I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but what you are trying to do is basically physically impossible. You are talking about losing a pound a day, essentially. If you ate NOTHING, not a single calorie, for 3 1/2 weeks, you STILL couldn't lose that much weight, fat or muscle or anything else. People who lose 5 and 10 pounds in a week are people who weigh a LOT more than you do, and often you see that in the first week or two of any diet because of water weight loss. Very few people under 500 pounds could sustain that kind of loss more than a couple of weeks.
First of all, I have to agree with another poster that setting "goals" of losing a certain amount of weight in a certain time period is a bad idea. For one thing, what happens when you don't meet that goal for whatever reason? You wind up getting discouraged. You want goals that are ATTAINABLE within reason, and even if you stick to your plan perfectly, your body may not cooperate. For most people, women especially, it does not release fat on a steady, even schedule. So, setting small goals like 26 pounds is fine, but you don't want to attach a timetable to it.
Everybody likes to contemplate how quickly they might lose, so let's look at some facts to help you think about it in a reasonable fashion.
First of all, a pound of body fat is worth 3500 calories. You have to eat 3500 calories LESS than you burn in a given time period in order to lose a pound of fat. Let's say you ate 500 calories less per day than you need to maintain your weight. That means you would lose 1 pound in a week. You might cut calories a little more to try to lose more quickly, but if you dip below your basal metabolic rate, your body will be thrown into crisis mode. It will assume there is a severe food shortage, and it will adjust systems in your body to help you survive. For one thing, it'll slow down your metabolism so that your body can run on fewer calories. This will cause your weight loss to slow down. Second, it will start burning muscle tissue in order to PRESERVE your fat stores. It considers muscle expendable in the face of famine. So, your weight may not change very much, but your muscle-to-fat ratio will get WORSE, and you'll be LARGER than if you had lost that weight in fat alone.
I don't know your age or height, but I plugged some sample stats (30 years old, 5'6" tall) into a metabolism calculator using your weight and gender, and assuming an ordinary activity level. It said that your basal metabolic rate would be 1808, and your active metabolic rate would be 2350. That means that you would never want to eat less than about 1800 calories per day, and if your activity was more than just average light daily activity, you might want to eat more. It's somewhat of a balancing act.
So, let's say that for now your activity level stayed the same and you ate 1800 calories per day. That would allow you to lose a pound per week. That is perfectly safe, it protects your metabolism so that you continue to lose, and protects your muscle tissue. Do you see why losing a pound per day is impossible? Your body need much less than 3500 calories per day to stay at the same weight, so it's literally impossible to create a 3500 calorie deficit to burn off a pound of fat or anything else.
Why don't you go to this web site: http://www.jimkaras.com/loss_math01.cfm
. You can plug in your actual stats and obtain the calorie level that will allow you to lose safely and steadily and not damage your metabolism and lose muscle tissue. Remember that weight loss goals are fine in terms of total number of pounds, but try to abandon the crash-diet marketing mentality that promises miraculous weight loss. That's just fantasy and is not based on any kind of biological truth.