What's new

Vegetarians are 'less healthy and have a lower quality of life than meat-eaters', scientists say

I know. It's misconception. India is a meat eaters paradise. Meat is central to Indian diet. Pakistan has the lowest meat consumption per capita in the world. On the other hand India and Bangla are meat eating champions and come top on the list ~ munching through cooked cows in millions.

23px-Flag_of_Pakistan.svg.png
Pakistan 12.79
23px-Flag_of_Indonesia.svg.png
Indonesia 11.27
23px-Flag_of_Ghana.svg.png
Ghana 9.32
23px-Flag_of_Mozambique.svg.png
Mozambique 7.21
23px-Flag_of_Tanzania.svg.png
Tanzania 6.82
23px-Flag_of_Nigeria.svg.png
Nigeria 5.91
23px-Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg.png
Ethiopia 4.22
23px-Flag_of_Bangladesh.svg.png
Bangladesh 3.29
23px-Flag_of_India.svg.png
India 3.16
23px-Flag_of_Sudan.svg.png
Sudan 0.02

As can be seen Pakistani's eat 12.79 of meat compared to India/Banglas at 3.16 which means Indians eat three times more meat. Right I am off to India to eat some prime cut steak .....


Dont forget the the biggest Beef producers in the world eh
 
.
Why did they have to waste time and money on doing scientific research while they could have just seen a billion living examples in India


Vegetarians are 'less healthy and have a lower quality of life than meat-eaters', scientists say
Controversial study suggests non-meat eaters are more at risk of physical and mental illness, despite leading healthier lifestyles

  • Thursday 3 April 2014 15:45
  • 120.7Kshares
Click to follow
The Independent
Vegetarians are less healthy than meat-eaters, a controversial study has concluded, despite drinking less, smoking less and being more physically active than their carnivorous counterparts.

A study conducted by the Medical University of Graz in Austria found that the vegetarian diet, as characterised by a low consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol, due to a higher intake of fruits, vegetables and whole-grain products, appeared to carry elevated risks of cancer, allergies and mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.


The study used data from the Austrian Health Interview Survey to examine the dietary habits and lifestyle differences between meat-eaters and vegetarians.

1.jpg



TOP ARTICLES1/5READ MOREGreat March of Return: Three Palestinians killedby Israelis fire as Gazans mark anniversary


50.jpg



Campaigner explains why she is vegan as Swiss town denies her a passport 'for being annoying'
The 1320 subjects were matched according to their age, sex, and socioeconomic status and included 330 vegetarians, 330 that ate meat but still a lot of fruits and vegetables, 300 normal eaters but that ate less meat, and 330 on a more meat-heavy diet.



It found that vegetarians consumed less alcohol and had lower body mass indexes, but were still in a poorer state of physical and mental health overall.

Participants who ate less meat also had poorer health practices, such as avoiding attending doctors appointments for preventative check-ups and measures such as vaccines, the authors found.




A table of results from the study carried out by the Institute for Social Medicine and Epidemiology (IFES) at the Medical University (Med-Uni) in Graz, Austria.
It concluded: “Our study has shown that Austrian adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment.”

The study’s authors have already defended the research against claims that their work is simply an advertisement for the meat industry.


The top 14 superfoods that will help you live to 100
Show all 14
Study coordinator and epidemiologist Nathalie Burkert told The Austrian Times: “We have already distanced ourselves from this claim as it is an incorrect interpretation of our data.

"We did find that vegetarians suffer more from certain conditions like asthma, cancer and mental illnesses than people that eat meat as well, but we cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect.

“There needs to be further study done before this question can be answered.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1553942519
 
. .
Why did they have to waste time and money on doing scientific research while they could have just seen a billion living examples in India
So why does India have a higher life expectancy and less infant mortality than Pakistan? And why are Indians in America, who are mostly vegetarian, healthier than the American population as a whole?
 
. . .
Population counts by technical grounds yes but your dishes are more veggie in nature

They are not a warrior race, British surmised them as such.

As far as most Pakistanis (Punjabis and Pukhtoons,) we are a martial people with a long proud history as nomadic warriors who took some of the most celebrated empires in history and ground them up into minced meat to feed our military expansion.

Our ancestors, the Sakas/Scythians, used to quite literally make wine drinking cups out of the skulls of defeated enemy rulers to humiliate them.

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAxNC84Njgvb3JpZ2luYWwvc2t1bGwtY3VwLTQ4LmpwZw==
 
.
They are not a warrior race, British surmised them as such. As far as most Pakistanis (Punjabis and Pukhtoons,) we are a martial people with a long proud history as nomadic warriors who took some of the most celebrated empires in history and ground them up into minced meat to feed our military expansion.

Our ancestors, the Sakas/Scythians, used to quite literally make wine drinking cups out of the skulls of defeated enemy rulers to humiliate them.

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAxNC84Njgvb3JpZ2luYWwvc2t1bGwtY3VwLTQ4LmpwZw==
Then how do you explain the Marathas? The only Indian empire to defeat the british. They also drove the Portugeese back to Goa and prevented them from being a mojor power in the subcontinent.
1200px-Maratha_British_Treaty.JPG

The British concept of "Martial races" is garbage. The British simply considered those who submitted to them and served their army as "martial." The 1857 rebellion began in Bengal, which is why Bengalis and Odias were never considered martial. In addition there are tribal groups in Central and Northeastern India who resisted the British during the entirety of their occupation, but they were never considered martial.
 
.
The British concept of "Martial races" is garbage
Have a look at Indian Army 2019. Look at it's recruitment patterns. It almost follows the exact template laid by the British 'Martial Races'. You got Sikhs, Dogras, Garhwals, Haryanavi, Kumoan dominating your army in massive disproption to their numbers. So you need to send a memo to your army. Sikhs make 2.5% of India yet seem to number 20-30% of your army.
 
.
Have a look at Indian Army 2019. Look at it's recruitment patterns. It almost follows the exact template laid by the British 'Martial Races'. You got Sikhs, Dogras, Garhwals, Haryanavi, Kumoan dominating your army in massive disproption to their numbers. So you need to send a memo to your army. Sikhs make 2.5% of India yet seem to number 20-30% of your army.
The Indian Army is a remnant of the British Army, so of course it follows similar structure. With that being said, some groups are more inclined to join the military than others. For example it is customary for young men in Punjab and Haryana who do not own land to join the army. Whereas other regions have historically been dominated by the trading/ merchant class. But like I said, the British based their ideas on who was a martial race and who was not on which groups of peoples would submit to their rule and fight for them.
 
. . . . .
But like I said, the British based their ideas on who was a martial race and who was not on which groups of peoples would submit to their rule and fight for them.
The British left 70 years ago. Why is the recruitment pattern still follow their 'Martial Theory' after decades of Indian rule?
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom