weight loss shakes /meal replacements

[Redline]

how effective are they? I see they have less protein than he normal shakes but quite a bit of carbs.. are you not supposed to avoid carbs for weight loss?

[tombeej]

Problem with these weight loss/meal replacement shakes is that they're full of fructose - it's usually the primary carb in these things (esp. USN - feel free to check the labels on Diet Fuel and Muscle Science to see what I mean).

 

We've pretty much all heard of the esteemed Robert H. Lustig, MD, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and his campaign to tell the world about the evils of sugar - esp. fructose.

 

So USN claims their Diet Fuel is going to help you drop weight, while simultaneously feeding you the one thing that is being claimed as the cause of the worldwide obesity epidemic?

 

From my own personal experience, I snacked on these things for over a year and didn't drop a gram (actually gained a little weight). I only started dropping weight when I finally began removing all sources of sugar from my diet - I mean everything. I became a sugar nazi.

 

For those of you who don't know about Dr. Lustig, google his name and read up. Also, here's a long (90 min) presentation by him on YouTube. Yes, it's long, but actually incredibly interesting. So pull up a chair, and enjoy:

 

[Minion]

Weight loss, at it's core is about eating less calories than you burn for exercise. How you get those calories (from fat, from carbs, from protein) is largely immaterial, provided the overall calories stay the same.

 

A weight loss shake will only be effective if it gives you fewer calories than the meal it replaces and if you do not then go and make up those calories by eating something else. A diet bar is worse than useless if you're treating it as an additional snack, rather than as a replacement for something with more calories.

 

Lustig's criticism of fructose is somewhat alarmist. Here is a well reasoned and referenced analysis of the video, to provide a balanced opnion:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

[Topwine]

Weight loss, at it's core is about eating less calories than you burn for exercise. How you get those calories (from fat, from carbs, from protein) is largely immaterial, provided the overall calories stay the same.

 

While I agree with your first sentence, your conclusion is not necessary true. You need your energy in all 3 its forms, in a balanced way. This balance will shift and vary according to everyone's needs ito excercise regime, weight gain (or loss) goals etc.

 

You can't just eat 100% proteien, or no fat, and expect to be healthy.

[Minion]

While I agree with your first sentence, your conclusion is not necessary true. You need your energy in all 3 its forms, in a balanced way. This balance will shift and vary according to everyone's needs ito excercise regime, weight gain (or loss) goals etc.

 

You can't just eat 100% proteien, or no fat, and expect to be healthy.

I agree with you 100%. My point was that, from a pure weightloss perspective, only calories are important. The mix is, however, essential for the weightloss to be sustainable and for a healthy, long-term diet.

[Lucky Luke.]

I agree with you 100%. My point was that, from a pure weightloss perspective, only calories are important. The mix is, however, essential for the weightloss to be sustainable and for a healthy, long-term diet.

 

Yes, calories are the key, but how you absorb them (slowly or rapidly) will dictate how easy it is to stick to a lower calorie eating plan.

 

My approach is to eat mostly fiber-rich and low GI food. Also bias your intake towards low GL foods, especially with fruit. That and eat lots of raw vegetables, carrots, cucumber, celery, all that stuff.

[tombeej]

Yes, calories are the key, but how you absorb them (slowly or rapidly) will dictate how easy it is to stick to a lower calorie eating plan.

 

My approach is to eat mostly fiber-rich and low GI food. Also bias your intake towards low GL foods, especially with fruit. That and eat lots of raw vegetables, carrots, cucumber, celery, all that stuff.

 

 

hundreds

[Topwine]

Yes, calories are the key, but how you absorb them (slowly or rapidly) will dictate how easy it is to stick to a lower calorie eating plan.

 

My approach is to eat mostly fiber-rich and low GI food. Also bias your intake towards low GL foods, especially with fruit. That and eat lots of raw vegetables, carrots, cucumber, celery, all that stuff.

I agree, if you have problems with dicipline, stuff up on those fruit and veggies and fibre.

 

You still have to count the Kjoules though, although it is probably much more difficult to overdo it on fruit and veggies alone.

[Lucky Luke.]

As an aside, anyone have an opinion on Xylitol in the context of all the fuss around fructose?

 

I know it's a different compound than fructose, but I've read that there are issues with it being highly processed, and that Stevia (which I know nothing about) may be a better option.

[DJG]

the principle is simple - for weight loss, calories in must be less than calories out (cutting your normal caloric requirement by 500 every 2-3 weeks until you see change).

 

To sustain your muscle mass, however, the adjusted diet should ideally favour protein more - else you will end up in a catabolic state (i.e. with your body using muscle as fuel - easier to break down than fat).

 

Or thats how i understand it anyways.

[Panini]

What is working for me at the moment is the a combination of what everyone is saying. My goal is a healthy lifestyle, not a diet and part of a healthy lifestyle is loosing some weight. And also important is portion size. I have reduced my portion sizes.

 

I have done USN, Evox and even Herbalife meal replacements.

 

Now all I do is avoid fast foods and anything considered not good (in the initial phase for the weight loss) but also learning about balancing out my plate. What I mean by this is checking the calories and understanding what my food composition is per meal. So I don't cut out anything of the three main groups mainly protein, carbs and fats. All I do is make wiser decisions.

 

Also be realistic about your weight loss goals. Everything is relative.

[Zula]

Having lost 20kg's over the past few years, I have learnt that weight loss is not about dieting and drinking silly shakes. Weight loss is about input vs output as well as food education. If you eat less than you need, you will loose weight provided you are eating nutritional food and not calories in the form of KFC or Cadbury's. Simple.

 

Now, food is all about education. There is a thing as a healthy take away. For instance a nandos burger without the mayonnaise is actually good for you. It has carbs, some lean protein which isn't fried and some veg in the form of lettuce, cucumber and tomato. You could also have a penne napolitana at a restaurant which is also clean and healthy food. Ok, one shouldn't be eating a heavy carb meal at night, fine. Carbs for breakfast, carbs for lunch with some protein and fat and then protein at dinner with a small amount of carbs and some fat. Fat will find its way to the plate naturally so don't go ladle on the butter!

 

All these tubs of stuff that they have at the pharmacies promising this and promising that IMHO is a load of shite. It comes from factories in china and who the hell knows what they put into them. There is more than enough natural unprocessed food in this world which we could all eat to get us to our optimal weight. No need for supplements. There are times however that during crazy training that a supplement may me needed, but thats it.

[Redline]

I understand that one needs to make the lifestyle change, but for some one who gets up at 4:30 and does not have the time for eggs and salad breakfast I need to choose between instant oats or a shake. The shake did not work too badly as a breakfast, but can some one help me understand where the fructose comes in? on the back is the following

 

energy - 1462 kj

protein - 46g

carb - 29g

fat - 3.6g

fibre - 9g

then a crap load of vits and minerals

nicotinamide (wtf!?) - 10mg

pantothenic acid - 3mg

biotin?? - 19mg

n-acetyl-l-carnitine(tripple word score) - 364 mg

Garcinaia Cambogia extract - 237mg

 

 

so which one is bad? is the kj basically sugar? and what is this nicotinamide stuff? there to get us hooked on usn?

 

thanks for all the replies

[tombeej]

I understand that one needs to make the lifestyle change, but for some one who gets up at 4:30 and does not have the time for eggs and salad breakfast I need to choose between instant oats or a shake. The shake did not work too badly as a breakfast, but can some one help me understand where the fructose comes in? on the back is the following

 

energy - 1462 kj

protein - 46g

carb - 29g

fat - 3.6g

fibre - 9g

then a crap load of vits and minerals

nicotinamide (wtf!?) - 10mg

pantothenic acid - 3mg

biotin?? - 19mg

n-acetyl-l-carnitine(tripple word score) - 364 mg

Garcinaia Cambogia extract - 237mg

 

 

so which one is bad? is the kj basically sugar? and what is this nicotinamide stuff? there to get us hooked on usn?

 

thanks for all the replies

 

You'd normally check under 'ingredients' to see what type of carbs they're putting in.

 

For me, if I'm going to have a shake it will only be a high-end pure protein (e.g. whey). They cost a lot, but would rather take in top protein than a cheap alternative. The fact that you're not consuming carbs in the shake means that your body can continue being forced to draw from its fat stores to replace the glycogen loss. And by taking pure protein you're helping to rebuild your muscle fibres quicker after each session, and it generally makes you feel fuller, so you (hopefully) eat less too.

 

Edit: now someone's going to jump on my back, saying you have to take in the right amount of carbs after training too. Well, ok sure - if you're doing hard sessions and you want to have fully replenished glycogen stores for the next session (esp. if training twice a day). But the OP's question was about weight loss. If weight loss is the objective, and if you're taking it seriously, you'll have to expect a reduction in performance and energy levels while living on a calorie reduced diet. Once you reach goal weight then, sure, back to proper complex carbs after a session along with the high quality lean protein.

Edited June 9, 2011 by tombeej

[chris_w_65]

+1 to everyone above that said it is all about consuming less calories than you burn and it doesn't matter how you get the calories.

 

That being said, to live a healthy lifestyle you should balance carbs, protein and fat - you can worry about this later, lose the weight first.

 

I lost 28kg in 28 weeks and I didn't do a lot of exercise. Now that I am at my goal weight I am concentrating on getting fit, strong and healthy.

[Topwine]

 

I lost 28kg in 28 weeks and I didn't do a lot of exercise.

Wow, Chris. If you lost 1kg/week, that means your KJoule deficit was 4000 kJ / day. Considering that the normal man needs around 8000 kJoules/day, you must have starved yourself ?