Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Primus
BRFite
Posts: 1259
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by Primus »

Sudershan Ji, being vegetarian does not mean you cannot be big and strong. Elephants, buffalos (a cape buffalo can toss a fully grown male lion into the air with its head), giraffes, horses, elands are all big animals that are totally vegetarian.

You also do not need to eat meat to get all the amino acids. The only thing you may not get enough of on a completely vegan diet is vitamin b12 but even that is present in minute amounts in vegetarian foods that are contaminated with animal residue that a typical Indian vegetarian diet has enough.

I was not going to post this, but I actually liked this video though I don't completely agree with everything they claim. It is nevertheless an interesting story and told well. It is also on netflix, so shouldn't be difficult to watch. It follows the lives of several super athletes and other hard core physical trainers who are vegan and tells the story of how they can compete with 'normal meat eaters' at an international level.

There are several such documentaries, another one being "Forks over Knives", though that one is a bit more prosaic and perhaps a bit more controversial.

Anecdotally we all have family members who lived very long and healthy lives on a vegetarian (though not vegan) diet. My grandfather lived to be 93 as did several of his friends. One family member became a complete vegan a few years ago, he managed to shave several minutes (almost 15) from his NY marathon time once he did that. He was always a vegetarian but now claims being completely Vegan has several advantages, I am not quite convinced of that myself.

Primus
BRFite
Posts: 1259
Joined: 06 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Ground Zero

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by Primus »

On the larger issue of morals, guilt, vegetarian vs meat eating diets, I don't debate that with people generally because we all have a certain moral compass we follow. Yes, meat eaters will often say plants have feelings too, but plant produce is meant to be distributed and eaten so that the plant can propagate itself, in most instances we are eating the seeds or fruits that bear seeds. Not the same as beheading an animal for its flesh.

However, it is not the issue. I personally do not have a problem with the old style of hunting an animal for food the old fashioned way with simple weapons, not the modern telescopic sighted rifles. That would pose a challenge to the hunter and give the animal a chance to escape. I also do not have a problem with a person using a simple fishing line from a boat and catching fish for his own meal, or a fisherman making a modest living selling the fish he catches. It is the industrialized and wholesale slaughter of animals for consumption by a meat-loving society where you can get a burger for $1 that has me pissed off. Make the meat as expensive to buy as it is to raise a single cattle and kill the cattle in a humane way, perhaps that is acceptable. Ban fishing by large ocean trawling ships, they are destroying the planet and our morality.

This is too sensitive a topic.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by Cyrano »

Its actually a good question when someone says "What about eating plants ? Are you not killing them?". They are justifying their killing by saying you too are killing in some way or the other.

I ask them then why do we not eat our pets or other humans ? Why do we feel that a line needs to be drawn somewhere ? We are all starting with the premise that is OK to take other life for our wants and needs. Else we would all starve and die.

Suffering is possible only for conscious life forms that have a brain, a nervous system, have emotions and can feel pain. Pain is an active defence mechanism for life forms that move. Plants are sensitive to stimuli but can't feel pain and therefore do not suffer. They have other defence mechanisms suitable for sedentary life and special mechanisms like fruit etc to disperse seeds.

Conscious life forms are capable of experiencing physical and psychological pain and can express their suffering much more, which is another defence mechanism. They also resonate most to the suffering of other life forms, which is an even higher order defence mechanism.

Humans with highly developed consciousness are highly sensitive to other's suffering and resonate the most. The more a life form expresses emotions close to that of humans, the more attached you will feel to it, consequently the more its suffering will impact us emotionally and the more traumatised we will feel killing it. We even resonate to the destruction of plants that do not suffer and express no pain. Thats what makes us human. Being ethical, empathetic, is being sensitive to someone else's suffering. Being insensitive or indifferent to other's suffering is lacking empathy, unethical or simply put, being cruel.

So the question essentially becomes how cruel are you willing to be, both in terms of the intensity of cruelty (how strong an expression of pain and suffering needs to be to deter you) and magnitude of cruelty (how frequently you cause it/face it) to satisfy your needs, knowing that in most dietary situations far less cruel alternatives exist. How much unnecessary suffering are you willing to cause, endure, or ignore ?

I usually don't argue beyond that. If they haven't got it by now, they can't or won't.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by Mort Walker »

^^^You should point them to Jainism. Jains do not eat certain root vegetables, therefore not destroying the living plant. This is essentially Indic thought where the perception of sense and pain is reduced to a minimum of a living being that has been going on since the 7th century BCE.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10032
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by Mort Walker »

Primus wrote:On the larger issue of morals, guilt, vegetarian vs meat eating diets, I don't debate that with people generally because we all have a certain moral compass we follow. Yes, meat eaters will often say plants have feelings too, but plant produce is meant to be distributed and eaten so that the plant can propagate itself, in most instances we are eating the seeds or fruits that bear seeds. Not the same as beheading an animal for its flesh.

However, it is not the issue. I personally do not have a problem with the old style of hunting an animal for food the old fashioned way with simple weapons, not the modern telescopic sighted rifles. That would pose a challenge to the hunter and give the animal a chance to escape. I also do not have a problem with a person using a simple fishing line from a boat and catching fish for his own meal, or a fisherman making a modest living selling the fish he catches. It is the industrialized and wholesale slaughter of animals for consumption by a meat-loving society where you can get a burger for $1 that has me pissed off. Make the meat as expensive to buy as it is to raise a single cattle and kill the cattle in a humane way, perhaps that is acceptable. Ban fishing by large ocean trawling ships, they are destroying the planet and our morality.

This is too sensitive a topic.
It is really a matter of economics in the west, and in particular the US, subsidies to cattle, hog, chicken and corn farmers encourages cheap feed and production of meat in massive slaughterhouses. The mass killing of animals and growing of corn (for feed and cheap high-fructose sweetener) is huge business.
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by sudarshan »

Primus wrote:Sudershan Ji, being vegetarian does not mean you cannot be big and strong. Elephants, buffalos (a cape buffalo can toss a fully grown male lion into the air with its head), giraffes, horses, elands are all big animals that are totally vegetarian.

You also do not need to eat meat to get all the amino acids. The only thing you may not get enough of on a completely vegan diet is vitamin b12 but even that is present in minute amounts in vegetarian foods that are contaminated with animal residue that a typical Indian vegetarian diet has enough.
...
Yes, that's what I was saying too, my question in that post was rhetorical.

Vitamin B12 is a problem for vegans. It seems any root vegetable (like carrots or potatoes) might have traces of soil contamination, and since some soil bacteria produce B12, that might be a significant source. But probably not reliable. After all, rabbits eat carrots too, and that still doesn't stop them from eating their own **** to get B12. The reason they do that is because intestinal bacteria also produce B12, it seems to be a rich source, but unfortunately, the point of production of the vitamin is after the point of absorption, so the only way to benefit from that production is to - you know.

Vegetarians (as opposed to vegans) have the advantage of consuming dairy products (and maybe eggs) so B12 deficiency would be rarer.

I have nothing against people eating meat. Swami Vivekananda ate meat. He also wished more Indians would abandon their vegetarian lifestyles and start eating meat, because vegetarians (in his opinion) wouldn't be aggressive enough in taking on the world. I disagree on that count. For a nominal fee, I can supply you with a strong dose of aggression, and as an added incentive, I'm working on having that nominal fee declared as tax-exempt too. Swami Vivekananda also used to get nostalgic about the Vedic age, when "four or five Brahmins would sit together and polish off a cow."

What I object to, is to have meat eaters question my eating choices. Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing.

To get back to topic. In an earlier post, I posted about an article which talked about how deficient one would get in essential amino acids, if one ate - say only bananas (i.e., get your entire calorie requirements from bananas alone). It was a long time ago, that I read that article, and it seems I didn't get things quite right in my post.

I did my own research now. Most vegetables and fruits seem to be very deficient in methionine. They do somewhat better on the remaining amino acids.

So, for a 70 kg person, on a 2200 calorie daily diet, if that person got h** entire calorie requirement from:

Bananas: the person would get something like 13% of their daily methionine requirement. Other amino acids are in the 40% to 60% range. Histidine is at 180%.

Apples: the person would get something like 3% of their daily methionine requirement. Other amino acids are in the 10% to 30% range.
(Don't try to live entirely on apples, from the essential amino acids point of view).

Grapes: most amino acids are in the 20% to 60% range, tryptophan is at 90%.

Oranges or mangos: surprisingly high in essential amino acids, 30% to 70%, a couple in the 100% range.

Celery: since this is a very low calorie food, you'd have to eat a huge amount to get your 2200 calorie allotment. By eating this massive amount of celery, you'd basically fulfill almost all your essential amino acid needs.

Vegetables: these seem to be higher in essential amino acids than fruits. Tomatoes seem especially high, in the 100% to 300% range.

Rice: you would get at least 80% of each essential amino acid requirement, by fulfilling your daily calorie needs by eating only rice.

Lentils - one would fare much better than rice.

Conclusion: With a varied vegetarian diet (especially if it includes milk products also), one basically doesn't need to worry about these "essential amino acids." It's a canard. Unless one does crazy things like dining solely on apples or pears, 24 X 7 X 365.

Now that I did the above research, I remember, the article I read said pretty much the same thing. How could it not, the numbers are the same. I'm pretty confident about the math. My source for nutrition data is here:

https://nutritiondata.self.com/
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by sanjaykumar »

It reveals something that killing of vast numbers of animals in the west is not only industrialised but sanitised, sequestered from public scrutiny (by mutual agreement).

It is not a question of taking of life, the question is one of suffering. One needs the correct frame of reference. Do animals suffer, and do plants suffer?
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by sanjaykumar »

Vitamin B12 is a problem for vegans. It seems any root vegetable (like carrots or potatoes) might have traces of soil contamination, and since some soil bacteria produce B12, that might be a significant source. But probably not reliable. After all, rabbits eat carrots too, and that still doesn't stop them from eating their own **** to get B12. The reason they do that is because intestinal bacteria also produce B12, it seems to be a rich source, but unfortunately, the point of production of the vitamin is after the point of absorption, so the only way to benefit from that production is to - you know.


Not sure about this.

B12 requirements are possibly in the nanograms, single digit micrograms perhaps. This quantity is likely absorbed from non dietary sources in the environment. Inhalation of dust, micro laden soil particles, etc.

Indian populations certainly have lower B12 assay amounts than Westerners.

However, the B12 levels are imported values from Western populations, there is no a priori reason why they should be applicable to Indians.

One may need to look at methylmalonic acid levels, or homocysteine levels.

The best measure, as always, is clinical. What are the rates of macrocytic anemia? What are the rates of cognitive impairment and how do they correlate with B12 levels?

(Sorry for the saaince).
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by sanjaykumar »

Forgot to record the obvious. Indian diets are rich in yogurt and fermented pickles, sources of microbial B12.
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by sudarshan »

sanjaykumar wrote:Forgot to record the obvious. Indian diets are rich in yogurt and fermented pickles, sources of microbial B12.
Not to gross people out, but is there any connection to gobar and its liquid counterpart? It seems gut bacteria produce a lot of that vitamin, but it isn't absorbed by mammals because it's already past the point of absorption by then.
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by sanjaykumar »

Cooking with gobar may cause release of particulate matter and aerosols that could perhaps provide household members with B12.

I am not convinced Indians are deficient in it.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by rsingh »

Public Hygiene horrible in India. You may take care of your environment at home but what public at large? Street food hygiene is a disgrace. All other Asian countries ( not our neighbourhood) are better than us. Even Afganistan has better street food standards then India.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqZ9zt6 ... KabulDaily
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U65E-nb ... kokandmore

We see this all the time. We some minister like Gadhkari for health sector.
Simple things we can do
- Make sure that all street food vendors have medical certificate
- Clean white gown and masks
-make sure they have access to clean water for food ( verifiable on the spot).
-Unprepared and prepared food must be covered all the time
- cups, plates and glasses are disposable or cleaned throughly with hot water and soap. Earthen pots and khulads are best options
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by Cyrano »

99% of street food vendors in India are doing illegal business, have no business address, and have no license to sell food. They bribe local authorities and goondas to let them earn a living by encroaching public spaces, foot paths etc. Many are ambulant vendors selling anything from roasted peanuts to goli soda, bottled drinks, ice-cream, bhel and a million other things on baskets carried on their head or push carts (bandis). Yes, in most places the hygiene is terrible. Plates, hands are rinsed in the same bucket of water several times. Dust, smoke, flies... the only thing saving eaters is that the food is piping hot straight out of the pan or oil, and a lot of it veg. Many such places are also affordable to the poor and very poor. We can neither leave them as they are nor remove them.

There are of course many places with a "shop" address where the middle class goes to eat that also follow bad hygiene standards, but these places seem to be improving, especially when the start branding. We also have to thank the ubiquitous phone cameras for forcing improvement.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by jamwal »

A lot of "vegetarian" animals like horses are opportunistic meat eaters and will grab a quick bite of a small bird, small mammals and insects quite regularly.
Monkeys actually hunt other animals.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by SBajwa »

https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/s ... 49700.html

Certification for vegetarian food like Halal/Kosher certification.

Like 'Halal' Is For Meat, World's 1st Certification For Vegetarian Food 'Sattvik' Launched
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by nachiket »

Primus wrote:Sudershan Ji, being vegetarian does not mean you cannot be big and strong. Elephants, buffalos (a cape buffalo can toss a fully grown male lion into the air with its head), giraffes, horses, elands are all big animals that are totally vegetarian.

You also do not need to eat meat to get all the amino acids. The only thing you may not get enough of on a completely vegan diet is vitamin b12 but even that is present in minute amounts in vegetarian foods that are contaminated with animal residue that a typical Indian vegetarian diet has enough.
Getting enough protein through a vegetarian diet is definitely possible if you plan the diet correctly. But your argument about herbivores does not transfer to humans. Herbivores, especially ruminants like cows have vastly superior digestive tracts and consequently a much better ability to absorb nutrients from their food. They can eat large quantities of hay and be able to get all the protein they need. Doesn't mean a human is capable of the same.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by Cyrano »

Herbivorous animals have a long digestive tract to ferment and process cellulose - grass/hay is full of it. Humans cant digest cellulose. Human digestion has evolved from the apes family, which are primarily eaters of leaves, fruit, whatever cereals/nuts they can find, and opportunistically, meat.

Human protein needs are easily met by consuming pulses/beans and some dairy products like milk & curds. Nothing that a vast majority of Indians cannot afford today.

Most human activities (barring high intensity sport, weightlifting etc), normal metabolism, cell regeneration and general good health DO NOT need huge quantities of protein. In growth years & during pregnancy, we need a bit more, but definitely not 5x or 10x.

This whole focus on "protein" is a recent western phenomenon partly influenced by Arnold et al's popularity. Most of the west, until WW-II could not afford to eat meat every day, and was restricted to Sundays even among well to do families. Visit any European chateau and see the size of the beds kings & royals slept in. They are barely 5.5 feet long. Europeans and Americans of European stock have grown bigger in recent times. (The Dutch could be genetic outliers + high meat & milk diet made possible by flat lands suitable for pasture + natural selection by females ;) ) High protein diet indeed causes bodies to increase in size & muscle mass to their max genetic potential.

Post-WW2 and the advent of petroleum derived fertilisers & pesticides increased cereal & maize yields considerably, of which a large part are today fed to pigs, cows & chicken and these huge mechanised cereal farms are the backbone of meat industry in the west. (They also produce barn/soy/wheat germ oil and corn fructose syrup that feed into processed food industry that has made America the most unhealthy nation on the earth) Encouraging the consumption of meat has a pull effect on all the industrial & agri layers below, which are all ultimately Oil dependent.

That vegetarian diet is low in protein therefore inadequate (for what?!) or in other words "Big" = "healthy" is highly debatable. I'd go so far as to say active & somewhat skinny is the best way to be.
vijayk
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8760
Joined: 22 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by vijayk »

https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/why-the-g ... ia-must-do

Why The Global Hunger Index Does Not Pass The Smell Test; Here's What India Must Do
These four parameters are (1) undernourishment, which is based on estimates of the proportion of population with sub-par calorific intake, (2) child wasting, which is the share of children in the zero to five age group based on the weight to height ratio (the lower the weight at a certain height, the higher the level of under-nutrition); (3) stunting (which calculates the proportion of children below a certain height for ages upto five), and (4) child mortality (which is the mortality rate for children under five).

In theory, these parameters seem unassailable, but the primary two issues that need addressing are these: how can the norms for calculating these numbers be the same for everybody, when different cultures have different kinds of diets and food habits, different work requirements (physical or non-physical), different living conditions, and — most important — racial differences regarding body height and weight. We need different yardsticks with which to measure hunger or health. We need a healthy population, and estimating average health is not the same as measuring hunger and food consumption the way the GHI does.

Secondly, how can we take any ranking seriously when many of the countries ranked may not agree on what needs to be measured, and how to calculate and weigh the parameters used? This criticism is valid whether we are measuring global hunger or quality of democracy. Measuring something on which there is no consensus means the powerful are imposing their subjective standards on standards of another.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by DavidD »

vijayk wrote:https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/why-the-g ... ia-must-do

Why The Global Hunger Index Does Not Pass The Smell Test; Here's What India Must Do
These four parameters are (1) undernourishment, which is based on estimates of the proportion of population with sub-par calorific intake, (2) child wasting, which is the share of children in the zero to five age group based on the weight to height ratio (the lower the weight at a certain height, the higher the level of under-nutrition); (3) stunting (which calculates the proportion of children below a certain height for ages upto five), and (4) child mortality (which is the mortality rate for children under five).

In theory, these parameters seem unassailable, but the primary two issues that need addressing are these: how can the norms for calculating these numbers be the same for everybody, when different cultures have different kinds of diets and food habits, different work requirements (physical or non-physical), different living conditions, and — most important — racial differences regarding body height and weight. We need different yardsticks with which to measure hunger or health. We need a healthy population, and estimating average health is not the same as measuring hunger and food consumption the way the GHI does.

Secondly, how can we take any ranking seriously when many of the countries ranked may not agree on what needs to be measured, and how to calculate and weigh the parameters used? This criticism is valid whether we are measuring global hunger or quality of democracy. Measuring something on which there is no consensus means the powerful are imposing their subjective standards on standards of another.
My understanding is that while birth weights and adult heights differ between different races, there are no significant differences between pre-adolescent children's heights between racial groups. With that said, a western diet full of burgers, fries, and hormone-laden meats probably help significantly with height, but whether it actually leads to healthier children is another matter.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by Aditya_V »

vijayk wrote:https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/why-the-g ... ia-must-do

Why The Global Hunger Index Does Not Pass The Smell Test; Here's What India Must Do
These four parameters are (1) undernourishment, which is based on estimates of the proportion of population with sub-par calorific intake, (2) child wasting, which is the share of children in the zero to five age group based on the weight to height ratio (the lower the weight at a certain height, the higher the level of under-nutrition); (3) stunting (which calculates the proportion of children below a certain height for ages upto five), and (4) child mortality (which is the mortality rate for children under five).

In theory, these parameters seem unassailable, but the primary two issues that need addressing are these: how can the norms for calculating these numbers be the same for everybody, when different cultures have different kinds of diets and food habits, different work requirements (physical or non-physical), different living conditions, and — most important — racial differences regarding body height and weight. We need different yardsticks with which to measure hunger or health. We need a healthy population, and estimating average health is not the same as measuring hunger and food consumption the way the GHI does.

Secondly, how can we take any ranking seriously when many of the countries ranked may not agree on what needs to be measured, and how to calculate and weigh the parameters used? This criticism is valid whether we are measuring global hunger or quality of democracy. Measuring something on which there is no consensus means the powerful are imposing their subjective standards on standards of another.
The soo called Global Hunder Index was posted on Vijay Dashami and went out of the news cycle as the perpetrators know it will not be able to stand the test. Whenever a Hindu a negative news is brought as headlines.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3982
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by vera_k »

There is possibly other support for possibly poor nutritional input. I say possibly because other causes such as a difference in fertility between different groups of people can account for this as well.

Average height of adults in India declining at alarming rate: Study
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by V_Raman »

This is an extremely sad situation and is counter-intuitive. If wealth goes up - nutrition/sanitation quality goes up. It used to be that stunting was due to fecal bacteria exposure. I dont know if that still plays a substantial role. my dad used to give me deworming tablets periodically in my childhood. he was short and my mom was short too. my brother - average and my sister - very short. i ended up the tallest after daily protinex in the morning for many years and periodic deworming tablets. might be genetic. but i would like to think these helped.
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by V_Raman »

I am just reading that it is a WHO recommendation to given children deworming tablets periodically! my dad was ahead of the times!!

https://www.firstpost.com/health/not-ju ... 98791.html
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by sudarshan »

The decline in Indians' average height is truly concerning. It's unfortunate that we have so few studies on this, good that JNU has stepped up to the role. But we need more such credible organizations (DU, AMU, etc.) to chip in.

The study has also suggested that social factors such as caste discrimination could have played a role in this decline in heights. Truly concerning, and the Modi govt. needs to be taken to task for this (although the study authors have politely refrained from indulging in politics).

https://edtimes.in/indians-are-getting- ... tudy-says/
Apparently, a study was conducted by the JNU’s Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health called “Trends in adult height in India from 1998 to 2015: Evidence from the National Family and Health Survey,” that took a look at the average heights of Indians and the changes it had seen over the past two decades.

Organisations like the National Nutritional Monitoring Bureau (NNMB) and the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) were both used to gather data on height of Indians with the aim to track height trends in the country.

Read More: Where Does India Rank In ‘Kindness To Strangers’ Global List?
It was noted in the study that as compared to the 1998-99 period, the decade of 2005-06 to 2015-16 saw a sharp and troubling decline in the average height of people of India.
.
.
.
The study found that while women from the economically weaker sections along with tribal girls saw a big drop in height on the other hand women from wealthy families and sectors saw an increase of average height.

As stated in the study, “Researchers analyzed NFHS-3 data and showed that the average 5-year-old Schedule Tribe (ST) girl was 2cm shorter than the average general caste girl. In addition, the difference in socio-economic status. It was found to be responsible for the overall height gap between the STs, “general caste children.”
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/indian ... 67517.html
The study was conducted by JNU’s Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health. The researchers examined data from the National Family and Health Survey (NFHS) between 1998 and 2015. Besides NFHS, the study also included information from the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (NNBM) to track the height trends in India.

The study, published in journal PLOS One, noted that the period between 2005-06 and 2015-16 reported a sharp decline in the average height of Indians.

Men and women in the 15-25 age group, according to the study, saw a decrease of 1.10 cm and 0.42 cm, respectively, in average heights during the period. The authors of the study found that social factors like caste and religion also had a role to play in the decline.
https://theprint.in/health/indians-got- ... ys/741857/
According to the team, this decline in height highlights the need to revisit the role of various socioeconomic determinants of height.

A majority of the Scheduled Tribes, one of the most economically and educationally disadvantaged groups in India, live in rural and isolated areas with poor government services.

The researchers said that there is enough evidence to suggest that large sections from the SC and STs continue to face discrimination and deprivation, possibly resulting in the impact on their height.
The NFHS-4 survey attempted to sugar-coat this:

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/ ... study.html
As per the NFHS-4 data, India’s overall average child height-for-age increased in 2015-16. Because Indian children were very short in 2005–06, this increase is a noteworthy improvement. But the average child height has been improving in other developing countries, too, so India, especially its large, disadvantaged northern plain states, remains near or at the bottom of the international ranking.
But the deeper study by JNU, using the same NFHS data as its basis, has revealed the true trend in average heights and dispelled such complacency.
KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1753
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by KL Dubey »

sudarshan wrote:The decline in Indians' average height is truly concerning. It's unfortunate that we have so few studies on this, good that JNU has stepped up to the role. But we need more such credible organizations (DU, AMU, etc.) to chip in.

The study has also suggested that social factors such as caste discrimination could have played a role in this decline in heights. Truly concerning, and the Modi govt. needs to be taken to task for this (although the study authors have politely refrained from indulging in politics).

https://edtimes.in/indians-are-getting- ... tudy-says/
Now Modi is to be "taken to task" for all sorts of random stuff that have nothing to do with him. Kya hai bhai...

The said studies were done in 1998 and in 2015 using samples of people in the 15-25 age bracket in both cases. Thus we are cumulatively talking about people born between 1973-2000.

The malnourishment of these people did not take place under any NDA sarkar, let alone Modi sarkar.

This is a sensible government, so you will not have anyone working on a mission of "increasing the average Indian's height". As the study itself notes, socioeconomic weakness is a root cause. Modi has done much to correct the root causes by improving purchasing power, access to nutrition, health insurance, etc. This will ultimately reflect in lagging indicators such as "average height".
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by sudarshan »

KL Dubey wrote:...
Ji, it was sarcasm onlee :). The real concern is that people don't check the source of the study - JNU of all places. And they are playing up the usual caste cards. Maybe the study itself is valid, but the best thing to do is to check the source data (NFHS) for oneself, not go blindly by the study. As I keep saying - take a look at the actual data and do your own sanity checks, before trusting any study.

That's all I was saying, maybe it was too subtle.

OT here, I'll stop with this.

P.S.: Like I said above, the NFHS itself seems to have come to the opposite conclusion from the same data. One wonders what "advanced data analysis" techniques the JNU employed. And we already have posters attributing it all to the lack of deworming.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by Pratyush »

vera_k wrote:There is possibly other support for possibly poor nutritional input. I say possibly because other causes such as a difference in fertility between different groups of people can account for this as well.

Average height of adults in India declining at alarming rate: Study
This could be due to a lack of balanced diet .

The government through the food security program is providing food grains and pulses.

But people might be foregoing the consumption of vegetables due to a belief that the materials provided by the government are sufficient.

Or because they cannot afford to consume vegitables due to economic reasons.

A portion of the population might be foregoing Eggs as a protein source due to cultural practices.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by DavidD »

sudarshan wrote:
KL Dubey wrote:...
Ji, it was sarcasm onlee :). The real concern is that people don't check the source of the study - JNU of all places. And they are playing up the usual caste cards. Maybe the study itself is valid, but the best thing to do is to check the source data (NFHS) for oneself, not go blindly by the study. As I keep saying - take a look at the actual data and do your own sanity checks, before trusting any study.

That's all I was saying, maybe it was too subtle.

OT here, I'll stop with this.

P.S.: Like I said above, the NFHS itself seems to have come to the opposite conclusion from the same data. One wonders what "advanced data analysis" techniques the JNU employed. And we already have posters attributing it all to the lack of deworming.
Mystifying? Somewhat, but same data? No. At least according to those articles, the JNU study was looking at 15-25 year olds, while the NFHS one referred to 5 year olds or younger. It seems like a proper explanation would be that while Indians were getting shorter for a while, that trend is now reversing. A less likely explanation would be that while small kids are getting taller, they somehow become shorter (compared to older adults) when they reach adulthood.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8236
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by disha »

DavidD wrote:Mystifying? Somewhat, but same data? No. At least according to those articles, the JNU study was looking at 15-25 year olds, while the NFHS one referred to 5 year olds or younger. It seems like a proper explanation would be that while Indians were getting shorter for a while, that trend is now reversing. A less likely explanation would be that while small kids are getting taller, they somehow become shorter (compared to older adults) when they reach adulthood.
It is indeed mystifying. That the height of Indians go through a sine wave. That is they grow tall and then they grow short.

I always have a theory on why I am not tall enough is all the school backpacks I had to carry. It was pushing down my shoulders. The theory is valid since if applied to above data, it does fit perfectly. At the age of 5 yrs the kid starts going to grade 1 (I had a small backpack then) and by the time the kid is out of high school (around 18 years) the burden of the backpack pushed my height down.

https://theprint.in/india/governance/fi ... ry/154756/

Even PM Modi urged the states to restrict the weight of the backpacks based on Madras HC order
Earlier this year, the Madras High Court had said, “The children are neither weightlifters nor schoolbags are loaded containers. Joy, happiness, enthusiasm, trolling, rolling, kicking, running, fighting, playing with other children are natural qualities of the children.”
Hence my observation is valid

OR

Most of the studies on malnourishment and Food poverty are flawed and hence misleading. Or they do not provide enough insightful data leading to wrong conclusions.

For example, with a rising economy, if we do not see a concomitant rise in nourishment index, then is it because of:

1. Less availibility of food? (Food Inflation) OR
2. Over consumption of sugary beverages & sweets which provide zero nutritional value or cause obesity and a different nutritional profile? OR
3. Burden of disease?
4. Hygiene and sanitation?

A combination of all of the above OR some of the above?

Or flaws in studies where it takes data of human growth for an age group from one area and another age group from another area? Remember India is a subcontinent and the nourishment/calorie intake profile of a 5 year old in Kutch will be different from a 5 year old in Madurai and a 5 year old in Surat. And the same can be said when they reach 18 years old and again the profile will be different based on gender and social strata.

For example, only recently large swathes of India became ODF.

Hence all these reports can be taken with a huge bag of salt.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Economy News & Discussion - Nov 27 2017

Post by m_saini »

disha wrote: It is indeed mystifying. That the height of Indians go through a sine wave. That is they grow tall and then they grow short.

I always have a theory on why I am not tall enough is all the school backpacks I had to carry. It was pushing down my shoulders. The theory is valid since if applied to above data, it does fit perfectly. At the age of 5 yrs the kid starts going to grade 1 (I had a small backpack then) and by the time the kid is out of high school (around 18 years) the burden of the backpack pushed my height down.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by srin »

Replying from the Sports thread
chetak wrote:
cdbatra wrote:It might be wrong forum but nobody is talking about Puneeth Rajkumar's death and role of (un)fitness industry.

the guy had a strong family history of this ailment.

his brother(s?) reportedly also have similar issues.

he was in a home gym doing his daily fitness regime, not into any type of power building or preparing for a competition type of program

very unfortunate about what happened

a few high profile doctors have already given their gyan but no one has claimed knowledge of details or commented specifically on the fitness regimen that was being followed by the deceased.

so, it may be a tad unfair to lay the blame on an entire industry for a few isolated incident(s) which also included high risk factors
Regarding his fitness routine, pls see below:
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32225
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by chetak »

srin wrote:Replying from the Sports thread
chetak wrote:

the guy had a strong family history of this ailment.

his brother(s?) reportedly also have similar issues.

he was in a home gym doing his daily fitness regime, not into any type of power building or preparing for a competition type of program

very unfortunate about what happened

a few high profile doctors have already given their gyan but no one has claimed knowledge of details or commented specifically on the fitness regimen that was being followed by the deceased.

so, it may be a tad unfair to lay the blame on an entire industry for a few isolated incident(s) which also included high risk factors
Regarding his fitness routine, pls see below:
[youtube]91ckodIC_ok[youtube]

these are mostly bodyweight exercises.

that is what is recommended by most doctors along with light weights

many others use heavy weights, multiple reps and machines to do their workouts.

this is what one would expect to do in an unsupervised regimen, done in a home gym. One would naturally slow down as one aged.

The age at which he passed on, one would expect a person to be fit and flexible.

there were severe contributory factors that may have affected his cardiovascular health and put him at high risk.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Personal Health, Nutrition and Fitness Thread

Post by Cyrano »

Vayutuvan wrote:That said, who would want to go back to hours of cooking our grandmoms/grandaunts/moms/aunts suffered through?! Cooking using firewood or coal-fired stove, getting water from a well/tank/brook nearby, no kitchen appliances to make the job easier, and such.
Cooking today is a lot less labour intensive, schemes like Ujjwala and piped water have made it less of a chore for millions of households. Kitchen appliances are affordable for lower middle class and above. Cultural shifts have made more men enter kitchens and cook than ever before.

The choice is to eat fresh home made meals where ingredients can be carefully chosen and hygienically prepared vs take outs/home delivery/processed foods/eating out. While the convenience of the latter is undeniable it comes at the cost of health, loss of culinary traditions and family bonding around food preparation and serving. Take your pick !
Post Reply