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!