Protein Powder and Weight Loss

Protein powder and weight loss:

OK. I know that taking protein powder will help me gain the muscle, but i am particularly interested in losing extra weight. I'd like to drop about 30lbs. I am currently riding 75-100km a week, and am a vegeterian. I am watching my carbs, but it can be difficult because I am "addicted" to them.

Anyways, point being, I need more information on taking protein powder, and who would recommend it to assist in weight loss, and who would not. Any information would be helpful.

I am riding alot, and am not seeing any weight loss on the scales, though I have noticed my body is toning up. Any help would be wonderful. I have had problems my whole live with holding on extra weight. I am drinking 2L of water a day, eating low fat foods, small proportions, and about 5 times a day, and exercising regularily, in my opinion . Helps?

Thanks so much guys.

__________________
_________________

: : : : Sandie : : : :
A Canadian Roadie Gurlie

www.peafactory.com

I'd say it's worth a try as a supplement for weight-loss, particularly for a vegetarian. For me, getting adequate protein at each meal has been a key to weight loss.

Suggest you aim for 0.8-1g of high-quality protein per kg bodyweight, evenly divided between 3 or 4 meals per day. The protein powder would be a convenient supplement to make up what your meals lack.

A good amount of protein is a necessity when aiming to lose weight. The reason being, especially with you being a vegetarian, is that when you lose weight, you want to keep the ratio of fat:muscle loss as high as possible. Sufficient protein in the diet will help get this ratio as high as possible in order to preserve as much muscle as possible. No way around losing the muscle while losing fat, but the goal is always to minimize it and supplementing with protein will do just that.

As a vegan and a cyclist I'd suggest you not worry about the protein. It's easily the most over-sold nutrient in the country. Most people, including vegans and vegetarians get all the protein they need and more with absolutely no supplimental protein. As Dr. John McDougall points out, if you're getting enough calories and your diet is based on starchy grains and vegetables, you're getting all the protein you need. It's simply not possible to get less than you need with any kind of reasonable, vegetarian diet. The protein push is largely the very successful result of a marketing scheme by the people in the protein industry.

If you look into recommendations you'll find that you don't need the kind of protein people will continually recommend.

Human Protein Requirements, according to...

...reports in the American Journal of Nutrition: 2½% of total calories

...The World Health Organization: 4½% of total calories

...The Food and Nutrition Board: 4½% of total calories

...The National Research Council: 8% of total calories


Protein serves primarily one function. It's used to build and repair body tissues. Any you don't use is either converted to fat or excreted in very expensive urine. Some studies have shown damage to the lumen of the kidneys due to long-term filtering of large quantities of protein and the resulting calcium but this doesn't usually result in a noticeable decline in kidney function since we have far more lumen than we need for "normal" function. Decreased kidney function doesn't usually appear until you're down to somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of your original amount of functioning lumen.

As far as the low-carb diets go, I can't recommend them in good conscience. They probably will result in some rapid weight loss but it's a short-term, temporary solution. It also places your body in a state considered to many to be somewhat dangerous and increases the ingestion of fats, protein and cholesterol.

Whatever you choose, I wish you the best of luck and I hope when the weight does come off it stays off.

In regards to the percentages you quoted, what were the surrounding circumstances. Most likely the very average, for average joe to maintain a not unhealthy lifestyle. Therefore, since this person asking the question is trying to lose weight, and athletic, biking to do so, he is very far from average. Since he is trying to drop fat, we can assume he is on a below maintainance calorie intake. Meaning less calories are taken in than are expended. So where do the extra calories burned come from? Fat? Not alone, fat, glycogen stores, and lastly protein. While not as much protein will be burnt as energy as it is inefficient and a last resort for the body, the muscle protein also gets broken down with the physical exercise of biking. What will repair this? Protein. In a vegetarian diet, more often than not, protein is sacrificed. There is no meat source of protein, which is where most people get theirs from. Even then, the protein he is consuming is most likely not complete, meaning not all the essential amino acids are included in the optimal quantities. So supplementing with protein on top of this diet would without a doubt be optimal to minimize the muscle breakdown. You mention also that excess will be turned to fat or pissed out. But with a calorie deficit as it is, it will not be converted to fat, and unless it is taken in in excessive amounts, most will not be wasted. The body will use everything it can.

And for the kidney problems, i don't think i'd worry too much unless i was a bodybuilder or something taking in 500+ grams a day, and even then, i'd have many other health issues to worry about first i'm sure

in my opinion, go for it, give it a shot at least, test it out for a couple weeks, see how the weight loss progresses, how you feel, how much fat:muscle you think you're losing. Because really, everyone differs greatly, and the only way to know is to give it a shot. So if ya can spare $20 or so, go for it I say.

Thanks for all the help everyone! Highly appreciated!
Actually, i am a female, if that makes a difference at all

Ta!

__________________
_________________

: : : : Sandie : : : :
A Canadian Roadie Gurlie

www.peafactory.com

The 2½% figure presented by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is a standard figure for the average person, as you say. But they further note that, "Many populations have, in fact, lived in excellent health on this amount". Note the term, "excellent health" rather than "not unhealthy".

The World Health Organization actually makes their recommendation as 32 grams daily for a male weighing 150 pounds. That amounts to 128 calories of protein daily or about 4½% of total caloric intake based on common recommendations. They noted that figures for women are "similar".

The Food and Nutrition Board offers their recommendation as .213 grams of protein per pound of body weight per day. Again, this translates to about 4½% of total calories. These recommendations are for average people. Then they take it a step further. They add a 30% safety margin which is stated to "meet the needs of 98% of the population". This still only brings the total up to just under 6% and I find it hard to believe that the orginal poster falls into the excluded 2% of the population. When you consider that over 18% of the population of America is clinically obese, it's easy to see that more than 2% of the population must be dieting and exercising to try to lose some of that excess weight.

The National Research Council also states that they have figured in a substantial safety margin when they issue their figure of 8% of total calories. They note that, "this figure is not a minimal requirement, but rather an amount that more than meets the needs of 98% of the public.

As far as that 30% safety margin goes, Dr. David Reuben was asked to speak for many informed scientists on the topic of exactly who it is that needs the 30% safety margin built into the figures of the Food and Nutrition Board and presumably, the figures issed by the National Research Council. He responded by saying;

"The people who sell meat, fish, cheese, eggs, chicken, and all the other high prestige and expensive sources of protein. Raising the amount of protein you eat by 30% raises their income by 30%. It also increases the amount of protein in the sewers and septic tanks of your neighborhood 30% as you merrily urinate away everything that you can't use that very day."

He then comments on world-wide effects of the over-consumption of protein and finishes with;

"If you are an average American family, it will cost you about $40 a month to unnecessarily pump up your protein intake. That puts another $36 billion a year into the pockets of the protein producers."
Robbins, J., "Diet for a New America," Stillpoint Publishing,, 1987, pg 173

Every once in a while nature can give us a clue as to what we need to be healthy. Since babies grow more rapidly than adults, it stands to reason that they have a greater need for protein than adults do and nature has been kind enough to provide a nutritionally complete food for them in the form of their mother's breast milk. So what percentage of the calories in breast milk are protein? According to data derived from the Textbook of Physiology and Biochemistry, human breast milk contains only 5% of calories from protein.
Bell, G., "Textbook of Physiology and Biochemistry," 4th edition, Williams and Wilkins, Balantine, 1954, pgs 167-170


I agree in your listing of protein lastly as a source for calories to produce energy when daily caloric intake falls below daily calories burned because the body burns protein extremely inefficiently. In fact, many researchers claim that the amount of energy derived from protein is nearly 0%. Others will give figures as high as 10% of total energy but the fact that protein is a poor source of energy is not disputed among doctors or nutritionists in the study I've done on the subject. So we would seem to be in agreement that protein is a poor source for the energy she will need while trying to cycle on a diet which provides fewer calories than she burns.

As long as her caloric intake is below the number of calories burned, then she should be fine eating foods that will help her to produce the energy she needs to continue to exercise so that she can build more muscle which helps to burn fat. Since protein is a rebuilding food, rather than an energy food, if the body must rely on it's inefficient ability to convert protein to energy, she will tire more quickly and exercise less strenuously producing less muscle and burning fewer stored calories.

As far as her protein needs for rebuilding lost and damaged muscle tissue, if she eats a reasonable vegetarian diet as far as protein intake is concerned, she's already eating more than enough for that task.

This is based on the erroneous idea that the standard American diet is the best diet for humans and it's a very common myth concerning vegetarian diets. Oddly enough, it's a myth which continues despite the total lack of medical evidence to substantiate the claim.

Most likely it is based on the old "basic four food group" theory. But that was never based on research, statistics or any kind of scientific data. If you ever take a look at those four food group posters, you'll find that they're provided free to the schools from the National Dairy Council, the Meat Board or some other producer of animal-based foods. The whole thing was little more than an advertisement. That's why the four food group program suggested that half of your food choices should be animal-based foods.

Vegetarians consuming a diet based on starchy vegetables, fruits and legumes not only receive more protein than they need, they receive plant-based proteins which are emerging as not only equal to animal-based proteins, but in many cases superior to them for human needs.

"A very common myth is you can't get enough protein from vegetable foods. That's entirely untrue. You know, if you look back at the scientific studies done over the last 50-years, they clearly show that for human needs vegetable proteins are superior. As a matter of fact, I challenge any dietician to try and design me a diet that was protein deficient based around any starch and any vegetables. You can't do it." -- Dr. John McDougall
Schuman, E., "Diet for a New America Video,", interview with Dr. John McDougall, 1991, KCET Video, Southern California

Since Dr. McDougall makes his living as a dietician/nutritionist, it would be career suicide to issue such a challenge if he didn't know that answering that challenge was impossible. The copyright on the video from which that quote is taken is dated 1991. So far, no one has been successful in countering his statements.

"The grading of forms, organic functions, customs and diets showed in an evident way that the normal food of man is vegetable like the anthropoids and apes and that our canine teeth are less developed than theirs and that we are not destined to compete with wild beasts or carnivorous animals." -- Charles Darwin

The idea of the "complete protein" comes from studies done in the 1940s wherein rats were utilized as test subjects. The goal of the studies was to determine both how much protein humans need and what proteins were the best for optimal health. In the late 1960s a book was written largely on this idea entitled, "Diet for a Small Planet". In the book the author, Frances Moore Lappe, suggests the benefits of combining plant-based proteins to render a "complete protein". Her research was based on the accepted theory that eggs provided the optimum protein for humans; an idea which emerged from the aforementioned tests using rats. It appears, however, that rats have different protein requirements that humans do which showed that the idea that egg protein was superior for humans was actually the result of flawed research. As in indication, rat milk contains 49% of its calories as protein. Nathan Pritikin was quick to note this error and made this known in comments about the concepts in "Diet for a Small Planet" in stating;

"Unfortunately, the book is one of the most misleading documents in the last few years because everybody now thinks that food balancing is essential. (The book) gives the impression that vegetable proteins don't have sufficient percentages of amino acids." -- Nathan Pritikin
Pritikin, N., Founder: Pritikin Logevity Centers

Meanwhile, Lappe herself was learning more and became so convinced that her previous ideas had been misplaced that in 1981 she released the "Anniversary Edition" of "Diet for a Small Planet". The new edition was a complete rewrite, in which she stated, "In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods."
Lappe, FM, "Diet for a Small Planet," Ballantine Books, 1982, pg 162

It isn't just Frances Moore Lappe who has become aware of the inaccuracies of these previous misconceptions;

"Formerly, vegetable proteins were classified as second class, and regarded as inferior to first-class proteins of animal origin, but this distinction has now been generally discarded."
Editorial, "The Lancet," London, 2:956, 1959

The Journal of the American Dietetic Association reported a study which compared the intake of the essential amino acids for those consuming meat against those for lacto-ovo vegetarians and against those for pure vegetarians. This study raised the protein requirements for each amino acid to a height sufficient to cover even the needs of pregnant women and growing adolescents. They found that not only were all three diet-styles sufficient, they were all well above sufficient.

"Each group exceeded twice its requirement for every essential amino acid and surpassed this amount by large amounts for most of them."
Hardinge, M., et al, "Nutritional Studies of Vegetarians: Part V, Proteins", Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol 48, no 1., Jan 1966, pg 27

I completely agree with your statement, "the body will use everything it can", but that is really the whole point. Since the body is terribly inefficient at converting protein to energy, at best only 10% of the protein consumed will be utilized as energy. Therefore, some may be converted to fat, more will rebuild tissues and the rest will be wastefully excreted in the urine. Since the caloric intake is limited, it would be better to increase carbohydrates to fuel exercise than to increase protein consumption since most of the excess protein will be discarded by the body.

If she continues to eat enough carbohydrates to provide most of the energy she needs, she will break down some fats to provide for the missing caloric intake but will break down less muscle mass to convert to energy since the carbohydrates are the body's preferred energy source. If only protein and fat are available for energy, far more muscle tissue will be metabolized and converted for energy and since muscle helps to burn fat, this will counter her intentions.

It would seem that you're suggesting that she go ahead and risk damage her kidney tissue since it probably won't be to such a degree that she'll ever notice the loss of kidney function. Whereas it is true that the loss will likely not be noticed, it seems careless to intentionally cause damage to vital organ tissues when there is nothing to be gained from the practices which lead to it. The damage to kidney lumen is often not noticed unless the person loses a kidney or loses partial remaining kidney tissue to injury or disease. Another concern might be increased risk of osteoporosis which is even more likely given the original poster's gender. Since osteoporosis, another result of prolonged consumption of excess protein, is epidemic in the United States, the risk is substantial.

The common myth concerning protein is that it's the one nutrient that you virtually cannot consume too much of. This is probably why, though most people are already consuming far more than they need, they continue to be concerned about getting enough. You can overdo with protein just as easily as with fat. Most people in developed countries have never even seen a true case of protein deficiency, but somehow remain sure that they must strive to consume more, even using suppliments in some cases.

It's interesting that you mentioned body builders. I can't say that I always agree with the political stance of the governor of "Cau·lee·fawn·ee·ah", but he did seem to have a degree of success as a bodybuilder. In his book, "Arnold's Body Building for Men", he states;

"Kids nowadays...tend to go overboard when they discover body building and eat diets consisting of 50 to 70% protein--something I believe to be totally unnecessary... (In) my formula for basic good eating: eat about one gram of protein for every two pounds of body weight."
Schwarzenegger, A., "Arnold's Body Building for Men," Simon and Schuster, 1981

Percentage of Calories from Protein in Common Plant-based Foods
Human breast milk-5%... Soybean sprouts-54%... Spinach-49%... Watercress-46%... Kale-45%... Broccoli-45%... Brussels sprouts-44%... Mungbean sprouts-43%... Soybean curd-43%(tofu)... Turnip greens-43%... Collards-43%... Cauliflower-40%... Mustard greens-39%... Mushrooms-38%... Soy flour-35%... Soybeans-35%... Chinese cabbage-34%... Parsley-34%... Lettuce-34%... Broad beans-32%... Wheat germ - 31%... Green peas-30%... Lentils-29%... Zucchini-28%... Split peas-28%... Kidney beans-26%... Green beans-26%... Navy beans-26%... Cucumbers-24%... Dandelion greens-24%... Garbanzo beans-23%... Green pepper-22%... Artichokes-22%... Cabbage-22%... Celery-21%... Eggplant-21%... Pumpkin seeds-21%... Rye-20%... Tomatoes-18%... Peanuts-18%... Wheat, hard red-17%... Sunflower seeds-17%... Onions-16%... Wild rice-16%... Lemons-16%... Beets-15%... Buckwheat-15%... Oatmeal-15%... Walnuts, black-13%... Sesame seeds-13%... Pumpkin-12%... Cashews-12%... Millet-12%... Almonds-12%... Potatoes-11%... Barley-11%... Honeydew melon-10%... Cantelope-9%... Stawberry-8%... Orange-8%... Filberts-8%... Yams-8%... Blackberry-8%... Cherry-8%... Apricot-8%... Grape-8%... Watermelon-8%... Brown Rice-8%... Tangerine-7%... Papaya-6%... Peach-6%... Sweet potatoes-6%

Data from "Nutritive Value of American Foods in Common Units". U.S.D.A. Agriculture Handbook No. 456

I think it's good that many different opinions are offered. I'm sure that's why the O.P. chose to put her question on a forum. It gives a multitude of opinions and data from various sources to ponder, weigh against each other and ultimately choose from.

Sorry for all of the space I utilized. I just felt that lsm6 raised some worthy issues which might best serve the O.P. by being addressed from both sides and brevity has never been my strong point.

Good luck, Sandie

My first point is that anyone is free to eat anything they want to - vegetarian, vegan, meat, fish, protein powder, etc.

My problem with what I'll characterize as "vegan reasoning" is that with every vegan I know, the diet starts with something that has nothing to do with optimum nutrition. Typically, the vegans I know don't like the idea of an animal dying or being "exploited" so they can eat.

That's fine with me if they want to eat a vegan diet because of their own personal feelings about animals. I personally disagree, but my opinion only applies to me and they get to eat what they want to eat.

However, despite the fact that the original decision was based on an ethical standard which has nothing to do with nutritional needs, a lot of vegans then start trying to construct a nutritional basis for the vegan diet.

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. In terms of the studies which show how much protein a person "needs", virtually all of them are either based upon a standard of "what it takes to keep you from starving" or they're the product of a vegetarian-backed group with a dietary/political agenda.

If the vegan diet is so ideal for athletes, where are the Olympic runners, swimmers, cross-country skiers who train and compete with a vegan diet? Where are the Tour de France contenders who train and compete with a vegan diet? Where are the NBA players who train and compete with a vegan diet?

Many of these men/women would put anything into their bodies (including illegal substances) in order to get any type of competitive advantage. If reducing protein to very low levels or omitting meat/fish/poultry/egg protein improved performance, they would do it in a heartbeat.

Maybe the whole competitive athletic world is stupid and only vegans are smart about protein and diet, but I doubt it.

Shall I assume you're not talking about my previous posts since I never made any ethical references or, since I'm the only one supporting the diet you feel is inadequate for humans, shall I assume that you're addressing me with comments that you attribute to "every vegan you know", despite the fact that I made no such comments?

The basis for support of a vegan diet is the same as the basis for the recommendation that people not smoke. It's unhealthy to consume animal flesh. I would prefer not to have this thread divert to a debate about diets but since you have colored the information I provided in a false light, I think it's fair that I respond. I provided data from a sizeable quantity of research concerning the question of the need to suppliment protein. I see no such data in your response. Since you have labeled the information presented as "vegan reasoning", I'll respond to your comments with the factual results of widely accepted research.

Firstly, since I provided several sources, I'm going to ask that you provide information from any respected source showing their recommendation for protein intake.

It's interesting that you feel the data is from organizations with a vegetarian-backed political agenda. As clearly stated, my sources are, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, World Health Organization, The Food and Nutrition Board and The National Research Council.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is prepared by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition. I'm sure they'll be quite shocked to hear that they have a "vegetarian-agenda". But, just to be sure, here is the URL for their website. Please, feel free to analyze and scrutinize it to your heart's content and let me know about all of the vegan/vegetarian propaganda you find.
http://www.ascn.org/

The World Health Organization's information can be found at http://www.who.int/en/. I did a search on their nutrition and diet pages for "vegetarian" and another for "vegan" and came up with zilch. But please, give it a good look yourself. There should be something about plant-based diets somewhere since they are concerned with affects of diet.

The Food and Nutrition Board is a division of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. They review major nutritional issues for the United States and other countries and evaluate proposals made by U.S. Governmental agencies for studies of questions of nutritional policy. Since the Food and Nutrition Board was established in 1964 in the then Ministry of Agriculture and since the need for agriculture would drop to well below half of the current needs were the nation to turn to vegetarianism, I doubt you'll find lots of vegetarian propaganda in their pages, but again, I invite you to look for yourself.
http://wcd.nic.in/fnbweb.htm

The National Research Council; Is one of the National Academies; the others being, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. They provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter to the federal government. Since the federal govenment utilizes tax money to subsidize the cost of water to cattle ranchers so that the price of beef is affordable, I think it unlikely you'll find a lot of vegetarian support from them. But feel free to look.
http://www.nas.edu/nrc/

Some or all of these organizations should have at least some comments on vegetarian and/or vegan diets since diet is pretty much their "gig". So please don't restrict yourself to the sources I've provided. Look around for yourself and see what connections you can build between the listed sources and organizations with a vegan or vegetarian agenda.

I also find it interesting that you can take the data from the above listed sources and equate "they add a 30% safety margin which is stated to 'meet the needs of 98% of the population'" with "what it takes to keep you from starving". To me, these are about as close as you can get to opposites. The researchers determined how much was required to give people all the protein their body needs, then boosted that figure by another 30%, yet you state that this is equivalent to being on the verge of protein deficient.

If you'll humor me for a moment, I'd rather start with the scientifically derived information and then move on to the information you've requested.

At Yale, Professor Irving Fisher designed a series of tests to compare stamina and strength of men selected from three groups; meat-eating athletes, vegetarian athletes and sedentary vegetarians. The findings were published in the Yale Medical Journal;

"Of the three groups compared, the flesh-eaters showed far less endurance than the abstainers (vegetarians), even when the latter were leading a sedentary life."

Overall the average score of the vegetarians was more than double the average score of the meat-eaters, even though half of the vegetarians were sedentary, while all of the meat-eaters were athletes.
Fisher, Irving, "The Influence of Flesh Eating on Endurance," Yale Medical Journal, 13(5):205-221, 1907

A study by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de Medicine of Paris compared the endurance of vegetarians and meat-eaters from all walks of life in a variety of tests. The vegetarians averaged two to three times greater stamina than the meat-eaters. Even more notable, they recovered from exhaustion five times faster than those who consumed animal flesh.
Ioteyko, J., et al, "Enquete scientifique sur les Vegetariens de Bruxelles", Henri Lamertin, Brussels, pg 50

In 1968, a Danish team of researchers tested a group of men on a variety of diets, using a stationary bicycle to measure their strength and endurance. The men were fed a mixed diet of meat and vegetables for a period of time and then tested on the bicycle. The men averaged 114 minutes before exhaustion. The same men were then switched to a diet high in meat, milk and eggs for a similar period of time and retested on the bike, This time they could only pedal for 57 minutes before reaching exhaustion. These men were then switched to a strictly vegetarian diet and after a time, again tested on the bicycle. On the vegetarian diet the men averaged 167 minutes of pedaling before reaching exhaustion.
Astrand, Per-Olaf, "Nutrition Today," 3:no.2,9-11, 1968

Doctors in Belgium compared the number of times vegetarians and meat-eaters could squeeze a grip-meter. The vegetarians averaged 69 while the meat eaters averaged only 38. The vegetarians also recovered faster than their meat-eating counterparts.
Schouteden, A., "Ann de Soc. Des Scienses Med.," et Nat. de Bruxelles (Belgium)

If you've read Lance Armstrong's first book, "It's Not About the Bike", then you already know that one of the first things that his mother did when she learned of his cancer was to hire a nutritionist and that the nutritionist removed red meat from Lance's diet. I'm sure he's returned to a diet similar to what he ate before cancer but the fact remains that the nutritionist knew about the link between red meat and cancer.

You may have also heard the anecdote regarding Jacques Anquetil. On a rest day during the 1964 Tour de France, Jacques decided he had the race bagged and it would be okay to deviate from his usual training diet. He overindulged in roast lamb and fell off the pace by four minutes the following day which nearly cost him his fifth Tour de France title. I include this merely as a curiosity since it lacks any kind of scientific evidence of anything. But it is interesting, all the same.

Dave Scott, at one time recognized as the "greatest triathlete in the world". He won Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon six times, (1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, and 1987). He was the first man to break 11 hours for the Ironman, the first to break 10 hours, the second to break 9, and the first to break 8:30. His diet of choice; vegetarian.

At the age of 17, Murray Rose won three gold medals in the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne, Australia. He was the first man in history to retained his 400 meter freestyle title four years later in the 1960 Olympiad. He later broke both his 400 meter and 1500 meter world records and was considered by many to be the greatest swimmer of all time. His parents converted him to a vegetarian diet at the age of two and he chose to remain a vegetarian.

Robert Sweetgall, of Newark, Delaware is a long distance walker and a vegetarian. After walking the 10,600 mile perimeter around the United States, he set out on a loop to take him through all 50 states within the course of a year. Walking as a sport may sound funny. To be honest, it does to me, but I recognize the strain to the body.

Paavo Nurmi is another Olympic Gold Medalist. He set 27 world records in distance running and won nine Olympic medals. He was also a vegetarian.

Edwin Moses used to dominate the 400 meter hurdles. This Olympic Gold Medalist went 8-years without losing a race and he was announced as Sports Illustrated's "Sportsman of the Year" in 1984. Of course I mention him because Edwin Moses chose a vegetarian diet.

Bill Pickering, another vegetarian, set the world record for swimming the English Channel and then at the age of 48, set a new world record for swimming the Bristol Channel.

Sixto Linares set the world's record for the longest single-day triathlon by swimming 4.8 miles, cycling 185 miles and then running 52.4 miles. Obviously his vegetarian diet has done little to keep him from being able to develop and maintain strong, fit muscle tissue.

Andreas Cahling of Sweden won the 1980 "Mr. International" title in body building. He is a vegetarian and remained on his vegetarian diet throughout his more than 10 years of international competition.

Estelle Gray and Cheryl Marek, former world's record holders in tandem cycling - Vegans.

Stan Price; World record for bench press in his weight division - vegetarian.

Pierro Verot, former world's record holder in downhill endurance skiing - vegetarian.

Ridgely Abele; former United States Karate Association World Champion, taking both the Master Division Title for fifth degree black belt and the overall Grand Championship and won a total of 8 national championships - vegan.

Roy Hilligan, former "Mr. America" - vegetarian.

Jonathan Boyer, Tour de France cyclist and first American ever to ride in a Tour de France, (1981).
source: www.miami.com/mld/miami/sports/3645672.htm

Burfoot, Amby, World Class Marathon Runner
source: www.joehenderson.com/lsdbook/200.html

Robert De Costella, marathon runner - Australian
source: Australian Veg Magazine

Christine Evert, former Tennis Champion
source: Veg Soc

Dr. Ruth Heidrich, Ironwoman (vegan)

Doug Hepburn, World Champion Weighlifter in 1953, strongman, source: www.doughepburn.com

That's a sample but I assume you get the idea. A vegan or vegetarian diet certainly doesn't hurt your strength or endurance which I assume we all know requires relatively sound nutrition.

It's probably quite safe to say that there are many others including those currently at the front-running of their sport who are vegan or vegetarian but many aren't quick to announce their diet to the world. You might be surprised where you'll find those who prefer not to eat meat as you look through your history books, sports magazines and celebrity stat-sheets.

Your comment, "Maybe the whole competitive athletic world is stupid and only vegans are smart about protein and diet", in itself may be interesting to take a good look at. You see, animal products are well known to cause heart disease. You can dispute this if you like but be prepared to read a very long response. Those on the standard American diet are over three times as likely as vegetarians to suffer a heart attack, (M.I.) and more than 10 times as likely as vegans. I think most people realize that cholesterol is a major factor in heart disease. Plants produce zero cholesterol so any that you get in your diet comes from animal sources.

Now remember that heart disease isn't restricted to its affect on the heart. Vessels all over the body can become plugged with the fats and cholesterol (atherosclerosis) common to a meat-based diet. When an artery in the brain becomes blocked a small portion of brain tissue dies. We refer to this as a "stroke" or a "CVA", (cerebral-vascular accident) in medical circles. But you don't have to suffer a stroke to have had circulation to the brain compromised. If small enough segments are secluded from blood supplies, the tissue will die and you won't even know anything happened. But you will have less functioning brain tissue. The same thing can happen in the genitalia and statistics bear out that vegans and vegetarians are less prone to impotency due to compromised circulation.

Where might you find vegetarians and vegans? Philosophers, writers, scientists, athletes, celebrities... every walk of life. What about the numbers? When I was growing up as a young boy, most adults were unfamiliar with what the term "vegetarian" meant. It's fairly common today. Rarely will you find anyone above the age of 14 who can't tell you what it means and the number of people turning to such diets are growing both as raw numbers and as percentages of the population. Shall we take a look at a few people you've probably heard of but never knew had a "dietary/political agenda"?

Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Pythagorus, Albert Schweitzer, Socrates, Plato, Sir Isaac Newton, Tolstoy, Leonardo da Vinci, Ralph Waldo Emerson, George Bernard Shaw, Henry David Thoreau, Henry Heimlich M.D., Voltaire, Charles Darwin, Plutarch, Mahatma Gandhi, Diogenes, Nikola Tesla... Phil Collins, H.G. Wells, Doris Day, Peter Gabriel, Woody Harrelson, Carl Lewis, Shania Twain, Alicia Silverstone, Johnny Weissmuller, Steve Martin, Percy Shelley, Louisa may Alcott, Susan B Anthony, Alec Baldwin, Kim Basinger, Meredith Baxter-Birney, Candace Bergen, Belinda Carlisle, Ted Danson, Jennie Garth, Sara Gilbert, Daryl Hannah, Susannah Hoffs, Paul Newman, Lindsey Wagner, Alexandra paul...

The list goes on and on. What does that prove? Nothing. It's not proof of anything other than the fact that people who have chosen a vegan or vegetarian diet are all around you, all through history and none of them seem to be suffering for the choice. In fact, if you take a good look at the names from history, you might notice one very interesting thing concerning what they were famous for.

It's never easy to accept things that go against what we've been taught our whole lives but think for a minute about what kind of research went into the standard diet most people follow. They eat it because their parents ate it and their parents before them. Few ever bother to research whether it really represents a good diet for humans. When one actually does the research it can be a very rude awakening. But it's best to do some research on your own before you condemn any diet.

I'm not going to get into a long argument, but, for example, let's look at what a couple of your "sources" are all about. Several times you cite Robbins, J., "Diet for a New America," Stillpoint Publishing, 1987.

Here's a portion of the Amazon review which quotes Publishers Weekly about this book:

This well-documented expose of America's "factory farms" should prompt even die-hard meat-and-potatoes lovers to reevaluate their diets. Asserting that "we are ingesting nightmares for breakfast, lunch and dinner," Robbins, who is medical director of the California Institute for Health and Healing, details how livestock is raised under increasingly industrialized conditions by "agribusiness oligopolies."

Eating animals is immoral, so let's construct a nutritional argument that says that you don't need to eat animals in order to be healthy.

You also cite a Yale Medical Journal study by Professor Irving Fisher showing that vegetarians have more stamina. This persuasive study was conducted in _1907_ . Professor Fisher was a professor of economics, not nutrition or medicine. Professor Fisher is most well-known for famously saying that the stock market crash of 1929 which started the Great Depression was no big deal and “The nation is marching along a permanently high plateau of prosperity.”

It's impossible to take arguments based on such sources seriously.

As far as your list of athletes, I find it unimpressive plus their accomplishments all pre-date any time period which includes modern nutrition. If you proposed to any world-class strength or endurance athlete today that he/she would improve or even maintain performance on a vegan diet, you'd get laughed out of the room.

As I said at at the beginning of my first post, I have no argument with a vegan diet as an expression of a personal ethical decision. I do, however, have problems with fanciful "benefits" of such a diet for a serious athlete. I'm sure that there are vegans who are good athletes, but I submit that they accomplish this in spite of their diet instead of because of it.

i'm joining this discussion a little late, and with not too much time, however, i'll briefly add this: there's no reason to think that a well planned vegetarian diet would be detrimental to athletic performance. It may *possibly* (and i use that loosely) be beneficial, as people on a vege diet often consume more carbohydrate than those on a mixed diet. for athletes maintaining and taking in high volumes of carb is more important (and possibly harder) than meeting protein requirements.

Protein requirements for elite endurance sport that require high protein turnovers can and are met by a vegetarian (as well as a mixed diet). The upper requirement for protein in extreme endurace events is ~ 1.5 to 2.0 g/kg body mass per day, which can be easily met by a vegetarian diet.

The ACSM nutrition advice on this (protein requirements) is that as long as the athlete is eating a varied diet and is not on a significant energy deficit then protein supplements aren't required.

carbohydrate requirements for endurance athletes in extreme events (e.g., riding Tour de France, GI, VE, etc) are 10 - 12 g / kg body mass per day, i.e., 6 times higher than protein requirements.


In response to the original poster: protein powder will not make you gain muscle unless there is some stimulus to do so. carbohydrates are generally important, although it's important to consume the majority of them as the 'correct' type (e.g., pasta, rice, and not sugar and sweets/candy).

To loose weight you have to have a negative energy balance -- this means eating less, training more (harder or volume), or a combination of the two.

You should try to cut out the bad carbs (e.g., candy, table sugar, soda, chocolate, etc) whist maintaining or (possibly) increasing the 'good' carbs (pasta, rice, veges, bread, etc) and minimising or cutting out other 'bad' foods (e.g., cheese, pies, pastries, etc).

I'm sure there's more athletes and cyclists who are veggies, two recent cyclists that spring to mind are Robert Millar (KoM, 4th Tour de France, TT1 pro till mid/late 90's) and Sean Yates (also TT1 pro).

I seem to recall reading about some new TT1 pros who were also veggie.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Hmm, "well documented", "should prompt even die-hard meat-and-potatoes lovers to reevaluate their diets". Sounds to me like they're stating that the information is solid, well-documented and compelling. Is that bad?

If you haven't read the book, and I'm willing to bet you've never even picked it up, you have no place judging any of the contents. I suggest you attempt to discredit the information rather than the location where the imformation was compiled and presented. It would appear that the crux of your argument is that in addition to the health benefits and ecological benefits, there are also some ethical benefits. Anytime anyone brings ethics into the subject, you seem to want to bail on the rest of the data.

As I stated before, no one shifts their long-held ideas overnight. Especially when doing so might alter the contents of their plate. The same thing happened with cigarette smoking that is now happening with the concepts of what constitutes a healthy human diet. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the smoking issue or not. I'm barely old enough to have gotten in on the tail end of it but I do remember the controversy. One side claimed there was substantial reason to believe that smoking was detrimental to health. The other side claimed that there was absolutely no health risk involved with smoking. Ever see some of the really old photographs of the Tour de France, where the riders would often stop to have a cigarette or two before starting a hard climb? They believed this was beneficial to their climbing ability. It takes decades to reverse this kind of thinking.

Consider for a moment how you arrived at the diet choice you personally follow. Did you just eat what was provided by your parents as you were growing up and then just see little reason to even examine the possible ramifications of your diet? Or did you reach an age where you began to form an interest in diet and started to take a hard look at the available information? The fact that the issues you present have so far been completely unaccompanied by statistical or scientific data to back them up leads me to believe that your diet choice and your belief in it as being the healthiest, came as a result of the former rather than the latter. Certainly this doesn't put you out in the cold as the minority. The minority are those who are willing to take a hard enough look to actually make changes when the information is compelling enough, logical enough and confirmed by other sources.

I'm not here to upset anyone or to ask you to change anything about your lifestyle. But someone asked a valid question and was only getting one side of the issue. A side, which based on the information I have at hand, wasn't accurate. So I offered the other side of the issue. I did so will full documentation so that they could research the sources should they choose to. I'm sorry if you don't like what the data says. But you don't have to make any personal changes. I simply take issue with attempting to discredit good information with nothing but your personal feelings about the subject.

Quote:

Originally posted by dpvan You also cite a Yale Medical Journal study by Professor Irving Fisher showing that vegetarians have more stamina. This persuasive study was conducted in _1907_ . Professor Fisher was a professor of economics, not nutrition or medicine. Professor Fisher is most well-known for famously saying that the stock market crash of 1929 which started the Great Depression was no big deal and “The nation is marching along a permanently high plateau of prosperity.” It's impossible to take arguments based on such sources seriously.

Human physiology has changed very little since 1907. As for Professor Fisher, perhaps economics shouldn't have been his field. But obviously, the study was performed and the results logged. Just because someone blunders concerning issues of national or internation economics doesn't mean they don't know how to document the results of a scientific study. The only reason you find the arguments impossible to take seriously is because you don't agree with the results and so far you've not offered a single shred of scientific evidence to back your position. I notice you made no mention of the three other studies I cited which seem to confirm the results documented by Professor Fisher.

Quote:

Originally posted by dpvan As far as your list of athletes, I find it unimpressive plus their accomplishments all pre-date any time period which includes modern nutrition. If you proposed to any world-class strength or endurance athlete today that he/she would improve or even maintain performance on a vegan diet, you'd get laughed out of the room.

What do you consider to be "modern nutrition"? Are you suggesting that people reacted differently to food a few years or even a few decades ago than they do now? Or are you saying that people eat differently now than they did a few decades ago. I'd have to give you some credit on the latter since meat-consumption, at least in the U.S., has been on the rise since at least the 1950s. Of course, heart attacks, strokes and cancers have risen along with it in an almost mathmatically precise curve.

So of course you find it unimpressive. You challenged me to show you any Olympic athletes on vegan or vegetarian diets and I gave you a short list. You either have to find the list unimpressive or you have to admit that you're assumptions were dead wrong. The former requires ego, the latter requires that you swallow a bit of pride.

Quote:

Originally posted by dpvan As I said at at the beginning of my first post, I have no argument with a vegan diet as an expression of a personal ethical decision. I do, however, have problems with fanciful "benefits" of such a diet for a serious athlete. I'm sure that there are vegans who are good athletes, but I submit that they accomplish this in spite of their diet instead of because of it.

Again you offer nothing but your personal intuition born of bias, not evidence.

Before you can consider the benefits of vegetarian diets to be "fanciful", perhaps you should actually look into the topic rather than resting completely convinced without lifting one finger to examine the information at hand. Even the American Heart Association admits that plant-based diets are extremely beneficial, but they know the same thing I know. There are way too many people who won't take it seriously so they don't suggest such diets even for people who have already had a heart attack and are just waiting for another to occur. Rather than recommend a diet which has been shown to reverse heart disease, they put them on a diet which only slows the progress of the disease. In other words, they postpone the sentence even though a stay of execution is at hand. These people will die of heart disease if something else doesn't happen to kill them first and it's the attitude you've demonstrated which leads the AMA to making such a choice.

The plant-based diets make better sense on a number of fronts. In fact, just about any angle you choose to examine the issue from is going to show the plant-based diet as superior. Take a look at human physiology. Look at animal physiology. Compare the two and the diets chosen by animals which most closely resemble our physiology. Look at the diseases which account for almost 75% of the deaths in developed countries. The top three are Heart Attack, Stroke and Cancers. Those three combined account for over 74% of the deaths in the United States, (2001 figures). All of those diseases are heavily linked to consumption of animal-based foods.

If you feed a rabbit fats and cholesterol, it will start to show signs of atherosclerotic build-up. If you feed a cat pure lard for months or even years, you'll have a sick cat suffering from malnutrition but you'll find no atherosclerosis. If you feed an human animal-flesh, atherosclerotic build-up will begin to form in their arteries. We know what causes heart attacks. We know what causes strokes. We know what causes and lends to, most of the various cancers. It's not a mystery. We know why and how such a diet is linked to these diseases. We know that putting 1.5 billion cattle on the face of the planet is depleating topsoil and fresh water supplies. We know that when we feed 80-85% of the grain and soybeans we grow to livestock that we lose 90% of the nutrient value while people starve in terrifying numbers. We know that the rainforests are being slashed and burned at an alarming rate and some of use know that the primary reason for the rainforest destruction is to create short-term pasture to raise cheap beef. We know that the U.S. has already lost over 260 million acres of forest to try to replace the agricultural lands we have destroyed by forcing them to produce the food needed to raise cattle. We know that cultures subsisting on vegetarian and vegan diets show remarkable health and display the greatest human longevity on the planet. We know that eventually, any diet will have ethical ramifications. Yes, it is ethically better. But that doesn't change the fact that it's healthier for the people and the ecology.

Why not do this; take a good look into the issue if it's one that interests you. You can choose the sources yourself. Certainly there are still two sides to this issue and I'm sure you'll have little trouble finding books which will suggest that there are problems with vegan/vegetarian diets. At least then you'll have introduced yourself to some of the available information.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Beastt: You have the longest posts I've seen. Obviously you're very committed to the vegetarian cause.

I try to eat 1.0 gms of protein per kg bodyweight (about 76 gms) per day. Not interested in getting by on less protein, since I've found over many years this works best for my performance and well-being. I eat little red meat: chicken, fish, eggs and dairy are my main protein sources, along with whole-wheat bread. Can you briefly outline how I could get this amount of quality protein daily from vegetarian sources....ie, what would I need to eat, and in what quantities?

Well my first answer is probably overly obvious by now and that is; you really don't need that much protein.

But, since you've apparently read the thread and are committed to your ideas, I'll direct you to one of my above, (absurdly long) posts rather than post the information a second time. It's the one dated and timestamped, "30-05.-2004 09:49 PM." Near the bottom there is a list of foods and the protein content by percentage of calories.

You can get just as much protein through plants as you can through meat but most people have developed a taste for meat and would prefer not to lessen their meat portions in order to increase portions of those vegetables which contain high quantities of protein.

I'd have to look again but I think it's the post that contains an apology for being so long. I found a long time ago that people need to see a great deal of information before they'll even consider the idea that plant-based diets are potentially superior to meat-based ones for humans. Of course, being true to human nature, even then many are so adverse to the idea, that they'll discontinue reading the post once they realize they can't offer credible arguments. I'm afraid I must admit that I tend to do the same kind of thing on political topics so I think I have an understanding of the psychological processes at work. Change just takes time.

Thanks for the reply, but the table in your post above doesn't answer my question. For example, I drink skim milk, not human breast milk. For skim milk, 40% of the calories come from protein. Of course, it's high in lactose sugar as well. Cottage cheese is a better source of calcium and protein without all the milk sugar; great for dieting.

Other parts of the table seem flat out wrong. Lettuce has 34% of their calories from protein...I don't think so. A quick check at www.nutritiondata.com says iceberg lettuce contains 20% protein. But, as you know, it's very low in calories....1 cup of lettuce (55 gms) contains 1 gm of carb and 0 grams of protein (rounded since it's less than 1/2 a gram).

The point is that I'd have to eat mountains of lettuce to get significant protein. Just found a more useful search tool at :

http://www.nutritiondata.com/nutrient-search.html

I searched on protein and vegetables, and it generated a listing of the vegetables containing the highest grams of protein in a 200 calorie serving. Can also search on legumes and nut categories, and for individual amino acids. I'll use this and see if I can put together a vegan diet meeting my protein goals.