• musclemecca does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear or products.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.

Question about off days.

Fatality

Fatality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
640
Points
16
This is my diet on an on day, but what should/can be changed on an off day? I get the general jist of it and I think I have an idea of what should/can be changed, but I would enjoy hearing your comments as well. I drink enough water and all that too, I'm just looking for a general idea. Thanks!

Morning
1/4 cup cream of wheat
2 eggs
2 pieces of wheat bread
1 cup of milk

Between morning and lunch
try to have turkey or chicken
some type of complex carb

lunch
2 turkey sandwiches
4 heads of broccoli
10 crackers

pre-work out around 3 pm
banana
1/2 cup oatmeal
2 pieces of wheat bread
chicken or turkey

during workout
water

after workout
one serving of whey with milk along side a simple carb like fruit and juice

45-60 minutes later
1 cup brown rice
about 50g of chicken

dinner
some assorted veggies, roughly 1 cup
lean meats- either chicken, tuna or 90% beef
protein pasta about 2 bowls
PB
water

before bed
cottage cheese with whey protein, milk and PB.

Basically, I've learned not to be too anal about a diet, I'm just going to keep it simple and frequent my meals to about 6 times a day with about 30-35g of protein in each along with the much needed carbs and fats.
 
Fatality

Fatality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
640
Points
16
Ooppss, Xiva had a thread just like mine posted up and I didn't notice, but if you'd like to add a comment, you're welcomed!
 
M

mvsf1

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
6,522
Points
38
I think your diet looks pretty solid.

PS: why don't u dissolve you post workout shake in water instead of milk?
 
M

mvsf1

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
6,522
Points
38
Also I disagree with msvf1's idea of water PWO. Milk is fine. In fact the couple of grams of casein PWO is actually a good thing.

My point is that milk takes time to digest, water does not. He does have another meal 45 min after his PWO shake...
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,277
Points
38
^^ Yes true. But then it makes little difference if you use milk or don't. The whey+casein has a better anabolic switch, might as well keep using it.
 
Fatality

Fatality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
640
Points
16
Thanks guys!
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,128
Points
38
^^ Yes true. But then it makes little difference if you use milk or don't. The whey+casein has a better anabolic switch, might as well keep using it.

Definitely agree with what Tim is saying here. Keep using the milk and if digestion is really a concern, your meal PWO is liquid anyways. Most of the time in the stomach is spent liquefying your food. So even though milk and water used as solvents for whey might have slightly different digestion rates. Milk clearly has the upper hand in regards to anabolic activity. If digestion time is really a concern use skim milk, as the fat is what is responsible for the slowed digestion in the stomach, not the protein. And the meal would have to be high in fat for the fat to even be a real factor on digestion time.
 
dilatedmuscle

dilatedmuscle

Mecca Super-*****
VIP
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
6,111
Points
38
My point is that milk takes time to digest, water does not. He does have another meal 45 min after his PWO shake...

I agree with mvsf1 but it really depends on how efficiently your body digests milk. I used to make my shakes with milk but now i mix it in water so that it digests faster and i can eat a solid meal sooner but the extra protein is good if its not too heavy for you.... Your diet obviously isnt for someone trying to cut down since there are so many simple carbs mixing it up with fats in it but looks good. looks like a good carb-up/beef-up diet.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,277
Points
38
I agree with mvsf1 but it really depends on how efficiently your body digests milk. I used to make my shakes with milk but now i mix it in water so that it digests faster and i can eat a solid meal sooner but the extra protein is good if its not too heavy for you.... Your diet obviously isnt for someone trying to cut down since there are so many simple carbs mixing it up with fats in it but looks good. looks like a good carb-up/beef-up diet.

Can you please read all of the posts before commenting?

Ben posted before you about how little the effect of milk is on a liquid meal's digestion rate.
 
dilatedmuscle

dilatedmuscle

Mecca Super-*****
VIP
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
6,111
Points
38
^^ Yes true. But then it makes little difference if you use milk or don't. The whey+casein has a better anabolic switch, might as well keep using it.
It can make a big difference, little difference and inbetween depending on who you are

Different people digest milk differently so its varied depending on the individuals ability to digest milk efficiently... Just because someone digests milk quickly with a liquid meal doesnt mean everyone else does, whether they are lactose intolerant or not. Plus the merrits of milk are way overrated and a lot of them false.

http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/why-we-should-not-eat-animal-products/the-digestion-of-milk.html

The first step in the digestion of milk is that of coagulating or curding. Milk may be made to curdle by adding an acid to it, such as lemon juice or some other acid fruit juice or by the hydrochloric acid of the stomach. Normally, the coagulation of milk in the stomach of a young mammal is done by an enzyme secreted by glands in the stomach and known as rennin. This enzyme is especially abundant in the mucous lining of the stomach of young mammals and is extracted to be used in the manufacture of cheese.

The fifth edition of Harper's Review of Physiological Chemistry (p. 177, 1955) says of rennin: "This enzyme causes coagulation of milk, and is important in the digestive processes of infants because it prevents the rapid passage of milk from the stomach. In the presence of calcium rennin changes irreversibly the casein of milk to a paracasein which is then acted upon by pepsin. This enzyme is said to be absent from the stomach of adults."

and we are adults
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,277
Points
38
It can make a big difference, little difference and inbetween depending on who you are

Different people digest milk differently so its varied depending on the individuals ability to digest milk efficiently... Just because someone digests milk quickly with a liquid meal doesnt mean everyone else does, whether they are lactose intolerant or not. Plus the merrits of milk are way overrated and a lot of them false.

http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/why-we-should-not-eat-animal-products/the-digestion-of-milk.html



and we are adults

:deadhorse:

You do realise that the vegan health movement was started by PETA in order to undermine the use of animals for food right? There is actually no factual evidence for most of their claims and some are flat our lies or half truths.

For example, taken from the link:
The fifth edition of Harper's Review of Physiological Chemistry (p. 177, 1955) says of rennin: "This enzyme causes coagulation of milk, and is important in the digestive processes of infants because it prevents the rapid passage of milk from the stomach. In the presence of calcium rennin changes irreversibly the casein of milk to a paracasein which is then acted upon by pepsin. This enzyme is said to be absent from the stomach of adults."
Pepsin never occurs in the stomach. It needs an alkaline environment to function, namely the small intestine. Pepsin is one of the most important enzymes in the human body. So this is BS and is just one point of the article. Plus the entire article is lacking in actual references or science, which means it is generally lies.

Next point is that digestion rates always vary. Metabolism always varies. But liquid calories/nutrients from a PWO meal will enter the blood stream quickly, although the length of time this continues for will vary based on what is present (fat, types of protein, etc). Digestion of any meal can last between 4 and 7 hours, but easily digested foods may have cleared the stomach (because they need less physical breakdown) within minutes.

Last point is on lactose tolerance. I've posted the rates of intollerance previously. Basically if you are of Asian or some African descent then you are more likely to have intollerance. For most other racial backgrounds, especially Europeans, the rates are really really low. Most of what people call intollerance is actually lack of lactase, due to not consuming dairy products regularly. This is true of just about any food. Ask vegetarians about eating meat. You have to allow your digestive system to acclimate to eating the foods, and is also the reason why sudden diet changes don't work well.
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,128
Points
38
It can make a big difference, little difference and inbetween depending on who you are

Different people digest milk differently so its varied depending on the individuals ability to digest milk efficiently... That is not reason enough to not use milk, skim milk especially, PWO.Just because someone digests milk quickly with a liquid meal doesnt mean everyone else does, whether they are lactose intolerant or not.Ok, but if someone is lactose intolerant they are not digesting milk sugars at all, and in THAT case milk is a poor choice. BUT saying digestion rate will vary for milk and using that as a reason to not drink milk is a poor decision. As Tim said digestion rate varies person to person based on that person genetics, but we can gte a ballpark figure from scientific testing using a random sample to represent the entir elifting population, yes that is possible. Based on this sample we could do testing to find that exact rate. But until that is done, physiologically we have no reason to believe any drastic differance in digestion occurs person to person. Plus the merrits of milk are way overrated and a lot of them false.When you make a claim like that, a claim that is going against the evidence that has been presented here showing the benefits of milk, then you are required by logic and scientific method to post just as much evidence or more evidence in favor of your claim Sir.

http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/why-we-should-not-eat-animal-products/the-digestion-of-milk.html



and we are adults

I am posting for the sake of truths not for the sake of ego. This is absolutely not an attack. But I know how important nutrition is to health and successful training that i try to help clear the air when ever possible.

But in truth raw food diets should not be laughed at, they are very healthy if done properly. And in every study i have read where the participants are eating uncooked raw foods and avoiding cooked meat, degenerative disease and sickness always tend to be absent in the population who did not cook their food when compared to a population eating a similar diet, cooked. The evidence is very suggestive in favor of raw foods. The organs of people upon autopsy who eat cooked food always weigh more as a percentage of total body weight than the organs of those who ate raw food. A few other interesting pieces of information to note: Studies performed on the same group of people eating the same diet, for one month the food was cooked for the second month the food was raw. Base weights were recorded before the first month began. During the first month an average of 8 lbs gained was noted in participants. During the second month 12 lbs on average was lost on the same peoples base weights. So they lost the weight they gained and then some. During the second month participants reported more energy and better sleep. No real conclusion was reached other than the results of measurements/weight of participants from the study and that on a raw food diet with the same amount of calories and the same foods just not cooked people lost weight and experienced more energy and better sleep. Scientists could not say what occurs when a person stays on a prolonged raw food diet.


I realize that is not the way to post a study but i have read so many from ADA and disease prevention groups through nutrition that are not online and rather journals i subscribe to that i wanted to share one with the purpose of keeping up to date with nutrition science. A lot of things are happening now as far as research is concerned and it should not be kept in the dark. The FDA is going to drastically change their food pyramid shortly, and these things will become more common knowledge rather than specialized knowledge, and for the sake of our nations health, that is a good thing.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,277
Points
38
Just to point out that the vegan/PETA site was actually not so much support raw food as bagging every animal product.
I am posting for the sake of truths not for the sake of ego. This is absolutely not an attack. But I know how important nutrition is to health and successful training that i try to help clear the air when ever possible.

But in truth raw food diets should not be laughed at, they are very healthy if done properly. And in every study i have read where the participants are eating uncooked raw foods and avoiding cooked meat, degenerative disease and sickness always tend to be absent in the population who did not cook their food when compared to a population eating a similar diet, cooked. The evidence is very suggestive in favor of raw foods. The organs of people upon autopsy who eat cooked food always weigh more as a percentage of total body weight than the organs of those who ate raw food. A few other interesting pieces of information to note: Studies performed on the same group of people eating the same diet, for one month the food was cooked for the second month the food was raw. Base weights were recorded before the first month began. During the first month an average of 8 lbs gained was noted in participants. During the second month 12 lbs on average was lost on the same peoples base weights. So they lost the weight they gained and then some. During the second month participants reported more energy and better sleep. No real conclusion was reached other than the results of measurements/weight of participants from the study and that on a raw food diet with the same amount of calories and the same foods just not cooked people lost weight and experienced more energy and better sleep. Scientists could not say what occurs when a person stays on a prolonged raw food diet.


I realize that is not the way to post a study but i have read so many from ADA and disease prevention groups through nutrition that are not online and rather journals i subscribe to that i wanted to share one with the purpose of keeping up to date with nutrition science. A lot of things are happening now as far as research is concerned and it should not be kept in the dark. The FDA is going to drastically change their food pyramid shortly, and these things will become more common knowledge rather than specialized knowledge, and for the sake of our nations health, that is a good thing.

I've read a few of the studies you are talking about. I'm not sold.

Usually the reasons they couldn't draw a conclusion was due to the comparisons themselves or the small sample size. Most of the anti-meat or starvation diet studies are comparing a small population against the average. Lets compare a group that is very concious about what it eats with the average Joe Shmoe who is overweight, eats take-away food 2xWeek, drinks more than the recognised safe amount of alcohol at least once a week, doesn't exercise regularly, etc. Now lets compare a healthy living group with a raw food, vegan, vegetarian, whatever, group. I'm betting that suddenly meat looks good. The CSIRO in Australia have concluded as much.

Of course this depends on how you define raw food as well. Unprocessed is usually the accepted standard, but this allows cooking and pasteurising to stop the problems associated with not cooking food. Some would say that it is literally raw food, no cooking, to which I say: SALMONELLA. But is there actually anything wrong with some processing? Well it depends on what sort of processing. Brewing, pasta, bread, etc are pretty old practices. Adding preservatives, colourings, flavourings, HFCS, etc isn't. Some of our commonly used things aren't evolutionarily common, such as refined sugar.

In summary: Ben and I are right, Dilatedmuscle should listen to us.
 
M

mvsf1

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
6,522
Points
38
Summary: Vegans are gay.
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
9
Views
3K
Pweezy10
P
Zigurd
Replies
13
Views
4K
tim290280
tim290280
RecklessJohnny
Replies
7
Views
2K
The_KM
The_KM
Top