"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.