Obesity Discussion Forums

[MikeB]

Remember that under 1500 calories per day you go into starvation and your body basically shuts down your metabolism. Eating once per day again sends your metabolism into a tailspin and forces it to slow everything down.
At 200 calories per day after awhile you'd want to eat your own arm off.
Eat 6-8 times per day, small meals with a good mix of carbs/protein/fats (good fats). You should be around 2200 calories per day of good food and make sure that you're exercising at least 4 times a week for at least 20-30 minutes per day. As you get used to it you can increase the amount of exercise. You must do resistance training or you will be losing muscle mass while you cut, muscle allows you to burn more calories while resting which in turn makes it easier to drop weight.
Starving yourself is NOT the answer....
Stop drinking anything but water, eat healthy things like egg white omlettes, tuna from the can (no mayo - water packed), almonds, oatmeal, green veggies (stay away from creamy salad dressings), use natural peanut butter (no jelly), olive oil etc. You can read my blog towards the end, there's daily food listings with calories to help you start. To be honest I made it easy for myself and just started eating the same thing every day for awhile. Sure it sucks but it's easier to deal with, variety came at dinner.
DO NOT BUY COOKIES, CAKES, SWEETS, WHITE BREAD, SUGER, PRE-MADE CEREAL, DRIED FRUITS.
EAT TO LIVE, DON'T LIVE TO EAT

[Steve]

Originally Posted by MikeB

Remember that under 1500 calories per day you go into starvation and your body basically shuts down your metabolism.

Three things here:

1. There is no set caloric intake level that triggers the starvation mode.

2. The physiological survival mechanisms that many call the "starvation mode or response" is not an instant flip of a switch. Rather, it's a process.

3. As long as there are no pre-existing medical conditions.... the metabolism does NOT shutdown. The largest documented slowdown in a clinical setting was the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Here, they literally starved the test subjects to mimick post-war conditions as well as the conditions of the Nazi camps. With extreme staration, the largest metabolic down-regulation was only 30% from base.

Eating once per day again sends your metabolism into a tailspin and forces it to slow everything down.

I certainly do NOT advocate eating 1-2 meals per day. However, meal frequency is not really associated with metabolic rate. At the end of the day, in terms of metabolic rate, there is no real difference between eating 3 meals per day and eating 7+ meals per day.

At 200 calories per day after awhile you'd want to eat your own arm off.

This is for the original poster.

Were you counting your drinks when you mentioned how many calories you were eating?

You must do resistance training or you will be losing muscle mass while you cut

,

You'd be surprised what an obese person can get away with without losing muscle. Compare them to their leaner counterparts.... sure, resistance training becomes critical for body recomposition as well as muscle maintenance.

Being very obese though, changes the playing field. They can handle a bigger deficit without running into 'dieting disasters' (ie. hormonal disruptions to insulin, ghrelin, leptin, peptide YY, muscle loss, stalled fat loss, etc).

Even without weight training. Not that I advocate it.

muscle allows you to burn more calories while resting which in turn makes it easier to drop weight.

Current figures show that 1 lb of muscle only burns 6 calories. You would have to gain a metric-ton of weight to make a big difference.

And not that you said this or anything.... but nobody is going to be gaining any *serious* amounts of muscle while dieting.

Starving yourself is NOT the answer....

I concur.

Sorry to pick apart your post. It wasn't meant as an insult, at all!

[William Wallace]

Originally Posted by Steve

I certainly do NOT advocate eating 1-2 meals per day. However, meal frequency is not really associated with metabolic rate. At the end of the day, in terms of metabolic rate, there is no real difference between eating 3 meals per day and eating 7+ meals per day

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the point of eating more meals a day more of a mindset help than anything, as eating smaller more frequent meals will make you feel like you're eating full, and will help you prevent yourself from overeating

Originally Posted by Steve

You'd be surprised what an obese person can get away with without losing muscle. Compare them to their leaner counterparts.... sure, resistance training becomes critical for body recomposition as well as muscle maintenance.

Being very obese though, changes the playing field. They can handle a bigger deficit without running into 'dieting disasters' (ie. hormonal disruptions to insulin, ghrelin, leptin, peptide YY, muscle loss, stalled fat loss, etc).

Is this because the body will burn fat over muscle when fat is available, but for those who are thinner and still trying to trim down, the body may start burning muscle as well for fuel?

Originally Posted by Steve

Current figures show that 1 lb of muscle only burns 6 calories. You would have to gain a metric-ton of weight to make a big difference.

Really? Everything I have read says 1lb of muscle burns 35-50 calories a day at rest. What you said contradicts everything I have ever read. Is there an article or study I can read that explains this better? I'm curious why this 35-50 calorie a day myth is floating around.



Just curious, for someone like BigBoydMan trying to lose weight at his size, what is a good protein/fat/carb ratio and how many calories should he eat a day?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by William Wallace

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the point of eating more meals a day more of a mindset help than anything, as eating smaller more frequent meals will make you feel like you're eating full, and will help you prevent yourself from overeating

Sure, it can help with satiety. It also helps with hormonal regulation and micronutrient utilization. I was simply commenting on it's lack of association to metabolic rate.

Plus, there seems to be a boat-load of people out there trying to lose weight, and they are fretting b/c they believe that they have to eat 5+ meals per day in order to lose, and they just can't seem to fit that into their schedules.

Newsflash: You don't have to.

If you can, happily.... certainly do so. There are benefits not directly associated to weight loss, but health in general

If you can't, don't worry about it.

Is this because the body will burn fat over muscle when fat is available, but for those who are thinner and still trying to trim down, the body may start burning muscle as well for fuel?

MMMM, I guess you could say that. The body is a very complicated system. The real reason for this is mainly associated with hormone levels that are associated with fat. If you are really interested, do some research on the hormones I listed in the above post.

Really? Everything I have read says 1lb of muscle burns 35-50 calories a day at rest. What you said contradicts everything I have ever read. Is there an article or study I can read that explains this better? I'm curious why this 35-50 calorie a day myth is floating around.

Yea, and?

There are a million and one myths floating around with regards to the fitness industry. Why is it hard to believe that this one is any different?

I will try and find the most recent literature on the subject.

However, I am a prime-example of how flawed it is. I keep maticulous tracking of my nutrition and I've had some pretty impressive bulks over my "career." Most recently, I gained 15 lbs of lean body mass. If your numbers were accurate, that would mean my metabolism now expends 750 more calories per day.

Haha, I don't think so.

Take more extreme examples, such as a few friends/associates I have in the biz who juice. It's nothing for them to gain 30-50 lbs of muscle in a year.

Just curious, for someone like BigBoydMan trying to lose weight at his size, what is a good protein/fat/carb ratio and how many calories should he eat a day?

I don't ever use ratios or percentages. I rather use cals and grams.

Typically, maintenance caloric levels can be estimated to be around 14-16 calories per pound. However, I've worked with some obese people and I've found their maintenance to be around 11-12 lbs on average. Suppose you have a 400 lbs individual. This would equate to a 4800 calories maintenance level.

Normally, you should use *sane* caloric deficits to invoke weight loss. However, again, when dealing with obese persons, the playing field changes. They are able to maintain a much larger deficit. A good starting point would be something like 50% of maintenance if tolerable. This would be 2400 calories.

It's about finding the path of least resistance though. Many would be hungry on this. Our friend here says he was only eating 200 calories per day and barely losing weight. I don't see how that is humanly possible at his size.... but so be it.

Then I work on protein requirements. Someone like me, when I am dieting, I shoot for 1.5 grams per pound that I weigh. This certainly wouldn't be the case for a 400lb individual. It's better to base it off of LBM. Figuring that out though, at that size, can be a challenge. I've also used goal weight. Suppose this individual wanted to weigh 200 lbs. That will give you a reasonable protein intake, assuming 1 gram per pound of goal weight.

This could be close to his LBM anyhow.

I would next figure out my fat intake, which too, would be based on this number. Something like .25-.5 grams of fat per pound of LBM of goal weight would work. This should be comprised primarily of the good stuff.

The remainder can come from either more fats and/or carbs. Certainly fruits and veggies.

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by Steve

Sure, it can help with satiety. It also helps with hormonal regulation and micronutrient utilization. I was simply commenting on it's lack of association to metabolic rate.

Plus, there seems to be a boat-load of people out there trying to lose weight, and they are fretting b/c they believe that they have to eat 5+ meals per day in order to lose, and they just can't seem to fit that into their schedules.

Newsflash: You don't have to.

If you can, happily.... certainly do so. There are benefits not directly associated to weight loss, but health in general

If you can't, don't worry about it.



MMMM, I guess you could say that. The body is a very complicated system. The real reason for this is mainly associated with hormone levels that are associated with fat. If you are really interested, do some research on the hormones I listed in the above post.



Yea, and?

There are a million and one myths floating around with regards to the fitness industry. Why is it hard to believe that this one is any different?

I will try and find the most recent literature on the subject.

However, I am a prime-example of how flawed it is. I keep maticulous tracking of my nutrition and I've had some pretty impressive bulks over my "career." Most recently, I gained 15 lbs of lean body mass. If your numbers were accurate, that would mean my metabolism now expends 750 more calories per day.

Haha, I don't think so.

Take more extreme examples, such as a few friends/associates I have in the biz who juice. It's nothing for them to gain 30-50 lbs of muscle in a year.



I don't ever use ratios or percentages. I rather use cals and grams.

Typically, maintenance caloric levels can be estimated to be around 14-16 calories per pound. However, I've worked with some obese people and I've found their maintenance to be around 11-12 lbs on average. Suppose you have a 400 lbs individual. This would equate to a 4800 calories maintenance level.

Normally, you should use *sane* caloric deficits to invoke weight loss. However, again, when dealing with obese persons, the playing field changes. They are able to maintain a much larger deficit. A good starting point would be something like 50% of maintenance if tolerable. This would be 2400 calories.

It's about finding the path of least resistance though. Many would be hungry on this. Our friend here says he was only eating 200 calories per day and barely losing weight. I don't see how that is humanly possible at his size.... but so be it.

Then I work on protein requirements. Someone like me, when I am dieting, I shoot for 1.5 grams per pound that I weigh. This certainly wouldn't be the case for a 400lb individual. It's better to base it off of LBM. Figuring that out though, at that size, can be a challenge. I've also used goal weight. Suppose this individual wanted to weigh 200 lbs. That will give you a reasonable protein intake, assuming 1 gram per pound of goal weight.

This could be close to his LBM anyhow.

I would next figure out my fat intake, which too, would be based on this number. Something like .25-.5 grams of fat per pound of LBM of goal weight would work. This should be comprised primarily of the good stuff.

The remainder can come from either more fats and/or carbs. Certainly fruits and veggies.

Great info Steve! I guess building muscle for the purpose of burning calories in the long run is a bit overrated! Great tips on the caloric deficit and ratios too.

A little off-topic, now that you are cutting down, what body fat % do you hope to achieve?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Obesity Discussion

Great info Steve! I guess building muscle for the purpose of burning calories in the long run is a bit overrated! Great tips on the caloric deficit and ratios too.

A little off-topic, now that you are cutting down, what body fat % do you hope to achieve?

Thanks.

I don't really have a % in mind. I am going more for a specific look. Where I end up BF%-wise is whatever. It will probably be around 7-8%.

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by Steve

Thanks.

I don't really have a % in mind. I am going more for a specific look. Where I end up BF%-wise is whatever. It will probably be around 7-8%.

I too am shooting for around 8% myself, although you have twice the muscle mass that I do . I just need to get more committed to the gym. Once to twice a week just isn't cutting it . I got down to about 159lbs which put me maybe around 10%, but I just put 3lbs back on after barely working out the last few weeks.


Sorry for the thread hijack. Back on topic

[MikeB]

Steve, you and I concur on the caloric intake however your information is quite different than I have access to on multiple meals per day, metabolism changes etc. Remember for every 1 study you may quote there are probably 2 more that go the other way. I'm lucky to have access to world and olympic level wrestling nutritionists/fitness people as a guideline for my information. I've recently completed my Bronze coaching certification and moving onto my Silver one of the things that we have to concentrate on is nutrition and weight training. The thoughts that I put down concur with the information given to me and the studies that were done to back them up.
Sorry man, I'm going to go with what I know works and continue giving people that information. As with anything fitness there are 500 viewpoints on almost everything.

Boyd the key is you're going to have to make some changes, for me personally if I don't eat every two hours I binge later in the day and end up eating 3-5K calories of crap instead of 2-3K calories of healthy stuff, that may be different for you. I swag'd at 2400 calories but Steve is right, you need to find our your Lean Body Mass (LBM) and calculate your required intake from that, the fat requires no energy to maintain itself.

Mike

[Merle]

Originally Posted by MikeB

Steve, you and I concur on the caloric intake however your information is quite different than I have access to on multiple meals per day, metabolism changes etc. Remember for every 1 study you may quote there are probably 2 more that go the other way. I'm lucky to have access to world and olympic level wrestling nutritionists/fitness people as a guideline for my information. I've recently completed my Bronze coaching certification and moving onto my Silver one of the things that we have to concentrate on is nutrition and weight training. The thoughts that I put down concur with the information given to me and the studies that were done to back them up.
Sorry man, I'm going to go with what I know works and continue giving people that information. As with anything fitness there are 500 viewpoints on almost everything.

Boyd the key is you're going to have to make some changes, for me personally if I don't eat every two hours I binge later in the day and end up eating 3-5K calories of crap instead of 2-3K calories of healthy stuff, that may be different for you. I swag'd at 2400 calories but Steve is right, you need to find our your Lean Body Mass (LBM) and calculate your required intake from that, the fat requires no energy to maintain itself.

Mike

I would be curious to see the sources for both of your information, this could make for a good debate/discussion thread that I would love to participate in. Would one of you be willing to start a new thread to discuss this and cite some resources?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by mikeb

Steve, you and I concur on the caloric intake however your information is quite different than I have access to on multiple meals per day, metabolism changes etc.

Very interesting.

Remember for every 1 study you may quote there are probably 2 more that go the other way

I have my head buried in research more than I’d like to admit.

And I will agree, on some subjects science is undecided. One such subject is protein requirements for the various populations.

However, with regards to meal frequency’s impact on metabolic rate…. the science is pretty conclusive. For every 1 study you might find for your side, I could probably find 15 or more against it.

So, I’d be interested to see what studies you are referencing.

I’m lucky to have access to world and olympic level wrestling nutritionists/fitness people as a guideline for my information

Very cool.

I’d be interested in speaking with some of them who don’t buy into meal frequency’s impact on metabolic output. (or I should say lack thereof)

I too, am lucky. I’ve made a name for myself in this industry. Not one to the point where general people know me. But various world renowned authorities in strength coaching, dietetics, and exercise science give me time, on a regular basis. Many published individuals not only in books, but studies as well.

I’ve recently completed my Bronze coaching certification and moving onto my Silver one of the things that we have to concentrate on is nutrition and weight training.

I assume this is a coaching certification for wrestling. First let me say, congrats. And good luck moving up the ranks! J

However, I highly doubt that the certifications go into any appreciable depth with regards to nutrition and weight training. Maybe weight training, but even top level personal training certs don’t go into weight training in any great deal, IMO. I’ve never seen a sport-specific cert go beyond the scope of the best personal training certs with regards to weight training, and again, they aren’t even sufficient IMO.

And nutrition is 10 times more involved than weight training, again, IMO.

Does the cert go into endocrinology and it’s relation to nutrition. Things like leptin, peptide YY, gherlin, etc? If so, I might consider your cert as a “reference” to back your expertise on the subject.

Sure, endocrinology is merely one facet of nutrition, but it’s a complex one at that. And when dealing with metabolic output, endocrinology is closely associated with the subject.

Any sport-specific cert I’ve seen certainly goes into the basics of nutrition and strength training. However, it would be impossible for them to go into either subject in great detail or it would overwhelm the subject of certification, read, the sport it is testing you on.

And let’s remember, certification aside, we are not talking about nutrition in relation to athletic performance. We are merely speaking of meal frequency’s relation to metabolic output.

The thoughts that I put down concur with the information given to me and the studies that were done to back them up.

Sounds outdated.

Again, I’d by very interested in seeing the science.

Sorry man, I’m going to go with what I know works and continue giving people that information.

Certainly no need for apologies.

I’d be interested in hearing how many people you’ve walked through weight loss using your “way” compared to my “way” in order to draw these conclusions. I hope you aren’t passing this advice out based simply on information you’ve read in a wrestling coach certification.

And FYI, I don’t care what level of coaches you have at your fingertips…. coaches are not experts. They get their information from the experts. At least they are supposed to.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My recommendations come 3 fold:

1. I’ve trained literally hundreds of people. I started when I was 18, and I’ve had a lot of success. When I first started in the industry, I was simply a child. I was successful with my own physique, and people wanted me to share my philosophies. Most of my information was “second-hand” passed down through the bodybuilding tree, since that was my background. Now that I educated, I call this “bro-science.” Much of the myths circling around the athletic, fitness, nutrition community is actually based on bodybuilding bro-science.

It just so happens that one of those myths is meal frequency and the need to eat small, numerous meals to keep your metabolism “stoked.”

So I had all of my clients eating at least 5 meals per day…. and if I did enough arm-twisting, I would have them eating 7 or 8.

Eventually, as my credibility grew and I made myself more open and exposed to the industry leaders, I learned to research. I also learned to study. And I also met some of the top authorities with regards to the subject at hand. I eventually learned the “truths” of the human body and its relation to the world it interacts with, including nutrition.

At this point, I had many clients who weren’t happy. They were getting results, but they felt trapped by their meal plans. Eating every 2-4 hours killed them. Many working-class individuals just can’t swing it.

With my new found education, I simply dropped their feedings to whatever they wanted, as long as they were getting 3 in. Many did go down to 3 meals per day.

And guess what?

Results did not change. Rates of fat loss remained constant. As long as the various variables were accounted for (cals, protein, efas, etc), weight still went in the direction as planned, no matter how many times per day food touched their lips.

Same goes for myself. I am leaner than a vast majority of the nation. My schedule is insane. Rarely can I eat 6+ meals per day. I can remain just as lean eating 3 as I can eating 7+.

Real world results speak for themselves.

2. My contacts, as mentioned previously. I certainly don’t consider myself ground-breaking. Many of the top strength and figure coaches in the world will agree; meal frequency doesn’t have an impact on metabolic rate. Now, many of them will advocate frequent feedings…. however, their advocacy of this has nothing to do with some mystical impact on metabolic rate.

3. Science. And this comes last for a reason. Disregarding science is a mistake of the highest regard. However, science certainly doesn’t tell all. If science doesn’t match the real world, I certainly don’t throw out the real world and keep the science. J For science to be valid, it has to explain what actually happens in the real world. If it doesn’t, it’s back to the drawing board for the lab rats.

If science proclaimed that frequent feedings had some mystical impact on metabolic rate (which it DOESN’T), I certainly wouldn’t shift my viewpoints and make all of my clients who had equal results eating 3 meals compared to 7 go back to 7, simply because science says so.

Thankfully, in this particular instance though, science actually validates the ability to eat less meals without slowing down metabolic output.

FYI:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=9155494&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docs um

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=7076516&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=3592618&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=8383639&query_hl=22&itool=pubmed_docsu m

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlu s&list_uids=8399092&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsu m

This is just a few. I can find more if need be. And again, I am serious about seeing your science… as it intrigues me that you have significant data suggesting otherwise.

Lyle McDonald, one of the top nutrition scientists in the world as well as a leader in exercise science says this with regards to the topic:

“for the most part, I suspect that
a. while 1 vs. 6 meals may show a difference in some things
b. 3 vs. 6 probably won't”

I honestly have no problems agreeing to disagree. However, I wonder about the things above. How much hands on work have you actually had in order to reach your conclusions that frequent feedings positively effects metabolic output. Also, what science have you found that backs up this claim. If someone can prove a strong viewpoint against one of my own with enough reasoning, empirical evidence, and science….. then I certainly don’t have problems agreeing to disagree.

And for everyone else’s reference…. I AM a huge advocate of frequent feedings. I am simply debating its impact on metabolic output in this thread.

[Steve]

Thanks for doing that OD, I was beginning to worry about the thread hijack.

[Obesity Discussion]

Very interesting and very good information Steve. I too used to go by the eat 6 meals a day theory, but it was more to trick me into thinking I was eating more than I was, similar to part of the reason I drink tons of liquids, to make me feel more full. After reading some other research I went down to about 4 meals because 6 was too hard to do and I wasn't able to see enough evidence that 3 vs. 6 vs. whatever made a huge difference.

As always, very insightful information, and good support, which is very appreciated!! I plan on reading some of those tonight.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Obesity Discussion

Very interesting and very good information Steve. I too used to go by the eat 6 meals a day theory, but it was more to trick me into thinking I was eating more than I was, similar to part of the reason I drink tons of liquids, to make me feel more full. After reading some other research I went down to about 4 meals because 6 was too hard to do and I wasn't able to see enough evidence that 3 vs. 6 vs. whatever made a huge difference.

As always, very insightful information, and good support, which is very appreciated!! I plan on reading some of those tonight.

Thanks very much for the kind words.

[MikeB]

Regular eating has beneficial effects on fasting lipid and postprandial insulin profiles and thermogenesis. AKA if you eat more infrequently it will fubar your blood sugar levels - if you've got high blood sugar levels your body stores fat. - Entrez PubMed

The irregular meal frequency appears to produce a degree of insulin resistance and higher fasting lipid profiles, which may indicate a deleterious effect on these cardiovascular risk factors. - Entrez PubMed

That's 5 minutes of searching, so although you came up with studies indicating metabolism changes weren't affected over the short term, there are studies showing that blood sugar is impacted by such a diet. In fact I used to be one of the people who used to be affected by irregular eating patterns and skipping breakfast causing dizziness, irratability and classic diabetic weight gain - all belly....

[Obesity Discussion]

interesting rebuttal Mr. Bambic, I like where this thread is going

[William Wallace]

Originally Posted by Obesity Discussion

interesting rebuttal Mr. Bambic, I like where this thread is going

I'm really learning a lot and appreciate both sides sharing their views!

[Steve]

How the heck is that an interesting rebuttal?

I thought I might have highlighted the actual topic of debate too much in my original post. Obviously not though.

We were debating the meal frequency's impact on metabolism. Not the efficacy of eating frequently. I agreed that there are certain reasons why I advocate frequent feedings.... control of insulin being one of them. I can list a host of reasons why frequent eating is good. But that is NOT what we were talking about. We were talking about metabolic output.

The studies you provided show nothing with regards to the topic at hand. They only further the idea that frequent feedings can be effect the body positively, which I already mentioned.

[Obesity Discussion]

Originally Posted by Steve

How the heck is that an interesting rebuttal?

I thought I might have highlighted the actual topic of debate too much in my original post. Obviously not though.

We were debating the meal frequency's impact on metabolism. Not the efficacy of eating frequently. I agreed that there are certain reasons why I advocate frequent feedings.... control of insulin being one of them. I can list a host of reasons why frequent eating is good. But that is NOT what we were talking about. We were talking about metabolic output.

The studies you provided show nothing with regards to the topic at hand. They only further the idea that frequent feedings can be effect the body positively, which I already mentioned.

The reason it was interesting to me was two fold....one was because his answer was different than the topic at hand as you mentioned (which I think may have been Mike's admission of defeat on the topic ).....and two because I found it interesting to see that eating more meals in some instances may be beneficial (blood sugar/insulin), whereas for weight loss it makes no difference. That could mean that those with high blood sugar, or BigBoydMan for example who we were discussing initially, may actually benefit from eating more meals per day, but not for weight loss purposes, but moreso for keeping his very high blood sugar in check.

[boydbigman]

Hello all,

Hope everyone is having a nice day, wow hot here.

I went to my doctor yesterday, and he prescribed and started me on some meds. The meds are Glucophage Generic Name: metformin 500 MG. 2 times a day and Zocor 40 MG 1 times per day.

Also hello to you and thank you sass63

Today I had a half tuna "packed in water tuna" sandwhich with some mustard on Nature's Own bread "40 calories per slice" for lunch. Diet Rite Zero Cola.

I wanted to share with you all here.

GROCERY LIST SO FAR…. For boydbigman

Diet Rite Cola
NO Salt Crackers Saltines
Cottage Cheese “Diet kind”
Oat Meal Oats “Plain”
Nature’s Own 40 per calorie bread
Chicken “for rotisserie”
Italian Lite Low fat dressing “For Boydbigman”
Ranch dressing “For wife N daughter”
Whole Wheat Muffins
Shredded Cheese “For wife and daughter”
Oven Roasted Turkey Sandwhich Meat “Lean”
Cans of LITE Peaches “for lite cottage cheese”
Tomatoes
Mixed Greens
Prunes
Skim Milk
Healthy Choice Meals
No Salt substitute
Diet Butter
Apple Cider Vinegar

Like to hear some input please on the above list so far.

I don't think a couple of NO Salt Salteen crackers with a salad or 2 crackers in between meals would be bad. If I don't have some other more healthy snack to grab. Having a disabled income is hard. We can't afford much. My wife and daughter is going to be putting out some Tomatoe and sqaush and pepper plants out soon.

For small snack, I might think I could have a wedge of tomatoe or pepper or a Dill pickle "no sugar added" for a snack. Maybe a piece of Bannana or apple.

What ya think?

Comment to: Obesity Discussion Administrator

You said:
"OK, since some of these posts were getting a bit off track with regards to the initial topic at hand, I'm going to split this into a new topic regarding meal frequency and metabolism"

I agree and I apologize for not doing this sooner.

I am sorry. I am doing this now. I want to do what is right cooperate fully.

Look'n forward to you folks replies.

Thank you for Ya'lls support and suggestions.

boydbigman

[boydbigman]

Obesity Discussion
Administrator

Hello again....
You said:
"Me personally, I would avoid diet soda all together....diet soda makes some people crave sweets even more. The saltine crackers aren't the best carbohydrates, muffins are frequently loaded with butter/fat/calories, so keep an eye on the nutritional labels, healthy choice meals are loaded with salt. I must ask though, where is the protein? I would like to see more protein in your diet. Everything else though looks pretty good! "

Please, would you suggest some replacement foods for my Grocery list?
***Keep in mind, we have a strict low income, and money is super tight please.

I will be eating as much oatmeal "plain" daily to try to help get my cholesterol levels under control. I fasted 9 hours and my sugar was 274 yesterday and today down to 245 today, Mmmmm a bit lower. I'm glad, now if I can keep it going down. Thank you both for support.
Today I had a half tuna "packed in water tuna" sandwhich with some mustard on Nature's Own bread "40 calories per slice" for lunch. Diet Rite Zero Cola. I am going to try my dang darndess to get my sugar levels down down, wow is mine outta control. I am going to try hard too and with God's strength I will get both my cholesterol and high sugar levels down. These 2 are my goal for now.

Look'n for your reply and thank you all here for your help and suggestions.

boydbigman