vegan propaganda wrote:
If you would listen to those interviews they all said they felt better on a vegan diet for the first year or so. But like all vegans, the longer they are on this diet the worse there health deteriorate. And, veganism as far as being a healthy diet is pseudoscience. And, to recommend it to runners is BS.
Great job posting studies with no analysis. Let's break these down for the readers. I'll jump around the studies in no particular order:
The Plant vs. Animal Protein Study
This study is a great reason why you need to read the full text. I was already familiar with this citation so I'll give you the main takeaway. What they were analyzing in the results of other studies were single-plant-sources of protein, which isn't realistic. Most people consume multiple types of protein, like pea, wheat, etc. all together in a meal. So, the worry of not getting enough leucine is moot since the combination and AA recycling ensures that protein requirements are met by varied plant protein intake. Here's a quote from the full text:
"Although the consumption of a mixture of plant- and animal-based protein sources is generic to most individuals, vegans consume a strictly plant-based diet. In the case of plant-based protein blends it may be that the consumption of a well-balanced combination of multiple plant-based protein sources, to allow for ingestion of a “complete” EAA profile, may improve the postprandial MPS response when compared with the ingestion of a single plant-based protein source."
Next is: Dietary Protein and MMI Study
This study wrongly concludes that animal protein may be better than other sources (?) based on weak r2 and p values. To put it simply, an r2 value means that the variable can only explain 19% of the variance in the data. So, animal protein as in independent predictor of MMI could only explain 19% of the data, and the p value was so absurdly low (0.008) that it explains nearly none of the data. I'm not even sure what protein sources they were comparing animal protein other than "vegetal". I'm not really sure why the researchers made such bold and unfounded conclusions on that meager data. Also, your post was about this diet for runners, not the elderly, so the study isn't too relevant to your claim that the diet isn't appropriate to runners (who are mostly younger than the study age 66+-5).
Next is: Dietary Protein sources over lifetime
I'm really not sure why you included this one. It has nothing to do with vegetarianism, veganism, plant protein, or even running. All it talked about was animal protein consumption and muscle mass over ones life. It didn't even compare animal protein to plant protein. The fact that they found animal protein intake to be necessary for MMI preservation doesn't mean that plant protein intake isn't equal in necessity; they didn't even study plant protein and its effects!
Next is: SC and criminal behavior
This one was an interesting read and something I was unaware of until this point. Thanks for posting it. I found some other interesting studies that pointed to the same idea of low serum cholesterol being associated with depression/aggression (I'll post them below).
This one is an odd one for me. I'd like to see what the values of their HDL vs. LDL were for each study before saying more about it, as I think this phenomenon can be broken down into the separate values or as a relationship between the two of them, rather, than one problem posed by the serum of the two.
All in all, it's a compromise you have to make. As your serum cholesterol begins to go over 150, your risk of CVD increases. Beyond that number it increases accordingly. The risk of CVD is grave for many, many people in Western nations.
I have to go coach my track team so I'll post more later if I get a chance. Word for the wise, everyone: read the full text of the abstract you are referencing. Be skeptical of each side and you will find the truth.
For the curious:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228297/