Stone in a month? Personal trainer or not?

Hiya folks, I'm new here and I know this is a recurring post and I hope I put this in the right section...

I want to lose a stone in 5 weeks, A trainer in the gym who is trying to persuade me to use him as a personal trainer says that it'll be nearly impossible without him there.

At the moment I'm 6ft1 and 14 stone. I do about an hour in the gym and burn around 600 calories and do at least 4 miles walking out of my routine (Like work and general tasks)

Eating only 1600 calories and only drinking leamon water and normal water and tea.

Do you think it will be possible? Or should I go with the trainer for £25 an hour and twice a week which is what he says will get results?

Find more posts tagged with

Replies

You could maybe lose 5-10 lbs in 5 weeks time. Your weight puts you at the low end of the overweight range on the BMI scale. The recommendation for safe and healthy weight loss is 1-2 lbs per week. With only 14 lbs to lose, even 2 lbs per week could be hard to manage.

Will the rainer give you your money back if you dont lose the stone? is it just you thats sets that target?

14st is 182lbs, correct? I believe that losing 13lbs in that short of a time period for someone who is already at a healthy weight would likely not be the best of ideas. I'm 6'1", and lost 13lbs in April by eating 1500-2000 calories, burning 1000+ calories 4x/week at the gym, and walking an average of 3-5mi. nearly every day on top of that, but I was also at 272lbs. I wanted to just about die after the second week, so I can't imagine how much harder it would be for somoneone 100+lbs lighter.

peachyfuzzle wrote: »

14st is 182lbs, correct? I believe that losing 13lbs in that short of a time period for someone who is already at a healthy weight would likely not be the best of ideas. I'm 6'1", and lost 13lbs in April by eating 1500-2000 calories, burning 1000+ calories 4x/week at the gym, and walking an average of 3-5mi. nearly every day on top of that, but I was also at 272lbs. I wanted to just about die after the second week, so I can't imagine how much harder it would be for somoneone 100+lbs lighter.

It's actually 196, but even then that's the low end of overweight (25.9).

shadow2soul wrote: »

peachyfuzzle wrote: »

14st is 182lbs, correct? I believe that losing 13lbs in that short of a time period for someone who is already at a healthy weight would likely not be the best of ideas. I'm 6'1", and lost 13lbs in April by eating 1500-2000 calories, burning 1000+ calories 4x/week at the gym, and walking an average of 3-5mi. nearly every day on top of that, but I was also at 272lbs. I wanted to just about die after the second week, so I can't imagine how much harder it would be for somoneone 100+lbs lighter.

It's actually 196, but even then that's the low end of overweight (25.9).

I can never remember if a stone is 13, or 14lbs...

peachyfuzzle wrote: »

shadow2soul wrote: »

peachyfuzzle wrote: »

14st is 182lbs, correct? I believe that losing 13lbs in that short of a time period for someone who is already at a healthy weight would likely not be the best of ideas. I'm 6'1", and lost 13lbs in April by eating 1500-2000 calories, burning 1000+ calories 4x/week at the gym, and walking an average of 3-5mi. nearly every day on top of that, but I was also at 272lbs. I wanted to just about die after the second week, so I can't imagine how much harder it would be for somoneone 100+lbs lighter.

It's actually 196, but even then that's the low end of overweight (25.9).

I can never remember if a stone is 13, or 14lbs...

I'll be honest, I can't either. I just did a google search about it when I was typing my reply to the OP.

The trainer wouldn't give the money back, £50 a week though £200 a month... If it's possible to save that and still lose the weight I would be happy. From the sounds of the replies though it sounds like I might need to pay that ><

He claims I will lose it with his support and plan. But yeah 196 pounds and it's on the overweight which isn't great...

Considering a year and a half ago I weight around 10 stone and was underweight on the scale it's a massive jump up for me 0.o

Thanks for your input as well people

Just starting out there's a lot to learn

reach1231 wrote: »

The trainer wouldn't give the money back, £50 a week though £200 a month... If it's possible to save that and still lose the weight I would be happy. From the sounds of the replies though it sounds like I might need to pay that ><

He claims I will lose it with his support and plan. But yeah 196 pounds and it's on the overweight which isn't great...

Considering a year and a half ago I weight around 10 stone and was underweight on the scale it's a massive jump up for me 0.o

Thanks for your input as well people Just starting out there's a lot to learn

The thing is though, your goal is outside of the realm of what is healthy. Is it really a big deal if it takes you 7-14 weeks?

I'll repeat this again: 1-2 lbs per week is what is considered a healthy rate of loss.
2.8 lbs per week is only "OK" for people who are obese and you are not obese.

Losing faster means you have to have a larger deficit then what is healthy and will result in more muscle loss than if you stick to what is healthy.

I think if it was me, I would aim for 8 pounds in 5 weeks. If it is more then you won't be disappointed.

It's not necessary to and I understand what your saying, as I know the healthy range is 1% of body fat a week so for me being 196 healthy would be 1.96 lb a week.

However I also know this is a general rule, meaning set to everyone.

I don't want to starve myself I will only cut down to about 1500-1600 calories a day and just increase the excise I do. From doing little to no work outs a week to going gym and walking everyday without cutting back on food to much and cut out the bad stuff surly that's not unhealthy to the point of dangerous is it?

Sorry for the super long replys! And the condescending tone it's not meant to be, I am so grateful for your input, like I said I'm just starting... Never even been gym before until a month ago 0.o

reach1231 wrote: »

It's not necessary to and I understand what your saying, as I know the healthy range is 1% of body fat a week so for me being 196 healthy would be 1.96 lb a week.

However I also know this is a general rule, meaning set to everyone.

I don't want to starve myself I will only cut down to about 1500-1600 calories a day and just increase the excise I do. From doing little to no work outs a week to going gym and walking everyday without cutting back on food to much and cut out the bad stuff surly that's not unhealthy to the point of dangerous is it?

Sorry for the super long replys! And the condescending tone it's not meant to be, I am so grateful for your input, like I said I'm just starting... Never even been gym before until a month ago 0.o

Well, lets look at it this way:

To lose the amount you want you need to create a deficit of 1400 calories a day.

Your estimated maintenance with little to no exercise is: 2344

So 1500-1600 gives you a deficit of 744-844. Which means you have to try and burn 556- 656 calories through exercise every day of the week. Does that honestly sound reasonable to you?

edit: I pulled the maintenance number from here:
http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

ugh...I can't think of how to phrase this part. tongue tied...let me think

Honestly it does, I walk 8 miles a day outside of work and daily tasks, 8 miles using the rule of thumb with the speed it takes for me to walk it is a 100 calories per mile rounded down so that's 800 already from walking. Then I do an hour and a bit in the gym burning roughly on average 400/700 depending on my mood.

That's not including my job which is warehouse sorting center so tipping bags stood up for the duration and the university tasks walking to lessons and walking home etc... With your calculations it kinda sounds like I have a shot to be honest.

I wouldn't need to increase my activities more than what I'm doing now 0.o

And I do little things on the side like ice baths and lemon and green tea and just water. Doesn't have much effect but it has some I guess

No, that's too much weight to lose that fast.

The pros and cons of rapid weight loss aside, the chances are the trainer would just be the difference between burning 800 calories in a session vs 600 if you're doing it by yourself.

If you think that's worth the money, then do it.

FWIW, I've lost well over a stone a month for the last 3 months, but I'm quite a bit heavier than you are (about 19.5 stone now).

reach1231 wrote: »

It's not necessary to and I understand what your saying, as I know the healthy range is 1% of body fat a week so for me being 196 healthy would be 1.96 lb a week.

However I also know this is a general rule, meaning set to everyone.

I don't want to starve myself I will only cut down to about 1500-1600 calories a day and just increase the excise I do. From doing little to no work outs a week to going gym and walking everyday without cutting back on food to much and cut out the bad stuff surly that's not unhealthy to the point of dangerous is it?

Sorry for the super long replys! And the condescending tone it's not meant to be, I am so grateful for your input, like I said I'm just starting... Never even been gym before until a month ago 0.o

reach1231 wrote: »

Honestly it does, I walk 8 miles a day outside of work and daily tasks, 8 miles using the rule of thumb with the speed it takes for me to walk it is a 100 calories per mile rounded down so that's 800 already from walking. Then I do an hour and a bit in the gym burning roughly on average 400/700 depending on my mood.

That's not including my job which is warehouse sorting center so tipping bags stood up for the duration and the university tasks walking to lessons and walking home etc... With your calculations it kinda sounds like I have a shot to be honest.

I wouldn't need to increase my activities more than what I'm doing now 0.o

And I do little things on the side like ice baths and lemon and green tea and just water. Doesn't have much effect but it has some I guess

You're not 196 pounds of fat. You don't net 100 calories per mile walked at your current weight. It's also obvious that you're not going to let health or safety get in the way of your goal ... so have fun and enjoy the lost lean body mass because you wanted to rush.

Quick Links