Is going vegan worth it for someone who loves running?

Do it for the kids.

Why?

Vegan works for a small population of people. The rest of us need meat.

Vegemight wrote:

Pros/cons?

I'm already healthy, marathon hobby specialist.

Age 32

Pros: ending your contribution to a major source of needless suffering, land use, water use, pollution, etc. (thus better fitting your actions to what your moral stances probably already are), eliminating a few dietary risk factors for age-related illnesses and cancers, probable weight loss which should help your running a bit.

Cons: health issues if you do it drastically wrong (be sure to take b-12 supplements, and maybe D-3 if you don't already take it), possible social alienation (though most well-adjusted, mature people shouldn't have an issue with this)

I can provide some papers to back up some of the above if you want (I suggest you do some research if you haven't yet) There are vegans across the whole span of elite distance running, from mid-distance to ultra/trail runners. Best of luck!

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Why?

Vegan works for a small population of people. The rest of us need meat.

Nearly every long-term vegan chooses that way of eating due to ethical concerns, not because it "works" for them. That drive makes them more likely to figure out how to enjoy the diet and figure out how to eat such that they remain healthy and thriving. I thought this was the case when I started eating a vegan diet for health reasons. After coming to grips with the ethical implications of eating meat, I made a more concerted effort to eat in a way that keeps me happy and PR'ing. It wasn't very difficult to figure out that diet, either.

I switched from a meat eating to a vegan diet in 1974 and am very thankful for making the change, as I'd have been dead long ago otherwise.

If you get enough calories. People fail because when they go plant based they go on a fiber based diet, which is typically not practical. Your calories should come from unprocessed starches. Examples would be legumes, starchy vegetables, and grains - with a bit of fruit, nuts, seeds, fiberous veggies, etc to compliment the meal. This page has a pretty good description of how you should be eating: http://www.forksoverknives.com/what-to-eat/ . Good luck have fun.

Most vegans are flabby, sickly and weak.

@CH Most Americans are flabby, sickly, and weak. It's pretty broad to say that since it applies to a vast majority of the western population these days.

"What these guys are saying ^^

I'm vegan myself. If you do make the diet change, just remember to take a b12 supplement (I just eat Corn Flakes).

http://www.veganpeace.com/veganism/pyramid/veganfoodpyramid.png

this pyramid is a good guide. Pretty much the same rules as with eating a healthy animal food including diet. If you run 80+miles/week though, consider an iron supplement too. Good luck to your endeavors!"

I disagree with eating grains, as they are empty calories and can cause many problems, and supplements are not healthy. My diet almost entirely consists of vegetables (most important) and fruit, with anything else being inconsequential. It is very helpful to grow your own food.

I've gone vegan a few times. Generally I don't like meat that much.

From a running and health perspective:

Pros: longer lifespan, better recovery (digesting meat takes more energy and water), better sense of physical well-being

Cons: More food prep(time) required, difficult when you are not preparing the food/choosing where to eat, easy to screw up (you really need to focus on balancing proteins, and getting enough protein), lack of cholesterol (cholesterol increases testosterone which enhances recovery) (I know this is contradictory to a pro I mentioned, but I'm not sure on balance if recovery is overall enhanced or reduced by a vegan diet, so I thought I'd mention it).

Going 100% vegan is pretty dogmatic.. For example, I don't really see how the 1% by weight or volume whey protein in your becel olive oil margarine is going to actually affect you. Going 100% vegan seems to be more done for ethical reasons than anything else. Besides, I think the average runner could benefit from eating a minimal amount of meat, since it's a good insurance against running a protein deficit, and getting enough B12/vital things predominantly found in meat.

Yes, it's worth it.

Oatmeal, nut butters, nuts, fruits, vegetables, quinoa, Teff, legumes, Soy Milk, etc...

It's not that difficult.

I just came out of a block of 5 100+ mile weeks out of 8, and my energy levels are at an all time high.

I did it for awhile. Not sure what "worth it" means. Nutritionally it can work. It's not that hard. A lot of my family still does it.

If you are morally opposed to eating animal or animal products, then that trumps anything. Nutritionally it's not any better than a well-chosen diet that includes animal products.

Environmentally, lettuce is the worst product for water use. Almond milk is terrible. If you're going to start choosing for environmental or ethical reasons, it's a constant whack-a-mole where you look at every product and the particular source your store uses that week. Vegan is not automatically better by environmental or ethical reasons.

A man from Brussels wrote:

I did it for awhile. Not sure what "worth it" means. Nutritionally it can work. It's not that hard. A lot of my family still does it.

If you are morally opposed to eating animal or animal products, then that trumps anything. Nutritionally it's not any better than a well-chosen diet that includes animal products.

Environmentally, lettuce is the worst product for water use. Almond milk is terrible. If you're going to start choosing for environmental or ethical reasons, it's a constant whack-a-mole where you look at every product and the particular source your store uses that week. Vegan is not automatically better by environmental or ethical reasons.

That lettuce stat (and others) are on a per-calorie basis, i.e. it requires a lot of water per calorie. There's not very many calories in lettuce.

Anyone who goes vegan for ethical reasons is intellectually operating at the third-grade level on the issue.

As far as health, it is marginally better than the S.A.D. for non-athletes, but is not sustainable long-term for the vast majority of serious athletes (i.e. runners who compete on a regular basis).

It will definitely help running as a transition to fruitariansim, but the top runners such as Bekele, Tergat, Haile tend to operate at more of the breatharian levels.

I'm not a vegan as I eat an egg occasionally but zero meat or dairy. I went this way in March and feel fantastic. I describe it as plant based mostly whole food. Dairy is the worst culprit. I sleep better run better got to 155 w zero effort. Mental clarity. Will never go back.

Coebrselassie wrote:

Anyone who goes vegan for ethical reasons is intellectually operating at the third-grade level on the issue.

1.The interests of every sentient being affected by an action ought to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interest of any other sentient being.

2.Practices which inflict suffering on sentient beings without good reason are morally wrong.

3.Animal agriculture inflicts considerable suffering on cattle, pigs, sheep, turkeys, and chickens (etc), all of which are sentient beings.

4.Humans do not need meat for a healthy diet.

5.Sentient beings have a serious interest in not being made to suffer.

6.Humans have only a trivial interest in meat since it is a dietary luxury. [From 4]

7.Therefore, the trivial interest humans have in eating meat is outweighed by the serious interest animals have in not being made to suffer. [From 1, 3, 6]

8.Therefore, factory farming inflicts suffering on sentient beings without good reason. [From 3, 7]

9.Therefore, the practice of animal agriculture is morally wrong. [From 2, 8]

10.We ought neither to participate in, nor perpetuate, morally wrong practices.

11.Therefore, we ought to boycott animal agriculture by becoming vegetarian/vegan. [From 9, 10]

Before you point it out, I agree that two beings' probable value should be considered when deciding between, say, a chicken or a human dying. The human is justified in eating a chicken if it is the only way that the human survives, because a chicken objectively has less to offer to the world (most likely). When an ultimatum like this isn't present, the above line of thinking should still be employed. Survival of one being versus another isn't a very common issue in the developed world.

Tips wrote:

Cons: health issues if you do it drastically wrong (be sure to take b-12 supplements, and maybe D-3 if you don't already take it), possible social alienation (though most well-adjusted, mature people shouldn't have an issue with this)

There is a fruit, the only plant actually, which has B12 and D, along with vitamin C, iron, magnesium, calcium, potassium, omega 3,7,9 and other 180 components.

And in large proportions, not traces.

If sea buckthorn would be a bomb, would be an atomic one.

Just 5 fruits, the size of a bean, has more vitamin C than an orange.

As nutrition, is like oranges+bananas+fish+liver+milk+eggs combined.

After I praised to the skies this fruit, obviously I have to say that I'm lucky have it around.

It really has effects on performance and health.