Plant-based diet for cycling - tips and tricks?

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

warthog101
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:05 am

by warthog101

He provides evidence.
His studies aren't all funded by the food industry as a means to sell product.
Dont mind his site personally.
I am not an elite athlete.
What an elite athlete stuffs in their body to gain a competitive edge isn't of that much interest.
Long term consequences to health and life expectancy aint that high on their preference list.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



AeroObsessive
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

Evidence... That's one word for it. The extrapolation he, and other quacks, make from animal studies is a stretch, and that's putting it mildly.

If we are talking quality of life, then going on all cause mortality, then elite athletes compare very favourably.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-01379-5

warthog101
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:05 am

by warthog101

You call him a quack.
Regardless of that nonsense term, he is a doctor.

Dunno what you are reading if you are saying all his evidence is extrapolated from animal studies.

Sure, compared athlete longevity to the general population that includes garbage munching couch slobs and you will get an improvement.
It is not without risk however.

Plenty of history of elite athletes making questionable choices
Eg Tyler Hamilton's book.

Exercise too much and there is some evidence of risk




https://bcmj.org/articles/impact-excess ... cise-heart

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569- ... of=t%C2%A0

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/

User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:30 am
Urg. Yeah, Greger, a vegan doctor is espousing a vegan diet. And again, like most of the others, bases most of this on rodent (or other non-human) studies. Has a belief system, find data to support it, not the other way around. Have a read of the studies he actually references. There are theories, but no real conclusions.
If any doctor or researcher disagrees with you dismiss as quack or any study that disagrees as inconclusive as done on rodents. Protein is good for everything then, keep eating steak for every meal and a bone shake after every workout, it's your (probably shorter) life.

Pointless discussion.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

Lewn777 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:53 am
AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:30 am
Urg. Yeah, Greger, a vegan doctor is espousing a vegan diet. And again, like most of the others, bases most of this on rodent (or other non-human) studies. Has a belief system, find data to support it, not the other way around. Have a read of the studies he actually references. There are theories, but no real conclusions.
If any doctor or researcher disagrees with you dismiss as quack or any study that disagrees as inconclusive as done on rodents. Protein is good for everything then, keep eating steak for every meal and a bone shake after every workout, it's your (probably shorter) life.

Pointless discussion.
Reductio ad absurdum.

Who said anything about steak and bone shakes?

Nuance and context is what is missing from these hot takes.

Again, it's not me that disagrees, rather the bulk of current nutrition research. If they can trump up evidence to the contrary, then I'll change my mind. Human studies, preferably.

Belief and diet are very tightly intertwined, hence limiting the capacity for rational and clinical assessment of facts and evidence.

Most people decide on what diet they wish to identify with, and then look for support/justification/validation of their choice.
Last edited by AeroObsessive on Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

warthog101 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:41 am
You call him a quack.
Regardless of that nonsense term, he is a doctor.

Dunno what you are reading if you are saying all his evidence is extrapolated from animal studies.

Sure, compared athlete longevity to the general population that includes garbage munching couch slobs and you will get an improvement.
It is not without risk however.

Plenty of history of elite athletes making questionable choices
Eg Tyler Hamilton's book.

Exercise too much and there is some evidence of risk




https://bcmj.org/articles/impact-excess ... cise-heart

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569- ... of=t%C2%A0

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/
No dispute in relation to the potential risks of extreme endurance exercise, but as the studies state, whilst there is a correlation, the precise causation is not yet known, hence "prescription" of the safe amount of exercise or pre-screening to avoid a cardiac incident is not yet clear. Which leaves us in the boat of "do some, but not too much...but we don't know how too much is, until it's too much."


As for Tyler Hamilton et al, time will tell if it takes/took a toll.

warthog101
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:05 am

by warthog101


AeroObsessive wrote:

Again, it's not me that disagrees, rather the bulk of current nutrition research. If they can trump up evidence to the contrary, then I'll change my mind. Human studies, preferably.
There is a shed load of evidence that a plant based diet is better in terms of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, stroke, cholesterol etc

AeroObsessive wrote:
Most people decide on what diet they wish to identify with, and then look for support/justification/validation of their choice.
Which is what it appears you have done.
As stated, contrary evidence is rubbished and pejorative terms assigned to it's source, if it disagrees with your line.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

warthog101 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:02 am
There is a shed load of evidence that a plant based diet is better in terms of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, stroke, cholesterol etc

Yes, there is. Problem is people like Greger, Davis and others use exaggeration beyond the scope of the known evidence.
AeroObsessive wrote:
Most people decide on what diet they wish to identify with, and then look for support/justification/validation of their choice.
Which is what it appears you have done.
As stated, contrary evidence is rubbished and pejorative terms assigned to it's source, if it disagrees with your line.

And what is my line?

warthog101
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:05 am

by warthog101


AeroObsessive wrote:
warthog101 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:02 am
There is a shed load of evidence that a plant based diet is better in terms of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, stroke, cholesterol etc

AeroObsessive wrote:
Most people decide on what diet they wish to identify with, and then look for support/justification/validation of their choice.
Which is what it appears you have done.
As stated, contrary evidence is rubbished and pejorative terms assigned to it's source, if it disagrees with your line.

And what is my line?
You are posting in a thread entitled "plant based diet for cyclists -tips and tricks" and are
posting about a high protein intake.

A source that disagreed with your line is a quack and not evidence based.


AeroObsessive
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

warthog101 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:19 am
AeroObsessive wrote:
warthog101 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:02 am
There is a shed load of evidence that a plant based diet is better in terms of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, stroke, cholesterol etc

AeroObsessive wrote:
Most people decide on what diet they wish to identify with, and then look for support/justification/validation of their choice.
Which is what it appears you have done.
As stated, contrary evidence is rubbished and pejorative terms assigned to it's source, if it disagrees with your line.

And what is my line?
You are posting in a thread entitled "plant based diet for cyclists -tips and tricks" and are
posting about a high protein intake.

A source that disagreed with your line is a quack and not evidence based.
A "high protein intake" that's supported by the weight of sport studies. And is actually not that high. Plant based =/= low protein. At least, if it does, it means you don't know what you're talking about.

And I disagree with something with no real evidence. Show me the evidence, and preferably releavnt to sport.

warthog101
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:05 am

by warthog101

AeroObsessive wrote:
warthog101 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:19 am
AeroObsessive wrote:
warthog101 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:02 am
There is a shed load of evidence that a plant based diet is better in terms of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, stroke, cholesterol etc

AeroObsessive wrote:
Most people decide on what diet they wish to identify with, and then look for support/justification/validation of their choice.
Which is what it appears you have done.
As stated, contrary evidence is rubbished and pejorative terms assigned to it's source, if it disagrees with your line.

And what is my line?
You are posting in a thread entitled "plant based diet for cyclists -tips and tricks" and are
posting about a high protein intake.

A source that disagreed with your line is a quack and not evidence based.
A "high protein intake" that's supported by the weight of sport studies. And is actually not that high. Plant based =/= low protein. At least, if it does, it means you don't know what you're talking about.

And I disagree with something with no real evidence. Show me the evidence, and preferably releavnt to sport.
Perhaps read the opening post of the thread again.
What makes you think the primary reason for the thread is athletic performance?
He mentioned high cholesterol. It has came down as a plant based diet has the potential to do.
No a plant based diet does not need to be protein deficient.

User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

warthog101 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:36 am
AeroObsessive wrote:
warthog101 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:19 am
AeroObsessive wrote:





And what is my line?
You are posting in a thread entitled "plant based diet for cyclists -tips and tricks" and are
posting about a high protein intake.

A source that disagreed with your line is a quack and not evidence based.
A "high protein intake" that's supported by the weight of sport studies. And is actually not that high. Plant based =/= low protein. At least, if it does, it means you don't know what you're talking about.

And I disagree with something with no real evidence. Show me the evidence, and preferably releavnt to sport.
Perhaps read the opening post of the thread again.
What makes you think the primary reason for the thread is athletic performance?
He mentioned high cholesterol. It has came down as a plant based diet has the potential to do.
No a plant based diet does not need to be protein deficient.
His outlook is simple.
protein is good>I have evidence from studies that protein is good post-work out>therefore protein is good at all times>some doctors and researchers say protein is bad when over-consumed not post-work-out>those doctors are quacks because protein is good>show me a study and provide evidence that protein is bad>that evidence is from a quack/the study is flawed>protein is good>
around we go again :roll:

The bit in bold is the flaw in his argument.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

Lewn777 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:59 pm
His outlook is simple.
protein is good>I have evidence from studies that protein is good post-work out>therefore protein is good at all times>some doctors and researchers say protein is bad when over-consumed not post-work-out>those doctors are quacks because protein is good>show me a study and provide evidence that protein is bad>that evidence is from a quack/the study is flawed>protein is good>
around we go again :roll:

The bit in bold is the flaw in his argument.
You have
1) obviously not read the studies I linked. if there is a recommendation for example, of 1.6g/kg of bodyweight...how much protein do you think that is?
2) do not under how protein gets utilised in the body (see above).
3) do not understand what constitutes evidence. One person linked a website, states they've read a book, and makes demonstrably incorrect claims (most people eat too much protein, certain amino acids are bad for you). The other links a website to a known vegan doctor who exaggerates claims and in no way addresses the points at hand. Say with me now: rodent studies are indicative of direction of future studies in humans, not the definitive proof in of themselves.

Maybe put up some decent evidence, meta studies, epidemiological studies, something that's actually substantial, and not just marketing,.

User avatar
Lewn777
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:35 am

by Lewn777

AeroObsessive wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:43 pm
Lewn777 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:59 pm
His outlook is simple.
protein is good>I have evidence from studies that protein is good post-work out>therefore protein is good at all times>some doctors and researchers say protein is bad when over-consumed not post-work-out>those doctors are quacks because protein is good>show me a study and provide evidence that protein is bad>that evidence is from a quack/the study is flawed>protein is good>
around we go again :roll:

The bit in bold is the flaw in his argument.
You have
1) obviously not read the studies I linked. if there is a recommendation for example, of 1.6g/kg of bodyweight...how much protein do you think that is?
2) do not under how protein gets utilised in the body (see above).
3) do not understand what constitutes evidence. One person linked a website, states they've read a book, and makes demonstrably incorrect claims (most people eat too much protein, certain amino acids are bad for you). The other links a website to a known vegan doctor who exaggerates claims and in no way addresses the points at hand. Say with me now: rodent studies are indicative of direction of future studies in humans, not the definitive proof in of themselves.

Maybe put up some decent evidence, meta studies, epidemiological studies, something that's actually substantial, and not just marketing,.
You still can't seem to be able to discern the difference between 'normal dietary protein' and 'post-exercise protein' Research advocating post-exercise protein intake does not mean it is advocating general dietary high protein consumption. You are making an illogical leap probably due to your personal baises.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



AeroObsessive
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

Lewn777 wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:36 pm
You still can't seem to be able to discern the difference between 'normal dietary protein' and 'post-exercise protein' Research advocating post-exercise protein intake does not mean it is advocating general dietary high protein consumption. You are making an illogical leap probably due to your personal baises.
I understand very well, and it is clear you neither read the studies, or understand them. One even goes out of its way to explain this very diffrence.

Post Reply