Born to Run: Vegetarian Runners

I already posted my thoughts about the barefoot running discussion of Born to Run by Christopher McDougall, but the other subject in the book (discussed in much less detail) that really interested me was the vegetarian diet.  I think I commented before that I saw the entire book to be mostly about ultra and trail running, and much less about being barefoot or being vegetarian or anything like that.  I also was amused by how McDougall rips on the egos of some ultra runners who he sees as self-promoters.  Anyway, the vegetarian portion of the book was of special interest to me. 

As I've explained, I've been a vegetarian since 2001 but made the switch for moral reasons instead of any health reasons.

Things I remember from the book:  McDougall says that a vegetarian diet has "worked for history's greatest runners," and mentions how one great present-day ultrarunner decided to adopt it based on looking at results first, science later. 

There's discussion about how that guy cut down white flour and sugar, and cut out all animal products.  He was warned he'd be weaker, wouldn't recover between workouts, and would get stress fractures and anemia.  But he was eating more high-quality nutrients, getting maximum nutrition from a low number of calories.  In my mind, anyone eating more high-quality nutrients, whether it involves dead animals or not, is going to be stronger than someone eating garbage.  And another odd aspect of the book was the discussion about two of the ultra runners (Jenn and Billy) who tend to drink lots of beer and not worry about nutrition, but still post rockin' times. 

Anyway, McDougall talks about how these great runners (vegetarians) get maximum nutrition from a lower number of calories, meaning that their bodies don't have to process the extra bulk.  He also mentioned how a vegetarian diet has all the amino acids and can be digested faster.  Again, no cites or anything to support this, but seems logical and correct. 

One point McDougall made was that "one in seven cancer deaths is caused by excess body fat" and he makes the deduction that if you cut the fat, you cut your cancer risk.  Just reading that as a lawyer makes me wonder.  How is it logical to conclude that less fat equals less cancer RISK, when the stat on which it is based relates to cancer DEATH?  The same goes with McDougall's stat that heavier people are more likely to die from ten types of cancer.  Well, first, I'd rather just not get cancer in the first place.  And second, what about the other x hundred types of cancer?  It just doesn't seem like compelling reasoning to me.  Sure, there are plenty of reasons to aim for a healthy weight.  And sure, there's plenty of research suggesting that a vegan diet is healthier and reduces cancer risk, but at the same time, it's clearly not for everyone and of course there's also research indicating the opposite I'm sure. 

I think most of life is trade-offs.  If you want to qualify for Boston, you have to sacrifice some time to train, time during which you could do something else if you weren't training.  If you want to be happily married to the man of your dreams, you're going to have to live with his imperfections -- even if they're minor, having to put down the toilet seat is something you might have to do to have the awesome companionship.  If you want to eat something really unhealthy all the time, you might have to adjust the rest of what you eat, exercise more, or gain weight.  One of the most beneficial things I learned in baby lawyer training involved an exercise in time management.  The guy told us to make a grid showing things we have to do v. things we choose to do v. things we'd like to do.  After the grids were made, the bottom line came out that there is only one thing we have to do:  sleep.  If you don't choose to sleep, your body will sleep involuntarily.  Everything else, eating, paying bills, billing hours, watching your kids, making your bed, exercising, is a choice.  And much of what we choose to do, driving in cars, raising our heart rates with exercise, eating animal products, involves risk, but we're free to decide if it's worth the risk. 

Would I move from being a vegetarian to being a vegan if I could guarantee I wouldn't get cancer?  I don't know.  If I had a huge family history of cancer, it might make that choice more likely.  Or if I didn't love cheese.  But I think McDougall's discussion of vegetarianism should be recast as a discussion of veganism, or at least near-veganism. 

It's hard for me to have an opinion really on the book's vegetarian discussion.  Again, anecdotal data is never super-reliable, and the book doesn't seem to worry about that (with regard to barefoot running or a vegetarian diet, but that's not the book's purpose (it's not a journal article), so that's okay).  I would guess eating any healthy diet is going to be better than eating any unhealthy diet, regardless of whether there's meat in either diet. 

I would guess the best thing you can do for your running is to be a healthy eater.  Of course, I think the best thing you can do for your soul is to be a vegetarian!  But realistically, I doubt there's a huge difference in performance between vegetarians and omnivores.  If there was, I think we'd know it.  Runner's World wouldn't feature recipes including meat if all the people winning marathons were vegetarians.  And all the people competing to win marathons would probably also go vegetarian to get that extra edge (if it exists).  It's the same logic I have for the barefoot running discussion -- if it's so great and makes runners so much more successful, why isn't the elite group of runners comprised solely of barefoot vegetarians?  Bottom line is that different things work for different people, and some trade-offs are worth it and some aren't. 

I didn't start running until after I became a vegetarian, but I was a very unhealthy vegetarian when I first started running.  My running improved the most when three major things happened.  First, I started cross-training, which meant I built more muscle and lost some fat.  My weight didn't change very much but my body shape did.  My running times got substantially better.  Second, about a year later, I became a healthy vegetarian.  And third, right after becoming a healthy vegetarian (cause and effect!), I lost some weight.  My times have continued to improve, but I can't compare my running to when I ate meat, so it's impossible to say if I would further improve or get worse. 

So my point is that McDougall's vegetarian discussion is too anecdotal for my liking, but I think being vegetarian works best for me -- primarily mentally/emotionally, but likely also physically.