VCLDs versus Slimfast


Silver Member
Hi there

have a question I dont know the answer to and someone asked me the other day.

I am doing CD and doing ok, a friend of mine was asking about it and very interested but wondered if you would get the same results if you did the same with Slimfast.

I didnt know the answer and though I would ask.

If I remember right, isnt the protein/carb makeup different with SF ?

Anyone know ??

Thanks in advance.

Deb x
CD = 100% nutritionally complete

SF = Isn't (so you can't use it as your 'sole source of nutrition' without detrimental effects on your health)

CD = Low in carbs so you go into ketosis - works on the ketogenic principle of burning your own fat stores for energy

SF = Plenty O' carbs - works on the principle of calorie reduction via the 2 meal replacements.

Not knocking SF - it's fine if you want to shift a few pounds but I think it'd be hard to lose a lot of weight using it and it certainly shouldn't be used to SS as a VLCD. :)
Hi Deb,
agree with Debbie, you aren't working on the principle of ketosis at all with Slimfast. I did check it out some time back before I went with LL and was suprised how much sugar they have in them.

Saying that, my OH is doing Slimfast and he really likes the soups, the bars, the snacks. He is losing weight but not as fast as me ! :D
I tried it once and couldn't stick to it at all, just felt toooooo hungry what with no ketosis and all!

Lady in London, you are doing great! I read your blog a few weeks back keep up the good work!

Ah-ha I thought SF has a lot more sugars in! and non-ketosis effect.

I can answer my friends now, I know she has tried SF x 3 a day for a week and not lost anthing so that would explain why!

Thanks for your help. You all so helpful.

Deb x
Slimfart! LOL

Besides Slimfast isn't that much cheaper than CD.
I tried Slimfast a few years ago. I found the shakes fine although i could only drink the Strawberry as the other flavours made me violently sick??????? I did feel hungry but found that although i was sticking to the two shakes i was still having a daft meal in the evening!

I also know someone who decided to do Slimfast as if it where LL, although she stuck to 3 shakes instead of four as SF has more calories in it. In her first week she lost 8lbs and was completely thrilled but the second week she was quite poorly and only lost a pound. She soon saw sense and joined a sensible diet plan. She's now doing LL.
For what it's worth I did SS Slimfast (plus multivit) for 7 weeks and lost 2 stone. It's not recomended and I'm not going to break that trend and say it's a good thing but it worked for me and it can't have been nutritionally worse for me that the junk I had been eating. After that 7 weeks I went onto a slow re-introdiction of food and I have lost 44lbs total (in 5 months) with only 2lbs to go until target.

Juts a reminder to prevent being jumped on, I'm not recomending it.
I tried SF to see whether I could stick to a liquid diet. The flavours weren't all that. I was hungry and after two days I really did not feel well. I dropped it and went back to SW. Months later, after the inablity to focus on SW I decided to try CD. I haven't looked back and I am fully focused. But financially I find that the CD is more reasonable.
I lost 10lbs on slimfast. I liked the idea that i was eating 6 times a day. 5 were slimfast products and the I had a chicken and mushroom salad every night. eating six times a day meant i was either eating or thinking about eating so it didnt take long to want to eat more.

I certainly wasn't cheaper than CD.