247 lb Vegan

[rdandrew]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120122116182915297-lMyQjAxMDI4MDIxNTIyMjUxWj.html

[beforewisdom]

Most posted article today.

 

Don't feel, I did it too

 

Maybe Rich can consolidate the threads into one

[GRardB]

Things like this get me mad...quotes from that article:

 

There's no evidence a vegan diet can improve an athlete's performance, says David Nieman, a professor of health and exercise at Appalachian State University

 

Although the vegetarian athletes in his study also ate eggs and dairy foods, he says, "there is scientific evidence that veganism, when done right, won't hurt performance." But, he adds, there is only anecdotal evidence that it can help.

 

"When done right" ?? How about when your meal plan including meat isn't done correctly? That won't hurt performance? Things like this get me mad. Also:

 

It's fine to be a vegan, says sports nutritionist and dietician Nancy Clark, if you're willing to work at it. "It's harder to get calcium, harder to get protein, harder to get Vitamin D, harder to get iron," she says. "You have to be committed."

 

It's "fine" to be vegan? How about better? I can't speak for vegans, because I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian but I'm closer to vegan than most other vegetarians (I barely eat dairy and almost never eat anything with eggs). Also, harder to get calcium, protein, vitamin D, and iron?? These things are just false. Protein is so easy to get it's not even funny. Calcium and Iron are easy as well. As for vitamin D....correct me and hours of research if I'm wrong, but don't you get most vitamin D from the sun?? I don't think vegans get less sunglight than meat eaters....

 

Sorry for the rant, I just get so mad at articles like these.

 

As for Tony Gonzalez... He's amazing I have to give him my respect, especially for going vegan for health reasons despite everyone trying to convince him otherwise.

 

Just one thing I'm wondering...What's this??

 

Mr. Hinds showed him nutritious fish oils and how to pick out breads dense with whole grains, nuts and seeds. "The best bread for you," says Mr. Hinds, "is if I hit you with it, it hurts.

 

Fish oils?

 

Peace,

Gerard

[xjohanx]

he isn't vegan. he is 80% vegan. which means he is an omni who eats a lot of plants

[GRardB]

he isn't vegan. he is 80% vegan. which means he is an omni who eats a lot of plants

 

I see...so I guess the headline is just misleading then?

[xjohanx]

yeah it is. but sure, it's still kinda cool. and good vegan exposure

[Guest]

I think its bad vegan exposure because it isn't even vegan exposure. Where's the line...would you care much less if he were 70% or even 60%???

[chrisjs]

I think its bad vegan exposure because it isn't even vegan exposure. Where's the line...would you care much less if he were 70% or even 60%???

Yep yep yep... my problem is the story basically concludes that being 100% vegan failed him, yet it didn't go into enough detail about trying to make it work before giving up.

[Ravi]

I think the story is interesting and overall good for the vegetarianism/veganism movement .....since even though he is not vegan...it will make people start to question their own dietary habits. It is a starting point. Not perfect, but better than nothing.

[robert]

I see the positive in it too, including the fact that he has more energy and feels better on a plant-based diet.

 

The thing to understand is that for the most part, pro athletes are puppets. They are told what to do, including told what to eat, and that is true in this case because I personally know the situation Tony Gonzalez is in. (His team's nutritionist won't "allow" him to be on a full vegan diet) at the moment.

 

But anyway, I see the positive in this article, including the fact that a major publication put VEGAN in a headline and wrote about an NFL player who is one of the best in the league. Since Brendan and I supplied nearly all the contacts to the reporter (about Tony, Jon Hinds, Mac Danzig, etc.) we could potentially take the story with a different angle (more accurate one) to the New York Times, L.A. Times, etc. and they may be receptive to it after seeing such a big feature in the Wall Street Journal.

 

I also think I'm more optimistic than most.

[corbomite]

 

The thing to understand is that for the most part, pro athletes are puppets. They are told what to do, including told what to eat, and that is true in this case because I personally know the situation Tony Gonzalez is in. (His team's nutritionist won't "allow" him to be on a full vegan diet) at the moment.

I thought it was a step in the right direction. Starting in high school, then college, then professional level, football players are told what to eat. You or I might have a specific shake we drink after a workout and a specific meal plan we have custom made for ourselves over years of trial and error, most football players are told to eat as much meat and eggs as humanly possible throughout the day. There are a few exceptions who practice good nutrition, but most just eat as much meat throughout the day without ever counting calories or protein. This is why all of the commentators on espn who were once players are all overweight, once they stop having hard practices and offseason training they get fat.

I think the fact that he questioned what he was told was right all his life and actually learned how to shop for healthy vegan items is an awesome step. I also think the fact that he had the nerve to do it with the disapproval of his teammates and nutritionists is pretty badass.

[paulcats02]

I think the asterik meant that he was Vegan but only 80% of the time, which I was disappointed with when I first read the article; kind of misleading and decieving.

Not that I wanna take sides on the pro's and con's of the issue but if i did, i'd lean more towards the side that says any news is good news; exposure of any kind is going to raise awareness, imho.

If people at least know what Vegan is and how it's done then the world may become more Vegan-friendly with more Vegan options.

Plus even if omnivores don't go completely vegetarian or vegan, if at the least they ate less animals & animal based and more plant-based, this is good for their health and more importantly will reduce the suffering of animals in the world, and the health of the planet.

For example, Clarence "Ripped" Bass is another near-vegan, in the sense that the bulk of his diet is plant-based (i believe he calls himself a flexitarian). Is this ideal?

No but for him it is and if it helps cultivate awareness mainstream.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited January 28, 2008 by paulcats02

[Guest]

This is ridiculous!!! I'm sorry but if someone was 20% vegan nobody would say that person is a carnivore would they??? Of course not...someone or some animal that eats 20% vegan is an omnivore...its the same if it goes the other way too.

[paulcats02]

This is ridiculous!!! I'm sorry but if someone was 20% vegan nobody would say that person is a carnivore would they??? Of course not...someone or some animal that eats 20% vegan is an omnivore...its the same if it goes the other way too.

 

yes that is true, i agree with you 110% (if that's mathematically possible)... but just the mere fact that all the people that read the article at least now know what Vegan is, is the positive side of it. It's like the "everything you wanted to know about sex* *but were afraid to ask books...

 

Anyone who read the fine print of the article will clearly see that that Tony is not a full fledged Vegan but he has shifted to a majority Plant-based diet which is a positive step while Mac Danzig and Salim Stoudamire are full fledged Vegans.

 

Not everybody is Vegan for ethics and beliefs (although for me personally that's why I am), many like Tony are trying it or shifting towards it for health, which still cultivates awareness.

 

My question is if Jon Hinds, Vegan himself, "showed him (Tony) nutritious fish oils" does that make him fish-friendly? And if so, is this ok? With him it must be because it appears he did it. How does that sit with fellow Vegans? I think it's an individual preference and if he's ok with it that's his right to be.

 

Maybe I'll get flamed on this but it's like back when Mike Mahler experimented with Dairy for health reasons and caught hell from Vegans (which I felt was mean). I think he's given so much to the community that that was his personal choice and should be respected (not that anyone had to follow suit, he never asked anyone to).

 

Someone like Bill "Mr Universe" Pearl who although not Vegan he's lacto-ovarian Vegetarian, is still a great influence and inspiration to the masses.

 

IMHO, the more Vegan-aware, Vegan-friendly, and Cruelty-free the world becomes, the better; at any level.

 

And we all have opinions...

Edited January 28, 2008 by paulcats02

[Guest]

I definitely think being FISH FRIENDLY is very contradictory if you're a "vegan". Its like saying animal testing is OK if its not vivisection.

[paulcats02]

I definitely think being FISH FRIENDLY is very contradictory if you're a "vegan". Its like saying animal testing is OK if its not vivisection.

 

actually that's what made me think of that term when reading the article; it seemed contradictory that a Vegan would recommend Fish Oil.

 

But hey who am I to judge?

 

On another note, I don't believe Tony ever claims to be Vegan in the article. He just talks about how he tried it (albeit maybe not hard enough?) and then what adjustments he made to what he is comfortable with doing as a regular lifestyle.

 

I still think and feel the article was a positive thing, they did show 1 person who at least has shifted towards a more plant less animal diet and 2 people who are completely plant-based with success.

 

I guess the title is what intrigues people (it did to me) and it is misleadng because it's not true (although technically for a small period of time he was the 247 vegan while he was trying it out).

 

Like I said earlier it ticked me off at first but it's the main jist of writing articles and ads, eye catching headlines; it's what sells...

[Guest]

I agree with you in that he never really said anything about claiming to be vegan and I have nothing against him not being vegan more than any other non vegan...but maybe it would be nice if he told them not to title the article that way. The thing is the title sells but at the same time anything with his name sells...he's a big enough star that just titling it with his name would make any non vegan read it...only vegans read the article because it says vegan in it.

[paulcats02]

I agree with you in that he never really said anything about claiming to be vegan and I have nothing against him not being vegan more than any other non vegan...but maybe it would be nice if he told them not to title the article that way. The thing is the title sells but at the same time anything with his name sells...he's a big enough star that just titling it with his name would make any non vegan read it...only vegans read the article because it says vegan in it.

 

true but lemme give ya an example: my mom brought me a hard copy of the article, her boyfriend clipped it for me... and she says to me i just wish you and your brother (who is also Vegan) would eat dairy and fish. well there's 2 people who read the article.. yet the main thing they take away is hope to persuade Vegans to concede or compromise their beliefs and lifestyle (with good intentions?).

 

on the other hand, if our family, friends, and acquaintenances read the full article (including the success of Mac and Salim) at least that gives us some respect, recognition and credibilty.

[Guest]

If only the general public new Mac things would be different. MMA is getting very popular but it'll be a while before even half of the population even knows the most famous fighters...vegan or not. Once that happens then maybe the general public will look at them for inspiration.

[robert]

I think it created a positive situation. I think vegan police have problems with it, but they find problems in everything, therefore nothing will be good enough.

 

It's sad sometimes and for the first time in a while I was talking to someone in a health food store and I was somewhat embarrassed to use the word vegan because of some of the attitude that goes along with it.

 

Maybe a more optimistic outlook is better? It's a question, not the answer.

[Patrick]

I agree with VP 100%. It's BS to say you are only 80% Vegan or whatever. Either you are or you aren't. Period.

I also believe these folks at many University's worldwide are paid by coporations and various agencies to denigrate "alternative" lifestyles. I definitely do not consider being vegetarian or vegan an alternative lifestyle, but the vast poulace does. It's like the Milk industry. What a Lobby behind that crock of crap. When in fact Milk and dairy is the worst you can drink or eat.

The article or these comments place veganism or vegetarianism into the wrong light. I mean not all advertising is good advertising. I think people are so manipulated and brainwashed into believing what the "big" guns say that they just become lame sheep.

How can this chcik say that you have to be committed to get sufficient amount of protein or iron or calcium. Give me break! A person can get more protein and calcium in Tofu than when eating a steak. And iron: Please, what a stupid thing to say. How about spinach, kale, and other veggies. Tom Cruise needs to have a chat with her and gie her an "assist".

[paulcats02]

I think it created a positive situation. I think vegan police have problems with it, but they find problems in everything, therefore nothing will be good enough.

 

It's sad sometimes and for the first time in a while I was talking to someone in a health food store and I was somewhat embarrassed to use the word vegan because of some of the attitude that goes along with it.

 

Maybe a more optimistic outlook is better? It's a question, not the answer.

 

Rob, I agree with you regarding the positivity.

 

And maybe a more neutral outlook is more appropriate?

 

Neutrality is something I try to practice: of course I get angry, sad, mad, happy, delighted, etc. in the play of life but I try to bring myself back to a neutral state thereafter. Another words, I try to move beyond duality (instead of "this or that" i choose "this and that").

 

I read a great quote in a book Tai Chi the Supreme Ultimate by Lawrence Galante: "Dualities are a product of "Maya" (illusion caused by the mind's preferences, and prejudices). The mind sees the division but fails to see the unity... penetrate the veil of Maya and realize the Unity within the diversity."

 

What I really enjoy about this forum is that, for the most part, there is much tolerance; everybody doesn't always agree or approve but they do their best to understand.

 

When it comes to being Vegan, it's the best thing for me and perhaps anybody that is whole heartedly committed to the lifestyle... but for people who aren't ready for it spiritually, mentally or physically, it may not be the best thing.

 

I don't consider myself better than them (non-Vegans), I just consider being Vegan a better version of myself than the non-Vegan me.

[paulcats02]

I agree with VP 100%. It's BS to say you are only 80% Vegan or whatever. Either you are or you aren't. Period.

I also believe these folks at many University's worldwide are paid by coporations and various agencies to denigrate "alternative" lifestyles. I definitely do not consider being vegetarian or vegan an alternative lifestyle, but the vast poulace does. It's like the Milk industry. What a Lobby behind that crock of crap. When in fact Milk and dairy is the worst you can drink or eat.

The article or these comments place veganism or vegetarianism into the wrong light. I mean not all advertising is good advertising. I think people are so manipulated and brainwashed into believing what the "big" guns say that they just become lame sheep.

How can this chcik say that you have to be committed to get sufficient amount of protein or iron or calcium. Give me break! A person can get more protein and calcium in Tofu than when eating a steak. And iron: Please, what a stupid thing to say. How about spinach, kale, and other veggies. Tom Cruise needs to have a chat with her and gie her an "assist".

 

I hear you but as was said in previous posts Tony never claimed to be Vegan in any percent; he just said he was trying the diet. I think it was the author who decided to come up with a catchy headline that was misleading (247lb Vegan*; *80%).

 

Anyway, people can say anything; it's what they do that counts.

 

And I think the fact the Mac and Salim (who are full Vegans) are in the article, that exposes people to 2 guys that live the lifestyle completely; I never knew of Salim prior to the article but I definitely knew of Mac and he is an inspiration to many including me.

 

I totally agree with you that depending on who is funding or writing studies or articles, it is skewed toward a certain side but that's corporate & big business and goes beyond Vegan, it's about world domination and control.

[Mike]

As a guy who's pretty new to veganism, I found the article discouraging. I hate to admit this, but it made me wonder for a second if I would be better off including some animal products into my diet. I thankfully returned to my senses pretty quickly. I think the side bar with Mac Danzig helped show that the vegan diet can work, and in Danzig's case, it can work VERY well. I found it kind of humorous how the article was about a "247 pound" vegan, but he couldn't do it 24-7; what a numerical coincidence. I guess I'm kind of a geek for pointing that out .

[Guest]

I'm thinking he couldn't do it 24/7 because he's a weak minded person.