What effect, if any, does a vegetarian or plant-based diet
have on athletic performance?
Watch the video to find out.
"The Gladiator Diet and the First Studies on Vegetarian Athletes"
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.
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.