 In 1896, the aptly named James Parsley evidently led a successful vegetarian cycling club to victory, their competitors evidently having to eat crow with their beef. Evidently some Belgian put it to the test in 1904, with those eating more plant-based, supposedly lifting some weight like 80% more times, but I couldn't find that primary source in English. I could find, though a famous series of experiments at Yale published more than a century ago on the influence of flesh eating on endurance. 49 people were compared, regular athletes, mostly Yale students, vegetarian athletes, and then just sedentary vegetarians. The experiment furnished a severe test of the claims of those flesh abstainers. Much to the researcher's surprise, the results seem to vindicate the vegetarians, suggesting that not eating meat leads to far greater endurance compared to those accustomed to the ordinary American diet. Check it out. The first endurance test was how many minutes straight you could hold out your arms horizontally, flesh eaters versus flesh abstainers. The regular Yale athletes were able to keep their hands out for about 10 minutes on average. It's harder than it sounds. Give it a try. Okay, but those eating vegetarian did like five times better. The meat eater maximum was only half that of the vegetarian average. Only two meat eaters even hit 15 minutes, whereas more than two-thirds of the meat avoiders did. None of the regular diet folks hit a half an hour, whereas nearly half of the healthier eaters did, including nine that exceeded an hour, four that exceeded two hours, and one guy going for more than three hours. How many deep knee bends can you do? One athlete could do more than 1,000, averaging 383, but they got creamed even by the sedentary plant eaters. That's the crazy thing. Even the sedentary abstainers surpassed the exercising flesh eaters. The sedentary abstainers were, in most cases, physicians who sat on their butts all day. I want a doctor that can do 1,000 deep knee bends. And then in terms of recovery, all those deep knee bends left everyone sore, but more so among those eating meat. Among the vegetarians of two that did like 2,000 knee bends, one went straight off to the track to run, and another went on to their nursing duties. On the other hand, among the meat eaters, one guy reached 254, went down once more, and couldn't get back up, had to be carried away, and was incapacitated for days. Another impaired for weeks after fainting. It may be inferred without reasonable doubt, concluded the once skeptical Yale researcher that the meat eating group of athletes was very far inferior in endurance to the vegetarians, even the sedentary ones. What could account for this remarkable difference? Some claim that flesh foods contain some kind of fatigue poisons, but one German researcher who detailed his own experiments with athletes offered a more prosaic answer. In his book on what looks like physiological studies of uber-driving vegetarians, I told you I only know English, he conjectured that the apparent vegetarian superiority was just due to their tremendous determination to prove their point and spread their propaganda, so they just make a greater effort in any contest than do their meat eating rivals. The Yale researchers were worried about this, so special pains were taken to stimulate the flesh eaters to the utmost, appealing to their college pride. Don't let those lousy vegetarians beat the Yale spirit. The experiments made it into the New York Times. Yale's flesh eating athletes, sounds like a zombie movie, beaten in severe endurance tests. Yale professor believes that he has shown definitely the inferiority in strength and endurance tests of meat eaters compared to those who do not eat meat. Some of Yale's most successful athletes took part in the strength test, and Professor Fischer declares they were obliged to admit their inferiority. How has the truth of this result been so long obscured? One reason Professor Fischer suggested is that vegetarians are their own worst enemy. In their fanaticism, they jump from the premise that meat eating is wrong, often based on scripture or some kind of dogma, and jump from that to meat eating is unhealthy. That's not how science works, and such logical leaps gets them dismissed as zealots and prevents any genuine scientific investigation. Lots of science even back then was pointing a distinct trend towards more plant-based eating, and yet the word vegetarian even 110 years ago had such a bad preachy rap that many were loathe to concede the science in its favor. The proper scientific attitude is to study the question of meat eating in precisely the same manner as one would study the question of anything else.