What is a realistic time frame to lose 7 stone

Mumha · 04-07-2015 11:09am

Paddy Dreadful wrote: »

Here is something else I believe, fast weight loss and low calories is quite do able when someone has a lot of fat to lose, a person like me who has 100lbs to lose can easy get away with 1000-1500 calories a day as long as exercise volume is low due to fat availability. The key is as you get leaner the calories should be tapered up and exercise volume should be tapered up, the goal is to taper into maintenance where the deficit your creating when your at maintenace isnt coming from a calorie deficit but from the extra exercise your doing.

Example

a 6ft tall 300lbs guy with 40% body fat should have it much easier to lose 3 stone(42lbs) in 3 months then the same guy when he gets to 200lbs and 17% bodyfat and looking to lose 1 stone(14lbs) , from a hormonal profile both are very different and have different needs at each stage even though its the same person, the last 10-15lbs should be lost a a rate of 0.5-1lb a week, also at the beginning alot of the weight lost isnt all fat, theres a good bit of water a glycogen being lost also, a 6ft guy whos trying to lose the last bit of fat should be on about 2500-3000 calories weighting 4-5 times a week and using low intensity cardio like walking for an extra calorie burn

100% agree with that, but the problem a lot of people encounter is the focus is on the wrong things at the start. A lot of people who go to dieticians get the standard diet sheet with the likes of 1 scraping of low fat spread etc, rather than understanding the person's state in an overall sense.

If someone is 20st, doesn't exercise and is eating 3500 calories a day, there is loads of scope for firstly halting the rise in weight, and secondly starting the drop, without it being a complete headfeck of negativity, right at the start.

Paddy Dreadful · 04-07-2015 11:23am

Mumha wrote: »

100% agree with that, but the problem a lot of people encounter is the focus is on the wrong things at the start. A lot of people who go to dieticians get the standard diet sheet with the likes of 1 scraping of low fat spread etc, rather than understanding the person's state in an overall sense.

If someone is 20st, doesn't exercise and is eating 3500 calories a day, there is loads of scope for firstly halting the rise in weight, and secondly starting the drop, without it being a complete headfeck of negativity, right at the start.

yea the thing is that people don't realise is that exercise actually burns very little calories, if a person goes on the treadmill for an hour and the readout says 400-500 calories burned they think have burned that many calories but what they don't realise is that your body burns calories 24/7 through out the day, so if the hadn't done that hour on the treadmill there's 100-200 calories they wold have burned anyway just doing heir normal every day thing, that's why weight-training is so important, its benefit is not how many calories it burns but what its doing to your body by shaping it that why I never take exercise into account when calculating calories, I assume the burn is zero.

For me and my goals my philosophy is this

Exercise is for building muscle

Food/Nutrition/Calorie restriction is for losing fat

04-07-2015 11:38am

If you are training hard 4/5 times a week assuming the calorie burn is zero isnt a great philosophy imo.

Small whiff of something fishy off this topic.

Mumha · 04-07-2015 12:03pm

Paddy Dreadful wrote: »

yea the thing is that people don't realise is that exercise actually burns very little calories, if a person goes on the treadmill for an hour and the readout says 400-500 calories burned they think have burned that many calories but what they don't realise is that your body burns calories 24/7 through out the day, so if the hadn't done that hour on the treadmill there's 100-200 calories they wold have burned anyway just doing heir normal every day thing, that's why weight-training is so important, its benefit is not how many calories it burns but what its doing to your body by shaping it that why I never take exercise into account when calculating calories, I assume the burn is zero.

For me and my goals my philosophy is this

Exercise is for building muscle

Food/Nutrition/Calorie restriction is for losing fat

To be honest, it's a combination of food and exercise, but that exercise doesn't have to be 50 laps. I get where you are coming from, but for a lot of people, they would square away in their head,what you said about the burn being zero, as sure if it's zero then what's the point in doing it ?

Even if it was just 300 calories extra over the hour, that's an extra pound over 7 days of one hour sessions, plus the added feeling of accomplishment in flexibility, commitment and well being (aerobically). But again, whatever works for you personally, is good.

strelok · 04-07-2015 3:18pm

at some point in the (not too) distant future the weight loss is going to slow down, quite a (****ing) bit. when you get to that point, having the fitness where you can nip out for a brisk hour or two walk (or even jog) 5-6 times a week to help things along will be a big help

YurOK2 · 05-07-2015 12:55am

OP I lost about 3.5 stone in 18 months. This was done through dietary changes only, no exercise. I lost the weight eating a low carb diet.

When the weight starts to come off initially it'll go quite fast, it's the last bit that is stubborn to shift, maybe it's been there the longest :P

I have about another 2 stone to lose and I am hoping to lose that between now and Christmas. I have started exercising in the last 6 weeks and that has broken a plateau I was at.

Mellor · 05-07-2015 11:52am

Mumha wrote: »

Even if it was just 300 calories extra over the hour, that's an extra pound over 7 days of one hour sessions,

1lb needs 3500 calories.
7 x 300 is 2100 calories, about 270g of fat

Mumha · 06-07-2015 10:00am

Mellor wrote: »

1lb needs 3500 calories.
7 x 300 is 2100 calories, about 270g of fat

The point still stands that it all helps.

Alf Veedersane · 06-07-2015 10:25am

Augeo wrote: »

If you are training hard 4/5 times a week assuming the calorie burn is zero isnt a great philosophy imo.

I read it as the OP is basing his weight loss on improving his nutrition whilst exercising rather than trying to base a deficit too much on what might be burned during exercise.

It's not undermining the importance of exercise. Just that it's easier to manage calorie counting on nutrition alone.

But that's just how I read it

Mellor · 08-07-2015 1:32am

Sure it all helps, but the original point was that exercise doesn't make as big an impact as you might think

What is a realistic time frame to lose 7 stone

Comments