What constitutes a meal?

davyjose

Quick question, if someone is on a cut, and they are limited to say, 2000 cals a day, how are they reasonably going to get six meals a day without some of those meals being tiny (I don't like the word snack, it gives people license to indulge - see, the Monkeynut thread)?
Or put another way, how big does a meal need to be to have the desired effect on the body, and satiate it enough so it doesn't hit 'starvation mode'?

yomchi

davyjose wrote:

Quick question, if someone is on a cut, and they are limited to say, 2000 cals a day, how are they reasonably going to get six meals a day without some of those meals being tiny (I don't like the word snack, it gives people license to indulge - see, the Monkeynut thread)?
Or put another way, how big does a meal need to be to have the desired effect on the body, and satiate it enough so it doesn't hit 'starvation mode'?

Firstly the monkeynut thing is just for monkeys. A trip to Masseys could be on the cards after that ritual of starvation.
I don't understand why posters here talk about being on a 'cut'? Being on a cut is something a body builder does before a show. On another forum, there are future body builders and power lifters who do actually go on a cut in order to shred down for maximum muscle exposure to test their bodies before a decision to show - this is a cut. If you do not know what you are doing on a cut, you will end up seriously ill, malnurished and sitting in the doctors on a drip.
Peter Brady an Irish Body builder and NABBA referee was in with me yesterday, he's doing a show in 8 weeks - he's 18 stone, he'll compete at 16 - he's on a cut! He'll be slowly moving into no carb city, he'll be eating a spoonful of peanut butter a day when he gets close and keeping his BCAA's high, his strength will dip but he'll need to be still huge under the lights - this is a cut! HIs cardio will be low intensity and twice a day in betwen lifting sessions, he'll wake up in the middle of the night for BCAA's, this is a cut.

Starving yourself on monkey nuts is daft.

how are they reasonably going to get six meals a day without some of those meals being tiny

Some of them are tiny!

BTW Dave that wasn't aimed at you at all, the monkey nuts and water all day to loose weight is just bonkers.

davyjose

I understand what you're saying - the cut thing was more of an example. there are presumably cases where people want a low calorific intake, and yet will need 6 meals a day. so reall what I'm more curious to know is: If you have a breakfast and don't eat until lunch six hours later, this is considered bad, but what is the difference between eating nothing for 6 hours , or eating half a banana in between? Will the half a banana really have a significant effect on the body? Or would you need more food.

As for the monkey nuts thing, I find it hard to believe myself. I can't understand putting so little research into diet, and being so wide of the mark.

g'em

Jon wrote:

I don't understand why posters here talk about being on a 'cut'? Being on a cut is something a body builder does before a show. On another forum, there are future body builders and power lifters who do actually go on a cut in order to shred down for maximum muscle exposure to test their bodies before a decision to show - this is a cut. If you do not know what you are doing on a cut, you will end up seriously ill, malnurished and sitting in the doctors on a drip.

lol, so true. There's a big difference between going on a "cut" and going on a calorie-controlled weight loss diet. Restricting your calories isn't fun, but going on a cut is hell on earth

davyjose, the "meals" are all relative- if you're on 3000+ calories a day a 'meal' can be 6oo calories big, 5 times a day. If you're on half that, teh meals will be correspondigly smaller. Generally all your calories are split evenly throughout the day to keep your metabolism ticking over and your appetite curbed. You take sufficent protein + fats at every feed and fruit/veg too. Starchy carbs are best eaten when energy is needed. The macronurtients all interact with eachother in different ways, so it's best to get proteins and fats or proteins and carbs together to ensure your body can use them properly. so...

davyjose wrote:

If you have a breakfast and don't eat until lunch six hours later, this is considered bad, but what is the difference between eating nothing for 6 hours , or eating half a banana in between? Will the half a banana really have a significant effect on the body? Or would you need more food.

you'd have breakfast, an equally sized mid-morning 'snack' and then lunch, all around 2-3 hours apart.

yomchi

I think eating nothing for six hours is always a bad thing. Even if you're wanting to lose weight. You can actually eat a lot and still lose weight. It boils down (no pun intended!) to what you eat. if You want to be on a really specific cut you need to be disciplined and ready for whats to come because you are into serious mood swings, lack of energy, tiredness and lethargy to name but a few.
Just to drop a few pound or stone you just need to watch the cals, and increase the cardio.
If you starve your body for 6 hours then feed it, your system automatically prepares for the next starvation mode and stores energy in fat cells, and so the vicious cycle of crash diets begins.

davyjose

g'em wrote:

you'd have breakfast, an equally sized mid-morning 'snack' and then lunch, all around 2-3 hours apart.

Got ya! No I'm trying to drop weight (not a cut, but my bf% is more than i'd like, yet don't wanna lose much muscle). So I've been taking around 2000 cals a day over 5/6 meals, some of these meals are 500 cals, some are 200, so you're saying that's not the way to do it? Cool! thanks

yomchi

I knew you'd be along soon enough miss!

davyjose

Jon wrote:

If you starve your body for 6 hours then feed it, your system automatically prepares for the next starvation mode and stores energy in fat cells, and so the vicious cycle of crash diets begins.

Yeah i knew this, and have been avoiding doing that but wasn't sure of the minimum amount to have as a 'snack' to make my body realise it wasn't being starved.

yomchi

davyjose wrote:

Got ya! No I'm trying to drop weight (not a cut, but my bf% is more than i'd like, yet don't wanna lose much muscle). So I've been taking around 2000 cals a day over 5/6 meals, some of these meals are 500 cals, some are 200, so you're saying that's not the way to do it? Cool! thanks

Keep lean muscle by supplementing with Amino Acids. If you find the calories from protein shakes are too much use BCAA tabs or powder or AMino liquid or tabs etc.

davyjose

Jon wrote:

Keep lean muscle by supplementing with Amino Acids. If you find the calories from protein shakes are too much use BCAA tabs or powder or AMino liquid or tabs etc.

Will do. What's a good brand of BCAA's?

g'em

Jon wrote:

I knew you'd be along soon enough miss!

couldn't help myself !!

yomchi

davyjose wrote:

Will do. What's a good brand of BCAA's?

.

Ttesters watch me work my magic! Seriously though Universal or Olimp are pretty good. Olimp are great value too.

davyjose

Jon wrote:

.

Ttesters watch me work my magic! Seriously though Universal or Olimp are pretty good. Olimp are great value too.

Cheers Man, been meaning to get some of these for a while now.

yomchi

No probs, let me know if you find it hard to get any. They can be hard to come buy.

davyjose

Jon wrote:

No probs, let me know if you find it hard to get any. They can be hard to come buy.

Will do, cheers man!

rubadub

davyjose wrote:

how are they reasonably going to get six meals a day without some of those meals being tiny (I don't like the word snack, it gives people license to indulge - see, the Monkeynut thread)?

I was on about 1800-2000kcal per day for a few months. It really makes you aware of the calorific values of food. Each meal was about 300kcal, or I sometimes had 5 meals per day.

A full tin of beans is 250kcal, many microwave ready meals are 300kcal some even less. It gets you into the habit of weighing food for proper portion control. I would make up meals and store them in jars in the fridge, each weighed and calculated. You end up making better choices, I try and eat healthily but do not go as far as many posters here (I remember somebody advising not to eat bananas), so I could get 300kcal from 3 biscuits, or I could have a lasagne instead.

Transform

Why not just drop the term 'on a cut' and replace with dropping body fat levels to single figures (for men) below 20% for women?

I think the whole use of the word has the same connotations as the word 'diet' which for me = deprivation, hunger, loss etc

Lets just keep it simple

davyjose

Transform wrote:

Why not just drop the term 'on a cut' and replace with dropping body fat levels to single figures (for men) below 20% for women?


Lets just keep it simple

Cos it's harder to write . Sorry though - I'll never say cut again. TBH i wasn't saying I was on a cut, it was just a hypothesis.