[FDfranklin]

My new job requires sitting at a desk all day and ive gotten a bit out of shape ( 5"10 170, minimal muscles lol ) and the excessive amounts of beer I consume probably doesn't help. Anyways without having much time to exercise do you guys have any suggestions for healthy meals or how I should be eating to shed a few pounds.

I usually will eat a bagel or a granola bar for breakfast, sandwich for lunch and pasta/rice/stirfry for dinner. I eat a lot of soy and not that much meat because my gf is a vegetarian. I also cut beer and am sticking with liquor for now.

Any help is appreciated, thanks

[Quick6EF]

It's not about one specific meal, but your daily intake throughout the day that you should be monitoring.

In order to lose weight you need a caloric deficit.

[FDfranklin]

Originally Posted by Quick6EF

It's not about one specific meal, but your daily intake throughout the day that you should be monitoring.

In order to lose weight you need a caloric deficit.

I know not specifically, I guess my intention of this thread was just to get low calorie meals that don't taste like cardboard

[wakeboarder109]

Check out men's health. They normally have some decent meal suggestions. There are a lot of good cookbooks out there if you want to make the time.

[Quick6EF]

Originally Posted by FDfranklin

I know not specifically, I guess my intention of this thread was just to get low calorie meals that don't taste like cardboard

Walden Farms makes some good stuff.

http://www.waldenfarms.com/

Try this to see what your caloric maintenance is:

Estimating Requirements
The simplest method of estimating needs is to base your intake on a standard 'calories per unit of weight (usually kilograms)'. Typically:
- 26 to 30 kcals/kg/day for normal, healthy individuals with sedentary lifestyles doing little physical activity [12.0-14 kcal/pound]
- 31 to 37 kcal/kg/day for those involved in light to moderate activity 3-5 x a week with moderately active lifestyles [14-16 kcal/ pound]
- 38 to 40 kcals/kg/day for those involved in vigorous activity and highly active jobs [16-18 kcal/ pound].
For those involved in HEAVY training (eg: athletes) - the demand is even greater:
- 41 to 50 kcals/kg/day for those involved in moderate to heavy training (for example: 15-20 hrs/ week training) [18.5-22 kcal/ pound]
- 50 or above kcals/kg/day for those involved in heavy to extreme training [> 22 kcal/ pound]

Subtract ~500 calories from your maintenance number and you will see lbs drop.

[BrokenVert]

Hummus is a good one

[FDfranklin]

Originally Posted by Quick6EF

Walden Farms makes some good stuff.

http://www.waldenfarms.com/

Try this to see what your caloric maintenance is:





Subtract ~500 calories from your maintenance number and you will see lbs drop.

Appreciate your help, that quote just scrambled my brain though. Math was never my strong subject. Tried some conversion sites but was getting weird numbers, have a quick link on how to decode that?

[FDfranklin]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

Hummus is a good one

I do love hummus, but usually I end up dipping in something unhealthy..

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by FDfranklin

I do love hummus, but usually I end up dipping in something unhealthy..

Take the hummus and make a volcano out of it (carve out the middle)

use the new hole in the hummus as a bowl and pour some olive oil in it. The take some Pita or celery or whatever and dip it in the olive oil and the hummus.

[CarAbuser]

Hit the weights 2-3 times a week with a couple of hours running inbetween.

I started an office based job a couple of years ago and had the same problems as you. If you just eat less then you end up thin and unhealthy rather than fat and unhealthy.

[BrokenVert]

RaquetBall is great cardio. I play for 2 hours after weight training twice a week.


One more thing is a good multivitamin and lots of water. Your body cant lose weight and get healthy if your body chemistry is crap.

[Quick6EF]

Originally Posted by FDfranklin

Appreciate your help, that quote just scrambled my brain though. Math was never my strong subject. Tried some conversion sites but was getting weird numbers, have a quick link on how to decode that?

- 26 to 30 kcals/kg/day for normal, healthy individuals with sedentary lifestyles doing little physical activity [12.0-14 kcal/pound]




170 (lbs) x 14 = 2380 Calories

According to the theory, you burn 2380 calories a day just "living" a sedentary lifestyle. Do you have more physical activity during the day?

Try lowering your calories to 2100 and give it a few weeks. Shoot to lose ~ 1lb a week. Are you lifting weights?

This is a rough example and takes trial and error. Keep an eye on the mirror and scale.

[Dre01SS]

Try to limit processed foods as much as possible.
Eat lots of meat (beef-chicken-fish), vegetables, and healthy fats (avocados, almond butter).

Lift heavy stuff a few times a week - Add short, intense bursts of sprinting a couple times as well.

Try to get 7-8hrs of sleep every night.

Worry less about the 'quantity' of food at the moment, and more-so about the 'quality'

[McMuffin]

Idk if someone has mentioned this, but try eating every 3 hours or so.
Meal-snack-meal-snack etc

[Quick6EF]

Originally Posted by McMuffin

Idk if someone has mentioned this, but try eating every 3 hours or so.
Meal-snack-meal-snack etc

Why? Meal timing has no relevance on body composition.

[McMuffin]

Originally Posted by Quick6EF

Why? Meal timing has no relevance on body composition.

Speeds up the metabolism.

[Quick6EF]

Originally Posted by McMuffin

Speeds up the metabolism.

That is a myth and completely incorrect. Please see below for PubMed articles supporting the fact.

I have about 8 more PubMed articles to support the fact that meal timing/frequency has no effect on your metabolism or body composition.

Your body will not go catabolic if you go several hours until eating.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.Links
Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR.
Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns (5.57 +/- 0.16 kJ/min for the gorging pattern; 5.44 +/- 0.18 kJ/min for the nibbling pattern). Concerning the periodicity of nutrient utilization, protein oxidation during the day did not change between the two feeding patterns. In the gorging pattern, carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated during the interval following the first meal (ie from 1200 h to 1500 h, P less than 0.01) and the second meal (ie from 1800 h to 2100 h, P less than 0.05). The decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation observed during the fasting period (from rising in the morning until the first meal at 1200 h), was compensated by an increased fat oxidation from 0900 to 1200 h to cover energy needs. In the nibbling pattern, carbohydrate and fat oxidation remained relatively constant during the active hours of the day.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.Links
Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

Taylor MA, Garrow JS.
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, London, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To test if a diet of 4.2 MJ/24 h as six isocaloric meals would result in a lower subsequent energy intake, or greater energy output than (a) 4.2 MJ/24 h as two isocaloric meals or (b) a morning fast followed by free access to food. DESIGN: Subjects were confined to the Metabolic Unit from 19:00 h on day 1 to 09:30 h on day 6. Each day they had a fixed diet providing 4.2 MJ with three pairs of meal patterns which were offered in random sequence. They were: six meals vs two meals without access to additional foods (6vs2), or six meals vs 2 meals with access to additional food (6+vs2+), or six meals vs four meals (6+vsAMFAST). In the AMFAST condition the first two meals of the day were omitted to reduce daily intake to 2.8 MJ and to create a morning fast, but additional food was accessible thereafter. Patients were confined in the chamber calorimeter from 19:00 h on day 2 until 09:00 h on day 4, and then from 19:00 h on day 4 to 09:00 h on day 6. The order in which each meal pattern was offered was balanced over time. MEASUREMENTS: Energy expenditure (chamber calorimetry), spontaneous activity (video) and energy intake (where additional foods were available) during the final 24 h of each dietary component. SUBJECTS: Ten (6vs2), eight (6+vs2+) and eight (6+vsAMFAST) women were recruited who had a BMI of greater than 25 kg/m2. RESULTS: From experiment 6vs2 the difference between energy expenditure with six meals (10.00 MJ) and two meals (9.96 MJ) was not significant (P=0.88). Energy expenditure between 23:00 h and 08:00 h ('night') was, however, significantly higher (P=0.02) with two meals (9.12 MJ/24 h) compared with six meals (8.34 MJ/24 h). The pattern of spontaneous physical activity did not differ significantly between these two meal patterns (P>0.05). Total energy intake was affected by neither meal frequency in experiment 6+vs2+ (10.75 MJ with six, 11.08 MJ with two; P=0.58) nor a morning fast in experiment 6+vsAMFAST (8.55 MJ/24 h with six, 7.60 MJ with AMFAST; P=0.40). The total diet of subjects who had a morning fast tended to have a lower percentage of total energy from carbohydrate (40%) than when they had six meals per 24 h (49%) (P=0.05). Subsequent energy balance was affected by neither meal frequency (6vs2; P=0.88, 6+vs2+; P=0.50) nor a morning fast (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, meal frequency and a period of fasting have no major impact on energy intake or expenditure but energy expenditure is delayed with a lower meal frequency compared with a higher meal frequency. This might be attributed to the thermogenic effect of food continuing into the night when a later, larger meal is given. A morning fast resulted in a diet which tended to have a lower percentage of energy from carbohydrate than with no fast.

[FDfranklin]

Originally Posted by Quick6EF

- 26 to 30 kcals/kg/day for normal, healthy individuals with sedentary lifestyles doing little physical activity [12.0-14 kcal/pound]




170 (lbs) x 14 = 2380 Calories

According to the theory, you burn 2380 calories a day just "living" a sedentary lifestyle. Do you have more physical activity during the day?

Try lowering your calories to 2100 and give it a few weeks. Shoot to lose ~ 1lb a week. Are you lifting weights?

This is a rough example and takes trial and error. Keep an eye on the mirror and scale.

Thanks. Only activity I really get is walking a few blocks back and forth from work and the parking garage. I want to start jump roping a bit after work since I don't have any other equipment and not much room in my place.

I would say I definitely consume under 2100 calories a day as it is. Ive been using an iphone app called loseit that tracks them, I usually am around 1700-2000.

[McMuffin]

Originally Posted by Quick6EF

That is a myth and completely incorrect. Please see below for PubMed articles supporting the fact.

That way too much read for me man Haha. Well I tried out the so called MYTH and it worked for me. At least I'd like to think it did.

[Quick6EF]

Originally Posted by McMuffin

That way too much read for me man Haha. Well I tried out the so called MYTH and it worked for me. At least I'd like to think it did.

It's completely false. Most people break down their meals because they cannot consume their total required calories in 3 large meals, so they separate them into small ones throughout the day.


...and it is a myth, no need for sarcasm. If you feel otherwise feel free to refute what I posted with sited sources.



What ever works for you, though. If you find success in eating small meals, go for it. However it does not speed up your metabolism.

[McMuffin]

Originally Posted by Quick6EF

It's completely false. Most people break down their meals because they cannot consume their total required calories in 3 large meals, so they separate them into small ones throughout the day.


...and it is a myth, no need for sarcasm. If you feel otherwise feel free to refute what I posted with sited sources.



What ever works for you, though. If you find success in eating small meals, go for it. However it does not speed up your metabolism.

Seems like you know your shit, so I won't argue.

BTW is Quick6EF aka for quick CRX? Former Honda head?

[Quick6EF]

Originally Posted by McMuffin

Seems like you know your shit, so I won't argue.

BTW is Quick6EF aka for quick CRX? Former Honda head?

ahah actually no, it's for my slow 328i


I did have a '97 Accord V6, though.

I was 16 at the time