Quick Weight loss

My advice?

Be careful. Fast loss creates health risks.

At 136kg, you may be able to afford losing 1kg per week, maybe even 1.25kg per week, without excessive risk, assuming you're relatively young, don't have an otherwise stressful life, don't have significant health conditions, are getting good overall nutrition (especially the protein), and aren't overdoing exercise alongside.

Even that is faster than I'd ideally recommend, 0.5-1% of current weight per week, with a bias toward the lower end of that range unless under close medical supervision (blood tests) for deficiencies or health complications.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to arrive at your wedding looking haggard, being moody/snappish, being listless, thinned hair (unless already bald/shaven) and that sort of thing . . . do you? Thriving good health is also best for appearance, not just being thinner.

I have to say, I don't understand what 6'4M means as a height. I'd understand 6'4" as six feet four inches, or 93cm. I think it can't be 6 meters plus something, because that would be a world record. Maybe there's just a notation I don't understand there, but I'm hoping you clarify - I don't think I'm the only one here who'd be perplexed. (Was there a typo?)

It's hard to give you nuanced advice without knowing more about you: Age, health conditions, height, lifestyle (activity level in daily life, typical exercise), any major stress factors, etc.

In general, the way to lose faster is to eat less, and/or exercise more.

You're already eating 1000 calories, which is way too low even for me as a non-big woman, let alone for a fairly large man. (I don't know how tall you are, but you're more than twice my weight, and probably younger, either of which would likely give you a larger calorie requirement.) MFP won't even give any woman a calorie goal below 1200, and will complain (messages) if she dips as low as 1000. For men, it's 1500 rather than 1200.

They have good reasons for those lower limits. A person has to be quite small and inactive generally, and maybe old, to be able to get adequate nutrition and preserve health while losing fat, not to mention that punitively low calories usually will result in crashing and burning rather quickly, before losing a meaningful total amount of weight. (Crash and burn = deprivation-triggered binging, breaks in the action, giving up altogether because it's just too hard, burning fewer calories than expected because of underfueling-related fatigue, etc.)

If you think eating nutritious foods at too-low calories is a strong counter-measure to too-low calories, you're wrong.

For one, there's no getting adequate nutrition on too-low calories.

We need certain minimums of protein, fats, and micronutrients in absolute numbers (grams, mg, IU - depending on which nutrient we're talking about). Getting the highest amounts possible on too-low calories is better than not working on nutrients, but it's still not enough for preserving best health. Calories and macronutrients are linked: To get adequate macro amounts in absolute terms, we need adequate calorie intake.

Second, calories per se are the foundation for health. We need a certain minimum, or our bodies start cutting back on physiological functions that are relatively less vital to keep us barely alive. (Our bodies can't tell "a diet" from "a famine"). Some examples are hair/nails growth (they will split, thin, break), immune system function (we get sick more easily, are more likely to get infections with minor injuries, etc.), healing of injuries (including post-surgical healing), energy level (we get fatigued), strength (we lose muscle mass), and more. On top of that, there's the risk of things like gallstones, heart rhythm problems, and more.

Honestly, sub-ideal nutrition with adequate calories is a better route to weight loss and improvement in health markers than the right macro percents on too-low calories. Don't believe me? Look up some of the party-stunt diets: People have lost weight and improved health eating all McDonald's food, large amounts of Twinkies, mostly foods from convenience stores/gas stations, etc. Generally, they've done it to demonstrate that calorie level is what matters most for managing body weight, and that decreasing body weight tends to improve health markers. An easy web search will show you some of those examples. (Note: I'm not recommending that approach. Better nutrition is a better idea, too. But adequate calories is basic.)

As a third concern, which I'm betting you don't think you care about, there's a decent probability that sticking with ultra-low calories for too long (with 3 months being within that threshold) will reduce your maintenance calories for quite some period of time after the loss, possibly even permanently. That makes regain more likely, and of course maintenance of the loss more difficult.

If you exercise more, without eating more, you're just ramping up the risk level. That's not a good plan for you, either. It would drive net calories down, increasing probability of the problems described above, but also increasing risk of injury from the exercise.

My advice would be to make a better, more realistic, more health-promoting plan. As a generality, upping your calories to stay at a healthful loss rate, adding manageably challenging (not extreme) exercise (including strength challenge) would get you to wedding day looking more more attractive than your current plan, plus in better health, and with a better mood (less likely to be depressed, angry/snappish at your new spouse and guests, etc.).

TL/DR: Unrealistic, risky plan. Don't do it. Make a better plan.

Sincerely, I do wish you success - true success, lost weight, fitter/trimmer, more attractive looking for your wedding. I'm cheering for you to succeed in that way

My advice - your parter fell in love with you as you are - for your self, your personality and your soul.

Fast weight loss *kitten* up your body. You risk losing hair, muscle mass (your heart is a muscle), your energy levels tank and so does your sex drive.

For anyone who is overweight and worried about health - do think about losing the weight for those who love you. For those wanting fast loss for appearances - I’d rather have my life partner with me, even if a bit cuddly, then someone who made themself ill with too fast weight loss.

Alatariel75 wrote: »

Can I just add to the fast weight loss warnings, I lost an average of 3-4 lbs a week for 3 months, starting at 123kg, and now I'm being tested for gallstones because half the time when I eat, I get intense stomach pain and massive gastric distress. Fast weight loss is a big cause of gall bladder issues.

This happened to me, truth. I went from 179 to 112 in 6 months' time and got a series of gall bladder attacks, the last of which caused me to end up in the ER (I did not know what these symptoms were all about). The doctor in the ER said my gall bladder was "riddled with gallstones, like buckshot." She said it was unusual for someone of my age to get gallstones, but when she questioned me about any weight loss it made sense. Before my scheduled surgery I went through a lot of intense stomach pain and gastric distress (as mentioned above). You don't want to end up like I did! Take a moderate approach.

Lietchi wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

My advice?

I have to say, I don't understand what 6'4M means as a height.

I think he meant 6'4 and M separately, as in 6ft4 male?

As a 5ft5 women I'm having a hard time sticking to 1600 calories, I can't even imagine only eating 1000 calories! (Well, I can, but that was when I was nauseous from a stomach flu, I don't recommend it)
I fully endorse all of the advice above. It's not a good road to go down.

Oh, that's plausible! I'll bet you're right. I was confused, probably wrongly 😬. I think if it had been 6'4"M, I might have gotten it.

It definitely doesn't change my advice: He's up fairly high in the technically obese BMI range, but I'd still be recommending 0.5-1% as the maximum sensible loss rate, even with medical monitoring at the top end.

I’m guessing by what you’re saying that you’re taking in more than 1,000 calls a day every day consistently.

doing something like this is a sure fire way to fail long term and comes with health risks too, just to look thinner on your wedding day? You may even pass out on the alter. Hard truth.