vegan athletes
Improving VO2 Max: A Look at Vegetarian and Vegan Athletes
This is the first of a three
video series about exercise. Do plant based diets have an
impact on fitness? What are the best times
to workout? Watch the series to find out. "Improving VO2 Max: A Look
at Vegetarian and Vegan Athletes" In my video about comparing vegetarian
and vegan athletic performance, endurance, and strength, I discussed
a 2020 study that found that vegan athletes—even though
they were significantly older— had significantly superior
aerobic capacity and endurance, lasting 25 percent longer on a
time-to-exhaustion cycling test.
The question is why? One potential mechanism
that could explain the greater level of endurance performance
in vegans may be a higher amount of carbohydrate intake, which could
lead to better endurance performance through higher
muscle glycogen storage. Other potential mechanisms
that may explain the better endurance performance in vegans could
be due to the anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory
profiles of their diet. Maybe it’s even their hearts. Yet another study showing superior
VO2 max in vegan athletes, meaning superior
aerobic capacity: this time they also
did echocardiograms, looking at their hearts
in real-time using ultrasound, and the lower relative
wall thickness and better main ventricle
systolic and diastolic function in the vegans are most
likely positive findings. Now wait a second. Given
the higher VO2 max reached by the vegan athletes, maybe
they were just better trained than the nonvegan athletes,
and that’s why their hearts looked like they
were working better. However, the weekly training
frequency and running distance were similar in both groups,
suggesting benefits even with the same
amount of training. So, it’s important to educate
healthcare professionals; so they don’t try
to discourage a vegan diet and may even want to consider
telling folks implementing an exercise training
program to give it a try.
But you don’t know if it
has the same kinds of effects in nonathletes, until
you…put it to the test. A vegetarian vs. conventional
calorie-restricted diet: the effect on physical fitness
in response to aerobic exercise in patients with
type 2 diabetes. Diabetics were randomized
to the same caloric restriction, the same exercise, but just
vegetarian versus nonvegetarian. They provided all the meals
so they could ensure compliance and closely monitored
the exercising. VO2 max increased by 12 percent
in the vegetarian group, significantly better than in
the non-vegetarian group who didn’t significantly
improve at all. Maximal performance increased
by 21 percent in the vegetarian group, again, significantly better than in
the non-vegetarian group who didn’t significantly
improve at all. In other words, the results indicated
that more plant-based diets led more effectively to
improvement in physical fitness than less plant-based diets, after the same aerobic
exercise program.
Here’s what the graphs look like: significantly better power
output and aerobic capacity in the group that was randomized
to a vegetarian diet. It seems that those eating vegetarian were able to better burn off carbohydrates compared
to nonvegetarians, and had better insulin sensitivity, both markers of improved
metabolic flexibility, meaning the ability
to switch back and forth between burning sugar and fat. Besides physiological
mechanisms, there may also be
psychological factors. They observed reduced hunger
and reduced feelings of depression in the vegetarian group
which may have given them a more positive attitude
towards exercise. Here’s the psychological data. Those randomized to eat vegetarian
had a greater improvement in quality of life and mood. They felt less constrained,
meaning the calorie restriction didn’t seem as burdensome; they had less disinhibition, meaning less tendency
to binge and overeat, along with maybe
less feelings of hunger.
Not to mention the superior effects
of a vegetarian diet on body weight, glycemic control,
blood lipids, insulin sensitivity,
and oxidative stress. Wait, better body weight? I thought they were given
the same number of calories. Yes, both diets were isocaloric,
the same calories, yet just eating meat-free led
to significantly more weight loss— about six pounds more;
more waist loss, a slimmer waist; lower cholesterol, of course;
and less superficial fat, meaning the external jiggly fat; and most importantly, significantly
more visceral fat loss, the most metabolically
dangerous deep belly fat.
Same calories, yet more
loss of body fat. And not surprisingly,
better control of their diabetes. All in addition to leading
more effectively to improvements
in physical fitness..
Video Transcript – As found on YouTube
The Gladiator Diet How Vegetarian Athletes Stack Up
"The Gladiator Diet –
How Vegetarian Athletes Stack Up" Recently, the remains of
dozens of Roman gladiators were discovered in a mass grave. The clue to their identities
were the rather distinct types of mortal injuries they found, like being speared in
the head with a trident. Using just their skeletons
they were able to reconstruct the death blows, show just
how buff they really were, and even try to reconstruct
their diet of barley and beans. You can look at carbon isotopes and
see what kinds of plants they ate; nitrogen isotopes reflect any
intake of animal protein. You can also look at the
Sulphur in their bones and the amount of strontium,
leading commentators to submit that the best athletes
in ancient Rome ate largely plant-based diets. Then there were the legionnaires,
the Roman army troopers, famed for their abilities, also
eating a similar kind of diet, suggesting “the best fighters
in the ancient world were essentially vegetarian.” So, if the so-called
perfect fighting machines, the great sports heroes of the day,
were eating mostly grains and beans, should that tell us anything
about sports nutrition and the preferred diets
of elite athletes? Well, most of the Greeks and
Romans were basically vegetarian, centering their diets around
grains, fruit, vegetables and beans, so maybe the gladiators’ diets
weren’t that remarkable.
Plato, for example, pushed
plants, preferring plant foods for their health and efficiency. So yes, the Roman gladiators
were known as the ‘‘barley men,’’ but is that because barley
gives you strength and stamina, or was that just the basic food
that people ate at the time, not necessarily for performance,
but because it was just so cheap? Well, if you look at the modern
Spartans, the Tarahumara Indians, the ones that run races where
they kick a ball for oh, 75 miles just for the fun of it,
running all day, all night, and all day, maybe 150 miles
if they’re feeling in the mood. What do you get if you win? A special popularity with the ladies
(although how much of a reward that would actually prove to be
for a man who had been running for two days straight is questionable; though, maybe their endurance
extends to other dimensions). “Probably not since the
days of the ancient Spartans has a people achieved such a high
state of extreme physical conditioning.” And what did they eat? The same kind of 75 to
80 percent starch diet based on beans, corn, and squash. And, they had the cholesterol
levels to prove it, total cholesterol levels down at an
essentially heart attack proof 136.
And it’s not just some
special genetics they have— you feed them enough egg yolks and
their cholesterol creeps right up. Modern day Olympian runners
eat the same stuff. What are they eating over there in Kenya? A 99 percent vegetarian diet centered
mostly around various starches. But as in all these cases, is
their remarkable physical prowess because of their diets, or
in spite of their diets? Or have nothing to do with their diets? You don’t know…until
you put it to the test.
In spite of well-documented health
benefits of more plant-based diets, less is known regarding the effects
of these diets on athletic performance. So, they compared elite vegetarian
and omnivore endurance athletes for aerobic fitness and strength. So, comparing oxygen
utilization on the treadmill, and quad strength with leg extensions. And the vegetarians beat out
their omnivore counterparts for cardiorespiratory fitness,
but their strength didn’t differ. Suggesting, in the very least,
that vegetarian diets don’t compromise athletic performance. But this was a cross-sectional study. Maybe the veg athletes were just
fitter because they trained harder? Like in the National Runners' Health Study looking at thousands of runners:
vegetarian runners were recorded running significantly
more on a weekly basis; so, maybe that explains
their superior fitness.
Though, maybe their superior fitness
explains their greater distances. Other cross-sectional studies
have found no differences in physical fitness between
vegetarian and non-vegetarian athletes, or even worse performance, as in this
study of vegetarian athletes in India. Of course, there could be socioeconomic
or other confounding factors. That’s why we need interventional
studies to put different diets to the test and then compare
physical performance, which we’ll explore next..
Video Transcript – As found on YouTube
Comparing Vegetarian and Vegan Athletic Performance, Endurance, and Strength
"Comparing Vegetarian and Vegan Athletic
Performance, Endurance, and Strength" Few studies have investigated
the impact of a plant-based diet on athletic performance, but
the majority of the studies that have been done show no differences
in endurance, performance, or strength. So, while plant-based diets
do not seem to provide advantages or disadvantages
on exercise performance, what plant-based diets can do
is reduce the risk of chronic disease. This is a point
I made in my video Why All Athletes Should
Eat Plant-Based Diets, because surprisingly,
endurance athletes may have more advanced atherosclerosis
and more heart muscle damage, compared with sedentary individuals.
So, it’s even more important
they eat healthy. But due to the favorable impact
on health, it could be assumed that performance
would also be influenced by plant-based diets. Let’s take a closer look
at the available evidence. This is the most commonly cited review. Studies connecting vegetarian diets
to improved health are well-established; however, the evidence for this phenomenon
to be transferred to improved physical performance
in athletes is less clear, finding no differences
—at least acutely— between a vegetarian-based diet
and an omnivorous diet in muscular power, muscular strength,
short burst, or endurance performance.
The intervention studies in this review,
however, only lasted days or weeks. So, being a vegetarian for four days
may not tip the balance, or even a few months, but that’s
a considerable limitation. These are people
who have been eating meat their whole lives and subsequently adopt
a vegetarian diet only for the duration of the study,
rather than comparing participants who have adhered to a vegetarian
or meat-containing diet long-term. This study compared exercise capacity
of vegan, vegetarian, and meat-eating recreational
runners and found similar maximum power output
among all three groups, suggesting there’s no significant difference
in maximum exercise capacity. But that’s at the same training frequency,
time, and distance. Perhaps plant-based diets
might enhance recovery and allow such athletes
to train longer and harder? A number of studies have come out
since this review was published in 2016.
What’s the update? Well, this study compared
the cardiorespiratory fitness and peak torque strength differences
between vegetarian and omnivore endurance athletes. Most of the vegetarians
were actually vegans and most or at least two years and… results from this study indicate that vegetarian endurance athletes’
cardiorespiratory fitness was greater than that for their
omnivorous counterparts.
They had a greater VO2 max, meaning a greater maximal oxygen uptake, greater aerobic capacity
as measured on a progressive, graded, maximal treadmill test
to exhaustion, though peak torque, peak strength
based on leg extensions didn’t differ between diet groups. Bottom line: these data suggest
that vegetarian diets do not compromise
performance outcomes and may facilitate
aerobic capacity in athletes. In this 2020 study, all the plant-
based participants were eating vegan for an average of four years.
So, they were essentially comparing
those who ate meat for 21 years versus those who ate
meat for 25 years. But after four years
eating plants, you might expect to see
some sort of difference. Yet, no significant differences
were noted for upper and lower body muscle strength,
like in the last new study. Both groups of athletes were comparable
for total body weight and lean body mass, though age
was significantly higher in vegans compared with omnivores; so, that put them
at a little disadvantage. Yet still, there it is again. Significantly better aerobic capacity. Then, they had them pedal
until exhaustion, and the vegan group lasted
about 25 percent longer— 12 minutes as opposed to
9 minutes. Is that just because their
aerobic capacity is so high? No, even after controlling
for VO2 max levels, there was still a significant endurance advantage
in the vegans. The researchers conclude
that in the very least, a strictly plant-based diet
doesn’t seem to be detrimental to endurance
and muscle strength, and endurance might
actually be better in vegans, contrary to popular belief..
Video Transcript – As found on YouTube
Improving VO2 Max: A Look at Vegetarian and Vegan Athletes
This is the first of a three
video series about exercise. Do plant based diets have an
impact on fitness? What are the best times
to workout? Watch the series to find out. "Improving VO2 Max: A Look
at Vegetarian and Vegan Athletes" In my video about comparing vegetarian
and vegan athletic performance, endurance, and strength, I discussed
a 2020 study that found that vegan athletes—even though
they were significantly older— had significantly superior
aerobic capacity and endurance, lasting 25 percent longer on a
time-to-exhaustion cycling test. The question is why? One potential mechanism
that could explain the greater level of endurance performance
in vegans may be a higher amount of carbohydrate intake, which could
lead to better endurance performance through higher
muscle glycogen storage. Other potential mechanisms
that may explain the better endurance performance in vegans could
be due to the anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory
profiles of their diet. Maybe it’s even their hearts. Yet another study showing superior
VO2 max in vegan athletes, meaning superior
aerobic capacity: this time they also
did echocardiograms, looking at their hearts
in real-time using ultrasound, and the lower relative
wall thickness and better main ventricle
systolic and diastolic function in the vegans are most
likely positive findings.
Now wait a second. Given
the higher VO2 max reached by the vegan athletes, maybe
they were just better trained than the nonvegan athletes,
and that’s why their hearts looked like they
were working better. However, the weekly training
frequency and running distance were similar in both groups,
suggesting benefits even with the same
amount of training. So, it’s important to educate
healthcare professionals; so they don’t try
to discourage a vegan diet and may even want to consider
telling folks implementing an exercise training
program to give it a try. But you don’t know if it
has the same kinds of effects in nonathletes, until
you…put it to the test. A vegetarian vs. conventional
calorie-restricted diet: the effect on physical fitness
in response to aerobic exercise in patients with
type 2 diabetes.
Diabetics were randomized
to the same caloric restriction, the same exercise, but just
vegetarian versus nonvegetarian. They provided all the meals
so they could ensure compliance and closely monitored
the exercising. VO2 max increased by 12 percent
in the vegetarian group, significantly better than in
the non-vegetarian group who didn’t significantly
improve at all. Maximal performance increased
by 21 percent in the vegetarian group, again, significantly better than in
the non-vegetarian group who didn’t significantly
improve at all. In other words, the results indicated
that more plant-based diets led more effectively to
improvement in physical fitness than less plant-based diets, after the same aerobic
exercise program.
Here’s what the graphs look like: significantly better power
output and aerobic capacity in the group that was randomized
to a vegetarian diet. It seems that those eating vegetarian were able to better burn off carbohydrates compared
to nonvegetarians, and had better insulin sensitivity, both markers of improved
metabolic flexibility, meaning the ability
to switch back and forth between burning sugar and fat. Besides physiological
mechanisms, there may also be
psychological factors. They observed reduced hunger
and reduced feelings of depression in the vegetarian group
which may have given them a more positive attitude
towards exercise. Here’s the psychological data. Those randomized to eat vegetarian
had a greater improvement in quality of life and mood. They felt less constrained,
meaning the calorie restriction didn’t seem as burdensome; they had less disinhibition, meaning less tendency
to binge and overeat, along with maybe
less feelings of hunger. Not to mention the superior effects
of a vegetarian diet on body weight, glycemic control,
blood lipids, insulin sensitivity,
and oxidative stress.
Wait, better body weight? I thought they were given
the same number of calories. Yes, both diets were isocaloric,
the same calories, yet just eating meat-free led
to significantly more weight loss— about six pounds more;
more waist loss, a slimmer waist; lower cholesterol, of course;
and less superficial fat, meaning the external jiggly fat; and most importantly, significantly
more visceral fat loss, the most metabolically
dangerous deep belly fat. Same calories, yet more
loss of body fat. And not surprisingly,
better control of their diabetes. All in addition to leading
more effectively to improvements
in physical fitness..
Video Transcript – As found on YouTube
The First Studies on Vegetarian Athletes
"The First Studies on Vegetarian Athletes" In 1896, the aptly named
James Parsley evidently led a successful vegetarian
cycling club to victory, their competitors evidently having
to "eat crow with their beef." Evidently some Belgian
put it to the test in 1904, with those eating more plant-based
supposedly lifting some weight like 80 percent more times, but I couldn't find the
primary source in English. This I could find though: a famous
series of experiments at Yale, published more than a century ago, on the
influence of flesh-eating on endurance. Forty-nine people were compared:
regular athletes (mostly Yale students), vegetarian athletes, and then
just sedentary vegetarians. "The experiment furnished a severe test
of the claims of those flesh-abstainers." Much to the researchers' surprise,
the results seemed to vindicate the vegetarians, suggesting that
not eating meat leads to far greater endurance compared to those accustomed
to the ordinary American diet.
Check it out: the first endurance test was
how many minutes straight you could hold out your arms horizontally:
flesh-eaters versus flesh abstainers. The regular Yale athletes were
able to keep their hands out for about 10 minutes on average. It's harder than it sounds;
give it a try… OK, but those eating vegetarian
did like five times better. The meat-eater maximum was only
half that of the vegetarian average. Only two meat eaters
even hit 15 minutes, whereas more than two-thirds
of the meat-avoiders did. None of the regular diet
folks hit a half hour, whereas nearly half of
the healthier eaters did, including nine that exceeded an
hour, four that exceeded two hours, and one guy going for
more than three hours. How many deep knee
bends can you do? One athlete could do more
than 1,000—averaging 383— but they got creamed even
by the sedentary plant-eaters.
That's the crazy thing; even
the sedentary abstainers surpassed the exercising flesh-eaters. The sedentary abstainers were, in most cases, physicians
who sat on their butts all day. I want a doctor that that can do
a thousand deep knee bends! And then in terms of recovery, all those
deep knee bends left everyone sore, but more so among those eating meat. Among the vegetarians, of two that
did like 2,000 knee bends, one went straight off to the track to run and
another went on to their nursing duties. On the other hand, among the
meat-eaters one guy reached 254, went down once more and couldn't
get back up, had to be carried away, and was incapacitated for days; another
impaired for weeks after fainting.
It may be inferred without reasonable
doubt, concluded the once skeptical Yale researcher, that the meat-eating
group of athletes was very far inferior in endurance to the vegetarians,
even the sedentary ones. What could account for
this remarkable difference? Some claimed that flesh foods contained
some kind of "fatigue poisons," but one German researcher who detailed
his own experiments with athletes offered a more prosaic answer.
In his book on what looks like physiological studies of
uber-driving vegetarians— I told you I only know English— he conjectured that the apparent
vegetarian superiority was just due to their tremendous determination
to prove their point and spread their propaganda,
so they just make a greater effort in any contest than do
their meat-eating rivals.
The Yale researchers were worried
about this, and so special pains were taken to stimulate the flesh-eaters
to the utmost, appealing to their college pride. Don't let those lousy
vegetarians beat the "Yale spirit." The experiments made it
into The New York Times. Yale's flesh-eating athletes—
sounds like a zombie movie— beaten in severe endurance tests.
Yale professor believes that he has shown definitely the inferiority
in strength and endurance tests of meat eaters compared to
those who do not eat meat.
Some of Yale's most successful
athletes took part in the strength tests, and Professor Fisher declares they
were obliged to admit their inferiority. How has the truth of this result
been so long obscured? One reason, Professor Fisher
suggested, is that vegetarians are their own worst enemy.
In their fanaticism, they jump from the premise that meat eating
is wrong—often based on scripture or some kind of dogma—and jump
from that to meat-eating is unhealthy. That's not how science works
and such logical leaps get them dismissed as zealots and prevent
any genuine scientific investigation. Lots of science, even back then,
was pointing a distinct trend towards more plant-based eating,
and yet the word vegetarian— even 110 years ago—had
such a bad, preachy rap that many were loath to concede
the science in its favor. The proper scientific attitude is to study
the question of meat-eating in precisely the same manner as one would
study the question of anything else.
Video Transcript – As found on YouTube
The Gladiator Diet How Vegetarian Athletes Stack Up
"The Gladiator Diet –
How Vegetarian Athletes Stack Up" Recently, the remains of
dozens of Roman gladiators were discovered in a mass grave. The clue to their identities
were the rather distinct types of mortal injuries they found, like being speared in
the head with a trident. Using just their skeletons
they were able to reconstruct the death blows, show just
how buff they really were, and even try to reconstruct
their diet of barley and beans. You can look at carbon isotopes and
see what kinds of plants they ate; nitrogen isotopes reflect any
intake of animal protein.
You can also look at the
Sulphur in their bones and the amount of strontium,
leading commentators to submit that the best athletes
in ancient Rome ate largely plant-based diets. Then there were the legionnaires,
the Roman army troopers, famed for their abilities, also
eating a similar kind of diet, suggesting “the best fighters
in the ancient world were essentially vegetarian.” So, if the so-called
perfect fighting machines, the great sports heroes of the day,
were eating mostly grains and beans, should that tell us anything
about sports nutrition and the preferred diets
of elite athletes? Well, most of the Greeks and
Romans were basically vegetarian, centering their diets around
grains, fruit, vegetables and beans, so maybe the gladiators’ diets
weren’t that remarkable.
Plato, for example, pushed
plants, preferring plant foods for their health and efficiency. So yes, the Roman gladiators
were known as the ‘‘barley men,’’ but is that because barley
gives you strength and stamina, or was that just the basic food
that people ate at the time, not necessarily for performance,
but because it was just so cheap? Well, if you look at the modern
Spartans, the Tarahumara Indians, the ones that run races where
they kick a ball for oh, 75 miles just for the fun of it,
running all day, all night, and all day, maybe 150 miles
if they’re feeling in the mood. What do you get if you win? A special popularity with the ladies
(although how much of a reward that would actually prove to be
for a man who had been running for two days straight is questionable; though, maybe their endurance
extends to other dimensions). “Probably not since the
days of the ancient Spartans has a people achieved such a high
state of extreme physical conditioning.” And what did they eat? The same kind of 75 to
80 percent starch diet based on beans, corn, and squash.
And, they had the cholesterol
levels to prove it, total cholesterol levels down at an
essentially heart attack proof 136. And it’s not just some
special genetics they have— you feed them enough egg yolks and
their cholesterol creeps right up. Modern day Olympian runners
eat the same stuff. What are they eating over there in Kenya? A 99 percent vegetarian diet centered
mostly around various starches. But as in all these cases, is
their remarkable physical prowess because of their diets, or
in spite of their diets? Or have nothing to do with their diets? You don’t know…until
you put it to the test. In spite of well-documented health
benefits of more plant-based diets, less is known regarding the effects
of these diets on athletic performance. So, they compared elite vegetarian
and omnivore endurance athletes for aerobic fitness and strength. So, comparing oxygen
utilization on the treadmill, and quad strength with leg extensions. And the vegetarians beat out
their omnivore counterparts for cardiorespiratory fitness,
but their strength didn’t differ. Suggesting, in the very least,
that vegetarian diets don’t compromise athletic performance. But this was a cross-sectional study. Maybe the veg athletes were just
fitter because they trained harder? Like in the National Runners' Health Study looking at thousands of runners:
vegetarian runners were recorded running significantly
more on a weekly basis; so, maybe that explains
their superior fitness.
Though, maybe their superior fitness
explains their greater distances. Other cross-sectional studies
have found no differences in physical fitness between
vegetarian and non-vegetarian athletes, or even worse performance, as in this
study of vegetarian athletes in India. Of course, there could be socioeconomic
or other confounding factors. That’s why we need interventional
studies to put different diets to the test and then compare
physical performance, which we’ll explore next..
Video Transcript – As found on YouTube
Improving VO2 Max: A Look at Vegetarian and Vegan Athletes
This is the first of a three
video series about exercise. Do plant based diets have an
impact on fitness? What are the best times
to workout? Watch the series to find out. "Improving VO2 Max: A Look
at Vegetarian and Vegan Athletes" In my video about comparing vegetarian
and vegan athletic performance, endurance, and strength, I discussed
a 2020 study that found that vegan athletes—even though
they were significantly older— had significantly superior
aerobic capacity and endurance, lasting 25 percent longer on a
time-to-exhaustion cycling test. The question is why? One potential mechanism
that could explain the greater level of endurance performance
in vegans may be a higher amount of carbohydrate intake, which could
lead to better endurance performance through higher
muscle glycogen storage.
Other potential mechanisms
that may explain the better endurance performance in vegans could
be due to the anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory
profiles of their diet. Maybe it’s even their hearts. Yet another study showing superior
VO2 max in vegan athletes, meaning superior
aerobic capacity: this time they also
did echocardiograms, looking at their hearts
in real-time using ultrasound, and the lower relative
wall thickness and better main ventricle
systolic and diastolic function in the vegans are most
likely positive findings. Now wait a second. Given
the higher VO2 max reached by the vegan athletes, maybe
they were just better trained than the nonvegan athletes,
and that’s why their hearts looked like they
were working better.
However, the weekly training
frequency and running distance were similar in both groups,
suggesting benefits even with the same
amount of training. So, it’s important to educate
healthcare professionals; so they don’t try
to discourage a vegan diet and may even want to consider
telling folks implementing an exercise training
program to give it a try. But you don’t know if it
has the same kinds of effects in nonathletes, until
you…put it to the test. A vegetarian vs. conventional
calorie-restricted diet: the effect on physical fitness
in response to aerobic exercise in patients with
type 2 diabetes. Diabetics were randomized
to the same caloric restriction, the same exercise, but just
vegetarian versus nonvegetarian. They provided all the meals
so they could ensure compliance and closely monitored
the exercising. VO2 max increased by 12 percent
in the vegetarian group, significantly better than in
the non-vegetarian group who didn’t significantly
improve at all. Maximal performance increased
by 21 percent in the vegetarian group, again, significantly better than in
the non-vegetarian group who didn’t significantly
improve at all.
In other words, the results indicated
that more plant-based diets led more effectively to
improvement in physical fitness than less plant-based diets, after the same aerobic
exercise program. Here’s what the graphs look like: significantly better power
output and aerobic capacity in the group that was randomized
to a vegetarian diet. It seems that those eating vegetarian were able to better burn off carbohydrates compared
to nonvegetarians, and had better insulin sensitivity, both markers of improved
metabolic flexibility, meaning the ability
to switch back and forth between burning sugar and fat. Besides physiological
mechanisms, there may also be
psychological factors. They observed reduced hunger
and reduced feelings of depression in the vegetarian group
which may have given them a more positive attitude
towards exercise. Here’s the psychological data. Those randomized to eat vegetarian
had a greater improvement in quality of life and mood. They felt less constrained,
meaning the calorie restriction didn’t seem as burdensome; they had less disinhibition, meaning less tendency
to binge and overeat, along with maybe
less feelings of hunger. Not to mention the superior effects
of a vegetarian diet on body weight, glycemic control,
blood lipids, insulin sensitivity,
and oxidative stress.
Wait, better body weight? I thought they were given
the same number of calories. Yes, both diets were isocaloric,
the same calories, yet just eating meat-free led
to significantly more weight loss— about six pounds more;
more waist loss, a slimmer waist; lower cholesterol, of course;
and less superficial fat, meaning the external jiggly fat; and most importantly, significantly
more visceral fat loss, the most metabolically
dangerous deep belly fat. Same calories, yet more
loss of body fat. And not surprisingly,
better control of their diabetes. All in addition to leading
more effectively to improvements
in physical fitness..
Video Transcript – As found on YouTube
The First Studies on Vegetarian Athletes
"The First Studies on Vegetarian Athletes" In 1896, the aptly named
James Parsley evidently led a successful vegetarian
cycling club to victory, their competitors evidently having
to "eat crow with their beef." Evidently some Belgian
put it to the test in 1904, with those eating more plant-based
supposedly lifting some weight like 80 percent more times, but I couldn't find the
primary source in English. This I could find though: a famous
series of experiments at Yale, published more than a century ago, on the
influence of flesh-eating on endurance. Forty-nine people were compared:
regular athletes (mostly Yale students), vegetarian athletes, and then
just sedentary vegetarians.
"The experiment furnished a severe test
of the claims of those flesh-abstainers." Much to the researchers' surprise,
the results seemed to vindicate the vegetarians, suggesting that
not eating meat leads to far greater endurance compared to those accustomed
to the ordinary American diet. Check it out: the first endurance test was
how many minutes straight you could hold out your arms horizontally:
flesh-eaters versus flesh abstainers. The regular Yale athletes were
able to keep their hands out for about 10 minutes on average. It's harder than it sounds;
give it a try… OK, but those eating vegetarian
did like five times better. The meat-eater maximum was only
half that of the vegetarian average. Only two meat eaters
even hit 15 minutes, whereas more than two-thirds
of the meat-avoiders did. None of the regular diet
folks hit a half hour, whereas nearly half of
the healthier eaters did, including nine that exceeded an
hour, four that exceeded two hours, and one guy going for
more than three hours.
How many deep knee
bends can you do? One athlete could do more
than 1,000—averaging 383— but they got creamed even
by the sedentary plant-eaters. That's the crazy thing; even
the sedentary abstainers surpassed the exercising flesh-eaters. The sedentary abstainers were, in most cases, physicians
who sat on their butts all day. I want a doctor that that can do
a thousand deep knee bends! And then in terms of recovery, all those
deep knee bends left everyone sore, but more so among those eating meat. Among the vegetarians, of two that
did like 2,000 knee bends, one went straight off to the track to run and
another went on to their nursing duties. On the other hand, among the
meat-eaters one guy reached 254, went down once more and couldn't
get back up, had to be carried away, and was incapacitated for days; another
impaired for weeks after fainting. It may be inferred without reasonable
doubt, concluded the once skeptical Yale researcher, that the meat-eating
group of athletes was very far inferior in endurance to the vegetarians,
even the sedentary ones.
What could account for
this remarkable difference? Some claimed that flesh foods contained
some kind of "fatigue poisons," but one German researcher who detailed
his own experiments with athletes offered a more prosaic answer.
In his book on what looks like physiological studies of
uber-driving vegetarians— I told you I only know English— he conjectured that the apparent
vegetarian superiority was just due to their tremendous determination
to prove their point and spread their propaganda,
so they just make a greater effort in any contest than do
their meat-eating rivals. The Yale researchers were worried
about this, and so special pains were taken to stimulate the flesh-eaters
to the utmost, appealing to their college pride. Don't let those lousy
vegetarians beat the "Yale spirit." The experiments made it
into The New York Times. Yale's flesh-eating athletes—
sounds like a zombie movie— beaten in severe endurance tests.
Yale professor believes that he has shown definitely the inferiority
in strength and endurance tests of meat eaters compared to
those who do not eat meat. Some of Yale's most successful
athletes took part in the strength tests, and Professor Fisher declares they
were obliged to admit their inferiority.
How has the truth of this result
been so long obscured? One reason, Professor Fisher
suggested, is that vegetarians are their own worst enemy.
In their fanaticism, they jump from the premise that meat eating
is wrong—often based on scripture or some kind of dogma—and jump
from that to meat-eating is unhealthy. That's not how science works
and such logical leaps get them dismissed as zealots and prevent
any genuine scientific investigation. Lots of science, even back then,
was pointing a distinct trend towards more plant-based eating,
and yet the word vegetarian— even 110 years ago—had
such a bad, preachy rap that many were loath to concede
the science in its favor. The proper scientific attitude is to study
the question of meat-eating in precisely the same manner as one would
study the question of anything else.
Video Transcript – As found on YouTube
The Gladiator Diet How Vegetarian Athletes Stack Up
“” The Gladiator Diet plan –
Just How Vegan Athletes Pile Up” “Lately, the remains of
dozens of Roman gladiators were discovered in a mass grave. The idea to their identifications
were the instead distinctive sorts of temporal injuries they found, like being speared in
the head with a trident. Utilizing simply their skeletal systems
they were able to rebuild the fatality blows, show just
just how lover they really were, and also attempt to rebuild
their diet regimen of barley and beans. You can take a look at carbon isotopes and
see what sort of plants they consumed; nitrogen isotopes mirror any kind of
consumption of animal healthy protein. You can also consider the
Sulphur in their bones and the amount of strontium,
leading commentators to send that the very best professional athletes
in ancient Rome consumed mostly plant-based diet regimens. After that there were the legionnaires,
the Roman army troopers, famed for their abilities, likewise
eating a comparable kind of diet, recommending “the most effective boxers
in the old globe were basically vegan.” So, if the so-called
perfect battling makers, the excellent sporting activities heroes of the day,
were eating primarily grains and beans, need to that tell us anything
about sporting activities nutrition and the preferred diet plans
of elite professional athletes? Well, a lot of the Greeks and
Romans were primarily vegan, focusing their diet plans about
grains, fruit, vegetables and beans, so perhaps the gladiators’ diet regimens
weren’t that remarkable.Plato, for instance
, pressed
plants, liking plant foods for their health and wellness and performance. So yes, the Roman gladiators
were referred to as the “barley guys,” however is that since barley
gives you stamina and stamina, or was that just the fundamental food
that people ate at the moment, not necessarily for performance,
however since it was simply so affordable? Well, if you take a look at the contemporary
Spartans, the Tarahumara Indians, the ones that run races where
they kick a sphere for oh, 75 miles just for the fun of it,
running all day, all evening, and all day, perhaps 150 miles
if they’re feeling in the mood.What do you
get if you win? A special appeal with the ladies
( although just how much of a benefit that would really prove to be
for a male who had actually been running for 2 days right is suspicious; though, perhaps their endurance
prolongs to other dimensions). “Probably not considering that the
days of the ancient Spartans has a people accomplished such a high
state of extreme physical fitness.” And what did they consume? The exact same type of 75 to
80 percent starch diet plan based upon beans, corn, and squash.And, they had the cholesterol
degrees to prove it, complete cholesterol levels down at an
basically heart attack evidence 136. And it’s not just some
special genetics they have– you feed them enough egg yolks and
their cholesterol creeps right up. Modern Olympian runners
consume the same stuff. What are they eating over there in Kenya? A 99 percent vegan diet focused
primarily around various starches. Yet as in all these instances, is
their remarkable physical expertise since of their diet plans, or
in spite of their diet plans? Or have absolutely nothing to do with their diet plans? You don’t understand … up until.
you place it to the test.In spite
of well-documented health and wellness.
benefits of even more plant-based diet plans, less is recognized regarding the results.
of these diets on sports performance. So, they compared elite vegetarian.
and omnivore endurance athletes for aerobic health and fitness and toughness. So, contrasting oxygen.
application on the treadmill, and quad toughness with leg extensions. And the vegetarians beat out.
their omnivore counterparts for cardiorespiratory fitness,.
however their strength really did not vary. Recommending, in the extremely least,.
that vegan diets don’t endanger sports efficiency. However this was a cross-sectional research study. Perhaps the veg professional athletes were simply.
fitter since they educated harder? Like in the National Runners' ' Health and wellness Study checking out thousands of runners:.
vegetarian runners were recorded running substantially.
more on a weekly basis; so, maybe that describes.
their premium physical fitness. Though, perhaps their remarkable fitness.
clarifies their better ranges. Other cross-sectional research studies.
have discovered no distinctions in fitness in between.
vegetarian and non-vegetarian professional athletes, or perhaps worse efficiency, as in this.
study of vegetarian professional athletes in India.Of program
, there could be socioeconomic.
or various other confounding elements. That’s why we require interventional.
studies to place various diet regimens to the test and after that compare.
physical efficiency, which we’ll discover following.