Meal Replacement Suggestions?

TR0berts

Milk

moonstroller

annacole94 wrote: »

Losing at a good rate (not the maximum rate) to maintain muscle mass is important if you prefer "Batman Bale" to "Machinist Bale" for a look.



Maximum weight loss is rarely the actual goal.

Is that "Batman Bale" or "American Psycho Bale"?

annacole94

moonstroller wrote: »

annacole94 wrote: »

Losing at a good rate (not the maximum rate) to maintain muscle mass is important if you prefer "Batman Bale" to "Machinist Bale" for a look.



Maximum weight loss is rarely the actual goal.

Is that "Batman Bale" or "American Psycho Bale"?

It's "lazy google Bale". Point stands.

GingerPwr

If I can assume you're eating breakfast-y things like bacon and eggs for breakfast, then you may want to add in some good dietary fiber from dense vegetables like broccoli, carrots, Brussels sprouts, etc. Personally, I like grating cauliflower and using it in place of rice and mix in other veggies, like peppers and onions.

kommodevaran

Brian_Dempsey wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

What kind of "good stuff" are the meal replacements supposed to have?

This is what this one has (not a bunch of sugar, synthetic nutrients, etc.):

* 20 grams of clean, organic plant protein with 44 superfoods including organic grass juices, fruits and veggies and 6 grams of fiber to keep you satisfied
* 21 vitamins and minerals
* 1.5 billion CFU probiotics and enzymes for easy digestion
* Organic, gluten free, Star-K kosher, vegan, dairy free, soy free, Informed Choice Certified (Trusted by Sport), non-GMO whole food protein

It actually is "real food" - in a powder, apparently.

To me, it reads like "woo".

kommodevaran wrote: »

Up your calories, and tighten up your logging.

I log every single thing I eat for the last nearly 40 days.

But now you need to be more careful. Set a more appropriate calorie goal. Check every entry for errors, weigh everything and log exact amount.

kommodevaran wrote: »

Up until now, "just eating less" has made you lose weight.

I power walk 35 miles per week, drink a ton of water, have been more active, have lowered my carbs significantly, etc. It's comes off kind-of snarky or condescending to say I've only lost weight because I'm eating less. Or maybe I'm reading too much into your comment.

You have been eating less. You've exercised as well, but exercise doesn't take up the bulk of your calorie deficit. Drinking water and reducing carbs has had no impact on your weight loss.

By my comment I wanted to make you aware that your body needs proper fuel. 1500 calories is the minimum "allowed" for males. I don't have the impression that you are neither old, short, nor sedentary. This means that you need more fuel than 1500. You have lost weight, this means that you've eaten below your maintenance. And you are still healthy and you haven't been hungry. That is good. But when you have usually logged "around 1300", and you are healthy, and not hungry, this means one of two things - 1) that something is not right with your logging and that you in reality are eating more than you think, and your loss will start to slow down unless you tighten it up ("just eating less" has been enough to make you lose weight as long as you had "plenty" of fatty tissue; now that is gone and you need to be more accurate), or 2) that you are indeed eating 1300 calories most days, and there is just a question of time before you crash and burn. I want you to succeed, not crash. It's just that.

Geocitiesuser

By my comment I wanted to make you aware that your body needs proper fuel. 1500 calories is the minimum "allowed" for males. I don't have the impression that you are neither old, short, nor sedentary. This means that you need more fuel than 1500.

This. MyFitnessPal is designed to eat back part of your exercise calories. 1500 should be the absolute bare minimum you eat. It's easy to get excited about losing fast but you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't eat 1500 a day at a very bare minimum. Rome was not built over night.