Is it possible to lose 5st healthily in 7 months? and if so any tips?

Like the previous poster, I find setting time limits is setting myself up for failure.

Instead, focus on things that are more easily obtainable. Adhering to calorie goals every day (or most days. we all have days where we are over, for whatever the reason), working out X times a week, adding more protein or veg to your diet (whatever your goals may be), drinking more water. Things that are smaller but still quantifiable.

Ten pounds a month is a lot. Healthy weight loss is 1% of your weight a week. For most people that comes to 1-2 lbs. The first month you might lose more, but over the long haul it isn't healthy to lose quickly. You are also less likely to retain the weight loss if you lose too much too quickly. You want to change your eating habits in ways that you can sustain for the rest of your life, not just over the next 5 months.

kcox269 wrote: »

Hi Everyone
I'm getting back to healthy eating again and going for my goal
which is 12 stone, down 5 st from current weight of 17st (5ft 11") by end of July.

I would appreciate peoples insights, I'm going to aim for this goal for don't know how realistic it is.
Wanted to ask people if they think this is doable in a healthy way,
if they have any personal experience of that much weight loss in that time frame
and any tips for doing so.

Grateful for any comments and opinions- tried many diets, method I'm using this time by CICO and exercise
All the best for 2021 everyone :-)
P.s 39 and F (just to make it easier;-P)

Unlike others, I think that in theory you could lose that much. (For other USA-ians like me, that's 70 pounds in 7 months.)

Will you? Probably not. (1)

If you somehow did, would it be a health-promoting thing to do? No. (2)

If you somehow did, would it enhance your appearance, make you look more attractive? Highly unlikely. (3)

Is it practical? No. (4)

(1) It's a very aggressive calorie deficit. It may be achievable at first, but even at first it will be quite difficult. There would likely be a honeymoon period of a few weeks when it felt great, and you'd feel highly motivated. As time drags on, our bodies tend to rebel more at extreme measures (via things like appetite hormones). We are likely to become fatigued, which lowers motivation. We may become physically weaker.

As that stuff happens, many (probably) most will either crack and overeat, or give up altogether. Even if the "overeat" possibility is followed by getting back on the calorie cut, progress has been loss . . . and it's likely to happen again, periodically. Sometimes, losing fast (in theory) results in losing less weight in 7 months than if the person had lost slowly (but steadily).

Furthermore, if a person tries to lose 10 pounds a month, that loss is a more extreme thing as loss continues - the lighter body has less capacity to lose fat..

Maybe you're one of the exceptions: Perhaps you can stick with an extreme process. (That has other potential downsides in the long run, which I won't go into here)

(2) An extremely high calorie deficit (fast loss) is a physical stress on the body. Stresses, both physical and psychological, are cumulative. So, the extreme weight loss adds stress on top of whatever other is in the person's life: Job stress, financial stress, illnesses or injuries, family stresses, pandemics, etc.

Stress takes a toll. It can do things like hamper the immune system, for example.

Further, the body can only metabolize so much fat daily, in a biochemical sense. If the loss rate exceeds the body's capacity to make up the deficit from fat stores, bad things can happen. Hair loss, brittle nails - that's only the tip of the iceberg. Muscle loss is possible, even likely. At extremes, heart damage becomes a possibility. You might want to read this story, about a rare thing, but something that can happen (the number needn't necessarily be 1200 or less, either):

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1

Losing weight rapidly creates health risk. Will there be bad health consequences for sure? No, but it's a crapshoot: Increased risk.

(3) Fast weight loss tends to create unattractive results: I already mentioned things like hair loss and brittle nails. (For extra fun, those typically show up quite a few weeks after the fast loss starts, so we don't get to wait until it happens, then correct and stop the problems right away.) If fast loss reduces muscle mass, that's unattractive, too: Limp, flabby, floppy, "skinny fat". The fatigue can turn off that attractive vivacity, the sparkle, if you will. An energetic person will tend to be more attractive than a dragging, fatigued one. Complexion can suffer, either blemishes or just slackness and lack of healthy color, or both.

(4) At your age (39) and height (5'11"), with a sedentary job, we'd expect your before-exercise calorie requirement to maintain your current weight to be around 2200 daily. To lose a pound per week, one needs to reduce net calorie intake by 500 daily. Five stone would be 70 pounds, and in seven months that's roughly 10 pounds a month to be lost, so an average of about 1/3 pound of fat per day. That means a 1,166 calorie daily deficit - eating that amount below calorie burn. So, to lose at that rate to start, you'd have to eat about 1000 calories daily, or do enough exercise to burn that many on net (say, walk for about 5 hours and 20 minutes daily at 2.5 miles per hour), or some combination. It's very difficult to get adequate nutrition on 1000 calories; most people don't have time to add 5+ hours of daily walking, even if physically up to doing it.

Also, just for fun, remember that one's calorie needs decrease with weight loss. So, when you reach 16 stone, your calorie requirements drop from around 2200 to around 2100. At 13 stone, shortly before goal, it's down around 1900, so eating a little over 700 calories daily on average. Also, as one's body gets lighter, most exercises burn fewer calories. At 16 stone, the walk increases to more like 5 hours and 45 minutes; at 13 stone to 6 hours and 25 minutes.

So, does that sound achievable, healthful, practical?

Please don't set a date/weight goal, for reasons others have mentioned. Set habits/process goals (something like eat more veggies instead of calorie-dense snacks, count calories, take a 20 minute walk or other manageable amount/type of added activity daily, etc.). Work on the process goals incrementally, i.e., integrate one new positive habit into your routine, then add another. Keep it mostly easy, because even at it's fastest, it's going to take months.

As a rough approximation - not a goal! - you might hope to lose *around* a pound a week on average for seven months, with a practical, fairly aggressive, but more realistic approach. It would be faster at first, and slower toward the end, for practical and health reasons, but that's a fast but not crazy-fast possibility for someone starting where you are, in my opinion.

As a bonus, being more habits-oriented gives you an opportunity to experiment along the way, and figure out how you will eat and be active permanently, in order to stay at your goal weight long term.

Best wishes!

Sources, if anyone cares: https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/ and https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

If you started off 10 stone overweight then maybe (just maybe) losing 5 stone at that very fast rate might "work", but losing the last 5 stone to get to goal weight - not likely to happen and if it did I'd doubt it would be done in a healthy way that would leave you in the best possible state at the goal weight.

Yes you could make a fast start but to get to goal you need to make the process and your eating allowance reasonable and sustainable.

Having tried many diets in the past maybe you could reflect on why they didn't work? Was it due to excessive suffering and unreasonable expectations perhaps?

PS - unusually I did set a deadline for my weight loss but that was far less weight to lose and at 1lb/week.

I generally concur with the above comments. I did lose 50 lbs in my first 5 months, which is of course the same rate of weight loss as losing 5 stone (70 lbs) in 7 months. In "theory" it's doable, but with the following caveats:

- Your BMI of 33.2 (Obese class 1) puts you in between the morbidly obese level where dropping 10 lbs a month is not that hard, and a normal/overweight BMI where 10 lbs would be nearly impossible to keep up. As you lose weight, it will get more and more difficult to keep up that rate of weight loss.

- 10 lbs/month is VERY aggressive. It won't be hard the first month, and maybe even the 2nd month, but by month 3 it will become a difficult, unpleasant, deprivational slog.

- Your odds of sticking with the punishing calorie deficit needed to drop 10 lbs/month are not high. Most likely, your diet will fall apart when you get tired of starving yourself. It really isn't a good idea, even if it's theoretically possible.

- I wholeheartedly agree with above posters that setting a time limit is unwise. You're going to end up face down in a pizza or chocolate cake at some point, which is inevitable on an extreme calorie deficit, and then your numbers will be thrown off for reaching your very aggressive goal, and what happens then? For most people: binging > regain > binging > guilt > sorrow > starting all over.

Do it right. Figure out how many calories you should eat to lose 1 lb per week, or let MFP do the heavy lifting for you in the Goals tab. Execute the task perfectly for one week and lose one pound. Then next week, do the same. And so on. Let time pass by as you focus on nailing down this doable, achievable goal. Before you know it, you'll be lighter and feel better.

The only reason I didn't regain the weight I lost in those first five months is because I took stock of the situation at that point, moderated my calorie deficit, and marched forward with a more doable, reasonable deficit. It is very, very hard to stay hardcore for more than 6-8 weeks, for most people basically impossible. This is why I said "in theory" you could lose 70 in 7 months. In practice, probably not.

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

Good luck! And please just use pounds in the future. It saves everyone else having to work out the actual numbers.

Who on earth do you think you are demanding that just because it is the system you are the most used to using????

Some people's arrogance never ceases to boggle the mind.

Some of "everyone else" have to convert to stone as it is what they are used to and some of "everyone else" have to convert to kg as that is what they are used to. But hey, we cheerfully cope, and we respect that people from all around the world use this forum.

BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

Great responses so far, especially Ann's.

I expect losing 70 pounds in 7 months is a different story if say you were starting from 140 pounds overweight, but you're not.

Good luck! And please just use pounds in the future. It saves everyone else having to work out the actual numbers[\b].

Those of us who use ‘Stones & Pounds’ or even ‘Kilograms’ are just as entitled to use those when we’re posting here as those who just use ‘Pounds’. 🙄

I have to convert in my head, often, as do many others - today it was your turn! 🤷‍♀️

Agreed. The world doesn't revolve around us. As an American, I actually wish we would use the metric system. That way I wouldn't have to convert weights to grams in recipe books.

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

freda78 wrote: »

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

Good luck! And please just use pounds in the future. It saves everyone else having to work out the actual numbers.

Who on earth do you think you are demanding that just because it is the system you are the most used to using????

Some people's arrogance never ceases to boggle the mind.

Some of "everyone else" have to convert to stone as it is what they are used to and some of "everyone else" have to convert to kg as that is what they are used to. But hey, we cheerfully cope, and we respect that people from all around the world use this forum.

Arrogance? "Who on earth do I think I am"? This really boggles your mind? Calm down. It was just a simple request, with a "please". No need to be dramatic about it.

As far as I can tell, it's only Britain and Ireland that still uses "stone", and I'm sure everyone there understands pounds too. I don't think anyone can deny that talking about losing X pounds over Y time is easier. Who thinks, "It's viable to lose 1% per week, and 1% of 17 stone is 0.17 stone which is...??"

I'm from Britain too actually, and I stopped using "stone" years ago. Going from X stone Y pounds to V stone W pounds is how much? I can do it in my head, but it's still an inconvenience.

By all means, continue as you were. Nobody is saying you can't. Again, there was a "please".

"Stone" really isn't that hard to work out though . . . I'd never really encountered it before I saw posters using it here. A quick Google sorted me out. I really don't think people should feel like they need to flatten out verbal/linguistic differences in order to post here. Anyone who finds "stone" an obstacle to providing feedback or doesn't want to bother doing a conversion in their head can just move on to one of the many posts from users who are using pounds as a unit of measurement.

lgfrie wrote: »

As I survey the world around us today, of insurrection in our capital and morgue trucks lined up outside hospitals and food banks trying to get food into the hands of millions who've lost their livelihoods this year, I'm thinking that indignation over someone saying "Hey, could we please use pounds instead of stone?" is a tad out of proportion.

The thing is: big things being wrong in a major way doesn't mean that one is automatically going to never notice anything smaller. Our brains have a lot of space and minor annoyances can easily be registered alongside significant problems. If you haven't been annoyed by anything minor in the past year or so, I think that's great. No snark -- you should probably teach a workshop! But I don't know if that is most people's experience during the political, social, and economic turmoil we're currently living through.