What are the reasons?benifits of becoming a vegetarian????!
What are the reasons?benifits of becoming a vegetarian????
I doesn't have to be a fact, it can be an opinion too!
Answers:
You enjoy a better quality of life....and please remember that moderate exercise is a vital part of being a vegetarian. It's not just about the food!
My friend wants to be a vegetarian when she is adult because now, she needs the nutrients from the meat to grow. But when you are fully grown, you can stop eating meat, just to save at least one more cow or chicken. Or just to help their diet.
well honestly, tons.
1. you help the environment - the amount of food that it takes to feed one cow can feed 100 people
2. animals produce waste (poop) which produces methane, which is about 24 times more potent then CO2 (thus clogging up the atmosphere even more)
3. many animals live extremely cruel lives in small, dirty areas - you would really be helping them out if you didnt eat meat. (as the less ppl eat meat, the more needs to be produced, thus the less animals suffer)
4. your body will love you - you'll be much healthier and maybe energetic.
however, i am an arduous meat-lover, but i try to cut back every once in a while for these reasons!
-B
vegetrians/vegens are much more healthier then meat-eaters (they have a 50% less chance of having heart problems). also, the fact that you are saving 95 lives a day will make me smile every time!!!!
It makes ppl make stupid a s s jokez 2 about U ALL The Time....O wait U want'd positive I'd say saving animals from becoming Mai s h i t is alwayz a bonus
Improving Personal Health
It's no secret that compared to average meat-eaters, vegetarians generally live longer, are less likely to be overweight, suffer far fewer incidences of cancer and heart disease, and have more energy. These facts have been consistently borne out by decades of scientific research. The largest epidemiological study ever conducted (the China-Oxford-Cornell study) concluded that those eating the amount of animal foods in a typical American diet have seventeen times the death rate from heart disease, and, for women, five times the rate of breast cancer, than those who get 5% or less of their protein from animal foods. (See the references at the end of this article.)
Meat contains 14 times the amount of pesticides as plant foods, since pesticides get concentrated as they move up through the food chain, and since they're more easily stored in fatty tissues. In 1980, six years after the pesticide dieldrin was banned, the USDA destroyed two million packages of frozen turkey products contaminated with dieldrin. (And such contamination can routinely occur without detection.) In 1974, the FDA found dieldrin in 85% of all dairy products and 99.5% of the American people. The EPA discovered that the breast milk of vegetarian women contained far lower levels of pesticides than that of average Americans. A study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine found that "The highest levels of contamination in the breast milk of the vegetarians was lower than the lowest level of contamination…(in) non-vegetarian women… The mean vegetarian levels were only 1-2% as high as the average levels in the U.S."
Saving the Earth
All food animals consume several times more grain than they produce as meat. So several times as much land is needed to grow grain to feed animals, several times as much energy is used to harvest the grain and transport it, several times as much water is necessary, several times as much pesticides, etc. Worldwide petroleum reserves would be exhausted in 11 years if the rest of the world ate like the U.S. The least energy-efficient plant food is 10 times as efficient as the most efficient meat food. A nationwide switch to a pure vegetarian diet would allow us to cut our oil imports by 60%.
Over half of the water used in the U.S. is used to grow feed for livestock. It takes 100 times as much water to produce meat than to produce wheat. The water required to produce a day's diet for a typical American is 4,000 gallons. (It's 1,200 for vegetarians and 300 for vegans.) Compared to a vegan diet, three days of a typical American diet requires as much water as you use for showering all year (assuming you shower every day).
U.S. Livestock produce 250,000 pounds of waste per second -- 20 times as much as humans. A large feedlot produces as much waste as a large city, but without a sewage system. Animal waste washed into rivers and lakes causes increased nitrates, phosphates, ammonia, and bacteria, and decreases the oxygen content. This kills plant and animal life. The meat industry account for three times as much harmful organic waste as the rest of the industries in the U.S. combined.
It takes ten times as much land to produce food for an average American compared to a pure vegetarian. An acre of land can produce 20,000 pounds of potatoes, but only 165 pounds of beef. In the U.S., 260 million acres of forest have been destroyed for use as agricultural land to support our meat diet (over 1 acre per person). Since 1967, the rate of deforestation has been one acre every five seconds. For every acre cleared for urban development, seven acres are cleared to graze animals or grow feed for them.
Around 85% of topsoil loss is directly associated with raising livestock. We have lost 75% of our topsoil. The USDA says crop productivity is down 70% as a result of topsoil loss. It takes nature 500 years to build an inch of topsoil. Vegan diets make less than 5% of the demands on the soil as meat-based diets.
Caring for Animals
Around eight billion animals are killed for food every year in the U.S. alone -- a number greater than the entire human population of the planet. Each meat-eating American eats the equivalent of about 24 animals per year. What's worse, modern agricultural methods mean that animals are raised in cramped confinement operations instead of the pastures from childhood picture books -- a practice known as factory farming. Chickens are crammed into cages with no free space, and are debeaked to keep them from pecking each other to death. Animals are pumped full of various powerful drugs to kill diseases resulting from filthy living conditions, and to make them grow or produce faster than nature intended. When cows and chickens stop producing as much milk and eggs as the younger animals, they're unceremoniously slaughtered and made into low-grade meat (fast food and pet food). For some, vegetarianism and veganism are ways to refuse to participate in the commodification of animals.
MYTH: "Humans were designed to eat meat."
FACT: Although humans are capable of digesting meat, human anatomy clearly favors a diet of plant foods. Our digestive systems are similar to those of the other plant-eaters and totally unlike those of carnivores. The argument that humans are carnivores because we possess "canine" teeth ignores the fact that other plant-eaters have "canine" teeth, and that ONLY plant-eaters have molar teeth. Finally, if humans were designed to eat meat, we wouldn't suffer from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis from doing so. [more on this topic]
MYTH: "Vegetarians get little protein."
FACT: Plant foods offer abundant protein. Vegetables are around 23% protein on average, beans 28%, grains 13%, and even fruit has 5.5%. For comparison, human breast milk is only 5% (designed for the time in our lives when our protein needs are as high as they'll ever be). The US Recommended Daily Allowance is 8%, and the World Health Organization recommends 4.5%. [more on this topic, inc. chart]
MYTH: "Beans are a good source of protein."
FACT: There is no such thing as a special "source of protein" because all foods -- even plants -- have plentiful protein. You might as well say "Food is a good source of protein". In any event, beans (28%) don't average much more protein per calorie than common vegetables (23%). [more on this topic, inc. chart]
MYTH: "Meat protein is better than plant protein. You have to combine plant foods to make the protein just as good."
FACT: This myth was popularized in the 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet and has no basis in fact. The author of the book admitted nearly twenty years ago that she made a mistake (in the 1982 edition of the same book). [more on this topic]
Dr. John McDougall, one of the most recognized experts on the relationship between diet and disease, explains how the ability to digest animal foods didn't hurt our survival as a race, although it takes a toll on our lifespan:
"Undoubtedly, all of these [meat-containing] diets were adequate to support growth and life to an age of successful reproduction. To bear and raise offspring you only need to live for 20 to 30 years, and fortuitously, the average life expectancy for these people was just that. The few populations of hunter-gatherers surviving into the 21st Century are confined to the most remote regions of our planet &endash;- like the Arctic and the jungles of South America and Africa &endash;- some of the most challenging places to manage to survive. Their life expectancy is also limited to 25 to 30 years and infant mortality is 40% to 50%. 5 Hunter-gatherer societies fortunately did survive, but considering their arduous struggle and short lifespan, I would not rank them among successful societies."
The medical evidence is overwhelming and indisputable: The more animal foods we eat, the more heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other degenerative disease we suffer. This has been exhaustively demonstrated beyond any doubt. If it were natural for us to eat these food, they wouldn't kill us. The fact that health can be regained by laying off meat and dairy is powerful evidence that we shouldn't have been eating those foods in the first place.
Dean Ornish, M.D. was the first person to prove that heart disease can be reversed, and he did so by feeding his patients a vegetarian diet. John McDougall, M.D. has also written extensively about how animal foods cause disease, and how people can regain their health by eating vegan instead.
Vegetarian and vegan athletes are at the top in their sports. Carl Lewis, the runner, won nine Olympic gold medals. Lewis says that he had his best performance as an athlete after he adopted a vegan diet. (source)
Ruth Heidrich, a vegan Ironman triathlete and marathon runner has racked up more than 700 first-place trophies and set several performance records. She was also named One of the 10 Fittest Women in North America.
Those who would object by saying that most top athletes eat meat can congratulate themselves for missing the point. The fact is that most Westerners are meat-eaters, because we've all grown up thinking it's good for us, and we like it. So of course most athletes are going to be meat-eaters too, since they're only human. These athletes perform well in spite of their diets, not because of them, and would undoubtedly perform even better if they ate less animal foods. And while reliable statistics are hard to come by, there is little doubt that athletes in general have been moving towards vegetarianism in large numbers over the past twenty years.
John Robbins wrote in Diet for a New America about how vegetarians have much more stamina and endurance than meat-eaters:
At Yale, Professor Irving Fisher designed a series of tests to compare the stamina and strength of meat-eaters against that of vegetarians. He selected men from three groups: meat-eating athletes, vegetarian athletes, and vegetarian sedentary subjects. Fisher reported the results of his study in the Yale Medical Journal.25 His findings do not seem to lend a great deal of credibility to the popular prejudices that hold meat to be a builder of strength.
"Of the three groups compared, the...flesh-eaters showed far less endurance than the abstainers (vegetarians), even when the latter were leading a sedentary life."26
Overall, the average score of the vegetarians was over double the average score of the meat-eaters, even though half of the vegetarians were sedentary people, while all of the meat-eaters tested were athletes. After analyzing all the factors that might have been involved in the results, Fisher concluded that:
"...the difference in endurance between the flesh-eaters and the abstainers (was due) entirely to the difference in their diet.... There is strong evidence that a...non-flesh...diet is conducive to endurance."27
A comparable study was done by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de Medicine of Paris.28 Dr. Ioteyko compared the endurance of vegetarian and meat-eaters from all walks of life in a variety of tests. The vegetarians averaged two to three times more stamina than the meat-eaters. Even more remarkably, they took only one-fifth the time to recover from exhaustion compared to their meat-eating rivals.
In 1968, a Danish team of researchers tested a group of men on a variety of diets, using a stationary bicycle to measure their strength and endurance. The men were fed a mixed diet of meat and vegetables for a period of time, and then tested on the bicycle. The average time they could pedal before muscle failure was 114 minutes. These same men at a later date were fed a diet high in meat, milk and eggs for a similar period and then re-tested on the bicycles. On the high meat diet, their pedaling time before muscle failure dropped dramatically--to an average of only 57 minutes. Later, these same men were switched to a strictly vegetarian diet, composed of grains, vegetables and fruits, and then tested on the bicycles. The lack f animal products didn't seem to hurt their performance--they pedaled an average of 167 minutes.29
Wherever and whenever tests of this nature have been done, the results have been similar. This does not lend a lot of support to the supposed association of meat with strength and stamina.
Doctors in Belgium systematically compared the number of times vegetarians and meat-eaters could squeeze a grip-meter. The vegetarians won handily with an average of 69, whilst the meat-eaters averaged only 38. As in all other studies which have measured muscle recovery time, here, too, the vegetarians bounced back from fatigue far more rapidly than did the meat-eaters.30
I know of many other studies in the medical literature which report similar findings. But I know of not a single one that has arrived at different results. As a result, I confess, it has gotten rather difficult for me to listen seriously to the meat industry proudly proclaiming "meat gives strength" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The reason that many people who eat meat die of heart disease is because they overdo it. Also how many fried vegetarian entrees do you see at mcdonalds. Not that many. You can be just as healthy as a vegetarian possibly healthier if you eat a balanced diet of meats, dairy, vegetables, fruits, grains. You should not eat very much red meat stick with white meat like chicken, pork, etc. Also try to eat more lean meat though you do need some fat in your diet some not a lot. You should eat more grains than anything else try to make most of them whole grains.
Yes being a vegetarian can have benefits but that totally depends on what kind of foods you eat as a vegetarian.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/...
Well you will probably be skinnier but this isn't in fact a gurantee
if you hate the idea of animals dying just be be eaten you will be more at peace.
It is actually healthier but on the other hand you do sometimes need some meet to make you bigger because it helps build up muscles.
Because you will be helping the animals and the environment in one easy move.
To The Russian.
1. A cow does not consume 100 times as much as a human, that's just silly. A couple of times maybe, as cows are much bigger than us and do eat more, but nothing like the figures you're claiming.
2. So what do you propose to combat the problem? Kill all the cows?
3. Eating less meat means more goes to waste. The meat industry is booming at the moment and remains completely unaffected by the rise in vegetarianism. Even if enough people did stop eating meat to make a difference, all this would do is mean that farmers would lose their jobs and the animals that were surplus to demand, as no one would keep them without profit and releasing them would be an impossibility, they'd just go straight to the slaughterhouse. That vegetarianism saves lives is nothing more than a fanciful illusion.
4. Rubbish, I think there are a couple of benefits, but they come from eating a wide range of fruit and veg and being health conscious as vegans have to be, not omitting meat, and thus those benefits can be go without actually going veggie. Needless to say a uncarefully planned vegetarian, or especially vegan, diet can lack many essential nutrients and be very bad for your health.
There are many benefits to a diet containing meat. Many vegetarians claim that meat is unhealthy. This is a blatant fallacy.
It is well established that eating meat improves the quality of nutrition, strengthens the immune system, promotes normal growth and development, is beneficial for day-to-day health, energy and well-being, and helps ensure optimal learning and academic performance.
A long term study found that children who eat more meat are less likely to have deficiencies than those who eat little or no meat. Kids who don’t eat meat ― and especially if they restrict other foods, as many girls are doing ― are more likely to feel tired, apathetic, unable to concentrate, are sick more often, more frequently depressed, and are the most likely to be malnourished and have stunted growth. Meat and other animal-source foods are the building blocks of healthy growth that have made America’s and Europe's youngsters the tallest, strongest and healthiest in the world.
There is some evidence that vegans live longer and are at less risk from cancer and heart disease; however those studies show only a very marginal and insignificant difference and none of those studies have yet managed to identify meat as the only variable. Veggies are less likely to smoke, drink or eat junk food, and eat a wider range of fruit and veg, making the test results inaccurate and unreliable.
To Taters, as established above vegetarianism doesn't save lives, and stop reading PETA, as their figures (and the ones you're citing) are always hyped up and exaggerated and more often than not at odds with what most studies show. The true figures about heart disease show only a difference of 3 or 4%, including the variables mentioned above as no study has yet managed to properly take them into account.
To Vegan&Proud, firstly stop copypasting all your ansers. Have you ever written an answer yourself?
On pesticides, "In 1974, the FDA found dieldrin in 85% of all dairy products and 99.5% of the American people."
I'm sorry, but I'm sure the vegetarians in the US numbered more than 0.5%, so they can't have been doing everything right can they? No, because it isn't the wonder diet you claim it is. In fact, almost everything you say in that article contradicts something else you said: 'Meat contains 14 times as many pesticides as plants', becomes 'The mean vegetarian levels were only 1-2% as high as the average levels in the U.S.'. Given that vegetarians need to eat more than meat eaters to get the same quality of nutrition, and no meat eater eats only meat, either one or both of those statements is false.
On land and water use.
For a start, their are plants that use more water than meat. For example rice uses several times as much. Do you suggest we stop eating those plants? No, of course you don't, as that would be stupd, but so is opposing meat on the grounds it uses more water than plants.
Secondly, most of the land used to raise animals is unsuitable for crops, due to poor relief, climate or quality of soil. Did you ever wonder why you rarely get crops and animals farmed in the same area? because of this, even if we got rid of all the land used for meat, there wouldn't be much more land available for crops at all. It is doubtful that, were that to happen, we would even have enough food to avoid starvation.
While animal waste getting into water is a problem, it is much less of one than the run off of fertilisers and pesticides used on plants. The fertilisers cause eutrification, and while cow dung does this too, the scale of the problem is many times worse for plant fertilisers.
The figures you cite about deforestation refer to the entire world, botjust the US. As such this includes the rainforest deforestation, and while much of this is done to provide land for cattle, the meat from there is of an inferior quality and never reached the US or Europe.
While a vegan diet may put less demand on the topsoil, growing crops puts more strain on the content of the soil and the wildlife. Over farming crops causes land to become useless due to all the nutrients being leached from the soil. The only way to replace them without waiting for years is with fertilisers, which creates more eutrification.
Secondly, plant farming is many times more intensive than outdoor pastoral farming. Cows need more space as they wander around, but this means that there is much more space for animals, and unlike arable farming the farming of animals rarely damages the ecosystem and hurts wildlife as crop farming does. Also, millions of animals are killed a year by combine harvesters, which harvest everything in the way indiscriminately, including the many mice, birds and rabbits which have found their way inside the field.
Caring for Animals
More often than not, cows, sheep and goats are raised in fields rather than intensive indoor rooms. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of chickens. Still, that is an argument for better animal welfare, not against eating meat, which doesn't stop animals being mistreated at all, for reasons given above. Anyway, the stuations you describe are grossly exagurated and it is never done anything like what you suggest; if it were it would be illegal and the places could be shut down.
Also, I'd like to mention that here in the UK the use of hormones or antibiotics, or selling meat contaminated by them, is illegal. Maybe the US should follow in our lead, but again this is an argument against hormones, not meat.
No sensible vegans can ever contest that we were deigned to eat meat. Even the most ardent vegan scientists agree that human's are designed to eat meat, that is not in question.
That we do not have claws, talons, or incisors to hunt proves nothing. When early hominids ate meat they scavenged it, as vultures do, using their fingers to get the sinews and meat other animals couldn't. It was only after that that they began to hunt the meat themselves, and only much later they began to cook it. It is interesting that even now if someone was brought up eating raw meat he would have no problem with it.
The last few million years of human evolution have revolved completely around tools. We used advanced stone tools long before we began to hunt our own meat, and as such there was no need for evolution to bestow us with large claws or teeth to kill prey.
Simple research into human biology reveals how we are meant to eat meat. For one thing, our body produces hydrochloric acid and meat splitting enzymes that herbivores don't produce and are solely used for the digestion of meat. There are adaptations to our teeth (not incisors, rather the size of the jaw), stomach and intestines which have made a human being very adept at meat digestion. There is nothing wrong with the way our body digests meat, and we are so adept at eating it no scientists are of any doubt we've evolved to eat it.
In contrast, there are many reasons we aren't naturally herbivores. We cannot naturally get all the nutrients we need without animal products naturally. Vitamin B12 cannot be got, even now, without animal products or supplements, and a lack of it can cause anaemia and impending death. 60% of vegans even now have some level of B12 deficiency, as opposed to no meat eaters, which says something about how well adapted we are to a vegan diet.
All other nutriets can be got natually. That owes to that vegtables can now be sold all year round, even out of season, and can be flown into the country from all over the world. In bygone times people could only eat the relatively small range of plants that grew in their ecosytem, and only when they were in season. Thus many more nutrients would have been unavailable and still more unavaillable for most of he year. Until very recently it would have been impossible for a vegan human to live naturally without dying very quickly.
Now, meat makes up for all these lost nutrients very nicely, and it really shows how we aren't naturally vegans, as until very recently it was impossible to live like that. Our digestive system is more like that of a dog than a cow; we don't chew cud, we don't have multiple stomachs, we don't have a working apendix and we can't digest cellulose.
Neither would vegetarianism lessen world hunger, as there is already more than enough food in the world and every day huge amounts go to waste. The problem is economic, they're too poor to afford to import food should their meagre harvests fail. We can't give them free food because that'd bankrupt their own food industries. (who'd buy their food if there's free stuff floating around) and lead to the countries being even poorer.
V&P said (or quoted more like) "The medical evidence is overwhelming and indisputable: The more animal foods we eat, the more heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other degenerative disease we suffer. This has been exhaustively demonstrated beyond any doubt. If it were natural for us to eat these food, they wouldn't kill us. The fact that health can be regained by laying off meat and dairy is powerful evidence that we shouldn't have been eating those foods in the first place."
Now I'll quote: "Statistical surveys do occasionally suggest that vegetarians, on average, live marginally longer, healthier lives. But we should bear in mind that research has yet to isolate the presence or absence of meat in the diet as the only variable under investigation. There are always extraneous factors which can explain equally well any health differences found between vegetarians and meat eaters. For example, many vegetarians choose their diet for health reasons simply because statement (1) is accepted as common knowledge . But folk willing to cut out meat for health reasons are likely to be making other lifestyle decisions for health reasons. Perhaps to smoke less, drink less or exercise more frequently. Alternately stated: people unwilling to make sacrifices for the good of their health will be more likely to eat meat than those who will make those sacrifices. Thus the healthy vegetarian diet becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.
A well-designed piece of research by using matched samples may, in theory, control for extraneous variables. But it would be virtually impossible, in the case of a large sample population studied over a lifetime, to determine whether differences found were genuine measurements of the meat/non-meat factor, or an effect of vegetarians opting for meals with higher nutritional value, irrespective of meat content.
There is also a serious sampling problem inherent in these diet-based longevity comparisons. As a friend has observed:
'Not all vegetarians force vegetarian food on their children. Many feed them a meat-based diet until they are 'old enough to decide for themselves'. Meat eaters do not tend to feed their offspring a solely vegetarian diet. The average age of death for vegetarians is, therefore, bound to be higher than that for meat eaters, because the meat eater figures will be artificially 'left-skewed' by deceased children who would have grown up to become vegetarians, but who died before they were old enough to make the decision and were counted as 'dead meat-eaters'. [4]
Moreover, irrespective of parental diet, very few western vegetarians give up meat until their late teens or early adulthood. Some will make the switch later in life. For as long as the general trend in society is away from meat and towards vegetarianism, the average effect of people crossing the meat/non-meat barrier will be to reinforce this skew in the distribution, and create the illusion of a longer average life-span in vegetarians.
Vegetarianism may, of course, be healthier. But given that all vegetarian foods are also available to meat eaters, the inference would be that the eating of meat is, in itself, harmful. This is a dubious supposition given the evolutionary arguments I will come to, as well as meat's value as a primary source of the eight 'essential' amino acids, vital minerals and trace elements including iron, zinc and calcium. Either way, the meat-free way of life has yet to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt or with sufficient clarity to justify any sweeping health claims made on its behalf."
"MYTH #7: Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters
Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual all-causedeath rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs 0.89%). Similarly, the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs 0.54%). (40)
Russell Smith, PhD, referred to in myth # 5, in his authoritative study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians (41).
It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation). (43)
Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world (45).
Dr Weston Price, DDS, traveled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).
It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes, to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic events (46)."
But, to avoid me making this answer pages long, just read the links.