Seriously... Why do we eat more than one time a day?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Poonani Maker

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
4,407
Reaction score
929
I usually have a muffin or croissant and water w/ half a 5-hour energy bottle for breakfast, then for lunch I have, Water. Then, when I get home for dinner I'll usually eat a Big ole salad, preferably involving spinach (like tonight). Usually before dinner I'll eat chips n' salsa or a croissant, all with water. Then I'll eat dessert, which could be anything from Hagen Das ice cream to Bread pudding to cookies to an energy bar, cake, whatever.

The main thing is basically nothing all day, and then a decent-sized dinner, water and spinach being the main health benefactors.

I've been doing this for 4 years. I hover at about 163 lbs, all muscle on my 6'2" frame. I probably run/walk 3 miles a day. I'm as stiff as a board, through and through, giving me great balance, agility, dexterity.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
306
Reaction score
11
backbreaker says,

But sometimes you have to question convenitional wisdom.
Exactly, and that's my entire thought process now because what I DO for eating and training isn't in ANY BOOK. Yet when I tell guys that I am getting results from it they tell me I'm lying because I'm not following some "PLAN" from a magazine or some "conventional" plan.

The problem is not only do you have to question conventional wisdom but the fact that conventional wisdom CHANGES EVERY MONTH in the fitness industry lol, how many different plans are there but why is it that MAJORITY of people don't reach their fitness goals?

Look at the new plans as they roll out:

> One month it's low carbs

> The next month its carb cycling

> The next month its eat heavy proteins

> The next month its eat a balance of proteins and fat

> The next month its eat NO FAT

> The next month its eat 8 small meals

> The next month its 8 small meals are too much, go back to 3 good meals

> And this is the one that gets me, the next month it's DONT EAT APPLES

> And on and on

I've come to the conclusion that MY BODY is not YOUR BODY, and mines wont respond to certain things as yours do. So if you found a plan that works for you that just so happens to "work for others also" that's fine, but we need to stop passing down things as gospel saying they will work for everyone else because that's not true.

I know myself, I ate a high protein diet once and I swear, (not to be gross or anything) but I was on the damn toilet every hour, seriously.
 

Quiksilver

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
55
Hooligan Harry said:
As for people storing food? Only once we domesticated animals and started farming did we have the ability to store food. The shift AWAY from the need to hunt daily is what led to our rapid development. That only happened a few thousand years ago. Our physiology could not have adapted in such a short period of time to the way we eat now. Most people never ate 3 meals a day even up until 100 years ago. The only countries with obesity issues are the countries eating their carb dense, fat overloaded 3 square meals a day.
Of course. What do you think the principle concern was for early humans, from dawn till dusk? To feed themselves. Everything they did was centered around finding and eating food.

I'll refer back to our lovable cousins the Apes and Chimps, they sit around eating ALL DAY.

--

I'll say again, if you have no aspirations to get big and strong, then ANY diet will work for you. As long as you're eating enough to sustain life, then beyond that nothing matters. It's when we delve into the concepts of athletics and sports nutrition that science shows us eating 4-8 smaller meals a day is superior to eating 3 bigger ones, much less this 4 hour gorging period you're talking about, followed by 20 hours of fasting.

I've read all of the links you've given, and so far only the Paleo Diet shows any credibility. These Intermittent Fasting/Warrior Diet concepts are even more gimmicky than "eat 6 meals a day based around protein-rich foods".

To each their own. But I still haven't seen a shred of evidence, beyond mere conjecture, that 4 hour feed + 20 hour fast > large breakfast + 4-6 other meals during the day (when discussing sports/fitness nutrition).

The Message Boy said:
I've come to the conclusion that MY BODY is not YOUR BODY, and mines wont respond to certain things as yours do. So if you found a plan that works for you that just so happens to "work for others also" that's fine, but we need to stop passing down things as gospel saying they will work for everyone else because that's not true.
This is extremely goal-dependant. If you say "I want to get big and strong" then what we preach(lol) does work, irrefutably. If you say "I want to get fit and healthy" then simply eating a healthy diet with moderate amount of calories + doing sufficient exercise to meet your goals WILL do the trick. The little nitty-gritty details of the program are up to you. However, if you're saying "I want to get big and strong" and THEN claim that eating high-protein is bad, etc/etc/etc. that's when someone with any knowledge in the field will call bull****.

Again it's goal dependent... If you've achieved your true goals and you haven't followed conventional wisdom, then more power to you. If you HAVEN'T achieved your goals and refuse to follow conventional wisdom, then you are lying to yourself.

RMM said:
I'd give a metabolic explanation to that. Excess of anything that can be metabolized is usually reduced to Acetyl Coenzyme-A and incorporated into fat using the Fatty Acid Spiral (the Spiral goes both ways, to burn fat and to generate fat).

Well, turns out that the step of making Acetyl CoA from sugars/aminoacids is irreversible in humans, once you have that all you can do is, roughly speaking, either generate fat (if you have too much) or just burn it for energy.

But our body likes to keep certain amount of glucose around. Fat isn't the easiest thing to burn to produce energy, glucolysis is way faster and easier, and some tissues much prefer it to fat. So when you're in starvation mode, your body will be generating ketone bodies from fat to go around, and will be producing glucose from anything available once the reserves in the liver start to run low (because muscle glycogen doesn't move around). And unlike fat, aminoacids are a good source of material to create glucose, some of them are just a few metabolic steps away from it.

What do you think is going to be more conductive to build muscle, replenish your glycogen reserves through the day so that protein goes to repair the muscles you're hitting with the gym, or eat only once a day and having to go through 20 hours on your standard liver reserve (that you filled completely, making all the excess from your meal go straight to fat), making you mobilize protein and running high on gluconeogenesis?

EDIT: That aside, there are more factors than mere basal metabolism when it comes to decide the best diet for oneself. In the example above with the high blood pressure, that's a health factor that is likely quite important, and I'd wager that an extreme once-a-day dies is really not necessary, and that similar results could be achieved with a less spaced out, but still highly spaced out, diet. Run a google on "Nutrigenomics".
 

Hooligan Harry

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
498
Reaction score
45
Quicksilver said:
I'll say again, if you have no aspirations to get big and strong, then ANY diet will work for you. As long as you're eating enough to sustain life, then beyond that nothing matters. It's when we delve into the concepts of athletics and sports nutrition that science shows us eating 4-8 smaller meals a day is superior to eating 3 bigger ones, much less this 4 hour gorging period you're talking about, followed by 20 hours of fasting.

I've read all of the links you've given, and so far only the Paleo Diet shows any credibility. These Intermittent Fasting/Warrior Diet concepts are even more gimmicky than "eat 6 meals a day based around protein-rich foods".

To each their own. But I still haven't seen a shred of evidence, beyond mere conjecture, that 4 hour feed + 20 hour fast > large breakfast + 4-6 other meals during the day (when discussing sports/fitness nutrition).
You did not read sh1t because I never provided links. I provided the names of BOOKS which include in them the scientific studies you are asking for. You are trying to talk about and debunk something you never even took the time to read and understand properly!!!.

Are you a speed reader?

You have assumed that this has come from the position of a person who wants to weigh a lean 160lbs. I am not a bodybuilder because I wont compete, but I have lived the lifestyle for a very long time. If you want the evidence you are looking for, read the BOOKS I suggested. The evidence is in there. Im not going to do my homework for you, especially since you came from a defensive position in the first place. Your views are typical of many people who throw the idea out the window because its unconventional by todays standards.

Dorian Yates won the olympia on HIT at a time when everyone was convinced 8-10 rep sets were needed for mass. Ronnie Coleman also used some very unconventional training methods when he first took the Olympia and he is probably the greatest there has ever been. Believe what you want to believe. I would never tell someone training for a comp that they should eat 4500 calories in a 4 hour period. You assumed that, which is typical of all young meatheads who think that their subscription to Flex and Iron Man is going to throw the truth their way all the time.

On a side note, no where did the OP say they were looking for a bodybuilders diet a diet that would complement their pro sports lifestyle. They wanted to know if they really needed to eat breakfast. Most active people dont need to because they are not competing in bodybuilding competitions or triathlons. As long as they keep their calories at specific levels based on goals, time nutrient intake around exercise and keep their diet clean, they will lose fat or build muscle based on their calorie intake.

Backbreaker, if you want a nudge, get your hands on the books I suggested you read and see if they dont suit your lifestyle a little better.
 

James Dupri

Don Juan
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
I remember reading Malcolm X ate one meal, every other day. During his autopsy, doctors remarked he had the cleanest insides of any human they'd ever seen.

Bottom line, eating too frequently doesn't allow food to be digested and assimilated properly. Also, most people drink during meals, which means the digestive acids are diluted, which only compounds the problem.

There was a guy at my Gym who was playing ball with us one day. This guy was Dunking, Blocking Shots and the whole nine too. He was in pretty good shape, we assumed he was in his Late 30s. We later found out he was actually 62 years old. He told us he joined the Nation of Islam in the 70s, and has been eating one meal a day ever since.

He sent me a link to these books written by Elijah Muhammad which explains it in full detail:

http://www.noineworleans.org/messenger_books/etl1/index.html
http://www.noineworleans.org/messenger_books/etl2/index.html
 

Peace and Quiet

If you currently have too many women chasing you, calling you, harassing you, knocking on your door at 2 o'clock in the morning... then I have the simple solution for you.

Just read my free ebook 22 Rules for Massive Success With Women and do the opposite of what I recommend.

This will quickly drive all women away from you.

And you will be able to relax and to live your life in peace and quiet.

Quiksilver

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
55
Hooligan Harry said:
You did not read sh1t because I never provided links. I provided the names of BOOKS which include in them the scientific studies you are asking for. You are trying to talk about and debunk something you never even took the time to read and understand properly!!!.
I read articles on all four subjects you posted about:

Paleo Diet
Intermittent Fasting
Leangains
Warrior Diet

I don't need to read an entire book to get the gist of what these concepts are.

Hooligan Harry said:
Dorian Yates won the olympia on HIT at a time when everyone was convinced 8-10 rep sets were needed for mass. Ronnie Coleman also used some very unconventional training methods when he first took the Olympia and he is probably the greatest there has ever been.
Lol, you interested in digging your own grave? ;)

Dorian Yates and Ronnie Coleman are genetic freaks. 99.9% of IFBB competitors--let alone average guys--can never achieve what these guys have, simply because they don't have the genetic propensity for it.

They are exceptions, not the rule.

Since you're throwing in big names, lets bring up Arnold. His training regimen is well known. Guess what? It doesn't work for 99% of people, why? Most people would burn themselves out and overtrain within weeks of starting.

You can't point to genetic freaks as shining beacons of success for people to follow.

I'm trying to help Average Joe get big/healthy/strong/lean/etc.. What I and others on this board are suggesting--which doesn't need to be iterated here--works for the overwhelming majority of guys, given a little dedication.

Hooligan Harry said:
especially since you came from a defensive position in the first place.
Would you expect otherwise? It's logical to take a defensive position when the methods that I and others here propose work for most people.

I'll end my bit in this here:

There is sense in what you are saying, and I gather you are saying something like "You can't cookie-cutter everyone into the same mold, because everyone is different." That makes perfect sense.

For average joe who's been living an unhealthy lifestyle for X number of years, or who wants to get big and strong, the first 2-4 years of training should be fairly standard for everybody. After Average Joe develops a base of strength + a base of self-awareness on what does/doesn't work for his own body and life, he can adapt.

Adaptation is the essence of humanity, and to stumble along blindly like sheep following conventional wisdom is silly. Yet to turn away from conventional wisdom without giving it a shot is taking the hard path for no reason.

-

For the record, I've tried Fasting as well. For over a year I spent the last weekend of every month living off green tea/lemon juice/diuretics. I also did the Master Cleanse which = 12 days of fasting, drinking only lemon + honey water.

It did nothing but slow down my gains.

cheers
 

Throttle

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
1,837
Reaction score
11
backbreaker>> back to your original point: the three "squares" a day comes from a couple different places and it's hard to sort out the various influences, but it's clear that a lot has changed. three solid meals, for westerners at least, comes primarily from the demands of a lifestyle founding on physical work, primarily on farms, and eating was done largely according to a schedule set by natural sunlight. this was then institutionalized and standardized with industrialization (an assembly line requires everyone to break at the same time) and we've been getting fatter ever since.

so you're right, the demands on our bodies have changed and our dietary habits haven't kept up. instead, nearly everyone is many times richer than they could have ever been before, and so our access to food is essentially unlimited. finding a way to artificially limit yourself is pretty much the only way to stay in reasonable shape. for most of us, that means the key is finding a way to mesh necessary limits with cultural practices and social norms (or being prepared to accept the costs of defying them).
 

backbreaker

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
11,573
Reaction score
572
Location
monrovia, CA
I will throw two more things out for thought.

I use my GF as an example simply becuase the way she eats is just amazing to me.

1. she doesn't think about food anywhere near as much as I do. Every 4 hours I'm thinking about eating. eating doesn't consume her life

2. i would imagine that you are in a highented state of awareness when your stomach is not full. think about it... when youa re hungry, it's time to eat, you are more alert beucase you have to look for a meal. if you are full all the time, you are more sugglish, more lax.
 

EFFORT

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
45
Location
USA
backbreaker said:
I will throw two more things out for thought.

I use my GF as an example simply becuase the way she eats is just amazing to me.

1. she doesn't think about food anywhere near as much as I do. Every 4 hours I'm thinking about eating. eating doesn't consume her life

This is true for most women. I've seen them eat some grapes and a bar and call that a days eating.
 

SuSHI

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
335
Reaction score
5
Age
40
Nygard said:
We're not even the same "species" we were 5000 years ago. There are always many differences, some by adaptation and some done by ourselves.
HAHA. Yes we are man. It takes millions and millons of years, and mating isolation to be a different species. We are still Homo sapiens.
 

Peace and Quiet

If you currently have too many women chasing you, calling you, harassing you, knocking on your door at 2 o'clock in the morning... then I have the simple solution for you.

Just read my free ebook 22 Rules for Massive Success With Women and do the opposite of what I recommend.

This will quickly drive all women away from you.

And you will be able to relax and to live your life in peace and quiet.

danro

Don Juan
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
We eat more than once a day to keep our glycemic index from getting out of wack. When this does get wacky people start to develop diabetes and hypoglycemia.
 

Zunder

Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2009
Messages
898
Reaction score
66
Forgetting the bible bashers for a moment...homo-sapiens developed in the tropics. Our stereoscopic colour vision means that we are essentially plant and fruit eaters, with a bit of meat thrown in - and raw meat at that (fire was not discovered until very very very late in mans evoulution.

(Full carnivourous animals see only in black, white & grey).

Grains have no place in the human digestive system. Remember - grains only bcame tolerable (and barely so) to the human digestive system when he discovered fire. Meat - in its true organic form, can be eaten raw, or left to ferment (pre-digest) as the eskimos have done for millenia.

To live the longest and healthiest life you can, then you should eat sparingly, and mainly from the fruit and plant kingdon, with some fish and occasional red meat thrown in (yeah you can cook it - evn the eskimos do nowadays).

You won't get real big muscles eating like this - granted, but you will be lean, have a six pack, and live longer than those whom live on grain and dairy based products. You will also look 20 years younger if you live like this most of your life (eskimos age quickly because they do not have enough plant based foods, even though they are generally healthier than there westernised counterparts).
 

Zunder

Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2009
Messages
898
Reaction score
66
Towards the end of World War II when the Americans invaded the Philippines and recaptured them from the Japanese, a lone Japanese soldier ran off into the jungle there and hid, firmly believing that sooner or later the tide of battle would turn again and Japan would in the end be victorious. He therefore decided to wait things out in the jungle. He waited twenty-five years, all the while avoiding human contact, and then one day emerged from the jungle and surrendered.

Returned to Japan and medically examined, the soldier amazed everybody--he looked so young compared to other middle-aged Japanese men. His teeth were perfect and his eyesight too. He displayed none of the usual signs of degenerative disease considered normal in civilization. And yet his life had not been easy. The only possible explanation for his physical preservation was that his diet for those years had been fruit, berries and various plants eaten raw, a diet similar to that of other wild primates and that of early humans before the discovery of fire.

Life of all kinds is most prolific in tropical regions both on land and sea, and this is not to be wondered at because it is in warm and moist conditions that enzymes work most efficiently. In such a warm, moist environment it is thought that life first appeared on Earth, and it is generally accepted that it was in the tropics that the early primates evolved from lower forms of life, to be followed by the evolution of the apes and then by the first humans.

In the plant kingdom, fruit trees were late arrivals on the evolutionary scene and it is highly probable that both fruit-bearing trees and the primates evolved concurrently, which accounts for the development in the primates of stereoscopic color vision, grasping hands, specialized teeth and jaw structure, appetite for sweet-tasting food, medium-length digestive tract, and so on. In their symbiotic relationship, the fruit trees provided the primates with food and the primates unknowingly spread the fruit seeds wherever they ate or defecated, so ensuring the continued survival of the trees.

The study of comparative anatomy and the different natural diets of animals in the wild indicates strongly that the natural diet of early humans consisted predominantly of sweet fruits, and that even though millions of years have passed, the anatomy and digestive apparatus of humans has not changed and is therefore still best suited to fruit as the most suitable food. That this opinion is not just idle speculation can be quickly proven by any sick person who can break the addiction to our modern taste-stimulating foods and go on a diet of good quality fruit for just a few days. Of course the human digestive system is quite capable of handling foods of animal origin, including animal fats, but in only very limited amounts can it do so without strain, even when the foods are eaten raw as intended by Nature.

Thus it can be surmised that the ideal diet for man is one mainly of sweet fruits supplemented by various berries, green nuts, shoots and occasionally small amounts of foods of animal origin, all eaten raw. This is the sort of food eaten by man's closest relatives in Nature, the orangoutang and chimpanzee, both of which have an anatomy and digestive system almost identical to man's. Neither of these animals in the wild display tooth decay or any of the other diseases common to humans, but soon do so if kept in captivity and fed cooked and processed food.

If this surmise is correct, and if indeed humans can live in better health and for a longer time on such a natural diet, why ever did they change?

There is not a race of people anywhere today who, as a general rule, eat uncooked natural food; the majority of the world's populations base their diets on cooked grains of some kind or other, and the rest base theirs on cooked animal products supplemented by grain, dairy products and vegetables, all cooked. Fruit is looked upon more as a mere accessory to the various traditional diets rather than a sustaining food. How and why did this change come about?

Early man lived in small groups and, before the use of fire, ate his food raw like all the other creatures on Earth have done since life first began, their senses of sight, smell and taste indicating to them the foods most suitable to their systems. Population numbers were restricted by the amount of food available growing wild, but eventually with the discovery of fire it was found that various foods consumed by other animals but which were distasteful to the human palate could be made more edible by cooking, and more tasteful by artificially flavoring them with herbs and salt.

By the use of these new sources of food, greater populations could be supported, not only in areas already occupied, but in territory where food naturally suited for humans was not available.

As population pressures forced surplus people to move into less hospitable territory outside the tropics, they of necessity became reliant on a different diet, and on fire and primitive clothing for warmth. Sickness, when it occurred, was thought to be the work of evil spirits, and so witchdoctors had to be invented.
 

Zunder

Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2009
Messages
898
Reaction score
66
As I say...I don't eat my meat raw - apart form a bit of sushi now and then, and I do eat quite a bit of protein, because I want a good set of muscles...but that doesn't mean I don't know the truth - in that one day if I want to live deep into my 80's & 90's plus (and remain active) I am going to have to make a change sooner rather than later, and slowly adopt the natural diet of man. Everyone grows old - but what quality of life do you want in your later years?
 

mrRuckus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
4,444
Reaction score
87
Quiksilver said:
I read articles on all four subjects you posted about:

Paleo Diet
Intermittent Fasting
Leangains
Warrior Diet

I don't need to read an entire book to get the gist of what these concepts are.
You're smarter and better than all the people creating and doing those things. We get it.
 

Channel your excited feelings into positive thoughts and behaviors. You will attract women by being enthusiastic, radiating energy, and becoming someone who is fun to be around.

Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.

Quiksilver

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
55
mrRuckus said:
You're smarter and better than all the people creating and doing those things. We get it.
Reviving old thread to add that = Fail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top