# Meal Plans for weight loss



## NeedMuscleMass (Apr 7, 2010)

Over the last 3.5 months I've sat at a desk for 70-80 hours a week.  Needless to say, workouts were few and far between, nutrition was lacking, and I put on some weight.

Now that my lifes returning to normal, I'd like to get some input on my planned daily meals.  It won't be the same thing every day (sub fish for chicken, blue berries for strawberries, etc) but I plan on keeping this basic outline.

Some background: I'm 24 male, 5'11" 185lbs.  Don't know what my bf is, but I definitely could afford to lose some weight.  Ideally I'd like to be around 170 and go from there.  As of now, my workouts are going to be strictly cardio with core muscle and body weight exercises.  I'm more focused on getting into good shape then getting big right now.  Keep in mind I work at a desk from 9- 6 or 7.

Here we go:

8 AM Breakfast		
.5 cup	Low Fat Vanilla Yogurt	100
1 scoops	Whey Protein	        100
1 cup	        Halfed Strawberries        50
.5 cup	Water	                    -   
4	        Ice cubes	                   -   
		                      Total     250

11 AM Snack		
14	Baby Carrots	35
1	Medium Banana	105
		Total         140


1 PM Lunch		
6.4 oz	Butterball Turkey	         168
2 pieces	Whole Wheat Bread	180
5 slices	Hot Pepper             	10
1 tbsp	Mustard	                15
		Total                        373

4 PM Snack		
2 tbsp	Peanut butter	        180
1	Large Banance	                121
1 slice	Whole Wheat Bread	90
		Total                        391

7 PM Dinner		
7.15oz	Chicken Breast	       181
1 cup	         Brown Rice	                216
.6 cup	Spinach	                  30
		                                427

10 PM Snack		
.5 cup	Cottage Cheese	          80
.5 cup	Sliced Strawberries	  25
		                                 105
Gym trip occurs around 8:30 PM

My automatic guess is Snack 1 needs more calories (I find I'm pretty hungry by lunch) and I should incorporate more vegetables in my meals.  

Any other thoughts/insights would be appreciated.  Thanks for help.


----------



## Phineas (Apr 7, 2010)

NeedMuscleMass said:


> Over the last 3.5 months I've sat at a desk for 70-80 hours a week.  Needless to say, workouts were few and far between, nutrition was lacking, and I put on some weight.
> 
> Now that my lifes returning to normal, I'd like to get some input on my planned daily meals.  It won't be the same thing every day (sub fish for chicken, blue berries for strawberries, etc) but I plan on keeping this basic outline.
> 
> ...



At A glance it looks like you have far too little protein. I bolded your protein sources. Let's generalize:

-1 scoop whey = 25g
-6-7 oz turkey = 35g
-2 slices whole wheat bread = 8g
-2 tbsp PB = 8g
-7 oz chicken = 35g
-brown rice = 5g?
-1 slice whole wheat bread = 4g
-1/2 cup cottage cheese (don't know if it's dry curd or not, but let's assume it's dry curd) = 20g

Total = 140g

If you're 185 you should be taking in AT LEAST 185g/day (remember the old suggestion of 1g/lb?), but I'd take in more like 230-250 (some would suggest more).

Your breakfast is terrible. You want to get your metabolism jump-started. You need more protein and fat. A scoopy of whey is better than nothing, but (a) it's likely not enough grams for the meal and (b) you might not be using your powder wisely. If it's isolation then that protein is absorbed very fast. If you're cutting you want to stay satisfied for longer, which is why a slow-burning protein (especially in your fist meal of the day) would be helpful. Why no eggs?

Take in more fibrous, leafy veges. For instance, I eat three spinach salads a day (which includes avocado, broccolli, peppers, tomato, and seeds). And, not that you have included any, but not all veges were created equally; just because they're colourful and crunchy and don't taste fantastic, certain veges like iceburg lettuce, cucumber, and celery are seriously lacking in vitamins/minerals. Even some fruits like apples (if you look up a detailed analysis) don't really have a whole lot to offer. Since you're resticting calories, make sure that what you DO take in is not only unhealthy but healthy -- and that means more than just low in "x" and "y".

Anyway, the main problem to address is the protein. If you do 6 meals a day @ 240g then you take in 40g/meal. Keep a steady flow of nutrients so you don't get those insulin spikes, which will inhibit your fat burning.


----------



## NeedMuscleMass (Apr 7, 2010)

Would something like this be better for breakfast?

2 slices	Turkey Bacon	70
5	         Egg Whites	        85
1	        Whole Egg	       70
1  cup	Mushrooms	       15
1/4 cup	Onion	               17 
1 slice	Wheat Toast	90
1/2 cup	Halfed Strawberries	25
		Total                372

Problem is I dont always have time to make eggs in morning.  Maybe I'll prep a lot of the stuff the night before.


----------



## Built (Apr 7, 2010)

Phineas, why does it matter how much protein he eats per meal?

NeedMuscle, FitDay - Free Weight Loss and Diet Journal I want the total for the day please. I don't give a rats ass about the individual meals - eat one big meal or a hundred micro snacks, it won't matter at all - other than your personal comfort, which really DOES matter or you won't stick to your diet!


----------



## NeedMuscleMass (Apr 7, 2010)

Built - Here is a link: jkrupski86 - free online diet and fitness journal 

Thanks for help.


----------



## Phineas (Apr 8, 2010)

Built said:


> Phineas, why does it matter how much protein he eats per meal?
> 
> NeedMuscle, FitDay - Free Weight Loss and Diet Journal I want the total for the day please. I don't give a rats ass about the individual meals - eat one big meal or a hundred micro snacks, it won't matter at all - other than your personal comfort, which really DOES matter or you won't stick to your diet!



Steady flow of nutrients to keep the metabolism burning steadily and prevent insulin spikes.


----------



## Phineas (Apr 8, 2010)

NeedMuscleMass said:


> Would something like this be better for breakfast?
> 
> 2 slices	Turkey Bacon	70
> 5	         Egg Whites	        85
> ...



I think that looks pretty damn good. I'd seriously keep the yolks, though. Such a good source of monounsaturated fat and tons of other good stuff (flavour, too, lol) including about half the egg's protein.

Eggs don't take long at all to make. I make 4 eggs every morning, and, while it would be nice to turn that into an omlette with veges, you don't need to. I just scrample them on work days. Takes like 7 minutes to heat the pan, get them in there, cook them, package it up, and clean the pan. You can easily afford 7 minutes to do this.]

Mmm, turkey bacon? Never had it before.


----------



## NeedMuscleMass (Apr 8, 2010)

Phineas - what I did was this:

Last night when I was putting together lunch for today, I beat the eggs, cooked the bacon, sauteed the onion and mushrooms, and then just stored in fridge.  When I woke up I was able to throw together an omlette pretty quickly.  Going to start doing this more often.

Keeping the yokes would raise the calories a lot and I'm trying to cut down them as low as possible.  Maybe I'll throw one more yoke in there - we'll see how it goes.


----------



## Built (Apr 8, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Steady flow of nutrients to keep the metabolism burning steadily and prevent insulin spikes.




A steady flow of nutrients isn't at all necessary to keep metabolism steady. 

Why would you get insulin spikes from less frequent eating? And why would it matter?


----------



## Built (Apr 8, 2010)

Grams Calories %-Cals  
Calories  1,869   
Fat 47.5 415 22 % 
Saturated 12.2 107 6 % 
Polyunsaturated 10.8 94 5 % 
Monounsaturated 16.7 145 8 % 
Carbohydrate 208.1 810 43 % 
Dietary Fiber 24.4    
Protein 160.8 650 35 % 

Lots of carb and not a ton of calories for a man your size. I'd be hungry on this.


----------



## NeedMuscleMass (Apr 8, 2010)

So far haven't been hungry.  The omlette in the morning really made a difference for the rest of the day.. going to stick with this..

Today I hit 27% fat, 37% carbs, and 36% protein.  Going forward I'm going to try and lower the carbs a little and raise the fat.


----------



## jimko (Apr 10, 2010)

hello evry b0dy


----------



## Built (Apr 10, 2010)

NeedMuscleMass said:


> So far haven't been hungry.  The omlette in the morning really made a difference for the rest of the day.. going to stick with this..
> 
> Today I hit 27% fat, 37% carbs, and 36% protein.  Going forward I'm going to try and lower the carbs a little and raise the fat.



Grams please. The percentages mean nothing. 

Glad you're more comfortable.


----------



## NeedMuscleMass (Apr 10, 2010)

Fat: 56
carbs: 178.3
protein: 164.7


----------



## Built (Apr 10, 2010)

Calories?


----------



## Phineas (Apr 10, 2010)

Built said:


> A steady flow of nutrients isn't at all necessary to keep metabolism steady.
> 
> Why would you get insulin spikes from less frequent eating? And why would it matter?



Insulin is released in the blood stream after eating. The longer it's been since the last intake the larger the insulin spike. I think it was in your daredevils article that I read that insulin in the bloodstream inhibits fat oxidation.

I have always been taught on this board and elsewhere that smaller, more frequent meals is the healthiest approach to dieting, whether bulking, cutting, or maintaining.


----------



## NeedMuscleMass (Apr 10, 2010)

fat - 492
carb - 703
protein - 664


----------



## Marat (Apr 10, 2010)

Phineas said:


> The longer it's been since the last intake the larger the insulin spike. I think it was in your daredevils article that I read that insulin in the bloodstream inhibits fat oxidation.
> 
> I have always been taught on this board and elsewhere that smaller, more frequent meals is the healthiest approach to dieting, whether bulking, cutting, or maintaining.



I think it is important to apply the science to practical application. Although, the presence of insulin inhibits lipolysis, over time,  long term caloric deficit will result in fat loss regardless of meal frequency. Your statement, "the longer it's been since the last intake the larger the insulin spike": what are you implying? Holding that statement as true (it's actually not so much meal frequency, but regularity of meal patterns that can decrease  peak insulin concentrations), are you suggesting that by very slightly affecting insulin concentration, you'll burn more or less fat? It may be so, but it'll only amount to a handful of grams -- hardly something worthy of significantly altering ones lifestyle. That brings me to my next point.

Consistency is what will bring forth results. The majority of dieters are not individuals trying to get from 9% BF to contest levels, but rather (for males) are moving from perhaps 15% or 20% to maintainable, leaner levels. Perhaps for individuals trying to peak for a contest, more variables need to be controlled than for the common dieter, but I think this is a separate conversation -- perhaps Sassy69 will have some input. Anyway, those that hunker down with radical lifestyle changes (going from eating three times a day to eating six) are hardly ever successful in the long term. Because fat loss is contingent on energy balance, meal frequency only becomes a matter of preference.

In pseudo-defense of a higher meal frequency, one will find plenty of evidence to suggest that increased meal frequency may be associated with improvements in general health markers such as 'better' lipid profiles. However, these studies usually use fat people. If you make fat people leaner, improvements in general health markers should be expected. The conclusions of most of these studies result in suggesting that energy intake is 'probably' more important than relatively inconsequential details such as meal frequency.


----------



## Built (Apr 10, 2010)

Phineas said:


> Insulin is released in the blood stream after eating. The longer it's been since the last intake the larger the insulin spike. I think it was in your daredevils article that I read that insulin in the bloodstream inhibits fat oxidation.



It does. That's why you don't eat sugar before doing stubborn fat loss protocols. 

PS THANK YOU for reading my article!  


> I have always been taught on this board and elsewhere that smaller, more frequent meals is the healthiest approach to dieting, whether bulking, cutting, or maintaining.


I know this myth circulates a lot, but there's not much science to support it. Do this if you feel more comfortable this way. Don't if you don't. It won't matter from a weight loss or health perspective, unless of course you are treating some sort of health condition, such as type I diabetes and you need to time your intake and your insulin shots.


m11 said:


> I think it is important to apply the science to practical application. Although, the presence of insulin inhibits lipolysis, over time,  long term caloric deficit will result in fat loss regardless of meal frequency. Your statement, "the longer it's been since the last intake the larger the insulin spike": what are you implying? Holding that statement as true (it's actually not so much meal frequency, but regularity of meal patterns that can decrease  peak insulin concentrations), are you suggesting that by very slightly affecting insulin concentration, you'll burn more or less fat? It may be so, but it'll only amount to a handful of grams -- hardly something worthy of significantly altering ones lifestyle.



Exactly. Stubborn fat loss is a method to coax a few more calories burned to come from fat, and a few less from muscle. This won't matter at all until you're so lean you can spot the individual stubborn pockets. 





> That brings me to my next point.
> 
> Consistency is what will bring forth results. The majority of dieters are not individuals trying to get from 9% BF to contest levels, but rather (for males) are moving from perhaps 15% or 20% to maintainable, leaner levels. Perhaps for individuals trying to peak for a contest, more variables need to be controlled than for the common dieter, but I think this is a separate conversation -- perhaps Sassy69 will have some input. Anyway, those that hunker down with radical lifestyle changes (going from eating three times a day to eating six) are hardly ever successful in the long term. Because fat loss is contingent on energy balance, meal frequency only becomes a matter of preference.
> 
> In pseudo-defense of a higher meal frequency, one will find plenty of evidence to suggest that increased meal frequency may be associated with improvements in general health markers such as 'better' lipid profiles. However, these studies usually use fat people. If you make fat people leaner, improvements in general health markers should be expected. The conclusions of most of these studies result in suggesting that energy intake is 'probably' more important than relatively inconsequential details such as meal frequency.


This is an excellent point m11 - thank you for this!


----------



## nd2bhge (Apr 10, 2010)

as we all know it does come down to the law of thermodynamics, burn more than you take in and you will lose weight. With that said it makes sense that meal frequency is not an issue, hypothetically you could consume all your calories at one meal and still be in a calorie deficit. 

What I have always taught was more frequent meals will help with satiety, and keep the average person trying to lose weight full throughout there day so they wont binge.
always being hungry leads to failed diet ............imho


----------



## Built (Apr 10, 2010)

Interestingly, many dieters find it more satiating to have a few larger meals than to have many tiny meals. This can be particularly true for women. I mean YOU try calling 250 calories a meal!


----------



## nd2bhge (Apr 10, 2010)

I will agree with that, however most *average* (deconditioned) people are only eating twice a day and then snacking at night. I'm sure they can easily eat 1000cals+ at each of those two meals. so three meals would be a plus.


----------



## Built (Apr 10, 2010)

Really? When I got my shit together, I was "grazing". We were told for years this was good for us. 

<groan>


----------



## Marat (Apr 10, 2010)

Most dieters will know reasonably early if they are more comfortable on two meals or twenty. I think the issue is that many nutritionists feel that there is only one method (usually the 5-7 m/day one) that will facilitate fat loss. Rather, a recognition that meal frequency is just a boring, banal detail of dieting that probably causes more failure than success would result in a higher success rate for dieters.


----------

