Why are so many runners VEGAN?

Moose wrote:

How much protein do you guys try to eat per day (regardless of whether you are vegan or not)?

Recommendations I could find online:

USDA: 0.8 g/kg (~51 g for me)

Vegan diet: 0.9 g/kg (~58 g for me)

Light running: 0.5 g/lb (~70 g for me)

Hard training: 0.8 g/lb (~113 g for me)

Crossfit site: 1.6 g/kg (~102 g for me)

Paleo site: 0.9 g/lb lean mass (~108 g for me)

I don't know any vegan runners, where the hell do you live? Yeah, there are the famous people like Jurek et al that are vegan but in real life most runners that I know eat meat.

That being said, some vegan food is pretty damn good. If you're ever in Chicago try the Chicago Diner. Outstanding food. The avocado tostadas are amazing and most of there desserts / shakes are also very good.

because it´s so trendy. passing fad.

on the other hand - let´s hope it helps to think about the massive drawbacks of factory farming.

Probably because they are pretentious douche-bags. More that than any other reason. But they will disagree.

If anyone switches to a vegan diet and sees performance gains, is it possible that it's just because they're paying more attention to what they eat?

Personally, I've only ever met 1 vegan in my life, and he is a mid-40's accountant.

It seems ridiculous to me to argue over the superiority of where one gets protein. More time should go into finding QUALITY protein (and food in general). You ate a steak...but was it shot up with antibiotics? You ate some vegetables...but were they full of pesticides, which some studies correlate with lowered metabolism? You ate ____, but was it genetically modified? You ate something 'organic,' but did you get the correct balance of fats to carbohydrates that your body currently needs? You ate a vitamin E supplement, but is it the best kind of vitamin E (d-alpha tocopherol vs. dl-alpha tocopherol)? The list goes on and on.

This is why I believe that although not completely optimized, the simplest advice to follow that gives you what you need is "All things in moderation."

I'd also like to say to the poster S. Canaday that if you're worried about climate change contribution from animal flatulence, THEN KILL YOURSELF, BECAUSE BY BEING A RUNNER YOU'RE PUMPING OUT WAAAAY MORE CO2 THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON.

Competitive runners I know eat whatever they want. However, I do know a few female elite runners who appear to be stick figures and emaciated.

Have you ever seen a healthy looking vegetarian or vegan?

I have not.

moderation is good wrote:

If anyone switches to a vegan diet and sees performance gains, is it possible that it's just because they're paying more attention to what they eat?

You're spot on. After switching to a vegan diet I feel better and I run better. But I was coming from a diet of grilled cheese and buffalo wings on a pretty normal basis. The biggest problem in the United States isn't a meat vs non-meat diet, it's the shit products we all consume and get used to. There's terribly unhealthy vegans too, the ones who just eat processed foods like Oreos and fake cheeses and what not. A vegan who eats right can be just as healthy as a meat eater who eats right and vice versa.

S. Canaday wrote:

You don't think there's a problem with 'not enough energy to go around'? You probably also don't believe in climate change...

As much as I'm a fan of yours I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. "Not enough supply" is the same statement as "too much demand". That humans have allowed a food cap to limit population growth is not an argument in favour of vegetarianism, it's an argument against allowing the population to grow unchecked until it hits a food cap.

A population will grow until it hits a limiting factor in the environment (be it natural or artificial). You might argue that the domestication of plants, the selective breeding of high energy-yield plants, the genetic modification of crops etc are 'victories' for vegetarianism. They are not. They are 'victories' of technology. Improvements in energy production have also been seen with the domestication of animals and the selective breeding of animals, pasteurisation etc (and undoubtedly will continue with the genetic modification of animals once the religious population permits it).

There are large portions of this planet unsuitable for agriculture. Arid areas in Africa or hilly parts of New Zealand are a couple of examples. We can abandon such areas or we can exploit them by using them as pasture for animals. Reducing worldwide energy production to the statement "if the whole world ate meat there wouldn't be enough energy to go around" is folly and intellectually dishonest.

I don't doubt for a second that a vegetarian/vegan diet can be both incredibly healthy and promote high performance. But please don't make the mistake of thinking that you're saving the world. If you want to do that your priority should be population control, which is a subject no-one wants to discuss because the population at large thinks it means killing people.

p.s. I really enjoy your videos. Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences with the running community.

Cheers, Limey.

Moby Dick wrote:

You're spot on. After switching to a vegan diet I feel better and I run better. But I was coming from a diet of grilled cheese and buffalo wings on a pretty normal basis. The biggest problem in the United States isn't a meat vs non-meat diet, it's the shit products we all consume and get used to. There's terribly unhealthy vegans too, the ones who just eat processed foods like Oreos and fake cheeses and what not. A vegan who eats right can be just as healthy as a meat eater who eats right and vice versa.

So you realized a diet of buffalo wings was unhealthy and switched to being a vegan as the only alternative?

Vegans and vegetarians are so annoying. They're living in a bubble thinking that because they don't eat meat they're better than anyone else.

And while it's true that you can survive without meat, you won't thrive without it and over multiple generations your genetic quality will drop. Ever wondered why monkeys are vegetarians?

I believe long term, the human race will separate into two species: strong (BUFF) carnivores and then weak/small vegetarians.

Remember when you chose to be vegetarian, this also means worse genetic material for your offspring (multiple generations).

That's the ugly truth.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

That's the ugly truth.

No, as usual, it's completely made up BS that you convince yourself is true. Or a bored trolling effort by you. Or a little of both. I don't think even you know the difference any more, or ever really did.

moderation is good wrote:

I'd also like to say to the poster S. Canaday that if you're worried about climate change contribution from animal flatulence, THEN KILL YOURSELF, BECAUSE BY BEING A RUNNER YOU'RE PUMPING OUT WAAAAY MORE CO2 THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON.

You realize who you just told to kill himself, right? All because he cares about cow farts? Classic LetsRun.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The USDA recommendations are for the general populace. Of course athletes need more.

As I stated, serious runners need more CALORIES than the average sedentary person. When one consumes more CALORIES, they almost always also increase their protein. It's not usually a big concern for serious runners. People trying to put on serious muscle mass certainly need to focus on increasing protein, but that is not what the typical distance runners is trying to do.

Bad Wigins wrote:And unless you have certain medical conditions, there's no harm in getting too much but there is in getting too little. I eat about a gram a pound or a little less.

There can be harm, even without "certain medical conditions." Look up Rabbit Starvation syndrome. Yes, this is unlikely for most people, but some people are quite capable of thinking: 'there is No LIMIT to too much protein! (as you suggested to them). Therefore I am going on an all or 90% protein diet.' It could actually make them quite sick/do damage to them.

Furthermore, in animal studies, consuming over 30% of total calories as protein over a lifetime leads to long term liver damage. In humans this has not been rigorously studied, but the rational is there for possible negative effects on the liver from a lifetime of a very high protein diet.

Another issue: In one rat study, a western high sat fat, high sugar diet, induced atherosclerosis (as it always does). The high carb low sat fat diet did not (as is always doesn't). The 3rd diet kept the high sat fat portion of the western diet, but cut carbs/sugar and replaced them with protein. Despite no changes in typical CVD risk factors (cholesterol levels, weight gain, etc), the high protein, high fat, low carb group developed the most and most severe atherosclerotic lesions. This was due to less ability to repair epithelial tissue damage. This could have been due to reduced carbohydrates, or increased protein. But the fact remains: the high protein diet was the worst of the bunch for CVD.

Vascular effects of a low-carbohydrate high-protein diet

5418–15423 PNAS September 8, 2009 vol. 106 no. 36

now of course animal studies are not always fully applicable to humans. But because of the fact that the models generally match what happens in human CVD, they at least should give one pause, and NOT to state:

'No amount of protein, or % of calories from protein is too much. This can do NO harm to you', as you stated. That is too certain and too extreme.

Opened thread

Ctrl+F "Bad Wigins" and "X_Fit_Guy" on each page

Left satisfied

Avocado's Number wrote:

Zeb wrote:

Bottom line: Everything that is consumed must be killed first, no exceptions. Animals, plants, fish, foul, bugs, doesn't matter.

What is killed, how it's killed, all meaningless.

We must eat to survive, everything else is just mind games to make us happy/sad/mad/etc.

I'm a vegan because I've found myself a better runner than when I ate animal products. If you find the opposite to be true, power to you.

I'm surprised to discover that a vegan has expressed the ethical position with which I have the greatest disagreement.

There is a very meaningful difference between plucking an almond from a tree and force-feeding a duck to create pathological enlargement of the liver for foie gras. And I believe that difference should overwhelm any consideration about whether eating almonds or fatty duck livers makes you a better runner.

Avocado - you are absolutely right and I must apologize. I got a bit angry with some of the responses on this thread and allowed for a gut reaction. Obviously I'm a vegan for more than simply the health benefits.

Zeb wrote:

I'm a vegan for more than simply the health benefits.

Which health benefits?

Being SKINNY/SCRAWNY/SKINNY FAT is not a health benefit.

Moron.

Calm down sweetie.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

Zeb wrote:

I'm a vegan for more than simply the health benefits.

Which health benefits?

Being SKINNY/SCRAWNY/SKINNY FAT is not a health benefit.

Moron.

Captain Obliviousness wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

I'm surprised to discover that a vegan has expressed the ethical position with which I have the greatest disagreement.

There is a very meaningful difference between plucking an almond from a tree and force-feeding a duck to create pathological enlargement of the liver for foie gras. And I believe that difference should overwhelm any consideration about whether eating almonds or fatty duck livers makes you a better runner.

One does not pluck an almond from a tree.

Many carnivores actually try to eat meat from an ethical source.

There is a misconception that meat eaters are into animal torture.

The seed of the almond tree is called an almond, and it is contained in the drupe, which is the fruit of the tree. The drupe, including the almond, can certainly be "plucked" from the tree. But if you're actually questioning whether the almond itself is being "plucked" from the tree, I have no problem replacing the word "almond" with "drupe," "orange," or any other fruit that can be plucked from a tree and used, in part or whole, as food.

The rest of your post is completely irrelevant to my response to Zeb's assertion that what is killed, and how it's killed, is "meaningless." I believe that Zeb was incorrect, and obviously so. The particular example that I provided happened to compare the harvesting of almonds for food with the force-feeding and slaughter of ducks for foie gras.

Zeb also said that "[e]verything that is consumed must be killed first, no exceptions." I suppose one can argue that fruit from a tree is "killed" before it is consumed, although I don't believe that the argument, by itself, has great ethical implications. But I also don't believe that Zeb's statement is correct in any linguistically plausible sense. For example, I don't believe that a mother's milk is "killed" before it is consumed by a baby, even though one may be able to trace constituent portions of the milk to organic substances that were consumed by the mother at some point.

Zeb wrote:

Avocado - you are absolutely right and I must apologize. I got a bit angry with some of the responses on this thread and allowed for a gut reaction. Obviously I'm a vegan for more than simply the health benefits.

Zeb -- I just saw your post after I submitted my response to "Captain Obliviousness." Thanks for your very civil reply to my earlier comment.

My pleasure sir, I would never claim to know everything. I suspect that the Xfit fellow will now once again label me a moron.

Now how about Jenny Simpson?!!