Are you a Vegetarian?

[stephens]

I was disputing this statement. It says ONLY meat can provide the energy for a large brain. It's nonsense. Some of our smartest people are vegetarians. Their brains don't need meat.

You're still confusing what is necessary in the highly developed society we have today and what was helpful/necessary in our evolutionary path and our development of societies. By your logic above, you could say that eye sight was not necessary since there are many blind people with fulfilling lives today. Or that limbs that move are not necessary because Stephen Hawking manages to do without them, and so on.

In short, the vegetable and fruit availability you have today was not available in the distant past and meat was essential.

 

[Polyarmour]

You're still confusing what is necessary in the highly developed society we have today and what was helpful/necessary in our evolutionary path and our development of societies. By your logic above, you could say that eye sight was not necessary since there are many blind people with fulfilling lives today. Or that limbs that move are not necessary because Stephen Hawking manages to do without them, and so on.

In short, the vegetable and fruit availability you have today was not available in the distant past and meat was essential.

I don't think you can presume that fruit and vegetables were not available. The tropics are highly productive for fruit and vegetables, moreso than any other environment. And the tropics IS our natural environment. Different plants are coming into fruit year round. In the more remote parts of Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands you can even see this today. Coconuts, bananas, papayas, yams et al form most of the local's diet and they are largely growing wild. The locals know where every plant is and when it will be ready to eat and they will travel large distances to get them. (Yes I've seen this, I didn't just google it)

Notwithstanding this, I think you have missed the point. The point is that the statement is in error. It says that ONLY meat can provide the energy required for large brains. No qualification was made anywhere in the article (where the quote came from) that this was because the local environment was also short of plant foods.

"It’s our large brains that need the energy that only meat and a small digestive system can provide."

 

[lostintime]

Boasting that people needed meat to evolve isn't necessarily a good thing, is it? Look at the state of man today. We're a button away from self induced total destruction. People kill each other over a wrong word ..... over how they perceive someone is treating them.. I can't claim eating meat is all to blame, but killing animals certainly has an affect on ones consciousness in a negative way.

 

[Polyarmour]

There is a link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129180191 to transcript of radio show where couple of scientist (Dr.Zeresenay Alemseged included) have discussion about it, very interesting. I can not find study itself. It is interesting to see all pro and contras.

Did they cooking meat, i doubt. As i mention they alleged eat dead animals.

Ok, i understand your comment now.

Croatia, "Mediterranean as it once was" did not see that commercial on Eurosport.

Stay well!

Academics. What would we do without them? They find a few marks on a bone from 3 million years ago and they believe they know what caused them.

Yes I saw the ads for Croatia, it looks like a beautiful place.

 

[veganrob]

[
In short, the vegetable and fruit availability you have today was not available in the distant past and meat was essential.[/QUOTE]

There was a past way before the ice age and cavemen. And they ate fruit.

 

[flatclimb]

Don't mean to throw off any of the above posts but I've been eating vegetarian for over a week now and feel a huge boost throughout the day. Stimulants like coffee went from being a necessity to just something I've had because I've wanted the taste.

In the long run I don't think I could stick to it though. I've learned about raw food enzymes and other benefits which I'm going to take advantage of but when summer comes around and there's marinated chicken breasts on the bbq hell no am I holding back.

I like the 80% approach and could realistically do it.

 

[durianrider]

Im a big fan of 100% effort for 100% results.

Its a bit like riding 80% to the top of a mountain..sure you get a bit of a view but not what we get if we go 100% to the end of the road.

 

[Hangdog98]

I would argue that 100% of one particular food group is unbalanced.

It's a bit like giving 80% power to one crank as you ride to the top of a mountain, yes it's unbalanced and will hurt your performance over the course of the vegan's mountain climb.

80% vegetable and 20% animal protein is probably just about right for peak performance anyway, without the dogma (no, not the Pinarello)

 

[Polyarmour]

I would argue that 100% of one particular food group is unbalanced.

It's a bit like giving 80% power to one crank as you ride to the top of a mountain, yes it's unbalanced and will hurt your performance over the course of the vegan's mountain climb.

80% vegetable and 20% animal protein is probably just about right for peak performance anyway, without the dogma (no, not the Pinarello)

"20% animal protein is probably just about right"?
Says who?
Why 20%, why not 30%, 40% or 5%?
If 100% plant food is unbalanced, how do you explain the fact that so many athletes are performing well on it? If you were right, eating vegetarian would reduce your athletic performance. It doesn't.

 

[lostintime]

I would argue that 100% of one particular food group is unbalanced.

It's a bit like giving 80% power to one crank as you ride to the top of a mountain, yes it's unbalanced and will hurt your performance over the course of the vegan's mountain climb.

80% vegetable and 20% animal protein is probably just about right for peak performance anyway, without the dogma (no, not the Pinarello)

You can argue about it all day, but until you walk the walk it's just talk.

A huge reason why we keep wanting animal food is because we just keep eating it. Limitless social and psychological reasons. Sometimes I pass by a BBQ going on ..... and my nostalgic mind says ..... mmmm good. But then I remember how I feel after eating it. ummmmm ..... not so good . We have a choice.

I think of taking in food as a 3 step process of taste, digestion in the body, and the long term body effects after it's digested and eliminated. Most people's sense of taste is so far gone they really don't know what they're eating. They get conned by salt, sugar, and fat. Who in their balanced mind would eat all this refined crap "modern" cultures eat? Who in their balanced mind would go kill an animal just to eat the meat? All of this is from social and psychological conditioning, and no one is immune. We take that conditioning to be "normal", when in truth it is anything but.

Be conscious of what you eat and how it feels afterward. Easier said than done ...... as we are all deeply conditioned to stay as unconscious as possible. Yet . . . there is no other path. Sooner or later . . . .

 

[Archibald]

I would argue that 100% of one particular food group is unbalanced.

It's a bit like giving 80% power to one crank as you ride to the top of a mountain, yes it's unbalanced and will hurt your performance over the course of the vegan's mountain climb.

80% vegetable and 20% animal protein is probably just about right for peak performance anyway, without the dogma (no, not the Pinarello)

I guess you missed this post earlier... so which particular food group are you alluding too??

as for your reference to "20% animal protein is probably just about right", you'd be more than just "probably wrong". According to the China Study, 10-14% protein is where it's at for us humans, and that's not specifically just animal protein, but protein in general...

 

[Hangdog98]

I guess you missed this post earlier... so which particular food group are you alluding too??

According to the China Study, 10-14% protein is where it's at for us humans, and that's not specifically just animal protein, but protein in general...

Yes China, the cycling powerhouse. Listen to them, NOT!

Hitler was a vegetarian but not a cyclist.
Alberto Contador is a steak eater and the finest cyclist on earth.
Armstrong, also a steak eater, like Hinault and Merckx, both prolific steak eaters.

Who do you believe? Hitler or Contador. The results are in and the Veggies are still out on the road struggling to make the cut-off time.

 

[Tapeworm]

Ahaha you lose, Reductio ad Hitlerum.

If we are talking vegetarian athletes then Joe Namath, Martina Navratalova, Dave Scott, Carl Lewis, Fausto Coppi, Robert De Costella, Paavo Nurmi, Scott Jurek.

There will always be more non-vegetarian athletes of note, simply because they are of the greater numbers. But to imply one cannot perform to their peak being a vegetarian is erroneous.

 

[lostintime]

Yes China, the cycling powerhouse. Listen to them, NOT!

Hitler was a vegetarian but not a cyclist.
Alberto Contador is a steak eater and the finest cyclist on earth.
Armstrong, also a steak eater, like Hinault and Merckx, both prolific steak eaters.

Who do you believe? Hitler or Contador. The results are in and the Veggies are still out on the road struggling to make the cut-off time.

Dude ...... Wake up .

 

[Hangdog98]

Ahaha you lose, Reductio ad Hitlerum.

I used the Hitlerum fallacy to parody the reductio ad absurdum argument put forward by Polyarmour. Ipso facto, you lose, whoever you are.

 

[Tapeworm]

But the argument by Poly is valid, hence your comparision is not.

 

[Hangdog98]

But the argument by Poly is valid, hence your comparision is not.

A common species of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction where a proposition is proven true by proving anecdotally that it is impossible for it to be false. As an example; "Why 20%, why not 30%, 40% or 5%?
If 100% plant food is unbalanced, how do you explain the fact that so many athletes are performing well on it?".

There are proteins and substances that are not bio-available from plants or are inhibited in their development by the plant form. In an haemo dependent environment such as cycling, many aspiring veggie athletes find it difficult to obtain sufficient bio-available iron from dietary sources (those with Primary haemochromatosis notwithstanding) to support aerobic requirements for competition where haematocrit levels need to be 49 to 50.5%.

Yes some athletes, (99.6% of this small group are male BTW) can maintain adequate haematocrit levels for cycling competition without the ingestion of animal source dietary heme-iron, however the majority can not. In most cycling athletes, about 20% of dietary protein should be lean meat (beef or similar) for peak performance. For a B grade or gran fondo amateur level performance, a 100% plant diet can be adequate. The amount of bio-available iron for haemoglobin production varies by the type of iron with beef being amongst the best source to support red cell production. Same with proteins, with eggs offering the complete suite of necessary proteins. Taking the amount of heme-iron necessary to support 50% red cell production in an average A grade cyclist, 20% of the dietary protein should contain adequate heme-iron to support red cell growth. That's why I wrote 20% and not 5% or 50%. This is why Astana eat Beef and not tofu burgers.

This should answer both questions ("...how do you explain the fact that so many athletes are performing well on it?") and the identification of a "valid" argument. However, knowing that veggie-ism is an ideology and not a diet for peak performance, I don't expect to get through to your B12 deficient senses anytime soon.

 

[Archibald]

Yes China, the cycling powerhouse. Listen to them, NOT!

well done! "The China Study" is a book produced and written by an American on the largest nutritional study ever conducted. The author's own findings in studies on protein were actually done in the US, which is where the original 10-14% amounts came from...
but let's just point fingers at some quirky folks as that really counts as a valid argument...

 

[lostintime]

This should answer both questions ("...how do you explain the fact that so many athletes are performing well on it?") and the identification of a "valid" argument. However, knowing that veggie-ism is an ideology and not a diet for peak performance, I don't expect to get through to your B12 deficient senses anytime soon.

How would you know what kind of diet leads to peak performance?

I suspect Astana and most people in general eat their burgers more out of tradition and habit than anything else. "I was born this way, so why change?" .... kind of thinking.

BTW ..... you think your burgers are loaded with B12? . . Think again. Most meat these days is very lacking in B12. Besides, it's not how much B12 you get .... it's how an individuals body uses and stores it.

Also, "veggie-ism" as you call it is no more/no less an ideology than trying to reach "peak performance". Trying reach any goal requires a level of commitment and sacrifice. Some of the most fanatical people are pro athletes, it doesn't matter weather they eat meat or not.


On a side note ......

I find it funny here all the comparisons and talk of big name pro athletes and what they eat. Who really cares what they eat? They're likely faster than you or I will ever be whatever they eat. Am I or anyone here a top pro athlete or going to be? I bet not. If I eat like the pro riders do will I magically ride like them? The joke is on all of us for trying to be like anyone other than ourselves.

I think we truly know very little about nutrition, but because what little we know is all we know ..... we think it's really something. That something then becomes the gospel, the cutting edge or whatever one chooses to describe it.

Until you walk the walk of of meat eating, vegan eating, or whatever ... any criticisms are really meaningless . Even then, if it doesn't work for you at the time .... it doesn't mean it's not valid for anyone else, or even yourself at a later time. You can use sarcasm all you want ...... but remember sarcasm is nothing more than a defense mechanism. . . . what's to be feared so?

 

[craig1985]

Can somebody slap my flatmate please? All he eats for dinner is four sausages, with bread and tomato sauce. And he's a cyclist as well. He is claiming he has lost more then 4kg, but he doesn't eat a great deal, but still that can't be healthy at all.

 

[Hangdog98]

I find it funny here all the comparisons and talk of big name pro athletes and what they eat. Who really cares what they eat?

Seriously..."who really cares what they eat"... seriously?

The cycling world cares what sunglasses they wear, what chain lube they use, what crotch cream they rub into their nether regions and WHAT THEY EAT. What they do is big news, that's what drives the professional cycling machine. The whole thing is based around doing what they do in an effort to try and perform like they do. That is the entire function of the professional cyclist, the purpose of the tour de France and is the very reason we have this website, which is TO SELL STUFF with the promise of making you faster.

Alberto Contador and his pro colleagues eat a tightly controlled diet that is designed for no other purpose than to make them ride faster.

Who cares what they eat? Well... everybody who races and wants to win. I doubt the fluoro wearing, cyclo-commuting, carbon counting, lentil munching, SPD sandal owners care.

Yes Archibald I know all about the China Study, my reply was poking fun at the way herbivores cherry-pick their research. Like the time the anti or pro abortionists (I can't remember who it was this time) picketing a clinic or something, were ambushed by another group who had placards with funny messages like "Magnetism. How does that work!" to diffuse the others campaign. Genius I thought.

 

[lostintime]

Seriously..."who really cares what they eat"... seriously?

Who cares what they eat? ..... was not meant as we don't care what we eat ourselves, but what top pro athletes are eating. The point being everyone has to find what what's best for themselves, and sometimes this is outside the mainstream thought.

 

[veganrob]

Vegetarian 33 years, vegan most of that time and thriving!!! Absolutely no need for animal products in a diet.

 

[craig1985]

For those who went vegetarian, or even vegan, did you find you lost a lot of weight, or did they stay around the levels the were at before?

 

[lostintime]

For those who went vegetarian, or even vegan, did you find you lost a lot of weight, or did they stay around the levels the were at before?

I'm 6 weeks full raw vegan ..... and I'm gaining muscle and my body fat appears slightly less. But I have no scientific way of measuring this , nor am I interested in doing so. I don't weigh myself much, but I think the last time I did I was a couple of pounds heavier.

It's winter so I'm doing things off the bike to strengthen myself, and I feel better and recover faster than I can ever remember. Since I have enough input of calories(80-90% from fruit and greens) I have the energy to want to do more. I want to do more because I don't feel like slug after working my body anymore. I've not felt like that in a very long time.

I have what could be described as an underweight, tall lean body that could use more muscle though, so take my sample with a grain of salt! I want to gain strength, that's the most important thing. The number of my weight really is irrelevant to me.

What's funny is that with all the protein I used to take in from eggs, fish, legumes, dairy, grains and occasional meats...... I always felt run down and slow to recover. I couldn't build any strength.

Now that I'm getting my energy form all the raw food enzymes ...... I feel . . good physically and mentally..... maybe balanced is a better word. Something I have not felt as long as I can remember in my life of 4 + decades.