# Shake diets



## Riverman (13 Feb 2012)

Hi,

Back in October I decided to try a shake diet. This diet involves replacing two main meals a day with nutritionally balanced shakes and having a regular healthy meal in the evening. However, the number of meals per day is more like five but the remaining two of the five meals are smaller and more snack like.

I have been cycling for a number of years and have lost weight but regular droughts of cycling have seen me put weight on as I've never really sorted my diet out.

I have been quite surprised by the outcome of this diet. I have definitely lost weight, for example I started out at 14 stone and am now a healthy 12. However, what I was really surprised by was how much I've got used to cutting snacks etc out of my diet. Initially I was quite fearful I wouldn't be able to cope with intense feelings of hunger, however, it turned out such cravings never really materialised.

Infact, if anything I've felt a lot better. Over the last few years I've been suffering from what can sometimes be quite intense nausea. It seems to almost follow me around but becomes more intense when I have problems sleeping. I used to eat literally just to get rid of the nausea, which only served to undo all the hard work I'd been doing on the bike.

Whilst I've been on this diet, I've noticed the nausea I suffer has been significantly reduced. My stomoch seems to prefer being empty most of the time, although I've wondered whether this may be because I might have a slight gluten intolerance?

And lastly, almost out of co-incidence (as my last bike was written off a few weeks before I started the diet), the only exercise I've done has been dailyish 30 min sessions on the exercise bike.

One of the anxieties I had was that I'd put loads of weight back on when I stopped taking hte shakes and I will admit too that I had a brief hiatus from the diet for about a month over Christmas and New Year, however, I was surprised how resilient my body was to weight gain as my weight barely changed over that period.

I know there's no magic bullet to weight loss but I do think these kind of diets should be taken seriously. They can work for some people.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (14 Feb 2012)

I don't know about you or anyone else of course,but my 2600cals a day would take some time to drink if it was blended up into a shake. Probably wouldn't be as smooth,or full of flavour,as thick and probably not as sweet. It wouldn't be appealing in general.

No offence to you(and this is not directed at you) but these types of products are laughable. Rather than learn about food,people just turn to watery calories and most skip exercise thinking that they will be ripped and beach ready in weeks. Lack of food knowledge or ignorance to it makes these shakes sell. I don't understand why an adult,would wish to consume something that resembles baby food.


I'm curious to know if anyone here has tried such diets,and what the results were.


----------



## Globalti (14 Feb 2012)

I was looking at some of this stuff in the shops yesterday and the very same thought went through my mind... why subject yourself to such misery and a cocktail of chemical ingredients when you can eat enjoyably and still lose weight? A bowl of cereal for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch, some fruit during the day and a light evening meal, moderate exercise and you're bound to lose weight.


----------



## Riverman (14 Feb 2012)

> A bowl of cereal for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch, some fruit during the day and a light evening meal, moderate exercise and you're bound to lose weight.


 
I think one of the main benefits of these diets is to force a degree of structure into eating patterns. Whilst many people on here may laugh at that given how easy they find it themselves, the degree of obesity in this country is testament that it's not as easy as some people think.

I can only describe a typical persons diet as 'noisy'. These shakes help to calm that noise down with minimal effort. I personally found that I'd spend more time during the day thinking about what I was going to have for my evening meal, which is a very good habit to get into and one that should naturally continue, and extend to other meals once the diet programme is stopped.

Lastly, apologies as I forgot to mention that the aim of many of these diets is to put the body into a state of ketosis, so eating a bowl of cereal in the morning and a sandwich at lunch is not ideal.



Globalti said:


> why subject yourself to such misery.


 
I'm not joking when I say that whilst on this diet I've felt the best I've felt in ages. I think this preconception of these diets as misery can put people off sadly. I think they're ideal for people who are morbidly obese, and useful for obese people.


----------



## MacB (14 Feb 2012)

I've done a couple over the years, and a few other types, and been unimpressed by pretty much all of them, as a diet alone the Atkins has come closest to working well.

But we all differ - for me the more exercise I'm doing the less gutsy I am about eating and I tend to crave the healthier sorts of foods, as I find them more satisfying. Unfortunately the opposite is also true and I seem able to eat the most when I'm least active. Discipline wise I have no problems through the day but I'm also a bit of a night owl and prone to late night munchies. Never a good thing eating few calories in the day then a big bundle late at night.

Longer term I've had my greatest success with a combination of exercise and eating more(plus most of my carbs) in the morning and then tapering through the day.


----------



## fossyant (14 Feb 2012)

I wouldn't be taking that rubbish if you were commuting or training every day. It worked as you were just on the exercise bike.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (14 Feb 2012)

Riverman said:


> I think one of the main benefits of these diets is to force a degree of structure into eating patterns. Whilst many people on here may laugh at that given how easy they find it themselves, the degree of obesity in this country is testament that it's not as easy as some people think.
> 
> I can only describe a typical persons diet as 'noisy'. These shakes help to calm that noise down with minimal effort. I personally found that I'd spend more time during the day thinking about what I was going to have for my evening meal, which is a very good habit to get into and one that should naturally continue, and extend to other meals once the diet programme is stopped.
> 
> ...


Did your cycling improve whilst in keto state?


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (14 Feb 2012)

Riverman said:


> ...Whilst many people on here may laugh at that given how easy they find it themselves, the degree of obesity in this country is testament that it's not as easy as some people think...
> *The degree of obesity in this country is testament to the rampant commercialisation of our food and how lazy people are: pre-cooked baked potatoes so people can spend more time in front of the tv, excuse me "for busy people, with busy lives".*
> 
> ...Lastly, apologies as I forgot to mention that the aim of many of these diets is to put the body into a state of ketosis, so eating a bowl of cereal in the morning and a sandwich at lunch is not ideal...
> ...


----------



## Monsieur Remings (14 Feb 2012)

Am trying to lose another stone or so to get down to 12 and a half. Although not wishing to belittle Riverman's efforts, I too would be very sceptical of this approach, long term, if that is the intention.

I have had some major changes in my routine but much of the content of my diet hasn't changed much. I take Goji berries with muesli every morning which keeps me energetic, cycling or not. I first took them in a herbal tincture, a Neal's Yard one, with Damiana but now opt to have them in food form instead. These energy foods may be worth looking into..?

I also take Japanese Matcha (powder Green Tea) once a day in the morning which reduces cholesterol and again makes me feel more energetic than tea or coffee. It has weight loss properties and many more than the standard infusion Green Tea bags.

One other thing is Acai Berry, once a day with spring water, good for the heart and weight loss.

For me, and I can't talk for others, drinking alcohol only once or twice a week has made the most difference and whilst I still snack I find more and more that eating before a night ride, gym session, is enough to keep me going till the morn. As far as what I eat, well it hasn't really changed much and I don't intend it to.

Good luck, Riverman.


----------



## Globalti (15 Feb 2012)

Remings is right; cutting out beer makes the biggest difference. It really is superfluous and empty calories.


----------



## ColinJ (15 Feb 2012)

Globalti said:


> Remings is right; cutting out beer makes the biggest difference. It really is superfluous and empty calories.


I'm living proof of that!  

Me + (100 miles a week on my bikes) - alcohol = -3 pounds of lard a week

Me + (Less than 40 miles a week on my bikes) + alcohol = +1 pound of lard a week


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

Riverman said:


> I think this preconception of these diets as misery can put people off sadly. I think they're ideal for people who are morbidly obese, and useful for obese people.


 
How tall are you? At 14 stone, you'd have to be under 5ft 3 to be classed as "obese" (rather than merely "overweight") on the BMI scale.

d.


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I'm living proof of that!


 
I've lost nearly 10kg since September without cutting out beer. I'm not saying you're not right - I'd probably have lost even more if I'd cut out beer as well, but I don't do abstinence. Well, not unless it's enforced...

d.


----------



## ColinJ (15 Feb 2012)

smutchin said:


> I've lost over nearly 10kg since September without cutting out beer. I'm not saying you're not right - I'd probably have lost even more if I'd cut out beer as well, but I don't do abstinence. Well, not unless it's enforced...
> 
> d.


I managed the 3 pounds a week loss without changing what I eat, so I suppose I chose to lose the beer rather than the food! This time round, I'll slightly reduce my food intake and reduce the beer intake by about 75%, which I think is a better compromise.

When I finally get to my target weight, I'll start eating more rather than increase my beer intake again.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Feb 2012)

I find cutting out cheese, and also alcohol (Sunday eve - Friday lunchtime) works for me.

But I also find it _really_ hard to get the eating balance right during the day when weight watching/dieting, so as to be able to ride home comfortably in the evening, especially once the commuting mileage in a week reaches over 100km.


----------



## guitarpete247 (15 Feb 2012)

GF and I started Jan 2nd on one of those shake diets, the Cambridge. When we got weighed last Sun day we have both lost 2 st 3 lbs. We started on 3 shakes for her and 4 for me (each about 140 cals) and minimum exercise. We have now moved up to step 2 which is 810 cals a day which includes an evening meal and I am doing some cycling about 10 - 15 miles but trying not to push too hard. At this stage we are still in ketosis so not feeling hungry on the reduced calorie intake.
On Sunday we will be moving up to step 3 which is 1000 cals and introduces carbs and fruit. This takes us out of ketosis so the 6 weeks we have done so far, hopefully, will have shrunk our stomachs so we won't want big portions again.
If I can get down to 12.5 st by May, which at expected rate seems likely, I'll be well chuffed as I'll have dropped from 16 st 2 lbs. So just short of 4 stone and down to BMI of 25 from 31.

I've also not had any alcohol in these 6 weeks either  which I never thought I could do.


----------



## youngoldbloke (15 Feb 2012)

smutchin said:


> How tall are you? At 14 stone, you'd have to be under 5ft 3 to be classed as "obese" (rather than merely "overweight") on the BMI scale.
> 
> d.


Actually....... 5ft 3 x 14 stone = BMI 34.73 == seriously obese (NHS Choices BMI tool)


----------



## MacB (15 Feb 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I find cutting out cheese, and also alcohol (Sunday eve - Friday lunchtime) works for me.
> 
> But I also find it _really_ hard to get the eating balance right during the day when weight watching/dieting, so as to be able to ride home comfortably in the evening, especially once the commuting mileage in a week reaches over 100km.


 
I found that bit hard as well, I ended up having a bowl of cereal and a banana 20 mins before I left work, though that was for 20 miles then. Without that I just steadily flagged and became more miserable in the second half of the ride home. Whereas I had no trouble riding to work in the morning and having breakfast after I arrived.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Feb 2012)

guitarpete247 said:


> GF and I started Jan 2nd on one of those shake diets, the Cambridge. When we got weighed last Sun day we have both lost 2 st 3 lbs. We started on 3 shakes for her and 4 for me (each about 140 cals) and minimum exercise. We have now moved up to step 2 which is 810 cals a day which includes an evening meal and I am doing some cycling about 10 - 15 miles but trying not to push too hard. At this stage we are still in ketosis so not feeling hungry on the reduced calorie intake.
> On Sunday we will be moving up to step 3 which is 1000 cals and introduces carbs and fruit. This takes us out of ketosis so the 6 weeks we have done so far, hopefully, will have shrunk our stomachs so we won't want big portions again.
> If I can get down to 12.5 st by May, which at expected rate seems likely, I'll be well chuffed as I'll have dropped from 16 st 2 lbs. So just short of 4 stone and down to BMI of 25 from 31.
> 
> I've also not had any alcohol in these 6 weeks either  which I never thought I could do.


What the hell? A 5 month old baby consumes around 750cals per day. Much more than you!

You really are going to do more harm than good. 31lbs is 4-5 months(if not more) worth of loss if you're doing it sensibly. Not 6 weeks. The ignorance to food and dieting is astounding.......


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> Actually....... 5ft 3 x 14 stone = BMI 34.73 == seriously obese (NHS Choices BMI tool)


 
Interesting. I worked it out using a different online BMI calculator - an American one, as it happens. It gave 14st and 5ft 3in as 29.8, with the cutoff for "obese" as 29.9. I wonder, do they use a different scale over there or was it a duff website? Edit: Doh! Just realised the error was in my calculation. Being an American site, it asked for weight in pounds, not stone. I entered 168, which any fule kno is 12st, not 14... 

Now I think about it, though, your figures make more sense - you'd have to be pretty round to weigh 14st if you're just 5ft 3 tall.

d.


----------



## Riverman (15 Feb 2012)

Sorry having a terrible day today at work, had a really bad nights sleep.

I need to apologise as I generalised a bit. I started off on a branded shake diet and did this for two months. I was lucky to purchase this for £5 a week but wasn't able to get more than 9 weeks supply, and wasn't willing to pay the £25/week RRP of the shakes. This was the period of greatest weight loss.

I stopped the diet at the beginning of December, only to start again mid January having gone a bit overboard on chocolate and beer over Christmas and New Year. This time I decided to buy two tubs of Sci-Max diet shakes as they're a lot cheaper. I initially thought this was very similar to the branded diet I was on but it turns out Sci-Max shakes don't have the same balance of vitamins.

Lastly, I also take a drug every day that is known to cause weight gain so it's definitely been a success.

As for whether I found it easier to do exercise whilst using fat supplies. I think there is some truth in this, especially during the early stages of the diet.

I think you're all absolutely right about the effects of cutting out alcohol, that in itself should be enough to shift a few pounds in most active people. I think it was the absence of alcohol + replacing breakfast with a shake that has had the greatest impact.

It's very weird to think that I've only had about three normal breakfasts since October. They were veggi fry ups though lol.

PS: Nothing can beat celery! Especially combined with healthy dips. There's no better snacking food out there imo in terms of fullness, perhaps not flavourwise though but that's where the dips come in.


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I managed the 3 pounds a week loss without changing what I eat, so I suppose I chose to lose the beer rather than the food! This time round, I'll slightly reduce my food intake and reduce the beer intake by about 75%, which I think is a better compromise.


 
To be fair, I do drink a bit less than I used to, so it probably has contributed to my weight loss to some degree, but I couldn't cut it out altogether, and I've still had the odd pub session running to, ahem, _several_ pints, and those occasional lunches at my parents' usually involve at least half a bottle of wine.

I've not changed what I eat either, I've just become a lot more careful about the overall quantity I eat (keeping a food diary has been very helpful). That combined with an increase in my levels of exercise (ie cycling) has been the main driving force in my weight loss.

Maybe shake-based diets are fine for some people, but I enjoy food too much. Eating isn't just about fuel - I enjoy cooking, I enjoy good food. The idea of making the act of eating some kind of purgatory is enough to put me off diet shakes. Aside from anything else, they look so very unappetising.

It's not just shakes though - I'm suspicious of diet products generally. I caught a colleague of mine making himself a cup of strange-looking herbal tea recently. I didn't know that's what it was and he was very coy about it, so I looked it up on the net and it turned out to be some kind of Chinese snake oil that's apparently scientifically proven to help you lose weight. I SHOULD FLIPPING WELL HOPE SO AT £80 FOR A MONTH'S SUPPLY!

d.


----------



## smutchin (15 Feb 2012)

Riverman said:


> Sorry having a terrible day today at work, had a really bad nights sleep.


 
Get a nice pie and a pint down yourself. That'll see you right.

d.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Feb 2012)

MacB said:


> I found that bit hard as well, I ended up having a bowl of cereal and a banana 20 mins before I left work, though that was for 20 miles then. Without that I just steadily flagged and became more miserable in the second half of the ride home. Whereas I had no trouble riding to work in the morning and having breakfast after I arrived.


Last night was a typical experience. Stupidly skipped breakfast y'day morning. 23km in 59 mins on way in. Easy. No worries. Muesli bar to break my fast. Chicken breast sandwich at 12:00 and an apple, meetings all afternoon, too much caffiene therein, two jaffa cakes, probably not enough hydration during the day, leave just after six. Jelly legs and hollow feeling after 10 km (approaching the 85km mark for the week), lead/dead legs for the sawtooth climbs at 20km, journey home took 1:10ish and it is usually faster then on the way in!

Trained it today. Back on bike tomorrow and Friday. Friday going home is usually the worst, towel, trousers and laptop all in the panniers for the weekend.


----------



## MacB (15 Feb 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Last night was a typical experience. Stupidly skipped breakfast y'day morning. 23km in 59 mins on way in. Easy. No worries. Muesli bar to break my fast. Chicken breast sandwich at 12:00 and an apple, meetings all afternoon, too much caffiene therein, two jaffa cakes, probably not enough hydration during the day, leave just after six. Jelly legs and hollow feeling after 10 km (approaching the 85km mark for the week), lead/dead legs for the sawtooth climbs at 20km, journey home took 1:10ish and it is usually faster then on the way in!
> 
> Trained it today. Back on bike tomorrow and Friday. Friday going home is usually the worst, towel, trousers and laptop all in the panniers for the weekend.


 
Well I never ate before leaving in the morning but on arrival I had fruit and bowl of cereal or porridge. Then some fruit mid morning, a bigger lunch than you indicate. But Jane was great she was deliberately making more allowing me to take a full meal ready for the microwave each day....way better than a sandwich fix. Then there was more fruit/nuts/cake mid afternoon and finally the bowl of cereal and a banana before heading home. I'd have a full meal in the evening as well and maybe milk/chocolate milk straight after the ride.

I was still losing weight at a good rate, however if I dropped below the above intake, when I was commuting every day, it saw me fading daily and as the week progressed. Weekends the same as you though, whatever I wanted Friday night to Sunday lunchtime. I even had the energy for night and day rides at the weekend as well. I'm certain that wouldn't have been possible, on top of 200 commuting miles, if I hadn't eaten enough.


----------



## guitarpete247 (15 Feb 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> What the hell? A 5 month old baby consumes around 750cals per day. Much more than you!
> 
> *You really are going to do more harm than good*. 31lbs is 4-5 months(if not more) worth of loss if you're doing it sensibly. Not 6 weeks. *The ignorance to food and dieting is astounding*.......


 

You need to read up on the Cambridge weight plan before comments like these. The diet has been used for over 40 years and is both successful and healthy. Look at the about us section for some history of the plan


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Feb 2012)

guitarpete247 said:


> You need to read up on the Cambridge weight plan before comments like these. The diet has been used for over 40 years and is both successful and healthy. Look at the about us section for some history of the plan


Silly me,I forgot that 560 calories via LIQUID per day is a perfectly healthy,sustainable diet for an adult male.



> *Millions of people around the world have successfully lost weight and kept it off with Cambridge since 1984, why not join them?*



*40 years?*

Your body is yours at the end of the day.


----------



## Riverman (15 Feb 2012)

I just can't believe how they get away with such high prices.£72 a week for some sachets of powder?

*From around
£2.00 per meal**

*Cambridge has a plan as individual as you.
Please contact your local Cambridge Consultant to find out more details.*

BrandWeekly Price 
Cambridge Weight Plan £42.00 Information
LighterLife £72.00 Information
Weight Watchers £54.29 Information
Slimming World £53.25 Information
Slim-Fast £52.50 Information
Conventional Eating £48.50 Information
*Prices may vary. On our Sole Source programme you can expect to have three or four meals a day depending on gender and height. These meals will be made up entirely of Cambridge products. Please click here to find out more about our product range. Please contact your local Cambridge Consultant for more details.


----------



## guitarpete247 (15 Feb 2012)

You have to remember that those prices are for your weekly shop. When we started we were on 7 products per day. GF 3 me 4. That comes to £13.30 a day and £93.10 for the week for the 2 of us. That sounds a lot but we didn't have to buy anything else. No veg, bread, milk, eggs, meat or anything. The shakes, soups, porridges contain all the vitamins and minerals you need. As you go up the steps you reduce the number of products you have so your cost to Cambridge goes down.

We used to spend over £100 per week on our weekly shop then extra through the week so £93.10 is a saving.


----------



## youngoldbloke (15 Feb 2012)

Two of us, weekly food bill around £40. Not dieting, not overweight. Maybe we just eat less?


----------



## jay clock (15 Feb 2012)

> I stopped the diet at the beginning of December, only to start again mid January having gone a bit overboard on chocolate and beer over Christmas and New Year.


sort of says it all. The diet you were on was not sustainable and as soon as you went off it, you binged on rubbish. At least with Weight Watchers you are on a healthy balanced diet.

And if you reduce to 810 a day whether balanced diet or shakes, you are going too low in my view.

A good diet is one you can stick to and changes your habits for life. That is never going to happen on shakes


----------



## Riverman (15 Feb 2012)

guitarpete247 said:


> You have to remember that those prices are for your weekly shop. When we started we were on 7 products per day. GF 3 me 4. That comes to £13.30 a day and £93.10 for the week for the 2 of us. That sounds a lot but *we didn't have to buy anything else.* No veg, bread, milk, eggs, meat or anything. The shakes, soups, porridges contain all the vitamins and minerals you need. As you go up the steps you reduce the number of products you have so your cost to Cambridge goes down.
> 
> We used to spend over £100 per week on our weekly shop then extra through the week so £93.10 is a saving.


 
Are you absolutely sure that you're just supposed to drink the shakes? The guide from the Slim4him one I was on stressed that the shakes should be combined with healthy snacks, there was a comprehensive list of foods, a little like the points weight watchers points system. And that's not forgetting the evening meal.



youngoldbloke said:


> Two of us, weekly food bill around £40. Not dieting, not overweight. Maybe we just eat less?


 
That's pretty good. Do you eat much convenience food on that? £20 a week each is quite good going though.

edit: I see you're on four shakes a day. It sounds to me like they've just spread out the shakes over more meals, 4 instead of 2. Makes sense to stick to five smeall meals a day instead of three larger ones, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be eating anything else.


----------



## guitarpete247 (16 Feb 2012)

Riverman said:


> Are you absolutely sure that you're just supposed to drink the shakes? The guide from the Slim4him one I was on stressed that the shakes should be combined with healthy snacks, there was a comprehensive list of foods, a little like the points weight watchers points system. And that's not forgetting the evening meal.


 
The Cambridge diet is a VLCD (Very Low Calorie Diet) to start with. We were on Sole Source which is around 500 cals and all you have are the 3 (women) 4 (men) shakes + 2.25l of water. After day 3 you are into ketosis so don't feel hungry. Sole Source+ is the only 3 shakes plus 1 small meal in the evening 80g of green veg or salad and a protein. We had 3 weeks on Sole Source, 3 on SS+ (610 cals) and then moved up to step 2 (810 cals) for another 2 weeks. All this time you are in ketosis so don't feel hungry.
Next we move to step 3, 2 shakes (products) and 3 meals and out of ketosis and 1000 cals.
I feel well and I'm not craving food like I thought I would.
You say say shakes but there are porridges, soups, bars, ready made shakes and powdered shakes. I like the Cappuccino powdered shake, with a little crushed ice when I get home from work. It tastes like a Frappé.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (16 Feb 2012)

Riverman said:


> I think one of the main benefits of these diets is to force a degree of structure into eating patterns. Whilst many people on here may laugh at that given how easy they find it themselves, the degree of obesity in this country is testament that it's not as easy as some people think.


 
This is a very important point. One of the problems is the poor support and nutritional advice available from the NHS. It is possible to loose weight, without exercising, eating well.I'll use my wife as an example here. She's not obese but has MS and is forced to use a wheelchair most of the day. As she is not active through her condition she has struggled to maintain her weight. She recently embarked on an MS specific diet aimed at cutting out food which many people are intolerant to as well as having a food tolerance test on herself. The aim of the diet is to slow down the progress of the MS. As an aside to this she has lost a lot of weight and feels better in herself. She doesn't go hungry but only eats fresh fish, limited amounts of lean meat, and lots of vegetables, fruit, nuts and seeds. I'm not suggesting following the same diet but it is possible to loose weight when immobile given the correct nutritional advice. Unfortunately the NHS seems to have a single approach to weight loss. I have a former colleague whose partner is morbidly obese, to big to do much exercise and suffers from sleep apnia and diabetes. The low fat diet is unfortunately not working for him and they are looking at surgery as a last resort. They don't have much else for him.

The shakes are nasty. They main contain nutrients but you can get these from foods which are low in calories/fats/carbs whichever you may be counting. They also mess around with hormonal responses to foods which is one of the problems people suffer from when they are dangerously obese (I'm not suggesting this is the case with you).. Don't take my word for it, do a little research while you're on line.


----------



## smutchin (16 Feb 2012)

guitarpete247 said:


> You say say shakes but there are porridges, soups, bars, ready made shakes and powdered shakes. I like the Cappuccino powdered shake, with a little crushed ice when I get home from work. It tastes like a Frappé.


 
Sounds delicious.

d.


----------



## Riverman (17 Feb 2012)

Gotta say BMI is a bit silly. I'm 75kg now and ~173cm tall but still overweight. Anyone know a good set of callipers I could buy to get a more accurate measure? I don't exactly look fat anymore! Maybe still a little around the neck, which just doesn't want to shift sadly.

Counting in kilos really does put things into perspective as I used to cycle tour a bit and used grumbled about any extra weight I was carrying, like an extra 500g for a thicker sleeping bag.

Body weight change of ~88kg to 75kg makes that look laughable now.


----------



## smutchin (17 Feb 2012)

Riverman said:


> Gotta say BMI is a bit silly. I'm 75kg now and ~173cm tall but still overweight.


 
You're _marginally_ overweight, according to a technical definition of "overweight" on a scale that's based on a rudimentary formula that doesn't by any means take into account all factors influencing body weight. I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.

d.


----------



## User269 (17 Feb 2012)

Alcohol  No point trying to lose weight if you drink.

Calories per unit; 
Spirit 50
Wine 75
Beer 100
Per bottle (750ml) Spirit 1500
Wine 550 – 600

So, with my 3 bottles of whisky a day that's an extra 4500 calories. No wonder I've a bit of a stomach, Wernickes Encephalophathy, hepatic & renal failure, peripheral neuritis, clinical depression, short term memory loss, posting on cycling forums, short term memory loss, lack of concen.............................


----------



## Ghost Donkey (17 Feb 2012)

Riverman said:


> Gotta say BMI is a bit silly. I'm 75kg now and ~173cm tall but still overweight. Anyone know a good set of callipers I could buy to get a more accurate measure? I don't exactly look fat anymore! Maybe still a little around the neck, which just doesn't want to shift sadly.
> 
> Counting in kilos really does put things into perspective as I used to cycle tour a bit and used grumbled about any extra weight I was carrying, like an extra 500g for a thicker sleeping bag.
> 
> Body weight change of ~88kg to 75kg makes that look laughable now.


 
BMI is a bit of a joke if you're not "medium build" and various forms of fat measurement can be a bit inconsistent. I'm 170cm 70 KG and while not overweight it's at the higher end of OK in the BMI scale. When I weighed 75KG my stomach muscles were showing at the top of my stomach which is a good indication of leanness. According to the BMI calculator on the NHS website 72.3KG would see me as overweight and at risk.

I bought some "Medical callipers" from amazon (I have no way of knowing if these are accurate or whether I am following the instructions correctly) measure me at 10% body fat using the instructions which came with them. Various websites using different combinations of body parts measured using different algorithams had me between 9 and 15% body fat. Expensive scales at the gym at work which uses an electric current through hands and feet had me at 12% body fat and our £30 bathroom scales which does a foot only electric shock body fat test has me at 22% body fat. The US marine corps body measurement algorithm has me at over 30% body fat, which I'd dispute. I've got no idea where I'm at but lean enough for a sort of six pack and I don't weigh 90KG any more which is the main thing.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (17 Feb 2012)

Ghost Donkey said:


> BMI is a bit of a joke if you're not "medium build" and various forms of fat measurement can be a bit inconsistent. I'm 170cm 70 KG and while not overweight it's at the higher end of OK in the BMI scale. When I weighed 75KG my stomach muscles were showing at the top of my stomach which is a good indication of leanness. According to the BMI calculator on the NHS website 72.3KG would see me as overweight and at risk.
> 
> I bought some "Medical callipers" from amazon (I have no way of knowing if these are accurate or whether I am following the instructions correctly) measure me at 10% body fat using the instructions which came with them. Various websites using different combinations of body parts measured using different algorithams had me between 9 and 15% body fat. Expensive scales at the gym at work which uses an electric current through hands and feet had me at 12% body fat and our £30 bathroom scales which does a foot only electric shock body fat test has me at 22% body fat. The US marine corps body measurement algorithm has me at over 30% body fat, which I'd dispute. I've got no idea where I'm at but lean enough for a sort of six pack and I don't weigh 90KG any more which is the main thing.


Yeah BMI can't count for muscle which often throws perfectly fit and healthy people into obese categories. Although even on wii fit/ BF% scales and the like, as inaccurate as they can be/are a good guide is there for progress. The starting number you get from either is the number you will remember and gauge progress on.

I like looking in the mirror personally,although I often don't like whats looking back. Think, Donnie Darko with less fur 

Crude but somewhat relevant,yet not exact.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Feb 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> I like looking in the mirror personally,although I often don't like whats looking back. Think, Donnie Darko with less fur


Donnie Darko didn't have any fur! 


Damn - I'm closer to the 35% than any of the others now, and that fits in with the amount of weight I've put on.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (17 Feb 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Donnie Darko didn't have any fur!
> 
> Damn - I'm closer to the 35% than any of the others now, and that fits in with the amount of weight I've put on.


I realised that too late


----------



## jay clock (17 Feb 2012)

Mr 30% appears to have an extra 3kg of underpant content


----------



## Riverman (17 Feb 2012)

Kinda screwed up the shake diet by having 4 pints of Zubr lager tonight. Not a bad lager to be honest. Pretty good compared to Carlsberg etc, quite smooth, 6% and only £1 for a 50cl bottle in some places. Bargain! 

Just wonder how much of an effect this is going to have on my weight now. Need to get back on the bike but this is the perfect time of year for that. Nights getting longer, it getting warmer and all that.


----------



## vickster (17 Feb 2012)

At least you're still avoiding solids


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Feb 2012)

jay clock said:


> Mr 30% appears to have an extra 3kg of underpant content


Mr 25 is wearing his wifes gstring :O


----------



## smutchin (18 Feb 2012)

vickster said:


> At least you're still avoiding solids



Four pints of lager daily and no solids would be the shakes diet, as in waking up with the shakes every morning. 

d.


----------



## MacB (18 Feb 2012)

vickster said:


> At least you're still avoiding solids


 
quality


----------



## redcard (18 Feb 2012)

I remember reading a blog of a husband and wife who were on a juicing diet. It was hilarious. 
A fortnight in, the were restarting for the 4th time. This time they were real serious, having learned the lessons from their previous failures.
A month in, they had given up as it was too expensive and the had no money for supplies.

However, here's a summary of Fred Durst's recent attempt, which he promoted on twitter, tumblr and various other places.

Day 1: Definitely working up a good headache already. Geez. This blows.
Day 2: Weight was down .6 pounds.
Day 3: This is going slowwwww. Probably because I cheated last night and had some M&M's.
Day 4: Another day of juice down. Definitely NOT getting easier. And I cheated tonight with an oatmeal cookie. She was good!!" 
Day 5: No update
Day 6: "Hard getting adjusted to this juicing thing."
Day 7: No update
Day 8: No update
Day 9: No update
Day 10: No update
Day 11: The diet has been challenging to say the least. I haven't seen any significant results yet. That's why I haven't been very excited to post anything. I am about 2 lbs lights and definitely feeling better internally. My thoughts are clear and inspired, but I'm discouraged in some ways. I guess it's my own personal baggage that's lugging around behind me. All comes to the forefront on a diet like this. Bullocks.
I'm going to dive into a heavy cardio, sit ups, and weights routine on Monday. I'm sure that's the next level of fulfillment.


----------



## david k (18 Feb 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I managed the 3 pounds a week loss without changing what I eat, so I suppose I chose to lose the beer rather than the food! This time round, I'll slightly reduce my food intake and reduce the beer intake by about 75%, which I think is a better compromise.
> 
> When I finally get to my target weight, I'll start eating more rather than increase my beer intake again.


 
i suppose it depends on how much you used to drink


----------



## ColinJ (18 Feb 2012)

david k said:


> i suppose it depends on how much you used to drink


25-35 pints a week!


----------



## david k (18 Feb 2012)

ColinJ said:


> 25-35 pints a week!


 
call that drinking


----------



## ColinJ (18 Feb 2012)

david k said:


> call that drinking


Well, it's a lot less than I did when I was young, but it is still way too much - I'd like to keep it down to (say) 8-10 pints a week.


----------



## david k (18 Feb 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Well, it's a lot less than I did when I was young, but it is still way too much - I'd like to keep it down to (say) 8-10 pints a week.


 
yeh me too, i drank alot when yunger and enjoyed every minute. i try to drink only once a week now and thats usually about 8 cans. it takes me too long to recover now


----------



## ColinJ (18 Feb 2012)

david k said:


> yeh me too, i drank alot when yunger and enjoyed every minute. i try to drink only once a week now and thats usually about 8 cans. it takes me too long to recover now


I'd spread my ration over 2 nights with at least 2 or 3 nights off between them.


----------



## david k (18 Feb 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I'd spread my ration over 2 nights with at least 2 or 3 nights off between them.


id do hat but once i have 4 cans i cannot stop, all or nothing for me im afraid


----------



## ColinJ (18 Feb 2012)

david k said:


> id do hat but once i have 4 cans i cannot stop, all or nothing for me im afraid


I'm the same - I like a clear head, or a very relaxed one, not one somewhere in between!

8 beers in one session would be too much for me these days so I don't start until late (after 11 pm). Considering that, 4 is okay on a day when I've done a decent ride or walk because I tend to start dozing off by the 4th one. On a non-ride/walk day, if I had 6, then I'd probably fall asleep before I finished the last one, so 4 or 5 is enough. 

I very rarely drink anything stronger than bitter, cider or lager these days. Perhaps a glass of wine with a meal if someone offered me one, but I wouldn't buy a bottle for myself.


----------



## Garz (19 Feb 2012)

guitarpete247 said:


> GF and I started Jan 2nd on one of those shake diets, the Cambridge. When we got weighed last Sun day we have both lost 2 st 3 lbs. We started on 3 shakes for her and 4 for me (each about 140 cals) and minimum exercise. We have now moved up to step 2 which is 810 cals a day which includes an evening meal and I am doing some cycling about 10 - 15 miles but trying not to push too hard. At this stage we are still in ketosis so not feeling hungry on the reduced calorie intake.
> On Sunday we will be moving up to step 3 which is 1000 cals and introduces carbs and fruit. This takes us out of ketosis so the 6 weeks we have done so far, hopefully, will have shrunk our stomachs so we won't want big portions again.
> If I can get down to 12.5 st by May, which at expected rate seems likely, I'll be well chuffed as I'll have dropped from 16 st 2 lbs. So just short of 4 stone and down to BMI of 25 from 31.
> 
> I've also not had any alcohol in these 6 weeks either  which I never thought I could do.


 
Congratulations mate! Perseverance is the key, and it is proven to be working for you so keep it up.


----------



## Garz (19 Feb 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I'm the same - I like a clear head, or a very relaxed one, not one somewhere in between!
> 
> 8 beers in one session would be too much for me these days so I don't start until late (after 11 pm). Considering that, 4 is okay on a day when I've done a decent ride or walk because I tend to start dozing off by the 4th one. On a non-ride/walk day, if I had 6, then I'd probably fall asleep before I finished the last one, so 4 or 5 is enough.
> 
> I very rarely drink anything stronger than bitter, cider or lager these days. Perhaps a glass of wine with a meal if someone offered me one, but I wouldn't buy a bottle for myself.


 
Colin there is nothing wrong with a tipple mate! Have you committed to a new resolution (sorry I have not been on the forums for a few weeks)?


----------



## ColinJ (19 Feb 2012)

Garz said:


> Colin there is nothing wrong with a tipple mate! Have you committed to a new resolution (sorry I have not been on the forums for a few weeks)?


I'm not committed to anything at the moment, but I'm trying to strike a balance between excessively pissed and excessively sober! 

I've given up booze for years at a time in the past, and I do end up slim and fit, but I'd rather have a more balanced approach this time round which allows for _some_ R & R.


----------



## Garz (19 Feb 2012)

Good to hear. One needs the odd drink to keep sane sometimes, although I have never gone tea-total or abstained for any period from drinking, it does accelerate fitness gains when you cut it down.

I have had a poor run of luck it seems. January was going good until the snow hit! Ahah, I thought and started to run and use the turbo.. then at first my turbo tyre blew up. Got a replacement and then had two punctures in succession. Have now got a new wheel as the old one was mangled out of shape, then I caught a stinking cold which has took a week to get over. In total has ruined my February really, glad to get out today in the sun for some phlegm hacking and sweating!


----------



## Riverman (20 Feb 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I'm not committed to anything at the moment, but I'm trying to strike a balance between excessively pissed and excessively sober!
> 
> I've given up booze for years at a time in the past, and I do end up slim and fit, but I'd rather have a more balanced approach this time round which allows for _some_ R & R.


 
Giving up booze is a good idea giving it up is good for your health, it's just a shame though there's no legally available drugs that are safer. There are plenty of prescription ones that are safer along with some sadly currently unlicensed pharmaceuticals. Obviously not things that are considered recreational. Interesting nonetheless.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...drunkenness-and-hangovers-in-development.html


----------



## jay clock (20 Feb 2012)

> One needs the odd drink to keep sane sometimes


really? There is a significant proportion of the population which does "need" to drink, and at a personal level I drink less and less and certainly don't need booze to stay sane. I need exercise to stay sane, not booze


----------



## Riverman (5 Apr 2012)

Now down to 11 stone and a half in the mornings. Until a week ago, I had gone completely off the rails, boozing and being inactive for about two weeks.

However, what I've noticed is that even during those times the mentality that I've developed through the shake diet is holding quite firmly, in that I do not want to snack any more.

The only problem is I've become a bit addicted to drinking diet shakes instead of eating meals.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Apr 2012)

There's the slippery slope


----------



## david k (6 Apr 2012)

Riverman said:


> Kinda screwed up the shake diet by having 4 pints of Zubr lager tonight. Not a bad lager to be honest. Pretty good compared to Carlsberg etc, quite smooth, 6% and only £1 for a 50cl bottle in some places. Bargain!
> 
> Just wonder how much of an effect this is going to have on my weight now. Need to get back on the bike but this is the perfect time of year for that. Nights getting longer, it getting warmer and all that.


 
i wouldnt worry. people can give up after failing to stick to their diet for a couple of days but why? your diet can continue after a couple of days off. in fact is it not a benefit to have a couple of days off to enjoy a few beers and a good meal??? means you dont feel you are missing out.

the trick is to get back on the horse and not stay off


----------



## redcard (6 Apr 2012)

david k said:


> the trick is to get back on the horse and not stay off



The trick is to give up drinking ridiculous shakes and eat proper food. It doesn't matter where you get calories from. 

After 3 months, there's only two possibilities. One, you'll be starving yourself and losing weight very very slowly, you'll have problems with concentration and memory issues, your sleep will be effected and your work will suffer. Or two, you'll be binging and weighing more than you did then you started. 

Is it really that difficult to eat more veg and get out on the bike?

(Not read the whole thread, so may be covering same ground again.)


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?twlvea


----------



## potsy (6 Apr 2012)

Riverman said:


> The only problem is I've become a bit addicted to drinking diet shakes instead of eating meals.


That's the bit I find quite worrying 

I mean, that is not a sustainable way to live, surely?

My weight loss has started again after a few false starts this year, cutting out the snacks is key for me, as is regular exercise.


----------



## david k (6 Apr 2012)

redcard said:


> The trick is to give up drinking ridiculous shakes and eat proper food. It doesn't matter where you get calories from.
> 
> After 3 months, there's only two possibilities. One, you'll be starving yourself and losing weight very very slowly, you'll have problems with concentration and memory issues, your sleep will be effected and your work will suffer. Or two, you'll be binging and weighing more than you did then you started.
> 
> ...


 

i agree, i was referring more to sticking to your diet (what ever that may be) and not getting down with having a couple of days off than i was to shakes alone

im not against shakes even though i agree with you, for some people who may have lots to lose they are a good option to get going, but long term you defo right


----------



## Sara_H (6 Apr 2012)

I did the Cambridge Diet twice a few years ago.

The first few days were awful, I felt cold, weak and headachy. Then the "starvation euphoria" kicked in - didn't feel hungry at all, and was doing alright, though I felt quite weak and couldn't do much exersize.

I lost alot of weight very quickly, but then fell off the wagon big style when I went camping and felt I needed proper food.

The second time I tried it I struggled terribly, I felt ill most of the time, and I became obsessed with food. I only lasted about three weeks the second time.

After I'd finished I regained all the weight I'd lost, plus about nother three stone quite quickly - I'm still struggling to shift the last stone and a half - partly because following the the cambridge diet I'm more prone to binging.

In short, my view is that paying for the cambridge diet is like paying someone to give you an eating disorder.


----------



## david k (6 Apr 2012)

Sara_H said:


> I did the Cambridge Diet twice a few years ago.
> 
> The first few days were awful, I felt cold, weak and headachy. Then the "starvation euphoria" kicked in - didn't feel hungry at all, and was doing alright, though I felt quite weak and couldn't do much exersize.
> 
> ...


 
crikey that sounds extreem


----------



## Becs (6 Apr 2012)

Sara_H said:


> I did the Cambridge Diet twice a few years ago.
> 
> The first few days were awful, I felt cold, weak and headachy. Then the "starvation euphoria" kicked in - didn't feel hungry at all, and was doing alright, though I felt quite weak and couldn't do much exersize.
> 
> ...



Finally some sense! Ketosis is NOT a healthy state to be in! In fact it can even be fatal (google diabetic ketoacidosis if needs be). The body is not designed to run on ketones - they are back up fuel to keep your brain alive when glucose is scarce. Not to mention being in ketosis makes you stink of pear drops, which is very unpleasant for the 25% of the population that can smell ketones!


----------



## Sara_H (6 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Finally some sense! Ketosis is NOT a healthy state to be in! In fact it can even be fatal (google diabetic ketoacidosis if needs be). The body is not designed to run on ketones - they are back up fuel to keep your brain alive when glucose is scarce. Not to mention being in ketosis *makes you stink* of pear drops, which is very unpleasant for the 25% of the population that can smell ketones!


 
Ha ha! I'd forgotten about the smell! Not the pear drops, but my breath - it was disgusting! Apparently this is a very common side effect of VLC diets.
One day I was in the car with my son and ex-husband when they started accusing each other of farting! I knew it was my breath that they could smell, I was mortified!


----------



## Sara_H (6 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Finally some sense! Ketosis is NOT a healthy state to be in! In fact it can even be fatal (google diabetic ketoacidosis if needs be). The body is not designed to run on ketones - they are back up fuel to keep your brain alive when glucose is scarce. Not to mention being in ketosis makes you stink of pear drops, which is very unpleasant for the 25% of the population that can smell ketones!


 Well I think ketosis and ketoACIDosis are very different things, and followed properly The Cambridge diet is safe (it's approved by NICE for tratment of very obese people).

That doesn't neceserily mean its a good thing to de from the POV of the mental impact of the diet.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Apr 2012)

Sara_H said:


> I did the Cambridge Diet twice a few years ago.
> 
> The first few days were _*awful, I felt cold, weak and headachy*_. Then the "starvation euphoria" kicked in - *didn't feel hungry* at all, and was doing alright, though I felt quite _*weak and couldn't do much exersize.*_
> 
> ...


 
IMO. The bolded words really sum up why such diets are on the whole(not just long term) unsustainable,unhealthy and ultimately damaging.

The last comment,I feel like I want to hug you.


----------



## Sara_H (6 Apr 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> IMO. The bolded words really sum up why such diets are on the whole(not just long term) unsustainable,unhealthy and ultimately damaging.
> 
> The last comment,I feel like I want to hug you.


 Well, it's not an experience I'll be repeating.
Thing is, if you look on the weight loss forums, you'll find alot of people torturing themselves this way - the world really has gone mad!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Apr 2012)

Sara_H said:


> Well, it's not an experience I'll be repeating.
> Thing is, if you look on the weight loss forums, you'll find alot of people torturing themselves this way - the world really has gone mad!


I cruise around various health/fitness/cycling/tri sites,the ignorance to food and diets is mindblowing. The common theme for keto diets seems to be "carbs make you fat so I'm going to stop eating them"

Sadly by this point,the most desperate of ignorant people already have their credit cards out buying 15days worth of shakes,powders and assorted potions because it's easier than eating less and getting off your ass.


----------



## Riverman (6 Apr 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> IMO. The bolded words really sum up why such diets are on the whole(not just long term) unsustainable,unhealthy and ultimately damaging.
> 
> The last comment,I feel like I want to hug you.


 
It's somewhat disingenuous to make generalisations like that based upon one persons experience of that diet.

My experience is that I was 14 stone in September last year and I am 11 and a half stone now in April. Considering that during almost half of that time I wasn't dieting, I think the diet has been quite successful for me at least.

Before we make generalisations though about these diets we need to link to some peer reviewed scientific studies on them, only then can we really be certain that these diets work for most people.

It's important to note though that until recently you had to have your doctors approval to go on one of these diets. Why would a doctor recommend a diet that doesn't work and/or is harmful to your wellbeing?

Lastly whilst it's true that ketoacidosis kills it's highly unlikely to happen if people follow these diets properly and besides, I don't see people dropping dead everywhere the moment they decide to lose weight.


----------



## Becs (6 Apr 2012)

Sara_H said:


> Well I think ketosis and ketoACIDosis are very different things, and followed properly The Cambridge diet is safe (it's approved by NICE for tratment of very obese people).
> 
> That doesn't neceserily mean its a good thing to de from the POV of the mental impact of the diet.



They are different, ketoacidosis being a more severe form of ketosis. Ketones are acids, if you have enough of them you get acidosis. The side effects experienced are the early warning signs. Obviously everything has a risk benefit analysis so the risk of ketosis is probably considered lower than the risk of morbid obesity, hence it is licensed. However in the merely overweight person the risk benefit analysis will be different and you're probably better off eating a calorie restricted but balanced diet and doing some exercise! The risk benefit analysis is the reason why you have to have a gp referral.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Apr 2012)

Riverman said:


> It's somewhat disingenious make generalisations like that based upon one persons experience of that diet.


It's the truth whether you want to hear it or not.



> My experience is that I was 14 stone in September last year and I am 11 and a half stone now in April. Considering that during almost half of that time I wasn't dieting, I think the diet has been quite successful for me at least.


Great. Now try eating real food for a few months. Post before/after pics



> Before we make generalisations though about these diets we need to link to some peer reviewed scientific studies on them, only then can we really be certain that these diets work for most people.


These diets all link back being created by someone to make profit out of peoples ignorance.



> It's important to note though that until recently you had to have your doctors approval to go on one of these diets. Why would a doctor recommend a diet that doesn't work and/or is harmful to your wellbeing?


GP's generally aren't nutrition professionals which is where cases should really be referred to. But actually,if you had to go to the docs for approval,it isn't the doctors recommendation then is it?



> I had gone completely off the rails, boozing and being inactive for about two weeks.





> become a bit addicted to drinking diet shakes instead of eating meals.


Because,ya know. That's really good for you.


----------



## Riverman (6 Apr 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Because,ya know. That's really good for you.


 
You really like making generalisations don't you? My experience of this diet is it has enabled me to eat more healthily. I am no longer a person who snacks all the time but someone who has set meals. Whether those meals are a shake, or are something else, they are meals.

Now some people may find it surprising that people find it difficult to get into that routine but it can be difficult for some people. However, the best thing I found about this diet is it pushed me into that cycle and with little effort. I also got used to cutting out snacks, and I did all this whilst remaining healthy (hence the shakes).

I still drink the shakes because I like to work out at the gym, so I have various shake powders in the house. I still have a lot of these diet shakes, so I like to drink them on occasion.

Finally the last and most important thing for you to remember, is that it's not these shake diets that kill people. Obesity kills people, it kills bloody loads of people! And believe it not, there is no one diet to eliminate obesity. People are different, some people find that other diets work for them.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Apr 2012)

Riverman said:


> You really like making generalisations don't you? My experience of this diet is it has enabled me to eat more healthily. I am no a longer a person who snacks all the time but someone who has set meals. Whether those meals are a shake, or are something else, they are meals.
> 
> 
> > I only quoted what you said. How has a shake diet enabled you to eat more healthily? How often are your meals? What do those meals consist of? Outline for me, your day thus far..
> ...


----------



## david k (6 Apr 2012)

if it works for you then it works, who are we to say it doesnt


----------



## thefett (7 Apr 2012)

I tried the lipotrim diet when I reached my peak weight of 21 stone (ish) and as insane as I knew it was it gave me the boost I needed at the time. The weight loss was scarily fast and it was the longest 2 weeks of my life.....

I kept a brief blog of the experience at http://byebyebigjo.blogspot.com if you want a wee humerous read in to the experience!!

Its been a struggle since to keep the weight off and reading this thread I Have to agree boose is the enemy!!

I've recently come off a no carb diet as I've upped my cycling and I need the fuel and after just 2 weeks I can honestly say this is the healthiest I have felt in a long, long time.

I'm sleeping better, and earlier, my knees don't hurt coming down the stairs in the morning and I'm enjoying what I'm eating. Lots of fruit and veg, cereals and meat, lovely! 

So these guys on here are right, eat sensible, cut out the boose, get on yer bike!!


----------



## Bluenite (8 Apr 2012)

They make my bottom fall out........just thought i'd share.

From my phone using Andrex


----------



## david k (9 Apr 2012)

Sara_H said:


> I did the Cambridge Diet twice a few years ago.
> 
> The first few days were awful, I felt cold, weak and headachy. Then the "starvation euphoria" kicked in - didn't feel hungry at all, and was doing alright, though I felt quite weak and couldn't do much exersize.
> 
> ...


are you sure that people who are so desperate to try these are not bordering on eating disorders already? some people can do these diets to kick start and then slowly move inot a more sensible diet


----------



## Ghost Donkey (10 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> Finally some sense! Ketosis is NOT a healthy state to be in! In fact it can even be fatal (google diabetic ketoacidosis if needs be). The body is not designed to run on ketones - they are back up fuel to keep your brain alive when glucose is scarce. Not to mention being in ketosis makes you stink of pear drops, which is very unpleasant for the 25% of the population that can smell ketones!


 
Ketosis and ketoacidosis are two different things. Ketosis is natural and something everyone experiences at some time in their day (unless you never sleep) and is a term banded around in dieting a lot. I'm not suggesting no carbs is the way forward and I do eat carbs but the number of carbs is about the only thing I keep an eye on. When I read up on digestion, hormones, endcrinology etc and changed my eating based on human biology my weight plummeted quickly. The weight has stayed off easily and my sporting performance has also increased a lot (not just down to weight loss). When I was obese and active excessive carbs was my problem area. I still eat plenty around training, less the rest of the time (but still eating some).

There's a lot of dispute around the dietary advice given out to diabetics. Diabetes UK came under fire recently by a doctor with regards to their advice on starchy carbs. The main problem seems to be the idea that fat makes you fat and type 2 diabetes is common in overweight people. As always it's not that simple and the advice given out by different sources is contradictory and confusing. The advice given out by the NHS is similar to that given out by diabetes UK while an NHS doctor is publicly disputing this advice. Minefield.

As for shake diets (sorry, another generaisation) I don't approve but each to their own and what works for you etc. For long term weight control and HEALTH I'd always say fresh food in general but go easy on the startchy carbs if you eat large portions of these and are struggling with your weight. The sugary/starchy stuff around exercise of course. Lots of variety of fruit and veg, high quality meat and fish.


----------



## vernon (10 Apr 2012)

Ghost Donkey said:


> Lots of variety of fruit and veg, high quality meat and fish.


 
Sounds just like the Slimming World Extra Easy eating plan.


----------



## Becs (10 Apr 2012)

Ghost Donkey said:


> Ketosis and ketoacidosis are two different things. Ketosis is natural and something everyone experiences at some time in their day (unless you never sleep) and is a term banded around in dieting a lot. .


 
See post 79.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (10 Apr 2012)

vernon said:


> Sounds just like the Slimming World Extra Easy eating plan.


Not if you buy their own brand low fat full of sugar chocolate bars. No particular problem with slimming world over any other diet organisation.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (10 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> See post 79.


Read it ;-) I agree that very low carb diets are unhealthy and usually advocate moderate carbs. Moderation is of course unique to each individuals circumstances. I'm certain I can find a well qualified person to back up most eating approaches with research data. The current health advice given out by the NHS is contradictory in many places and confusing. Media reporting is all over the place and as most of the studies reported on are observstional studies (double blind trials are impossible with foodstuff) they are not accurate which is why so many contradictory frsults are foubd. I've seen many studies for and against ketosis. There's also study results for and against eating meat.

Done it again. What was the original question?


----------



## Becs (10 Apr 2012)

Ghost Donkey said:


> Read it ;-) I agree that very low carb diets are unhealthy and usually advocate moderate carbs. Moderation is of course unique to each individuals circumstances. I'm certain I can find a well qualified person to back up most eating approaches with research data. The current health advice given out by the NHS is contradictory in many places and confusing. Media reporting is all over the place and as most of the studies reported on are observstional studies (double blind trials are impossible with foodstuff) they are not accurate which is why so many contradictory frsults are foubd. I've seen many studies for and against ketosis. There's also study results for and against eating meat.
> 
> Done it again. What was the original question?


 
I agree. Personally I think the media (particularly the daily mail!) should be prevented from reporting on health issues without peer review - similar to the good quality scientific journals, to prevent to much spin/dishonesty. My point was not to say "if you go on a shake diet you'll get ketoacidotic and die", it was to point out that in my opinion prolonged ketosis is not a healthy state to be in, despite the amount that it seems to be aspired to on this, and other forums. My experience of treating ketotic patients is limited to the four legged variety, but us mammals are all rather similar overall.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (11 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> I agree. Personally I think the media (particularly the daily mail!) should be prevented from reporting on health issues without peer review - similar to the good quality scientific journals, to prevent to much spin/dishonesty. My point was not to say "if you go on a shake diet you'll get ketoacidotic and die", it was to point out that in my opinion prolonged ketosis is not a healthy state to be in, despite the amount that it seems to be aspired to on this, and other forums. My experience of treating ketotic patients is limited to the four legged variety, but us mammals are all rather similar overall.


 
In fairness to the mail they tend to report on every health study which is picked up in the mainstream media. At least regular readers will see a large range of health studies and their contradictory findings rather than a one sided approach.

The problem with peer reviewed studies is the different forces at work in nutritional studies. I start to sound liker a militant lefty when I talk about big business influence and political dabbling so I'll stop there. I'm a big fan of the articles Gary Taubes has written on the subject of nutritional studies. While I don't necessarily agree with his opinions on health and nutrition the work he has done regarding observational studies is well written and easily understandable by the layperson (me, basically).


----------



## The Jogger (11 Apr 2012)

Becs said:


> They are different, ketoacidosis being a more severe form of ketosis. Ketones are acids, if you have enough of them you get acidosis. The side effects experienced are the early warning signs. Obviously everything has a risk benefit analysis so the risk of ketosis is probably considered lower than the risk of morbid obesity, hence it is licensed. However in the merely overweight person the risk benefit analysis will be different and you're probably better off eating a calorie restricted but balanced diet and doing some exercise! The risk benefit analysis is the reason why you have to have a gp referral.


 
Ketoacidosis has nothing to do with a diet like the Atkins (low carb) it is more likely to hit someone (if at all) such as uncontrolled type 1 diabetics, alcoholics and people who have been on prolonged fasts, might see an increase in ketones beyond the normal range. If you are on a low carb diet you are not going to go into a state of ketoacidosis..........


----------



## Riverman (20 Jun 2012)

Ok so almost a year later, I'm still just under 12 stone but have been stupidly boozing since mid April due to a large supply of alcohol I got from Spain...

I've definitely put weight on because of all that boozing but I'm surprised that I haven't put more on. Probably put on about half a stone.

As for the shake drinks, I still drink the shakes but only one a day now and normally have them for breakfast. My diet has definitely improved over all (bar the alcohol), I eat loads of fruit and veg. A favourite is to eat a whole cucumber with reduced fat mayonaise. Love tomoatoes, eat those like canday as I do with mushrooms.

I think the key to the shake diets is to just stick to them! I think a lot of people start the diets, get to the third day, give up then revert back to their old habits. Then they're surprised to suddenly put weight as the body goes into starving mode. Whereas if you keep going, your body just kinda gets used to it. You can avoid this effect though by having five small meals a day instead of just three.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (21 Jun 2012)

Riverman said:


> I've definitely put weight on because of all that boozing but I'm surprised that I haven't put more on. Probably put on about half a stone.


I'm really sorry but I just actually lol'd IRL.



> I think the key to the shake diets is to just stick to them! I think a lot of people start the diets, get to the third day, give up then revert back to their old habits. Then they're surprised to suddenly put weight as the body goes into starving mode. Whereas if you keep going, your body just kinda gets used to it. You can avoid this effect though by having five small meals a day instead of just three.


The key to shake diets is not to start them.

5 meals a day only really cures 3 issues: inability to consume lots in one sitting - Satiety over time (ierotein and low GI carbs) - Timing of recovery meals (bodybuilders for example)

"Starvation mode" I really wish people would stop using this term. It makes a natural response during times of famine sound like turning a TV off with the remote. Not the case and not that simple.


----------



## Riverman (22 Jun 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> I'm really sorry but I just actually lol'd IRL.


 
Well it was about two/three months of almost daily boozing so I´m not surprised I put weight on at all. Just glad I'm not drinking anymore.

Another problem is sometimes hangovers make me eat more as I get terrible nausea and eating tends to quell it. I've tried using anti-emetics but never found one which works well enough. That said, the best medicine is not to drink so much.



> The key to shake diets is not to start them.


 
I started the shake diet around September last year, I was over 14 stone. Today I am around 11 stone 10 pounds and have been more or less under 12 stone since February. I have maintained adequete nutrition throughout, have eaten more fruit and vegetables than I ever have before in my life.

Clearly on that basis the shake diet worked. If the aim is to lose weight then it worked. I've tried to elucidate to you how this diet has affected me but I gather you don't believe pretty a word I've said about it. So it's probably best we just leave the conversation here.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (22 Jun 2012)

You would have put weight on anyway. That's what happens


----------



## Riverman (22 Jun 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You would have put weight on anyway. That's what happens


 
If you've noticed though, I've lost weight a lot faster than I've put it back on and it's not normal for me to drink such huge amounts.

Those two/three months also included two weeks in Spain and Portugal where I only had a rough idea of the calorific content of what I was eating. Too many full fat lattes too, something I would never drink over here but when they're about 60p each it's hard to resist.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (22 Jun 2012)

Riverman said:


> If you've noticed though, I've lost weight a lot faster than I've put it back on and it's not normal for me to drink such huge amounts.
> 
> Those two/three months also included two weeks in Spain and Portugal where I only had a rough idea of the calorific content of what I was eating. Too many full fat lattes too, something I would never drink over here but when they're about 60p each it's hard to resist.


Ditch the morning shake - eat properly and watch.


----------



## potsy (22 Jun 2012)

Riverman said:


> I've definitely put weight on because of all that boozing but I'm surprised that I haven't put more on. Probably put on about half a stone.


 
I can put that on in a week


----------



## Ghost Donkey (28 Jun 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Ditch the morning shake - eat properly and watch.


Indeed. Porridge with full fat gold top (jersey moo cow) milk is my breakfast of choice. Weight staying off. Not keen on the taste of full fat milk but tis the least fattening milk (in my opinion. My opinion might not be shared by other forum users  ) so milled flaxseed sprinkled on top to make it a bit more wheatabix tasting with all the benefits of flaxseed but not the quick digestion/feeling hungry of wheatabix. Feel full until lunchtime. It's worth noting that the vitamins in shakes are usually poor quality also. A side salad with your meal or as a large part of your meal lots of stuff like kale, spinach, tomatoes and any kinds of veggies you might like help with your vitamins better.A bit of cold pressed olive oil with it suits me. Not had a day off work sick since having the daily salads. Fruit is good too for vitamins too. Fruit juice and dried fruit to a lesser extent has lots of sugar with none of the fibre. Great after a training session, not so great the rest of the time.


----------



## youngoldbloke (28 Jun 2012)

_"Not keen on the taste of full fat milk but tis the least fattening milk"_
How does that work then? The milk with the highest fat content, most calories, being the least fattening?


----------



## Ghost Donkey (28 Jun 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> _"Not keen on the taste of full fat milk but tis the least fattening milk"_
> How does that work then? The milk with the highest fat content, most calories, being the least fattening?


 

It's a good question but there's a serious risk of hijacking the thread here so I'll keep it short. I realise that is my own fault for writing such a contentious statement in the first place so first of all apologies for that. Full fat milk is lower glycemic load, more satiating (not as hungry as soon after) and fat in the diet isn't directly related to body fat. Not all calories are equal. Not all fats are equal either. I'd always recommend reading up on endocrinology and how hormones work in the body for a good explanation. My much improved health, sporting performance (I'm still crap mind ) lower weight and having abs are testament to being onto something. The hormone stuff is really the bees knees. I know many people who believe the same and also improve. If it was as simple as all calories equal, fat makes you fat (you didn't say that of course) and eat less, exercise more the problem would have been solved years ago.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (28 Jun 2012)

Just out of interest, do those commuters on the shake diets find that the diet/suggested snacks are good enough for recovery?

I only ask because I think this is where I would fall down in regard to any diet. At the moment, and I'm not planning a diet, I'm doing around 250-300 training miles a week and I'm finding that the recovery is of the utmost importance (as it should be). On a Monday, after my longest ride of the week on a Sunday however, I do tend to go to town and whilst I've never been one to change what I eat, I find the amount is sometimes staggering.  I probably do eat too many carbs, too much red meat, snack on too much fruit in the evenings etc but I find that all these things keep me strong and the balance for me is therein. Not having a nutritionist on board Team Remington, I probably do eat too much but as ColinJ, I think, said earlier in the thread I'd personally prefer to still eat the things I always did and curtail alcohol to around 6-7 pints a week. So, most diets wouldn't be for me and yet fair play to those of you for whom it has worked.

(For those who are interested I have a cousin who is a strength and conditioning coach and recommended a recovery formula using rice milk, spirulina powder and whey protein and this has seemed to fill that all-important gap in, well, me being a complete piggy. I also favour oat milk with cereal opposed cow's milk).


----------



## Riverman (31 Aug 2012)

Been off the shake diet for several months, sadly I hit the bottle a bit over the last few months so the calorific content of stuff like wine should have hit me hard. Strangely though I'm 12 stone... It's odd because I should have gained more weight than that but I haven't. I'm cycling more (at least a couple of miles a day) than when I was on the shake diet though, although I wasn't cycling at all then.

I was 11 stone and a half in February. Clearly I'm gaining weight but just gaining it very slowly.


----------



## david k (4 Sep 2012)

Ghost Donkey said:


> It's a good question but there's a serious risk of hijacking the thread here so I'll keep it short. I realise that is my own fault for writing such a contentious statement in the first place so first of all apologies for that. Full fat milk is lower glycemic load, more satiating (not as hungry as soon after) and fat in the diet isn't directly related to body fat. Not all calories are equal. Not all fats are equal either. I'd always recommend reading up on endocrinology and how hormones work in the body for a good explanation. My much improved health, sporting performance (I'm still crap mind ) lower weight and having abs are testament to being onto something. The hormone stuff is really the bees knees. I know many people who believe the same and also improve. If it was as simple as all calories equal, fat makes you fat (you didn't say that of course) and eat less, exercise more the problem would have been solved years ago.


interesting, i know what endocrinology is having had thyroid problems, i also know the relationship with weight (too my cost, ha, ha) but i dont see the relationship with milk or fats?
and out of interest, why are not all calories equal? i realise there are healthy calories but surely 100 calories is the same regardless?


----------



## Ghost Donkey (4 Sep 2012)

david k said:


> interesting, i know what endocrinology is having had thyroid problems, i also know the relationship with weight (too my cost, ha, ha) but i dont see the relationship with milk or fats?
> and out of interest, why are not all calories equal? i realise there are healthy calories but surely 100 calories is the same regardless?


 
This is where i get rumbled as a fraud  Apologies fin advance for my terrible writing.

The point I was not making very well is that full fat milk has a lower glycemic load and a slower release of glucose into the blood. The difference across milk types isn't huge but that's the bad example I picked. A faster digestion of sugar leads to a higher concentration of glucose in the blood. The fast digestion is great if your exercising hard (hence energy drinks) but not good if you're sedentary and you are consuming a lot of fast digesting carbs. A low portion size can mean there is no issue. White pasta is listed as having a low glycemic index. Glycemic index takes into account portion size. Eat a large portion of pasta and there' s a lot of glucose in the blood. This is the reason why some people consider glycemic load to be a better reference than glycemic index.

I say not all calories are equal. By way of explanation/example it's how your body responds to the calories consumed. If you consume a large enough number of calories from a quick digesting sugar source to create an insulin response to remove the sugar from the blood it will be stored in muscles and fat cells. If you ate the same number of calories from protein or fat it would not illicit an insulin response to store fat. Having a high enough concentration of glucose in your blood to create an insulin response to remove it and also have lots of digested fat in your blood is bad news as both can be removed by insulin. The fat on it's own would not create an insulin response. Who's with me for a big burger and chips?

Should I mention the theories around fat from different sources and health? Best not 

Is that helpful at all? Apologies as I'm clearly not gifted with the written word and am not a teacher. I also have a terrible memory and nothing to refer to at present. There should be enough there for further reading and to comfirm that I really don't know what I'm talking about. I'm certainly not anti-carbs but the source and quantity of carbs make a difference. Putting what I've interpreted into practice, be it correct or not, and applying it to the food I like most of the time has left me with sustainable weight loss eating mainly from fruit, veg, meat, fish etc.


----------



## david k (4 Sep 2012)

i find the whole thing fascinating. i used to play rugby and do weight and read up a lot on this, that was 20 years ago and ive forgotten what i know and things have moved on, please tell me more, ha, ha


----------



## Riverman (12 Sep 2012)

david k said:


> interesting, i know what endocrinology is having had thyroid problems, i also know the relationship with weight (too my cost, ha, ha) but i dont see the relationship with milk or fats?
> and out of interest, why are not all calories equal? i realise there are healthy calories but surely 100 calories is the same regardless?


 
I'm not sure they are equal. I mean lactose has to be broken down by specific enzymes in the gut. Some of us have more of these than others so I imagine the amount of lactose broken down varies between people which surely should mean that milk is less calorific for some people than others?


----------



## mrcunning (13 Sep 2012)

A simple way to achieve these goals are burn more calories than you are actually eating..keep a look what you are scoffing at all times.


----------



## david k (14 Sep 2012)

which is best?

eating 2000 calories or eating 2500 and burning 500 more?

the total would be equal, i suppose what im getting at is th intake and burning of calories more helpful to weight loss than not having them in the first place due to increased metabolism


----------



## mrcunning (14 Sep 2012)

david k said:


> which is best?
> 
> eating 2000 calories or eating 2500 and burning 500 more?
> 
> the total would be equal, i suppose what im getting at is th intake and burning of calories more helpful to weight loss than not having them in the first place due to increased metabolism


 
Increasing your metabolism and dieting is the fastest way to lose weight,its a combined effort.i would say im 16.5 stone and dont carry much fat at all,but im classed as obese..
What im driving at in a roundabout way is if you look right and feel right you are right..
Mix your training i.e bike,gym and treadmill set different times and hardness levels and i assure you the weight will fly off,the key is dont let your body get used to just 1 regime because then your body will get used to this and the weight loss will be minimum.


----------



## david k (15 Sep 2012)

cheers mate, im pretty happy with my weight as such, could lose another half a stobe but im trying to do it slowly through healthy living and not silly diet

i was really wondering out of curiosity, is it a simple calories in and calories out or does eating more and burning more work better as it increases metabolism?


----------



## mrcunning (15 Sep 2012)

david k said:


> cheers mate, im pretty happy with my weight as such, could lose another half a stobe but im trying to do it slowly through healthy living and not silly diet
> 
> i was really wondering out of curiosity, is it a simple calories in and calories out or does eating more and burning more work better as it increases metabolism?


 
Im not sure fatty.. just kidding. eating certain food will increase youe metabolism,peppers are a great one that comes to mind


----------



## david k (15 Sep 2012)

types of food aside;

which is better eating 2000 and burning 2100 or eating 3000 and burning 3100?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Sep 2012)

david k said:


> types of food aside;
> 
> which is better eating 2000 and burning 2100 or eating 3000 and burning 3100?


Is your question purposely nonsensical?


----------



## david k (15 Sep 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Is your question purposely nonsensical?


 

im trying to get a point across but not sure how to do it

i could eat 2000 calories a day and burn 2100 in an attempt to lose weight, i could also eat 3000 and burn 3100 to give me the same net loss, however is the larger amount better as im doing more? i realise the calorie deficit is equal but am i better starving it off or burning it off or is it equal?

all hypothetical BTW just to try to understand it more


----------



## Riverman (15 Sep 2012)

Another thing I've noticed is when I drink a shake for breakfast, if I go out for a 15 mile bike ride an hour later, all I can smell is acid when I finally get off the bike. That acidic smell seems to be associated with fat loss. I've complained about it before on here, some people thought it was ammonia but it definitely smells acidic.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (15 Sep 2012)

david k said:


> im trying to get a point across but not sure how to do it
> 
> i could eat 2000 calories a day and burn 2100 in an attempt to lose weight, i could also eat 3000 and burn 3100 to give me the same net loss, however is the larger amount better as im doing more? i realise the calorie deficit is equal but am i better starving it off or burning it off or is it equal?
> 
> all hypothetical BTW just to try to understand it more


Start here. http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ 

Multiply: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/

Deficit: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-c...ct-equation/calorie-intake-to-lose-weight.php


----------



## david k (15 Sep 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Start here. http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/
> 
> Multiply: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/
> 
> Deficit: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-c...ct-equation/calorie-intake-to-lose-weight.php


 
thats very interesting thank you, however it does not answer the question. my example shows the same deficit in two different ways, is one better than the other or are they equal?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (16 Sep 2012)

david k said:


> thats very interesting thank you, however it does not answer the question. my example shows the same deficit in two different ways, is one better than the other or are they equal?


I still can't figure out just what you're getting at. The deficit is the same, the overall intake is different (base that on BMR)

Obviously if your BMR is 3100ish then consuming 2000 isn't going to be better.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Sep 2012)

Your example illustrates how two different people may create the same deficit based on their individual BMR's and exercise regimen's, and yes, the net effect will be the same for those two people, within some tolerance. However a single person doesn't realistically get the choice you present because their BMR is has a very large effect on the amount of calories needed to sustain their weight. With increased activity, the sustaining value increases. Once this is obtained, you then decide how much deficit you should be creating.


----------



## david k (16 Sep 2012)

thanks guys, my BMR is around 2800 but im not talking of me really exactly 

If the same person at 2000 calories a day one week and burned 2100 then ate 3000 calories a day and burned 3100 the next week would their loss be the same?
im geting at eaing more burning more v's eating less burning less approach to weight loss and calorie burn. obviously the net calorie loss is equal but does burning more increase the bodys own metabolic rate or anything else for that matter?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (16 Sep 2012)

Metabolism will increase slightly for 24hrs or so after exercise regardless of how much you eat. The important factor is consuming enough for your day + exercise period and not have a 3000cal/day(example) deficit overall.


----------



## Saluki (16 Sep 2012)

I tried a shake diet once. I really didn't get on with it as it gave me the squits and I am too busy at work to keep running to the loo the whole time. It worked wonderfully for a friend of mine, which was why I tried it, but it was not for me. My younger sister lost 5 stone on that cambridge diet thing, she just had shakes I think. That may not be the way that you are supposed to do it, but it was the way she did it. She got really quite alarmingly thin, then put it all back on, plus more, within 3 months.

I do occasionally have a shake drink for breakfast (Forever Living shake) if I am really really pushed for time, otherwise its Oat-so-simple as it keeps me full until lunchtime. I have also been known to have a meal replacement soup at lunchtime on occasion. Actually, just normal soup will do but I got some meal replacement soups on offer and I am steadily making my way though them.

I sort of follow Slimming World, although I don't go to classes and I am not as on track as I would like to be. I simply need to be more organised in meal planning. Its my own fault. Having seen pictures of my biological family, especially aunts, cousins and grandparents, they all seem to be quite plump and not just the women. Much rounder than I am so it might be a family build thing that I am trying to fight here.
Very interesting thread here though.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (16 Sep 2012)

Saluki said:


> I tried a shake diet once. I really didn't get on with it as it gave me the squits and I am too busy at work to keep running to the loo the whole time. It worked wonderfully for a friend of mine, which was why I tried it, but it was not for me. My younger sister lost 5 stone on that cambridge diet thing, she just had shakes I think. That may not be the way that you are supposed to do it, but it was the way she did it. *She got really quite alarmingly thin, then put it all back on, plus more, within 3 months.*
> 
> I do occasionally have a shake drink for breakfast (Forever Living shake) if I am really really pushed for time, otherwise its Oat-so-simple as it keeps me full until lunchtime. I have also been known to have a meal replacement soup at lunchtime on occasion. Actually, just normal soup will do but I got some meal replacement soups on offer and I am steadily making my way though them.
> 
> ...


Hmmm


----------



## Saluki (16 Sep 2012)

Totally true. My sis went from a size 18 to about a size 10 and looked dreadful. Probably because she lost the weight so quickly, relatively speaking, and she did look very ill. When she started eating 'normally' again, she stacked the weight on, plus some. When I say eating 'normally', she might have been eating 'normally' for her and not normally as in a balanced diet. She has yo-yo'd all her life though.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (16 Sep 2012)

Saluki said:


> Totally true. My sis went from a size 18 to about a size 10 and looked dreadful. Probably because she lost the weight so quickly, relatively speaking, and she did look very ill. When she started eating 'normally' again, she stacked the weight on, plus some. When I say eating 'normally', she might have been eating 'normally' for her and not normally as in a balanced diet. She has yo-yo'd all her life though.


Unfortunate. But that's typical of yo-yo/crash/cabbage soup/shake dieters.

It's all great until they try to come off it. People think smoking is addictive!


----------

