The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Muscle Sorority
 
Vegan Body Builder?
 

rdandrew
Level 1

Join date: Jun 2004
Posts: 44

SarahBrownCPT wrote:
Interesting to read this post! I was a vegetarian for 14 years for moral reasons. I competed in my first figure competition as a vegetarian. The only problem I had in my prep was peak week. I switched to eating meat because I developed a soy allergy, which made it much harder to get protein in. I did not gain muscle any faster once I started eating meat, nor did I lean out any easier. I eat plenty of meat now and will continue to do so.

Honestly it bothers me when people start talking about vegetarians and vegans as being snobbish, or preaching or being on their high horse. Sure some do, but most don't. There are loads of vegetarians quietly eating the diet they choose to without getting in anyone's face. Your may not even realize they are vegetarians.

I was very quiet about it for 14 years. I didn't tell people that I was a vegetarian unless it had to come up because we were eating a meal together or something like that. Boy, I got some very harsh reactions from people simply because I said I don't eat meat. I don't miss that.



Thanks for sharing.

What is your training and nutrition like now?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Jro555
Level

Join date: Jul 2007
Posts: 58

SarahBrownCPT:: hi and thank you for your posting your position on this matter!! I have vegan friends who don't preach from a soap box either, so I hope you didn't misconstrue this post as an attack on vegans/vegetarians and their life style.

I think we can all agree every group has its bad apples, there are vegans who look down on omnivores and omnivores who look down on vegans- guess us sensible folks in the middle just need to remind the fringe fanatics that tolerance and moderation are good things to practice.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SarahBrownCPT
Level

Join date: Nov 2007
Posts: 44

I just saw these 2 comments, thank you!

Well, I am now a long distance runner. So I eat....everything lol. My focus is on eating healthy and fueling my runs. I also still lift. I eat meat about twice a day now, some protein supps, lots of good carbs.

Before that when I was competing in figure, once I let my body get used to consuming meat again, I actually ate it about 6 times a day. I balanced each meal with a meat or protein powder, a carb such as brown ice, oats or veggies, and a small serving of a good fat. Pretty common figure competitor diet. I'm a bit more lenient now since my focus is distance running. Thanks for asking.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

veggieprincess
Level

Join date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1

mdl76 wrote:
My protein is at about 200gms a day.
One thing I notice many Vegans lack is proper protein intake.


Agreed.

I'm a Vegan and it's a debate I find myself in quite a bit. Vegans can be muscular and sculpt their physique, but I agree with you that if they want to increase size or maintain the muscle they have, such as you are doing, keeping the protein high is essential, and many Vegans are under the impression that they don't need to pay much attention to protein.

Glad you decided to go full Vegan md176.

Melissa

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

jj128
Level 3

Join date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16

so, according to Contrl, being American means being self-absorbed, macho, arrogant, ignorant, narrow-minded, and critical of others beliefs(even if they're right). No wonder other countries see us this way. Thanks for perpetuating the stereotype and oversimplifying what being a real American means.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

OctoberGirl
Level 4

Join date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14611

jj128 wrote:
so, according to Contrl, being American means being self-absorbed, macho, arrogant, ignorant, narrow-minded, and critical of others beliefs(even if they're right). No wonder other countries see us this way. Thanks for perpetuating the stereotype and oversimplifying what being a real American means.




oh get over yourself. A disagreement of opinion doesn't encompass all that you are typing.

whiner.



  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Contrl
Level 1

Join date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1612

Anytime, one-post-wonder. Anytime.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

World1187
Level

Join date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1041

Contrl wrote:
Anytime, one-post-wonder. Anytime.






Ditto.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

TheTick42
Level

Join date: Feb 2011
Posts: 107

I'm new on the board and am still trying to figure my shit out. I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian so I am not "Biased" towards there view point.

That being said - The people in this conversation that are equating animal suffering to a lawn being mowed are being ridiculous. The same is true saying those who eat seafood are being hypocrites for finding the idea of eating factory farmed beef, pork and chicken ethically questionable. My background is in neuroscience and I can tell you right now that a Lobsters and Crabs, not to mention clams and scallops, don't have the nervous system required for suffering. The former are roughly analogous to roaches (more than roughly actually). Pig on the other hand have almost the brain:body mass ratio equivalent of Dolphins or lower order primates. They do suffer, they do suffer psychologically and I think there is a real ethical question to be asked. That isn't the same as saying "you can't eat them" but at least acknowledge there is a question.

Most of this is not personal opinion or dogmatic belief...or shouldn't be. We can quantify the neurology of these animals and assess suffering. Vegans who think Bees suffer when you take their honey are stupid. Period. Omnivores who think Pigs don't are just as nuts.

I am ok with animals dying, I am not ok with KAFOs and no one else here should be either. Death is part of life but the least we can do is respect the animal while it IS alive. The reason we have to do things like take fish oil is because of corn. Beef raised on grass and only grass as an Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratio comparable to wild salmon. It's very healthy. The corn industry, which exists to feed cattle and make HFCS, is exactly the reason Americans are obese, depressed, have ADHD etc...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Iron Dwarf
Level

Join date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16335

TheTick42 wrote:
I'm new on the board and am still trying to figure my shit out. I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian so I am not "Biased" towards there view point.

That being said - The people in this conversation that are equating animal suffering to a lawn being mowed are being ridiculous. The same is true saying those who eat seafood are being hypocrites for finding the idea of eating factory farmed beef, pork and chicken ethically questionable. My background is in neuroscience and I can tell you right now that a Lobsters and Crabs, not to mention clams and scallops, don't have the nervous system required for suffering. The former are roughly analogous to roaches (more than roughly actually). Pig on the other hand have almost the brain:body mass ratio equivalent of Dolphins or lower order primates. They do suffer, they do suffer psychologically and I think there is a real ethical question to be asked. That isn't the same as saying "you can't eat them" but at least acknowledge there is a question.

Most of this is not personal opinion or dogmatic belief...or shouldn't be. We can quantify the neurology of these animals and assess suffering. Vegans who think Bees suffer when you take their honey are stupid. Period. Omnivores who think Pigs don't are just as nuts.

I am ok with animals dying, I am not ok with KAFOs and no one else here should be either. Death is part of life but the least we can do is respect the animal while it IS alive. The reason we have to do things like take fish oil is because of corn. Beef raised on grass and only grass as an Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratio comparable to wild salmon. It's very healthy. The corn industry, which exists to feed cattle and make HFCS, is exactly the reason Americans are obese, depressed, have ADHD etc...



Excellent post.

Please stick around. These debates come up seemingly often, so your input would be most informative in these instances.

Thanks

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

alexus
Level

Join date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4751

[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
My background is in neuroscience and I can tell you right now that a Lobsters and Crabs, not to mention clams and scallops, don't have the nervous system required for suffering.
[quote]

What evidence does neuroscience have that a nervous system is REQUIRED for suffering?

(NOTE: I'm not asking what evidence we have that a nervous system is the basis of OUR suffering)

I suspect that as we put our frontal lobes to the task of developing good healthy nutrition it will eventually be almost universally accepted that we need not use animal products in order for the human body to perform optimally.

It will be interesting then to see whether humanity values their own aesthetic preferences (joy of killing, taste of meat) over the presumed interests that living systems have in their own survival.



  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Deluxe_Supreme
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2011
Posts: 27

PinkTank wrote:
First of all, I refer everyone to www.veganbodybuilding.com for proof that it is 100% possible to be a very successful vegan bodybuilder. You can definitely get the full array of essential amino acids from only plant-based foods, but it takes work, thought, planning, and a lot of dedication. But can you name any kind of champion bodybuilder that you would not describe as "dedicated"??

Second, eating animal based proteins has a multitude of implications for increased risk of diseases and cancers. If anyone is interested in the merits of going vegan for the purely health based reasons (no anti-capitalist, hippie, animal loving BS involved) you should read "The China Study".

Check it out here: http://www.amazon.com/...8515&sr=8-1

Soy protein is the only plant-based protein that is considered "complete" because it contains all the essential amino acids, but other combinations will provide you with exactly the same muscle building blocks that you get from chicken, eggs, beef, etc. Rice and beans, for example, make a complete protein.

Just one of the many differences between plant and animal proteins:
Animal proteins have a very acidic metabolic load on the body, meaning they lower your internal pH making your body "acidic". Your body seeks to neutralize this environment by drawing calcium (a base) out of your bones or glutamine out of your muscles. The neutral compound is then peed out.

You are either eroding your bone mass or destroying your muscles. Plant based proteins (even when complete) have no such acidic effect on the body. See this article on T-Nation http://www.T-Nation.com/...le.do?id=460222


Myth: A high protein intake causes kidney dysfunction/damage.

That is, you take a healthy person and put them on a high protein diet, the protein will somehow negatively influence kidney function, damage this organ and promote disease.

Fact: Absolutely no data suggests that a high protein intake promotes any type of renal (kidney) dysfunction in healthy people. There arenā??t even any studies that suggest this may happen. In fact, there is evidence that refutes this notion directly.(1)

Protein metabolism experts (scientists that have devoted their careers to this area of research) now urge health care professionals to change their restrictive (unfounded) views on protein intake. These experts provide three important reasons why.

1) We know very little about the important functions of various amino acids at both the mechanistic and quantitative level. Our knowledge on protein requirements to improve health is very limited.(2)

2) Based on poor analysis techniques, previous recommendations are probably well short of the mark.(3)

3) As no evidence suggests that increasing protein intake will cause harm, when healthcare professionals caution healthy, active people about the perils of a high protein diet, itā??s ignorance of the worst kind. This is misinformation that may contribute to poor health.(2,3,4)

A high intake (2 to 3 times the basic allowance) of low-fat protein does not promote any adverse effect in healthy people. In fact, scientists leading the way in this field research suggest the opposite; increasing the proportion of protein in the diet is a strategy that will promote health and better results from exercise training. (4,5,6)


Myth: High protein diets are harmful to your bones

Fact: Dietary protein can increase urine acidity and calcium may be drawn from the bones to buffer the acid load. However, its been acknowledged the earlier studies that reported this effect did not use appropriate research design and methodologies.(9)

We now know that the phosphate content of protein-rich foods (and supplements) negates this effect. More recent, well-designed research has found a positive relationship between protein intake and bone health. In fact, not enough protein is deleterious to bone health. Several recent epidemiological studies have shown that a reduced bone density and increased rates of bone loss in individuals that consume low protein diets.(10,11)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Qualay
Level 3

Join date: Nov 2006
Posts: 106

It's CAFO, not KAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation). And I think this is worth thinking about given that most people (including me) eat a pretty good amount of meat. There are practical reasons for raising animals in a better environment including less use of antibiotics, less pollution--agriculture contributes 18% of greenhouse gases (more than transportation)-- and others, besides the moral obligation we have to the other creatures living on this planet.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ds1973
Level 4

Join date: May 2009
Posts: 1024

So what happened to MDL76? By a more recent post, it looks like he went back to eating meat. Either he lost muscle or changed girlfrends. Somehow the incentive to go vegan went away. My personal opinion is that most guys go vegetarian / vegan because of a woman.

Here's where he claimed to be on the anabolic diet eating bacon, eggs, cheese, etc. That's January 2010.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...thread/3569409/

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

TheTick42
Level

Join date: Feb 2011
Posts: 107

[quote]alexus wrote:
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
My background is in neuroscience and I can tell you right now that a Lobsters and Crabs, not to mention clams and scallops, don't have the nervous system required for suffering.
[quote]

What evidence does neuroscience have that a nervous system is REQUIRED for suffering?

(NOTE: I'm not asking what evidence we have that a nervous system is the basis of OUR suffering)

I suspect that as we put our frontal lobes to the task of developing good healthy nutrition it will eventually be almost universally accepted that we need not use animal products in order for the human body to perform optimally.

It will be interesting then to see whether humanity values their own aesthetic preferences (joy of killing, taste of meat) over the presumed interests that living systems have in their own survival.



[/quote]


I assume you are joking. Or are you trying to imply that a carrot "suffers"? What about a dead body? Rocks? Are you equating washing your hands with bacterial genocide?

Pain is a physical sensation requiring some way of communicating that sensation and a mind/brain to communicate to. If I take your brain out of your head you stop suffering. Scallops don't have a proper "brain" or at least what passes for one is so simple it can't 'hurt'. If removed all the nerves in your hand (say via magic) and then stabbed you through the hand it wouldn't hurt. How much nervous tissue do you think exists in a roach's shell?

Also, suffering isn't the same thing as pain. Often people start screaming "in pain" the moment they register that they "will be" hurt. I've taken part in studies in which pain stimuli was applied to a person. That person couldn't see what was causing the pain and so didn't react until it occurred. When they were allowed to see the source their brain actually lit up (FMRI) "in pain" prior to the application of stimuli. We know it will hurt. This doesn't happen even in lower primates much less an ant. Look at a Bull that is castrated. It's relatively placid up until the cut is made. It reacts to the pain and within 30 minutes is eating happily in a paddock. If I put your nuts on a block and picked up bolt cutters you'd be terrified and upset. The moment I started slamming them shut you'd start "hurting". If I chopped your nuts off you'd be depressed, angry and have all sorts of psychological trauma a Bull doesn't. How come Bulls don't seek vengeance? The guy who did the procedure can go up and pat a bull's head shortly after castrating it and it will nuzzle them. You'd be suffering, the bull isn't. There is a certain way we, as humans, suffer that lower mammals just don't, much less a virus or an insect.

If you want a good, general description of what a mind is, how we know what a mind is and the nature of pain, suffering etc... try something like "Kinds of Minds" by Daniel Dennet. It's philosophy rather than science and covers the issue pretty well.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

TheTick42
Level

Join date: Feb 2011
Posts: 107

Qualay wrote:
It's CAFO, not KAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation). And I think this is worth thinking about given that most people (including me) eat a pretty good amount of meat. There are practical reasons for raising animals in a better environment including less use of antibiotics, less pollution--agriculture contributes 18% of greenhouse gases (more than transportation)-- and others, besides the moral obligation we have to the other creatures living on this planet.


Oi. Yeah. That's one of those things I always do. I have no idea why K looks right and C doesn't.

Very well said BTW!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

alexus
Level

Join date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4751

Dennett is one of my favorite philosophers. It is largely because of him that I decided to pursue philosophy. He offers his opinion on the nature of mind. There are other opinions on the nature of mind, however. About as many as there are individual philosophers.

> are you trying to imply that a carrot "suffers"? What about a dead body? Rocks? Are you equating washing your hands with bacterial genocide?

No.

Are you trying to imply that neuroscientific data provides evidence that carrots, dead bodies, and rocks do NOT suffer?

Panpsychism is (roughly) the view that all matter is conscious. I'm not implying that panpsychism is true. I am taking issue with your claim that neuroscience has discovered that panpsychism is false, however.

I think the claim 'a nervous system is required for suffering' is not properly a scientific claim so it would be misguided to appeal to the authority of neuroscience (or any other science for that matter).

Or perhaps what neuroscience has discovered rules out the possibility of intelligent (pain experiencing, suffering) life (e.g., on other planets) that doesn't have nervous systems like us? Rules out the possibility of intelligent (pain experiencing, suffering) artificial intelligence?

I think neuroscience has taught us much about the basis of pain and suffering of beings with nervous systems - don't get me wrong. I'm just taking issue with neuroscience having taught us that a nervous system is REQUIRED.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

alexus
Level

Join date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4751

we have a moral responsibility to x

does this entail that x can experience either pain or suffering?

some think 'yes'. in which case, if a being cannot experience pain or suffering then we can do what we like to it.
others think 'no'. in which case, it doesn't matter if a being experiences pain or suffering - we might still have responsibilities to it. for instance, many think we have responsibilities towards the dead or moral responsibilities towards inanimate objects (e.g., other peoples property), or responsibilities towards nature or art (because it might have intrinsic value such that it would be wrong for us to wantonly destroy it).

Just saying that even if animals don't suffer... Even if animals don't feel pain... There might well be other reasons why it is wrong for us to kill them for our interests. If we examine the nature / extent of our interests (do we need to kill them for our survival? do we need to kill them for our optimal performance? is it that we find it fun to kill them and take aesthetic joy in the taste of them?) then we might have a clearer view of the trade-off between their value / worth and the value / worth of our interests.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

TheTick42
Level

Join date: Feb 2011
Posts: 107

Sorry if I was sound aggressive, it wasn't my intent...

>>> Are you trying to imply that neuroscientific data provides evidence that carrots, dead bodies, and rocks do NOT suffer?

Yes, as pain and suffering is understood by humans. Once we find a new sort of pain that rocks can feel we can worry about mining. In real world situations I'd say to those with this issue - Find me a a carrot with a cns and then we can talk. No brain=no pain.

>>> Panpsychism

It's a fascinating theory and as soon as anyone has evidence for it I'll consider it. Until than I am not going to worry about drowning a rock. I don't think you will either! :)

In general - Is is possible that something that exists on another planet can feel pain with nothing we recognize as a CNS? Sure. Almost anything is possible. Is it probable to a degree north of 95% that a CNS is required for pain and suffering as we understand these terms? Yes, absolutely. For the idea of "I hurt" or "I suffer" to exsist it must exsist in a mind and there must be an "I" to "hurt/suffer".

Second Post -

I've said in previous places that I am personally disinclined to worry about 30 seconds of dying suffering. Death is part of life and frankly the bolt gun we use to kill cattle is much less grizzly than the bear (ow) ripping the utter off a cow and drinking the bloody milk while the cow bleeds to death. It happens, there goes the PETA idea that only humans drink milk as adults!

What concerns me, personally, is the overall health of the bioshpere and the food I can obtain from it. CAFOs cause unneccasary suffering to the animal, which should be avoided for ethical reasons but moreover produces a substandard meat for us to eat and damages the enviroment. The cattle industry, as it exists today, is corrupt and needs to be fixed, not abolished. That isn't to say we can't eat meat but it behooves us (pardon the pun) to show a little respect for the LIFE of the creature, even if the death is inevitable.

Maybe I am taking a page out of the vegan play-book but if you can honestly see what happens in the large scale egg, beef, pork industries and not be repulsed I'd wonder what's wrong with you. The cow needs to die to feed our life and ambition. What part of that equation requires it to be pumped full of drugs, force fed, standing knee deep in shit? What part of my omlette requires a chicken to have it's beek ripped off, living in cage so small it can't turn around? I can kill chickens, I have on my Grandma's farm, but I couldn't take a knife/pliars and rip it's beak off, nor would I have to on a normal farm of yester-year.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

dcninja
Level

Join date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1

It is possible to be a vegan competitor. I have done it. I know many other vegans who compete. As to size, I am 5'8" and compete as middle weight. Strength wise, looking at my log from this month my lifts are solid. 335 for reps on bench, 405 for reps on squat and dead lift. There are a lot of very good vegan athletes out there. Of course there are a lot of people who are dismissive of the notion of vegan strength athletes. I was one of the most aggressive before I tried it.

I have been vegan four years. My strength has consistently increased, and I have been the leanest I have ever been.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

zenontheterrible
Level 3

Join date: Nov 2007
Posts: 989

*Edited*: realized i don't want some of that personal info on the webs lol.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

zenontheterrible
Level 3

Join date: Nov 2007
Posts: 989

Found the link, looks like john beradi went almost vegetarian, not almost vegan. None the less a good read (i don't think its been posted in this thread yet, but i didn't read EVERY post).

http://www.T-Nation.com/...ns_build_muscle

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

AccipiterQ
Level

Join date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3310

My lady person is vegan, I'm actually experimenting right now with her diet and seeing how much muscle she can build. It's pretty much a blank slate right now, seeing as how she was getting around 40g of protein per day (seriously). She's 5 4, about 114, virtually no muscle on her. I'm starting her off slowly with soy protein isolates and bumping her protein up to about 90g per day, and seeing where this goes.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Josh12
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 19

Hagar wrote:
entheogens wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
entheogens wrote:
Carl Lewis, perhaps the greatest American Olympian of all time in Track and Field, is a vegan.

Let me say, that I am a bona-fide meat-eater, but if anybody thinks vegans can't be champion athletes, then just mentiond Carl Lewis. That should take some wind out of their sail!

Was he vegan when he was winning the events?


Yes. He met Dr. McDougall at one point during his career and thereafter was a vegan. Google "vegan Carl Lewis" for more on this. I read it a few months back.

And when I say "vegan" I mean vegan (no animal products, including eggs and dairy), NOT vegetarian.



Wow no way. I take it he was he vegan when he competed in the Olympics. I'm looking it up now.


Carl Lewis is often used as vegans to demonstrate that you can be fast and powerful on a vegan diet. However, he did well as a vegan for 1 year, and then showed a decline in performance and more injuries. There are some mechanisms that can account for an improvement in performance/energy levels on a vegan diet for ~ a year, followed by a decline. I don't have time to go into the details right now, but this link (hopefully it shows) covers the topic well...

http://www.bulletproofexec.com/...rl-lewis-vegan/

This isn't to say that you can't be strong or competitive... just that Carl Lewis is a bad example. Plus he spent many years previously as a non-vegan.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bignate
Level 1

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3501

Iron Dwarf wrote:
TheTick42 wrote:
I'm new on the board and am still trying to figure my shit out. I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian so I am not "Biased" towards there view point.

That being said - The people in this conversation that are equating animal suffering to a lawn being mowed are being ridiculous. The same is true saying those who eat seafood are being hypocrites for finding the idea of eating factory farmed beef, pork and chicken ethically questionable. My background is in neuroscience and I can tell you right now that a Lobsters and Crabs, not to mention clams and scallops, don't have the nervous system required for suffering. The former are roughly analogous to roaches (more than roughly actually). Pig on the other hand have almost the brain:body mass ratio equivalent of Dolphins or lower order primates. They do suffer, they do suffer psychologically and I think there is a real ethical question to be asked. That isn't the same as saying "you can't eat them" but at least acknowledge there is a question.

Most of this is not personal opinion or dogmatic belief...or shouldn't be. We can quantify the neurology of these animals and assess suffering. Vegans who think Bees suffer when you take their honey are stupid. Period. Omnivores who think Pigs don't are just as nuts.

I am ok with animals dying, I am not ok with KAFOs and no one else here should be either. Death is part of life but the least we can do is respect the animal while it IS alive. The reason we have to do things like take fish oil is because of corn. Beef raised on grass and only grass as an Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratio comparable to wild salmon. It's very healthy. The corn industry, which exists to feed cattle and make HFCS, is exactly the reason Americans are obese, depressed, have ADHD etc...



Excellent post.

Please stick around. These debates come up seemingly often, so your input would be most informative in these instances.

Thanks


one of the most unbiased, clear, evidence supported posts in such an opinion based debate, very well done. as ID said, please stick around

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report