Young, Vegetarian, Non-Smoking Indians Are Struggling With Heart Disease
desinutritionauthority.com
desinutritionauthority.com
One point that I would like to focus is that the role of a healthy diet and exercise.
The medical treatment in India is pretty cheap if you compare it with US. A single trip to a good doctor won't cost you more than $10 + $10 (for medicines). Because of this most of the people are not at all bothered about their health when they are young and keep on eating high carb diets.
There is no role of exercise in the current culture in which the younger generation of India is living which is the sad part.
3 days ago, India celebrated the International Yoga Day. I hope people will follow it into their daily lives.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/477887-mustard-oil-cholest...
I see it in my circle of friends all the time; walking is cardio, oily vegetarian food is healthy, not eating sweets/dessert after a meal is rude, and force feeding guests is just cultural. And ridiculous amount of bread or rice is consumed with every meal.
Perhaps there is some genetic factors but I think it is very obvious that our lifestyle is major factor in increasing our risk of heart dieseases.
Young, Vegetarian... so these are qualities that take away traditional CVD risks. Add "still" to the title & it becomes much more clear.
Indians consuming a traditional diet get ridiculous amounts of SUGAR & FRIED FOODS. Add to this the fact that many so called "Vegetarians" are vegetarians by virtue of NOT consuming meat rather than Eating vegetables. So, - Young, inactive "grainitarians" with high-sugar & oily-food diets at high risk of heart disease & diabetes - sounds about right.
Actually he's a vegetarian, so it'd be Cold Tofurkee
1. There's no such thing as an "Indian" diet. The cuisines throughout India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal are incredibly varied, and bear little resemblance to each other.
2. Most Indian cuisines are all but unavailable outside India, particularly in the UK and US. Most Indian restaurants in the US bear little resemblance to the style of food that is eaten in the home. In other words, Indian food available in the UK and US does not reflect daily Indian diets within India.
3. Indian people living abroad may eat very differently, because many of the ingredients are too expensive or simply unavailable outside their home region.
4. Not all Indian cuisines are carbohydrate-heavy.
5. Not all Indian cuisines contain a lot of rice.
6. Not all Indian cuisines fry food.
7. Not all Indian cuisines are vegetarian. Vegetarianism does not dominate Indian cuisine, and it certainly does not dominate Bangladeshi and Pakistani cuisine.
8. What counts as "vegetarian" in India is very different from what people in the US think of as vegetarian. For example, eggs are considered non-vegetarian.
Finally, I should add that all of this, combined with the fact that this is so common both across South Asia and in the diaspora in the US suggests (to me) that genetics are a heavy factor.
Do all Indian communities suffer from metabolic syndrome at the same rate? This study attributes it primarily to carbohydrates and inactivity http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263197/#sec1-9t...
To get the health benefits from being a vegan or vegetarian, you actually have to eat the green, leafy stuff. And the unprocessed tubers, legumes, nuts/seeds and so on.
If your idea of vegetarian is daily serving of deep-fried samosa stuffed with mashed potato and peas, better think again.
Indians have a high level of lactose intolerance, and many dislike eggs as well. Nuts are considered a luxury item and aren't eaten regularly. This leaves few opportunities to compensate with other protein sources.
This is quite heavily exaggerated. In the eastern parts of the state, you'll eat a lot of fish, a small dabbling of rice, and almost no bread. (I'm painting with a broad brush since there are a lot of other factors, but this is much more representative).
> Indians have a high level of lactose intolerance, and many dislike eggs as well.
Vegetarians don't eat eggs because it's not considered vegetarian food in India (unlike the US). Dairy isn't a great source of protein for most people anyway; very few people around the world have enough tolerance for lactose to consume enough dairy regularly for it to be a primary source.
> Nuts are considered a luxury item and aren't eaten regularly. This leaves few opportunities to compensate with other protein sources.
Lentils, legumes, and beans are typical fare for an Indian vegetarian diet.
I'd be really interested to see whether people with a more pescaterian diet suffer from these issues at the same rate. For my relatives, breakfast is 4 pieces of white bread with butter. Lunch and dinner include a minimum of 3 rotis apiece, often with a cup of rice as well. They all struggle with obesity and metabolic syndrome.
> Vegetarians don't eat eggs because it's not considered vegetarian food in India (unlike the US).
This seems to vary a lot. I don't see people in India having a categorical moral opposition to it the way they do meat, but rather dislike it because it's an unfamiliar flavor and texture.
>Lentils, legumes, and beans are typical fare for an Indian vegetarian diet.
Yes, but they aren't the primary calorie source. A meal isn't considered complete without the carbohydrates; not so the protein.
In the US, vegetarianism tends to be for moral or environmental reasons, but in India, the motivation usually religious and/or cultural, not moral.
> but rather dislike it because it's an unfamiliar flavor and texture.
I have literally never heard this complaint. For us, eggs are a part of the traditional cuisine. As I said elsewhere, Indian cuisines vary heavily by region.
> Yes, but they aren't the primary calorie source. A meal isn't considered complete without the carbohydrates; not so the protein.
Maybe for you, but that experience is certainly not universal. For us, a meal isn't considered complete without lentils and fish.
While it's the second largest linguistic community in India, I don't know if there's ever been a study done on the metabolic syndrome in that level of detail, no. But I wouldn't be surprised if nobody has bothered to study it. Dietary habits are also tricky to classify because the boundaries are fluid.
Certainly the original article posted does not go into any level of detail on ethnic groups within India, given that it contrasts (without any sense of irony) rates between South Asians and "Caucasians".
As with most nutritional information, "it's complicated" - but to suggest that there is a well demonstrated that high carbohydrate diets and plant based proteins [1] has implications for heart disease won't hold.
Also [1]: why do you say low protein? Might just be my ignorance, but I would expect fairly high protein content from all the common dal, channa, etc. dishes.
To be clear, I'm not saying that there isn't a dietary connection - but to say it is as simple as "carbohydrates bad, protein bad" is at best premature, but more likely just inept.
edit: I shouldn't have kept the parents "high carbohydrate" language intact, as that's actually another question - is the Indian diet meaningfully "high carbohydrate" ?
The connection between a high carbohydrate diet and metabolic syndrome is well substantiated. https://www.nutrition.org/asn-blog/2012/05/metabolic-syndrom...
What little I know is from from talking scientists involved in this area who I understand to believe it is far from a known issue, so I'd be surprised to see your cites (but always happy to be wrong!)
Why don't you start by showing your citations that say otherwise?
There isn't anything resembling scientific consensus on huge swathes of this stuff. Anything as straightforward as the claim I was responding to is an extraordinary claim. As such it requires support.
Where I'm coming from is this:
- If you do any sort medical research you quickly learn that demonstrating even simple causal relationships is difficult. Demonstrating it for something as difficult to control for properly as diet is extremely difficult, and it mostly fails.
- The vast majority of information on dietary effects easily available to the lay public is, to put it bluntly, mostly marketing B.S. of various kinds.
- I was probably being unfair to the original comment but find it frustrating the number of times you see "Oh, I'll apply flavor-of-the-year, wave my hands about the mechanism, and voila, the answer is probably X".
I probably shouldn't have said anything, as it's unlikely to be productive.
Thanks, you made me do some reading. There is no evidence that heating oils beyond their smoke points turns then into trans fats (or where their consumption is particularly dangerous for heart health).
There are dangers of carcinogenic factors of using oils near or beyond their smoke points but that's not to be confused with issues affecting heart health.
Thanks!
so in other words, way too much.
Fundamentally its a sedentary lifestyle that's incompatible with these foods. They are not evil; they're inappropriate for the American level of activity (taking vehicles everywhere; sitting all day; watching TV in the evenings). Indians come to America begin to do these things, and begin to have problems. No surprise.
Your comment about the "vegetarians you know" also makes no sense.
Vegetarians as a collective group tend to have less instance of ischaemic heart disease.
Indeed, but they have a short history of wealth and a sedentary lifestyle. Metabolic syndrome in India is strongly correlated with wealth and urbanism.
Er, quite the opposite. In the grand scheme of things, India has a relatively short history of poverty, compared with a much longer history of wealth.
Modern nation-state boundaries make no sense more than a couple of centuries in the past, but the Economist did an extrapolation of what that would have looked like, and the result was that China was the richest "country" for most of recorded history, and India was second.
If it were purely cultural, one would expect Indians in the US to differ from Indians in India. In particular, over successive generations, the risk should approach that of the US as a whole. Since that is not seen (based on the data within this post), factors unrelated to culture / food / etc should be strongly considered as culprits, again, namely genetics.
I would expect a similar model to hold here.
I'd bet most don't do their own cooking.
For example, ectomorphs (irrespective of ethnicity) are susceptible to the phenomenon, in bro-science parlance, called "skinny fat". That is, they look skinny everywhere (wrists, face, chest, calves) but the abdomen. Abdominal fat is the dangerous fat and it probably remains "unnoticed" in the skinny-fat group - until it is too late. Someone who packs fat in ample quantities everywhere is probably more likely to notice (or be noticed and informed about it) and then take corrective action.
The article says these people are genetically inclined to this state which may in fact be true. But a "vegetarian" diet isn't necessarily heavily based on vegetables. I'm assuming the science is looking into this but as a not so young, definitely not vegetarian white guy, when I went from a diet based on bread to a diet based on meat and vegetables with a lot of exercise on the side, I saw my blood levels drastically improve.
These are just from the first page of google. The covariance between insulin, inflammation, and heart disease is well established at this point.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915008...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704240/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16936531
>On anything resembling a normal cuisine the relative share of carbohydrate vs. saturated fat really doesn't matter much.
Vegetarian diet isn't a normal cuisine. Vegetarians tend to reduce protein intake and compensate with something else. The easiest substitute being carbs. If you aren't actually increasing your vegetable intake and eating quality food the vegetarian diet can be very unhealthy. A couple vegetarians I know are technically obese.
>I hate to break it to you but the Taubes shtick is laughable garbage.
I don't know who Taubes is. The guy who convinced me is Dr. Lustig from the "Fed Up" documentary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17563472 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21899513
>you're looking at covariates in a disease state
Insulin resistance as a discrete state is useful for experimental purposes but everyone has insulin resistance to some degree.
As for "spiking" insulin levels as the cause for insulin resistance, that is hardly proven. Inflammation has been shown to directly induce insulin resistance. Current evidence seems to indicate the problem is blood glucose levels remaining elevated (despite elevated insulin); this happens because there is a limit to the rate of receptor mediated transport.
I personally wouldn't advocate for a vegetarian diet but with plenty of dairy it's fine. The irish peasantry got along famously well on almost exclusively milk and potatoes for a very long time, for example. Traditional indian "vegetarian" diet was loaded with dairy.
A typical Irish or Russian diet without meat is fine by current norms but not optimal. Eating a veggie burger with fries and milk is not a great diet though.
Palm oil on the other hand is mostly made of palmitic and oleic acids, which are associated with less favorable HDL/LDL ratios, but here again the clinical evidence is thin.
Generally, the association between vegetable fats and heart disease is tenuous and confounded by other more significant dietary variables.
It might be a systemic cultural thing though.
"why" because otherwise it feels like an assertion, instead of reasoning. Second, it reflects specific types of heart diseases (Attacks and CAD), PLUS diabetes, which is not a heart disease.
"Heart disease" is surely a legit way to refer to coronary artery disease and heart attacks. I can't figure out a way to fit "diabetes" in the title while keeping it accurate and readable. Maybe someone else can.
I'm going to detach this subthread and mark it off-topic now.
Also, saying that Coronary Artery Disease is not a big problem if you can afford angioplasty, is besides the point. The point is that you have to live with that irreversible disease all your life. Otherwise by that token, most diseases are not a problem, including Diabetes.
This hits home to me as someone slam dunk in that demographic.
this isn't even mentioned - but instead goes on about nutritional theories.
This isn't really accurate. It's is the common conception of Indian food based on what is usually available in the States, but that's usually only Punjabi food, and even for Punjabi food it's the sort of cuisine that you'd cater for a wedding. It's not at all representative of what people eat on a daily basis. It's like going to P.F. Chang's or Tex-mex and assuming that that's what people typically eat in China and Mexico (respectively).
Indian and Bangladeshi cuisines vary quite significantly by region, and in at least some cuisines there's very little oil and/or fried food.
begun to unearth unique South Asian risk factors
that _may_ have genetic underpinnings
and gives example of one mutation.The rest of "additional genetic and lifestyle-related risk factors" are primarily lifestyle or diet related.
No acerbic swipes on Hacker News, please.