PDA

View Full Version : MMA fighters going Vegetarian!!!



Dan Fanelli
02-18-2011, 11:07 PM
I just read this. It was on yahoo of all places, so that tells you something

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-mmavegetarians021711

Some of the funniest things are:

"Shields uses supplements supplied by his sponsor, usually soy- or whey-based, but sometimes milk-based protein."
Didn't know Whey wasn't a milk protein. And.

"The Fitches don’t measure portions, but Michele Fitch said the goal for Jon is a three-to-one ratio between fruits and protein, with the goal of getting 90 grams of protein daily.

“The average person needs 60 grams, but with all the intense training, I have to keep my strength up,” he said."

Wow thats a lot of protein. And.

“I try to keep my diet all organic,” said Diaz. “It’s healthier. You recover faster. Nobody trains as hard as we do.” With plenty of vegetarian restaurants in San Francisco, Shields eats out several times per week."
Oy Vey!!!

Codeguru
02-19-2011, 12:28 AM
Heh, I was going to have an opinion about this but all I can see are those dumbo ears looking at me when I try to read the story. I'm just gonna file this under "guy marries poorly" and call it a day...

Codeguru

4g64fiero
02-20-2011, 01:38 PM
I like how they equate eating organic as meaning you have to eat only plants.

I think after the honeymoon is over this guy is going to realize that meat is best at making meat.

ThomasG
02-20-2011, 01:58 PM
How many champions eat vegetarian? 3, maybe 4? The rest eat meat.

Dan Fanelli
02-20-2011, 02:02 PM
I just cant imagine training like they do and "shooting for 90g of protein daily".

joey54
02-21-2011, 07:00 AM
These are all top fighters. Didn't know about Fitch, but had read about the others before.

Behemoth
02-25-2011, 09:35 AM
These are all top fighters. Didn't know about Fitch, but had read about the others before.

Around here everybdoy seems to know the secrets that the even top level athletes don't. You didn't know that about wbb? You should come in the diet section more often... we have allll sorts of great advice flying around...

Holto
02-25-2011, 03:17 PM
You need a lot less protein per day when you literally aren't allowed to gain weight.

ThomasG
02-25-2011, 03:36 PM
There's nothing wrong with the vegetarian diet, when done correctly. There's also nothing wrong with a "meat eating" diet, when done correctly. The problems occur when these diets are done incorrectly. You know, the vegetarian who eats cheese pizzas and ramen noodles 24/7 or the meat-eater who camps out at Burger King all day.

Vegetarians still have plenty of great sources of fats and proteins - eggs and milk. Even vegans still have good sources of fats and proteins - beans, mainly soybeans, rice protein, etc.

I still think that meat-eating is superior, since man is a meat-eating animal. We were built to run off of proteins and fats found in animals (e.g. the omega 3's found only in animal sources). But even so, that doesn't mean that all vegetarians and vegans are automatically unhealthy.

I think all of these stories about ghastly and skinny vegetarians/vegans are overstated. A vegetarian/vegan could easily point to an overweight meat-eater. The key is to know your nutritional requirements and to follow them judiciously. That might be a little more difficult for the vegan, but it's still doable.

All of that said, it kind of annoys me when people become vegetarian or vegan for "health reasons." Whenever anyone says that they're a vegetarian because meat-eating is unhealthy, I write them off as an uneducated ******* who's afraid of dietary fat.


..........

Behemoth
02-25-2011, 03:38 PM
"We were built to run off of proteins and fats found in animals (e.g. the omega 3's found only in animal sources)."

Disagree.

ThomasG
02-25-2011, 03:41 PM
"We were built to run off of proteins and fats found in animals (e.g. the omega 3's found only in animal sources)."

Disagree.

Explain. This is merely a quote I liked. I'd like to here why you disagree.

Dan Fanelli
02-25-2011, 05:14 PM
^^^Its pretty obvious that eating meat is the way to go. We weren't "built" that way, but instead evolved into this situation. We evolved to survive off of the most calorie and nutrient dense foods. They just happen to be meats.

I still think taking in 90g of protein a day as a goal is pretty rediculous. Of course fighters aren't known for being the most up to date on their information. Im sure there are still a lot of them doing "road work" and crunches as a large part of their training.

The problem is, people see articles like this on yahoo, and associate lean fighters with vegetarianism, and suddenly the vegetarian diet is the solution to being lean. And its FAR from an optimal method for the average person.

Behemoth
02-25-2011, 06:34 PM
because glucose is the optimal energy (by far) for our bodies (brain included)

Dan Fanelli
02-25-2011, 07:16 PM
because glucose is the optimal energy (by far) for our bodies (brain included)

Why does are body store fat much easier and in MUCH larger quantities then?

Behemoth
02-25-2011, 11:03 PM
Why does are body store fat much easier and in MUCH larger quantities then?

1... relative to what?

2. You're suggesting that what is more optimally utilized for fuel?

Dan Fanelli
02-26-2011, 09:28 AM
1... relative to what?

2. You're suggesting that what is more optimally utilized for fuel?

1. Well If someone has 500 or so grams of glycogen stored thats about 2000 calories worth. Even if they are very lean at 6% BF they probably stilll have about 40,000 calories worth of fat stored.

In addition, increasing glycogen stores is finite, but fat stores are potentially limitless if one were to choose so.

2. Neither source is more "optimally" used for fuel. The intensity of exercise and rate of energy being used will determine which is being used for fuel.

But you are looking at it as if nutrtition is entirely about supplying and replacing fuel. That is only part of the reason we eat.

Behemoth
02-26-2011, 10:29 AM
1. Well If someone has 500 or so grams of glycogen stored thats about 2000 calories worth. Even if they are very lean at 6% BF they probably stilll have about 40,000 calories worth of fat stored.

In addition, increasing glycogen stores is finite, but fat stores are potentially limitless if one were to choose so.

2. Neither source is more "optimally" used for fuel. The intensity of exercise and rate of energy being used will determine which is being used for fuel.

But you are looking at it as if nutrtition is entirely about supplying and replacing fuel. That is only part of the reason we eat.


I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The statement was "We were built to run off of proteins and fats found in animals (e.g. the omega 3's found only in animal sources)."

Which is very misleading. It's like saying a cummins was meant to run on fryer grease. It can do it yes, but it was still meant to run on diesel fuel. Our body can use ketones for fuel, but not if glucose is present...

Dan Fanelli
02-26-2011, 10:44 AM
[QUOTE=Behemoth;2441645]I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The statement was "We were built to run off of proteins and fats found in animals (e.g. the omega 3's found only in animal sources)."

Which is very misleading. QUOTE]

I agree entirely with you here. But I was questioning you reasoning for why this statement isn't correct. You simply made the statement that using glycogen is more "optimal" for energy, which doesn't make any sense without the context of what your needs are.

I agree with your thoughts that you should take in a good amount of carbs IF they are needed, or can benefit you, but I dont think it has anything to do with what is the "optimal fuel source".

Behemoth
02-26-2011, 10:50 AM
talk to someone in ketosis and ask them whats optimal lol

f=ma
02-26-2011, 01:19 PM
correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe glycogen the most readily available, stored energy source for both muscle & organ use. by its nature of availability, there is a union into most optimal. i could use an analogy to help you understand the similarity between available and optimal. once glycogen is depleted, the body will move onto the fuel source with the highest availability:efficiency ratio.. which will probably be some combination of fatty acids and blood glucose.....

dan your info puzzles me.

Dan Fanelli
02-26-2011, 01:52 PM
talk to someone in ketosis and ask them whats optimal lol

Talk to someone thats morbidly obese and ask them whats optimal lol.

Behemoth
02-26-2011, 02:59 PM
Talk to someone thats morbidly obese and ask them whats optimal lol.

What? You're not making any sense in here.

For the most part, ketosis generally produces a much more lethargic individual than one with readily available glucose. I'm not sure how your above statement is relative to anything in this conversation.

Dan Fanelli
02-26-2011, 04:08 PM
I dont get why you guys keep bringing up ketosis, or what is most "efficient". I really dont see what any of this has to do with this thread. The fact of the matter is, proteins and fats are MORE essential than carbs. There is no way around it. If these fighters are actually doing what they are saying, they are ignoring these facts. Ninety grams of protein on a vegetarian diet is just stupid, especially for a hard training elite athlete.

As I said above, the FUEL part of the equation is only part of the equation. If you base your entire diet off what is the most "optimal" energy source, you are going to be seriously lacking.

joey54
02-26-2011, 10:37 PM
Jon Fitch had plenty of energy in round 3 tonight. Still like BJ more and wanted him to win the fight, but to escape the prodigy having your back two times is very impressive.

Behemoth
02-27-2011, 08:35 AM
I dont get why you guys keep bringing up ketosis, or what is most "efficient". I really dont see what any of this has to do with this thread. The fact of the matter is, proteins and fats are MORE essential than carbs. There is no way around it. If these fighters are actually doing what they are saying, they are ignoring these facts. Ninety grams of protein on a vegetarian diet is just stupid, especially for a hard training elite athlete.

As I said above, the FUEL part of the equation is only part of the equation. If you base your entire diet off what is the most "optimal" energy source, you are going to be seriously lacking.

The fact is only a small amount of protein is essential. Most people are brainwashed to believe more is better. And quite frankly the rda is quite accurate for most anybody outside bodybuilding and strength training. And even for bodybuilders it has been proven that very meager amounts by most [bodybuilding] standards can suffice just fine when wnbf pro dr joe klemezsky (sp) dieted on I believe 70g of protein successfully.

But i m not getting into this again with you. The point was and is that glucose is most efficient for energy, you're simply sidetracking from my original simple point.

Dan Fanelli
02-27-2011, 10:21 AM
The fact is only a small amount of protein is essential.

What is essential, and what is the "right" way to go are completely different. Carbs are not "essential" at all. Does that mean you just dont take them in at all? I know you dont agree with that. The fact is that even if only about 90g of protein is essential for these guys, taking in quite a bit more would be beneficial. They are taking a topic (vegetarianism) that is emotional, and trying to support it based on their feelings, ignoring all the science that has been layed out over the past few decades.



http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/protein_size_&_frequency.pdf
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/protein-requirements-for-strength-and-power-athletes.html
http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Protein%20Needs.pdf


The information has been out there for a long time, but people try to keep ignoring it. Sure, there may be a few instances where someone succeeded while taking in minimal levels of protein. But, its not a good idea to base things off a few outliers instead of what is going to be the case for most of the population.


I could really care less what these few fighters do. If they want to ignore all the science and do things their way, more power to them. My bigger problem with the article though is that the general population is going to be looking at this as the "fighter's diet". And they are going to associate a low protein, low fat, high carb vegetarian diet with being "optimal" for getting lean. And this is absolutely not the right way to go.

Behemoth
02-27-2011, 10:53 AM
Dan Fanelli VS the FDA.

90g is plenty for anybody not attempting to add lean body mass. And I guarantee one could do so (add LBM) with even that little (90g) for quite some time.

Counterweight
02-27-2011, 12:28 PM
What is essential, and what is the "right" way to go are completely different. Carbs are not "essential" at all. Does that mean you just dont take them in at all? I know you dont agree with that. The fact is that even if only about 90g of protein is essential for these guys, taking in quite a bit more would be beneficial. They are taking a topic (vegetarianism) that is emotional, and trying to support it based on their feelings, ignoring all the science that has been layed out over the past few decades.



http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/protein_size_&_frequency.pdf
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/protein-requirements-for-strength-and-power-athletes.html
http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Protein%20Needs.pdf


The information has been out there for a long time, but people try to keep ignoring it. Sure, there may be a few instances where someone succeeded while taking in minimal levels of protein. But, its not a good idea to base things off a few outliers instead of what is going to be the case for most of the population.


I could really care less what these few fighters do. If they want to ignore all the science and do things their way, more power to them. My bigger problem with the article though is that the general population is going to be looking at this as the "fighter's diet". And they are going to associate a low protein, low fat, high carb vegetarian diet with being "optimal" for getting lean. And this is absolutely not the right way to go.

Alright I'm going to interject. The reason Fitch and all these other guys don't eat meat is not because they find it unhealthy, but because it hampers their cardiovascular efficiency. They've found that plant based proteins provide the same benefit as meat-based but do not have the drawback. I was watching the fight last night with a couple of my friends from Toronto who practice MMA and they say it's working for them quite well. They feel better and "cleaner". Fighting 5 minutes rounds takes almost nothing out of them. They may be talking out of their ass but they swear by it and I'm inclined to believe them considering the shape they're in.

Furthermore, I don't see pictures of you cut as hell like Behemoth. If you're going to talk so much crap, you need to be able to back it up or no one is going to take you seriously whatsoever.

Counterweight
02-27-2011, 12:30 PM
What is essential, and what is the "right" way to go are completely different. Carbs are not "essential" at all. Does that mean you just dont take them in at all? I know you dont agree with that. The fact is that even if only about 90g of protein is essential for these guys, taking in quite a bit more would be beneficial. They are taking a topic (vegetarianism) that is emotional, and trying to support it based on their feelings, ignoring all the science that has been layed out over the past few decades.



http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/protein_size_&_frequency.pdf
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/protein-requirements-for-strength-and-power-athletes.html
http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Protein%20Needs.pdf


The information has been out there for a long time, but people try to keep ignoring it. Sure, there may be a few instances where someone succeeded while taking in minimal levels of protein. But, its not a good idea to base things off a few outliers instead of what is going to be the case for most of the population.


I could really care less what these few fighters do. If they want to ignore all the science and do things their way, more power to them. My bigger problem with the article though is that the general population is going to be looking at this as the "fighter's diet". And they are going to associate a low protein, low fat, high carb vegetarian diet with being "optimal" for getting lean. And this is absolutely not the right way to go.

This is entirely irrelevant but it's "I couldn't care less". I could care less makes no sense. kthxbai

ThomasG
02-27-2011, 01:52 PM
Just like any sport different athletes have different dieting preferences.

I found overeems eating very interesting.

He is the current Strikeforce Heavyweight Champion, DREAM Interim Heavyweight Champion, and K-1 World Grand Prix Champion, and made history by being the only fighter in combat sports to hold a world title in both MMA and in K-1 kickboxing at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkg5Sx-o1m8&feature=player_embedded

Dan Fanelli
02-27-2011, 01:59 PM
Alright I'm going to interject. The reason Fitch and all these other guys don't eat meat is not because they find it unhealthy, but because it hampers their cardiovascular efficiency. They've found that plant based proteins provide the same benefit as meat-based but do not have the drawback. I was watching the fight last night with a couple of my friends from Toronto who practice MMA and they say it's working for them quite well. They feel better and "cleaner". Fighting 5 minutes rounds takes almost nothing out of them. They may be talking out of their ass but they swear by it and I'm inclined to believe them considering the shape they're in.

Furthermore, I don't see pictures of you cut as hell like Behemoth. If you're going to talk so much crap, you need to be able to back it up or no one is going to take you seriously whatsoever.

This is entirely irrelevant but it's "I couldn't care less".

Is there ANY research to support any of this?

Dan Fanelli
02-27-2011, 02:17 PM
Dan Fanelli VS the FDA.

90g is plenty for anybody not attempting to add lean body mass. And I guarantee one could do so (add LBM) with even that little (90g) for quite some time.

Even if it was "plenty" that still doesnt' mean that doubling this to 180g or even tripling it to 270 wouldn't bring about better results. As ive said numerous times ZERO g of carbohydrates is all that is needed for the average person. 30g might be "plenty" but it doesn't mean thats right.

I'll summarize my views on macronutrient breakdown.

Protein is going to be the most essential part of your nutrition. If possible and there aren't any reasons not to take in more protein (kidney disease for ex) aiming for more is always better. There is a point of diminishing returns, but its going to be much closer to 250-300g of protein and NOT anywhere near 90g.

Carbohydrate intake should be determined by a number of factors. The factors that should affect carbohydrate intake are:

*genetics
*insulin sensitivity/resistance
*activity level
*body composition

So yes, if these fighters are training for hours a day, and are lean, then they probably do need 500+ grams of carbohydrates. But for everyone else, there is no reason to take in more than you are going to be able to store and use. Holto pointed out a possible explanation above:


You need a lot less protein per day when you literally aren't allowed to gain weight.

I dont necessarily agree with that statement, but its on the right track. Their total calorie intake is going to be limited so they have to cut back somewhere. They just chose to cut back on protein, insted of carbohydrates which is the whole point of this thead. I dont see any reason why they wouldn't be able to drop their carbs by about 70g and replace that with protein. Well, other than the fact that they are vegetarian. And I am 100% skeptical of any of these "benefits" that they are experiencing being the result of organic foods or vegetable proteins. Again, there just isn't any science to lead one to believe this.

Dan Fanelli
02-27-2011, 02:23 PM
Just like any sport different athletes have different dieting preferences.

I found overeems eating very interesting.

He is the current Strikeforce Heavyweight Champion, DREAM Interim Heavyweight Champion, and K-1 World Grand Prix Champion, and made history by being the only fighter in combat sports to hold a world title in both MMA and in K-1 kickboxing at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkg5Sx-o1m8&feature=player_embedded

Beef, its whats for dinner! Heh.

The thing here, is you cant look at a small group of the population and try to make conclusions that would be generalizeable to everyone else. Three or four UFC fighters going against the grain of thousands of athletes before them doesn't prove much. If all of the sudden all of the champions were vegetarian, and no "meat-eater" could beat them, then that might lead you to believe differently. But that is not the case.

And im not even against vegetarianism. It can, and does work for a small group of individuals. But usally those individuals need to be very educated on combining foods and the best sources of foods. From the looks of this article, these guys are just buying into the hype that "organic" = good.

4g64fiero
02-27-2011, 02:28 PM
If one already has a balanced diet, there would be no noticeable difference between eating meat and not eating meat.

I think these guys neglected vegetables before and now are "amazed" by how vegetables make you feel better. Its true, but that doesnt mean meat is bad.

Anyone ever heard of a balanced diet?

Dan Fanelli
02-27-2011, 03:52 PM
Anyone ever heard of a balanced diet?

I'm with you for sure. Unless you think a balanced diet is like the food pyramid that has made Americans so healthy

Counterweight
02-27-2011, 04:05 PM
Even if it was "plenty" that still doesnt' mean that doubling this to 180g or even tripling it to 270 wouldn't bring about better results. As ive said numerous times ZERO g of carbohydrates is all that is needed for the average person. 30g might be "plenty" but it doesn't mean thats right.

I'll summarize my views on macronutrient breakdown.

Protein is going to be the most essential part of your nutrition. If possible and there aren't any reasons not to take in more protein (kidney disease for ex) aiming for more is always better. There is a point of diminishing returns, but its going to be much closer to 250-300g of protein and NOT anywhere near 90g.

Carbohydrate intake should be determined by a number of factors. The factors that should affect carbohydrate intake are:

*genetics
*insulin sensitivity/resistance
*activity level
*body composition

So yes, if these fighters are training for hours a day, and are lean, then they probably do need 500+ grams of carbohydrates. But for everyone else, there is no reason to take in more than you are going to be able to store and use. Holto pointed out a possible explanation above:



I dont necessarily agree with that statement, but its on the right track. Their total calorie intake is going to be limited so they have to cut back somewhere. They just chose to cut back on protein, insted of carbohydrates which is the whole point of this thead. I dont see any reason why they wouldn't be able to drop their carbs by about 70g and replace that with protein. Well, other than the fact that they are vegetarian. And I am 100% skeptical of any of these "benefits" that they are experiencing being the result of organic foods or vegetable proteins. Again, there just isn't any science to lead one to believe this.

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-carbohydrate-conundrum/

Maybe reading some of the articles that WBB has on nutrition will be a good starting point.

I don't think you understand the difficulty of training MMA for 4 hours a day. It's a very strenuous activity and if they ingested 70g of carbs a day they'd be gassed FAIIRLY quickly. This is a direct quote from the article

"Also, do not forget the fact that the body has a limited storage capacity for dietary carbohydrates (glycogen). “In an average sized man, about 525 grams of glycogen are stored in the muscle with another 25 grams of glucose in the blood. The liver stores an additional 100 grams of glycogen, which can be broken down to glucose and released into the blood stream. The amount of energy stored as carbohydrate in the body is about 2,600 calories. This is enough energy for about two hours of moderate exercise,” (6). This is quite relevant because many studies have shown that continuous depleted muscle glycogen levels during strenuous activity, decreases performance. This is why it is crucial for many athletes (not all) to replenish glycogen stores after training on a regular basis (more on this below). This is also relevant for those who do not exercise regularly. Essentially, whatever excess carbohydrates you ingest over capacity are “spilled over” into adipose tissue and stored as fat. This is where OPTIMIZATION is key."

MMA athletes are one of that special group that NEEDS carbohydrates. You also contradict yourself.


So yes, if these fighters are training for hours a day, and are lean, then they probably do need 500+ grams of carbohydrates. But for everyone else, there is no reason to take in more than you are going to be able to store and use. Holto pointed out a possible explanation above:

vs.

I dont see any reason why they wouldn't be able to drop their carbs by about 70g and replace that with protein. Well, other than the fact that they are vegetarian. And I am 100% skeptical of any of these "benefits" that they are experiencing being the result of organic foods or vegetable proteins. Again, there just isn't any science to lead one to believe this

Pick a side. If they replace those carbohydrates with protein their body is going to start looking for fuel in other places, "In all actuality, the body can make all the glucose it “needs” through a process I alluded to above called gluconeogenesis (making of new glucose from non-glucose agents. When it has to, the body can make glucose from several other substances, such as glycerol, lactate, pyruvate, and amino acids (from muscle protein), to name a few." The amount of adipose fat tissue most of these athletes have is very low. Look at Jon Fitch from last night, the guy is probably sitting at 7-9 percent BF. As an MMA fighter utilizing fat as a fuel source is not relevant, because it is not a long distance endurance event.

4g64fiero
02-27-2011, 05:31 PM
In my experience(anecdotal, I know blah blah) ingesting ~200 grams of protein is the sweet spot for me.

Eating less protein WILL result in less progress. On the flip side, the more protein I eat, the less calories I eat. Therefore, I have been trying to eat as few grams of protein as possible since I completely lose my appetite after eating protein.

Counterweight,

You are backing us into a corner here. Just because one needs to eat more protein doesnt mean they have to sacrifice carbs. You can have both. You can eat more haha. When it comes to performance, balance is key. The subject at hand is MMA, and those guys dont give a crapdazzle about their good looks.

Dan Fanelli
02-27-2011, 05:43 PM
@ counterweight I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say drop their carbs TO 70g. I said drop their carbs BY 70g. And I have read that article, and agree with it completely.

We dont know their exact macro breakdown, but if we were to assume that they were taking in around 90g of protein, and maybe at most 60g of fat, thats only 1000kcals there. And depending on their metabolism and need with that amount of exercise, they are probably looking at an intake of 3500-4000+. So the remaining 2500 calories comes from carbs. Thats 625g of carbs per day. I dont see how they cant spare 70g of carbs from that to up their protein to reasonable levels, besides the fact that they aren't willing to eat meat products and are going to be too full all of the time.

Thats basically what I meant.

Behemoth
02-27-2011, 05:52 PM
They don't spare it because its not necessary for their needs...

Holto
03-03-2011, 11:37 AM
A nutrition author named Sam Graci was running in china. When he finished he was out of breath and an old chinese man started laughing at him. He explained that all the acid promoting foods he was eating we're negatively impacting his aerobic capacity. Sam has since focussed on making his meals balanced with acid and alkaline promoting foods. He claims this improves his cardio-vascular performance.

Randy Couture, a man who is engaged in combat sports at an age that is unheard of is eating greens at each meal and endorses a green drink. I should note that Sam Graci is the product formulator for greens plus.

Take this for what it's worth, I certainly can't post any abstracts to support this but anecdotally there is certainly some intriguing evidence to suggest a relationship between eating greens, veggies etc and VO2 Max.

Dan Fanelli
03-03-2011, 01:12 PM
http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/570S.full

CONCLUSION
A vegetarian diet per se is not associated with improved aerobic endurance performance;

nejar462
03-03-2011, 07:03 PM
I'm going to blurt out something sacrilegious to the WBB community. I don't feel like backing it up with facts but it's something I've found is true:

Most bodybuilders and powerlifters exaggerate grossly the amount of protein a hard training athlete needs.

Also, if you look at cottage cheese/greek yogurt/milk, eggs, and whey protein, you might be able to make a strong argument that a lot of vegetarian sources of protein are superior to meat based ones. Even legumes offer significant advantages to meat. Not to say eating meat is bad, I'm just surprised at the number of people who think a meat eating diet is in some way superior to a vegetarian one.

I'm a pescetarian mainly for moral reasons and also I couldn't figure out how to get good omega 3's outside of fish. (Flax Oil type is not as high quality as Fish Oil because it doesn't convert to the right type of omega 3's.) Also, vegetarian food is easier and cheaper than meat based food.

f=ma
03-03-2011, 07:12 PM
anecdotally, successful vegetarian lifters are a tiny minority. ill take my meat and overconsumption of protein

Dan Fanelli
03-03-2011, 07:46 PM
Most bodybuilders and powerlifters exaggerate grossly the amount of protein a hard training athlete needs.

Also, if you look at cottage cheese/greek yogurt/milk, eggs, and whey protein, you might be able to make a strong argument that a lot of vegetarian sources of protein are superior to meat based ones.

I'd consider those meat based proteins. Yes, there is a difference between vegetarian (lacto ovo) and vegan. If you are doing something for moral, ethical, or religuous reasons thats one thing. But if someone is convinced that vegetarian lifestyle somehow has advantages over the omnivore lifestyle they are terribly mistaken. If one is a lacto-ovo vegetarian there is absolutely no reason why their diet cant be just as good as a person thats willing to eat animal flesh. Dairy and egg sources of protein are very good.

The article was a bit confusing, because they mentioned Whey protein (although im not sure which fighters that applied to). A Vegan that is training hard and only taking in 90g of protein is even more protein deficent than an a Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian. And all discussion of meat eating aside, 90g of protein is still rediculously low.

nejar462
03-03-2011, 08:07 PM
O if you are differentiating between vegetarian and vegan than yes, there is a difference. I think a vegan might have a hard time picking up the quality protein sources but I still think it's possible.

You can't simply compare the number of vegetarian athletes to the number of meat eating ones. A proper comparison would take into account the population that adheres to these philosophies.

2.3% of the general population are vegetarian, 1.4% are vegan. Therefore, you'd expect that if all diets are equal, you'd expect 2.3% of all athletes are vegetarian, 1.4% are vegan.

http://kblog.lunchboxbunch.com/2009/02/what-percentage-of-population-is.html

I couldn't find the numbers on athletes, but there is an entire espn article on vegetarian athletes. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that 2.3% of all pro athletes are vegetarian, and 1.4% are vegan.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=keri/080616

I'm not arguing one or the other is superior for health, I just don't think there is much evidence to say one is healthier than the other...

Codeguru
03-04-2011, 08:38 AM
And im not even against vegetarianism. It can, and does work for a small group of individuals. But usally those individuals need to be very educated on combining foods and the best sources of foods. From the looks of this article, these guys are just buying into the hype that "organic" = good.

I'd agree it keeps them alive, but it never "works" with anyone I've ever met...

Codeguru

Off Road
03-04-2011, 09:35 AM
I would only buy into the hype if every champion in many different sports were a vegitarians. MMA isn't the only sport where they train like maniacs. There are way too many meat eaters still kicking vegitarians butts out there.

colinS3
03-04-2011, 09:49 AM
I have to agree that going vegetarian is no healthier than eating meat if you do both right (balanced diet, right amount of calories, etc...). People who think they're bound to lose weight just because they go vegetarian usually haven't done enough research. Both can be great athletes, there's just not a significant amount of vegetarian athletes out there right now because there's not a significant amount of vegetarians in the first place.

As for the discussion about carbs/proteins a few posts ago, there are plenty of athletes that don't need a ridiculous amount of protein. Bodybuilder/powerlifter eating habits definitely don't apply to athletic eating habits because at least half the time bodybuilders/powerlifters are bulking up. Increasing muscle size and BF % is detrimental to any high performance/endurance athlete like swimmers, runners, or MMA fighters. Even if you cut and have low BF % with massive amounts of muscle, you're going to slow down. Just look at the fight between Cain and Brock Lesnar.

My running coach tells us that high performance/endurance athletes should eat mostly carbs, a decent amount of protein, and then whatever is leftover for fats. I've also read a study where they concluded that athletes will benefit most from 1:1 or 1:2 protein to carb ratios. That can be accomplished with a vegetarian diet, your food choices are just limited.

Dan Fanelli
03-04-2011, 11:51 AM
Yes, but weight is determined by caloric balance. A fighter taking in 180g of protein vs another taking in 90g of protein will weigh about the same if total calories are similar, and expenditure is similar. The guy taking in 180g would likely have more muscle though. Same weight, more muscle, sounds like a greater potential for better performance to me.

Holto
03-04-2011, 01:11 PM
Same weight, more muscle, sounds like a greater potential for better performance to me.

We as bodybuilders naturally think this but more muscle requires more oxygen. If this gasses you out you can lose as a result.

Also pretty much every body below the heavyweight class is totally diced.

Dan Fanelli
03-04-2011, 01:40 PM
We as bodybuilders naturally think this but more muscle requires more oxygen. If this gasses you out you can lose as a result.

Also pretty much every body below the heavyweight class is totally diced.

Is that actually true at a given weight? Wouldn't more muscle potentially mean greater bloodflow and greater oxygen extraction?

It begs the question though, is MMA an anaerobic sport, or is it simply a different form of endurance event.

colinS3
03-04-2011, 03:43 PM
Is that actually true at a given weight? Wouldn't more muscle potentially mean greater bloodflow and greater oxygen extraction?

It begs the question though, is MMA an anaerobic sport, or is it simply a different form of endurance event.

Yes, it is. I don't have sources to throw around right now but I've read plenty of studies about it. More muscle may provide greater oxygen extraction than someone with less muscle, but the amount of oxygen that needs to be consumed by those larger muscles far surpasses the amount it is extracting. So even though the larger muscles are able to take in oxygen faster, they still tire out at a faster rate because they require so much oxygen to keep going. You may not believe it right now but take a look at any professional athlete in an endurance sport. Michael Phelps, for instance. Back when he won all of those gold medals he was eating over 10,000 calories a day (one workout burned about 4,000 calories for him), yet he didn't look like a bodybuilder. Sure, he was muscular, but there was no excess muscle. His diet was actually a ton of carbs for the most part. Things we would deem "unhealthy carbs" like pizza. He could've had way more protein and focused way more on increasing his strength, but he only had what would optimize his performance for his sport. Sure he worked out, but he didn't go past a certain point. If he had gotten even stronger and put on a lot more muscle, his performance would dropped.

Take a look at this to see what I mean. His breakfast contains a lot of protein, mainly to repair the muscles he had worn out, but after that it's mostly carbs. http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/michael-phelps-diet/

Look at a pro runner. They're the definition of lanky.

MMA fighters. Look at the fight between Brock Lesnar and Shane Carwin. Carwin was completely drained after one 5 minute round. Then Brock was destroyed in the Brock Lesnar vs Cain fight because Cain was so much more efficient than Brock. Sure, Brock is a monster. Ridiculously strong and a freak athlete. But he has his weaknesses too.

MMA is waaay more aerobic than anaerobic. How could you say three 5 minute rounds, five 5 minute rounds in the case of championship bouts, don't revolve around endurance? That's a constant topic the announcers are talking about too. For a straight up definition of aerobic and anaerobic though, which has been confirmed in multiple studies, any activity is considered anaerobic until the activity surpasses 2 minutes. When people get tired but are still under the 2 minute margin it is just fatigue affecting them. Once they surpass 2 minutes of strenuous activity the aerobic form of using energy takes over. Are MMA fighters always in strenuous activities during their rounds, for every second? No. But the sprinting, explosiveness, and definitely the grappling add up to well over 2 minutes of activity, most of the time in the first round. So yes, MMA is an endurance sport. You have to be explosive and agile, but without endurance the best fighter will lose if they can't make it past the first round.

Dan Fanelli
03-04-2011, 04:07 PM
I see what you are saying, but its a weight class sport. If what you are saying is true, then being fatter is advantageous. Without seeing any evidence whatsoever, im pretty skeptical of their being a meaningful benefit to having less muscle mass at a given weight. The Michael Phelps example could possibly be due to boyancy. And looking at marathon runners would not be a good comparison. For them, having larger fat stores may be beneficial and is an adaptation to their training. But in most sports involving a mixed component of strength/power and endurance, more muscle at a given weight is better. Energy system training can account for changes in "aerobic efficiency".

Here are some quotes from Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning 2nd ed. (starting on pg 150).

"Heavy resistance training reduces mitochondrial density in the trained muscles, a change that parallels and is attributable to increases in muscle size. The increase in the amount of contractile protein also indicates decreased capillary density. However, decreases in mitochondrial density do not reduce the ability to perform aerobic exercise."

They go on to talk about "bodybuilder type workout" and how lactate inducing workouts promote increases or maintanence of capillary density.

Then on pg 156 "In contrast, no adverse effects on aerobic power from heavy resistance exercise have yet been observed, despite the expected cellular changes caused by heavy resistance exercise".


So ya, Im still skeptical on this one, especially since there are proposed benefits to having more muscle (greater strength/power) that would be very beneficial a fighter. The more likely factor here is that some of these leaner fighters are either neglecting their conditioning, or having to diet down too much.

colinS3
03-04-2011, 05:34 PM
It's definitely good to have a certain amount of muscle mass for a given weight, I can't argue with that. However, there is a limit for most sports/activities (bodybuilding and powerlifting are basically the only exceptions). There comes a point where an athlete has created his ideal body for his specific sport. This ideal body is most certainly not his genetic potential in terms of how much muscle mass his body will allow him to put on, it is nowhere near that in most cases. Instead, the ideal amount of muscle for their sport is the amount that will best help them perform their activity at the most efficient level. A pro sprinter and a bodybuilder that can squat 100 lbs. or 200 lbs. more than this sprinter can get ready for a race. The bodybuilder could've incorporated plenty of sprints in his workouts, but no matter how much practice he has done he'll never surpass this pro sprinter. Why? Because he's a professional. He's sculpted his body into the most efficient form his body can allow in order for him to run his very fastest (or pretty close to it).

But why does the bodybuilder fall behind when he's so much stronger? Even if he's the same height, yet he has more muscle in his legs, he'd still fall behind. But again, why? Because the bodybuilder's efficiency is lacking. Sure, he can produce tremendous amounts of force in each leg, much more than the sprinter is capable of. But when you sprint you literally have less than 10 milliseconds to activate this strength. Not only that, but for every extra pound you put on you have to apply an even greater force to maintain your speed. That's why athletes must find the perfect balance between strength and weight. Just because you have the strength that doesn't mean you can always access it as efficiently as someone who is weaker. So by going off of that logic we're both right in a way. You're right in the sense that you need to have a decent amount of muscle to perform well. I'm right in the sense that too much muscle will hinder your performance, that you need to find the perfect balance between muscle and weight. Granted, this is all dependent on your sport. In some sports you need more muscle (football) than others (distance running) because your form fits your function.

The answer to better performance isn't always put on more muscle. At first it seems like that's a great idea, but it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Since I would be more reliable with a source, I do actually have one for this topic. It's meant for sprinting, but the idea obviously applies to other aspects of sports as well...

"Unfortunately, coaches and athletes wrongly believe that the only way to increase strength is by increasing mass. Their goal is to increase mass because they believe more mass=more muscle=more strength=more force applied to the ground. What they don't realize, and what you can use to your advantage by using the principles presented in this book, is that added mass creates more gravitational pull - mass is actually working against you!

Recall that the predominant factor in faster running is the ability to generate and transmit muscular force to the ground. But, because of gravity, it isn't merely the amount of force applied to the ground that increases stride length; it's the amount of force in relation to bodyweight, or mass-specific force (MSF)."

- Page 12 of Underground Secrets To Faster Running
The guy who wrote this is named Barry. He's coached tons of Olympic athletes and actually used to lift weights with bodybuilders before he started coaching. I'd post more info but I've already said enough in this post.

Dan Fanelli
03-04-2011, 06:08 PM
I agree 100% with you, but keep in mind this is a weight class sport. At a given weight, its either lean mass, or fat mass. My belief is that more lean mass will be beneficial (as long as they aren't changing their training or dieting excessively to maintain a lower body fat %) An individual going from 170lb @ 15% BF to 170lb @ 10 % BF can only GAIN potential in strength/power, endurance, and all other aspects of performance. Its similar to a car. A power to weight ratio can reflect performance, and muscle mass is directly related to power. So at a given weight, more muscle = better potential for performance (assuming that amount of muscle is attainable without changing training from ones goals)

This is really separate from the original topic though. The big issue was the false claims that vegetarian proteins are superior to meat proteins, and the 90g protein intake for a hard training athlete.

colinS3
03-04-2011, 06:59 PM
Yes I definitely agree with that. I thought you meant that regardless of how much muscle mass the athlete put on, their performance would also increase. I was just trying to explain how that is only true to a certain extent, and then any excess muscle (depending on the sport) will hurt their performance instead of help it.

Haha yes we have strayed away from the original topic. I enjoyed the talk/debate though, it's nice to carry one out on the internet with somebody who actually knows their stuff! I think we can let this thread go back to its original topic now though lol.

Meat_Head
03-09-2011, 08:58 AM
"We were built to run off of proteins and fats found in animals (e.g. the omega 3's found only in animal sources)."

Disagree.

This is not something that can be disagreed with, it is fact.

Archaeology and biological anthropology clearly show that our hunter/gatherer ancestors survived only by hunting big game. This doesn't mean that they didn't eat vegetation, that is the gatherer part of the equation, it means that the vegetation was a supplementary source of nutrition to the red meat that had to be hunted, cooked, and consumed every day for survival. This was how our species survived and evolved the big brains we have now over hundreds of thousands of years. You simply do not get the nutrition and energy necessary from a diet of wild vegetation.

There is research that shows the possibility of wild tubers and roots being dug up and eaten by our ancestors(when we evolved from our shared ancestors with chimpanzees) which would certainly provide the energy needed for expansion and bigger brains, but no one eats that kind of root. They didn't eat yams and baked potatoes, in other words. Those are not good bodybuilding foods unless used with immense discretion.

Do not confuse this with the agricultural revolution, when grains were domesticated and people stopped hunting and settled by fertile farmland. Domesticated grains are the only way someone can get by on a vegetarian diet, and guess what archaeology tells us about that? When human beings moved from hunting and eating animals as a primary source of food we grew weaker, shorted, and sicker. This happened worldwide, wherever civilization rose and agriculture ruled. In a sentence, the science of the ancestry of our species suggests that an agricultural(vegetarian) approach to strenuous activity is a recipe for disaster.

Off Road
03-09-2011, 12:03 PM
Trust me...if ancient man had access to a McDonald's or Cheetos, or Sugary kids ceraeal, they would have been eating it every day.

Dan Fanelli
03-09-2011, 12:11 PM
@ Meat Head - good post.

This brings up some important possibilities in the debate.

1)Clearly over millions of years, we evolved to survive mainly off of animal flesh (We are omnivores, but meat has always been the basis of our diet). We also evolved body mechanisms and metabolic flexibility to be able to survive when meat wasn't readily available.

2)As you pointed out, living in the wild on a strictly vegetarian diet would not have been possible. If it were possible it would have happened, (because there was plenty of vegetation around), except our bodies never evolved mechanisms to be able to digest and metabolize enough energy from vegetation.

3)Processed grains sorta solved this problem by allowing a more calorie dense form of "vegetation". At THAT time, agriculture was developed as an "backup" source of sustainability for when meats/vegetables were scarce. Agriculture was expanded upon and exploited over time to allow for larger populations and to negate the need to hunt and gather. This eliminated humans primary form of activity (and the reason such high amounts of nutrition were needed). As agriculture became more advanced, food became more available and cheaper. And its built in our DNA to not just consume what is needed, but instead to prepare for the future by consuming extra.

4)Which brings us to our current situation. Too much energy available (in developed countries), not enough activity needed. Its out of balance. Now the question is, what factors are affecting this problem?

People like to take extremist views on this and blame one thing, but its not that simple IMO.

Carbohydrates are surely part of the problem. How can anyone that knows anything suggest that a person that is for the most part sedentary 24h a day take in larger amounts of carbohydrates than our highly active hunter/gather ancestors?

The same can be said for meats full of fat. Our ancestors needed to load up on calorie dense foods and were not concerned with having 'hawt abz'. Storing some fat was and still is a good thing. So obviously for most of us that have a steady food supply, loading up on calories/fat is not necessary and clearly harmful. Which leads to the "solution"

And calorie intake is clearly an issue as well. If you only need 2000kcals a day, but are taking in 3000kcals, you are going to be STORING those extra calories. Its either going to go to fat or muscle. And there is a difference in where calories come from. Excess calories from fat, carbs, or protein all have a potential for different destinations.

For the average person that isn't regularly active, something like:
20-30% Carbs (mainly vegetables, unrefined grains, and fruits)
20-30% Fat
40-50% Protein

A fatter individual should cut back on carbohydrates, fat, and overall calories.

Then everything else can be based off of that diet. If you are more active or leaner, you take in more carbohydrates, more fat, and more overall calories.

But still, the government recommends 45-65% of a peoples' diets be carbohydrates (Thats up to 325g on a 2k calorie diet). Even if individuls complete the recommended 30 minutes of activity, this is still way too much energy and is not needed.

Dan Fanelli
03-09-2011, 12:16 PM
Trust me...if ancient man had access to a McDonald's or Cheetos, or Sugary kids ceraeal, they would have been eating it every day.

Yes, but if they had an endless supply as we do, then they would have stopped hunting and gathering, and sat around getting obese.

f=ma
03-09-2011, 12:31 PM
Archaeology and biological anthropology clearly show that our hunter/gatherer ancestors survived only by hunting big game.

i doubt this. everything i have picked up on hunter/gatherer suggested to me that gathering was first with hunting second. I also suspect the degree of hunting was tremendously impacted by the climate of the group. wikipedia does not support your statement either

Off Road
03-09-2011, 02:02 PM
Yes, but if they had an endless supply as we do, then they would have stopped hunting and gathering, and sat around getting obese.


Ahh, yes...The Good Life :)

Meat_Head
03-09-2011, 02:09 PM
i doubt this. everything i have picked up on hunter/gatherer suggested to me that gathering was first with hunting second. I also suspect the degree of hunting was tremendously impacted by the climate of the group. wikipedia does not support your statement either

Ever tried to gather enough berries and edible wild plants to get by during a winter in, say, northern Europe or Asia? How exactly can one survive a month in Australia by mostly gathering? Even in the tropical rainforests, where fruit abides, every day men go out with one job: hunt and bring home food. I think there is a line in many societies where men hunt and bring home meat and women gather vegetables and fruit then cook the meat the men brought home. If the gathering were good enough, why wouldn't the men spend all day looking for fruit? I realize this is not the case in every society, but generally it holds true among hunter/gatherers.

Wikipedia says: "A hunter-gatherer society is one whose primary subsistence method involves the direct procurement of edible plants and animals from the wild, foraging and hunting without significant recourse to the domestication of either. Between 5-80% of the food is obtained by gathering."

So in some hunter-gatherer societies up to 80% of their food comes from gathering, which I admit I was a bit surprised by. But in other societies its only 5%, leaving 95% to be obtained from animal sources. This means that your average hunter-gatherer society will get most of their food from animal sources, 57.5%(by wikipedia's numbers).

Behemoth
03-09-2011, 04:39 PM
This thread is full of fail.

f=ma
03-09-2011, 05:51 PM
this thread is dumber than the one about eating acorns

Behemoth
03-09-2011, 06:06 PM
Oh nooez teh potatoz wi11 make you gets teh bodyfatz

Meat_Head
03-09-2011, 06:22 PM
Bleh. Seeing as how I look like crap and you two don't I'm gonna shut up and do some research now...

Dan Fanelli
03-09-2011, 06:32 PM
Fine fine, if you want to ignore the biology of your own species then what is your conclusion? Just pile on the starches to make sure you don't - GOD FORBID - get tired every now and then? Don't you eat plenty of meat? Don't you consume above average portions of protein? Are you arguing for vegetarianism for athletes or what?

My beleif is they dont know what they are talking about and haven't even taken the time to formulate an opinion. They never took the time to even adress the topic of the thread. Instead, the thread is full of "fail" because they dont agree.

Meat_Head
03-09-2011, 06:37 PM
^ For reference I edited the above post to not include all of that, but I still don't think that the evolution and biology of our species should be ignored in this discussion.

Behemoth
03-09-2011, 06:43 PM
he's correct, f=ma and me don't know what we're talking about.

carry on...

f=ma
03-09-2011, 06:50 PM
i stopped reading after post #2

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgVXawbdMCDsUfnUORac4lxTkgpBlq2edXZtW_bnolA6Ewz9nS