Everyday Systems

Interesting article even if you aren't into bodybuilding:

http://classicphysiquebuilder.blogspot. ... steve.html

Was this pre-potato chips, Fritos, Doritos, etc.? pretty Spartan. But interesting that it was 3 meals a day, even for a classic bodybuilder. People seem to think it has to take over their life. Sounds like it doesn't.

Steve Reeves was a bodybuilder in the 40's. By most accounts his diet was three healthy meals a day and he performed three weight workouts a week. Just an example of how sticking to the basics can take you pretty far.

shorthouse3000 wrote: Just an example of how sticking to the basics can take you pretty far.

I liked the response to a comment about Steve Reeves eating habits:

CPB wrote:We think the supplement companies are probably responsible for the greater promotion of the 5-6 meal plan since it provides greater opportunities for someone to have their protein drinks to substitute for one of those meals (in other words, it is better for sales).

Bold italics mine.

I think the same could be said for just about any advice to eat more than three meals daily now, no matter the reason, including much medical advice. Eating more than three times daily affects the bottom line of many corporations, including those that have little to do with food (pharmaceuticals, for instance).

In the response to another comment CPB called the 1960s "the beginning of the dark ages of bodybuilding." The 1960s were probably also the beginning of the dark ages for diet and health, too. That's when all the (often conflicting) advice about diet and health started to be more popular. It existed several decades earlier, but wasn't as common or as believed.

Steve Reeves would be 87 now. I was just thinking about people I know or have known or have read about who are about that age or older. Most have never had many problems with weight and most have always eaten three meals a day. The meals vary widely from pretty light and simple to bigger, heavier meals. The basics can take you pretty far.

So many industries have their welfare at stake with the six-meals-a-day diet. Everyone knows you aren't going to have just a handful of almonds, but probably closer to an actual meal and therefore eat more food, which you have to buy from the companies. Another reason why No S is the better option.

Even Slim Fast has gone from their traditional "a shake for breakfast, a shake for lunch, then a sensible dinner" to their new 3-2-1 system. So you're now buying 3 Slim Fast snack bars in addition to the 2 shakes every day.

It's not clear what portion sizes he was using - was that his "cutting" diet? I know they didn't used to cut as much as they do nowadays (and I prefer the old-school look myself). It just seems low calorie for somebody trying to build up muscle, so I wondered.

shorthouse3000 wrote:Even Slim Fast has gone from their traditional "a shake for breakfast, a shake for lunch, then a sensible dinner" to their new 3-2-1 system. So you're now buying 3 Slim Fast snack bars in addition to the 2 shakes every day.

They just want to sell bars in addition to shakes! Why don't people see this?

There's the whole Special K line too. Can you imagine eating the entire Special K line all day, cereal, drinks, bars, crackers, cookies, then eating a "sensible dinner"? You would probably turn into a piece of cardboard.

leafy_greens wrote:

shorthouse3000 wrote:Even Slim Fast has gone from their traditional "a shake for breakfast, a shake for lunch, then a sensible dinner" to their new 3-2-1 system. So you're now buying 3 Slim Fast snack bars in addition to the 2 shakes every day.

They just want to sell bars in addition to shakes! Why don't people see this?

There's the whole Special K line too. Can you imagine eating the entire Special K line all day, cereal, drinks, bars, crackers, cookies, then eating a "sensible dinner"? You would probably turn into a piece of cardboard.

I saw this earlier today and have added it to my signature:

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."