MikeMartial
Black Belt
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,400
- Reaction score
- 0
^^^^Love it! :icon_chee
well let's put it this way. how many vegan's are there that are pro fighters. and how many pro fighters are top 15. about 90 fighters that are top 15. so over 1.1% of them is vegan. my guess would be that less then 1.1% of all the pro fighters are vegans. so by logic veganism is about to rule the world.
and if you look at how many fighters there are that eat meat it's not impossible that they are the excaptions. it sounds almost as stupid as your spinning world explanation.
Just wanna set the record strait here, Carl Lewis was busted for ephedrine and psuedoephedrine and cleared of any wrongdoing.
Couldn't find anything else about him and drugs.
by the way, im not saying that it will work for everyone. not in that many words anyway. but looking at it in the whole picture there's nothing in this days that you can't get from a strict vegan diet. is it the ultimate diet? possible not. but for people that throw around arguments that things might be genetic, the ultimate diet should not even exist.
meat might work good for some and veganism for some. no one can tell before they tried it.
Wait...what do you mean?
The issue here isn't that a vegan isn't getting sources of all three, but rather the ratios of the three that he is getting. Since plants are naturally high in carbohydrates, every time he goes to get protein he must also be getting carbohydrates. On the other hand, sources of animal protein contain fats but few, if any, carbohydrates. A vegan athlete, who requires as much protein as a non-vegan athlete, may very well get sufficient amounts of protein, at the expense of overloading on carbohydrates. When you overload on carbohydrates you increase your fat storage. So the diet is not optimal for athletes who would want to minimize fat storage and maximize muscle growth.
Then you have an explanation for the clydesdales, right doctor?
Thought you'd chime in eventually after combing many headlines and internet articles. Ben Johnson's whole scapegoating was a whitewash of Carl Lewis (and American in-general's) activities. Call that speculation if you like since it's not going to be reported anywhere, but it's long been known the majority of US Olympic teams for the past 30 years have been using performance enhancing substances, particularly anabolics. The spear-headed campaign to go after Ben was more about Carl Lewis and America's own actions than it was about Ben, hence the implementing of the initial Steroid Control Act in America, the place where "honorable" Athletes like Carl allegedly exist.
I dunno man, I went to high school with a guy that is an olympic sprinter (100, 200, & relays) and barring a little bit of size that comes with age, he's the same shape, size and cut he was when we were 18. He's genetically not the same as your or I, he's a freak.
That being said, I believe a lot of athletes are using performance enhancing substances. I don't however assume guilty until proven innocent as you seem to have taken. I've never seen anything about Carl Lewis doping. I'm not saying he hasn't or didn't, just that you're making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about him doping.
And yes, I'm perfectly old enough to remember the first time steroids made it in to the spotlight in the US. Ben Johson was so fast in that race man, I remember watching it.
Yeah, that would be news to all the big Herbivores. Rhinos, elephants, Bison, Giraffes, Buffalo all have some pretty stout muscles, despite never eating an ounce of meat.
Animals produce their own proteins from Amino Acids. same thing with fat, accept in the case of fat the body uses fatty acids.
Now it is easier for the body to break down protein that is consumed into amino acids and use them to create its own protein, but its not a necessity. Animals are capable of cobbling together protein from scratch, although the trade off is that herbivores have to consume vast quantities of plant matter to accomplish this.
Just saw this on pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17908338&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Does this mean soy isn't as bad as thought concerning test levels?
Meat is one of the least efficient ways to get protein.
A pund of beans will give you more protein than a pund of beef, not to mention 0% fat
In that study they took 50g of soy protein a day, I'm fairly sure higher doses of soy protein causes the problem >50g.