I think that it is all about the caloric demands of what you are doing, more so than a set time of working out. The diet should be adjusted for whatever one's activity level, but an "athlete level" is usually in another echelon.
In looking at what you listed, none of that is really what I would call "training". My definition of an athlete is pretty straight-forward: A person is an athlete when they are training with a highly specific regimen, at high volume, and that this training occurs regardless of how they feel on a given day. It is 100% performance driven. How they look doesn't matter, their BF% doesn't matter, it is only about being as good as possible at a given sport.
Ex: I have only "trained" for specific things in my life in short bursts....for football, triathlon, and Strongman competitions. In all 3 of these, I was hitting the weight room/road/pool on a set schedule at high volume. Feel like hell? Hit weights anyway. Ears infected from living in the pool? Swim the laps anyway....it is not a fun time. My body was in a nearly constant state of repair, with caloric demands that HAD to be hit, otherwise I would not get stronger or faster. I ate a ton, often to where I was not remotely hungry, because the training schedule required maximal repair and muscle gain.
So if you can allow yourself to be hypocaloric for a few days without it being the end of the world (I.E. your gains will stop), I would not be deliberately trying to eat more (an "athlete" diet).
Hope this helps
Last edited by TheyCallMeLazarus; 06-24-2014 at 11:40 AM.
"They now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry." - Thomas Jefferson, 1826