adequate protein. The majority of LCHF studies and keto studies put protein high enough to support that. If you are on a low calorie and keto diet, it absolutely will not support muscle retention. General recommendations for protein are 1.5-2.2g/kg (or roughly.6-1g/lb); towards the higher end if you are lean.
OP, it depends how tall you are. In general terms, you should aim for .5-1% per week. Once you start getting more aggressive than that, you risk increased muscle loss. And when you are losing muscle, your body fat % is reducing at a slower pace.1 -
moonstroller wrote: »moonstroller wrote: »amyrebeccah wrote: »If you want to lose a lot of muscle, sure
^^^^^
What Malibu said. 210 to 180 isn't a (relatively) lot to lose. 10lbs/month is dangerously aggressive weight loss that will likely bounce right back after the 3 months are over, and then you'll be back to trying all over again. It'd be easier and take less time if you lost at a more reasonable rate (1% of body weight-ish) to start with.
Agreed-and just so we're clear, in case you're thinking you're cool with the muscle loss, please be aware that your heart is a muscle.
Are you actually saying that the human body will consume its own heart to keep the body fat?
Actually, yes, it will. But not "to keep body fat." It is a matter of being unable to synthesize protein to repair tissue fast enough under high caloric stress situations.
Nope, you're wrong. The body will not destroy vital organ tissue first. Obese people on a highly restricted diet saw less than 25% loss of muscle, none in vital organs, and people who performed resistance training saw no muscle loss at all. Instead of the body destroying vital tissue to rebuild muscles being worked, it will simply delay or slow the repair of those worked muscle groups so that recovery takes longer.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you. I was affirming that muscle mass is inadequately protected in very rapid weight loss situations, not through scavenging (as incorrectly attributed) but through lack of adequate repair. As others said, you are now arguing with me for making the exact same point you made later.
Okay, thank you for clarifying your statement.
When I made the comment about the human body consuming its own heart and you said "Actually, yes, it will." I interpreted that as you claiming the body will, in fact, destroy heart tissue in an effort to protect and/or rebuild other non vital muscle. Just to make sure I've got you correctly this time, what you're saying is when someone is eating a very low calorie diet and doing a lot of exercising, thereby stressing the heart at a much higher rate, the body will not have enough nutrients, namely protein, to repair the heart muscle quickly enough to withstand the next workout. Am I on target?2 -
At 210 with 30% fat--how'd you get that number? most measures aren't very accurate--you could reasonably aim for 2 lb/week and might lose a bit more at first. As you get leaner (I am assuming 180 is at least an initial goal weight), it will likely slow down, and I am guessing you'd like to maintain and even build muscle, so I wouldn't prioritize keeping up the loss rate vs. doing what you can to maintain muscle (exercise and protein also being extremely important). So I'd say not impossible but not something I'd focus on at your weight (if you were 300 lbs, or even 250 trying to get to 180, it would be much more likely, of course).
If you end up losing 20 or 25 instead of 30 in 3 months, and need a bit more time, but have more muscle than if you'd gotten there faster, I can't imagine you'd be that sorry when looking in the mirror.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
If you end up losing 20 or 25 instead of 30 in 3 months, and need a bit more time, but have more muscle than if you'd gotten there faster, I can't imagine you'd be that sorry when looking in the mirror.
This^^^
I think for many of us, our goals start out somewhat arbitrary like that. I was no different. I started at 240, wanted to get to 195, but then as I learned how things worked, I revised it to 170 for "classification" reasons - i.e. I wanted to go from obese (at 32%) to the normal range. I picked an arbitrary date and went aggressive when I started.
Now, at 203, I am rethinking both my goal weight and the time - for a number of reasons.
1) I realized that my target weight is just a scale number (and not a measure of my body composition)
2) I realized that the reason I wanted to reduce weight, is so that I could look more fit.
3) I realized that in order to look more fit, I needed to be more fit.
4) I realized that, since I am 54, being more fit is far more important than looking more fit anyway. It's not what I look like I can do, it's what I actually can do. So the reason to be more fit is not about looking more fit anymore, even though that was the reasoning from #2 to #3 above.
5) When I'm 64, I want to be in as good or better shape than I was at 34. And that is not impossible.
So now the goals become both long-term and short-term. Short-term I want to improve what I can do every day. Long-term I want to reach that fitness goal. Looking better (for my own vanity - which is admittedly a part of things, but a not a big part) will be a side benefit, but not the thing.
So what started off as "I need to lose weight and stop looking like a pile of goo" morphed into "I need to be healthy and able to do stuff better". As I get more addicted to activity, I much prefer the 2nd option.7 -
Know your body and speak with your doctor regularly. Everyone is different and there is no steadfast rule that applies to everyone. At the beginning of March, I weighed 355. My doctor said that my A1C was high and suggested putting me on diabetes medication and I suggested that we wait three months to see what I can do own my own through diet and exercise. I now weigh 298. I have averaged about 5 lbs a week and feel fine.2
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