Indian vegeterians have highest heart attack risk

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

habshi - 26 Apr 2008 11:51 GMT

On Star News it did say that the vegeterian Indians were found
to be at much higher risk than non vegeterian Indians in this study.
And other studies show that taking vitamins shortens your age!

excerpt ndtv.com
If you are from north India and vegetarian, you may be at a higher
risk of cardio-vascular diseases, says the first ever study on the
role of genes in causing disease.

Vegetarians usually have lower levels of Vitamin B 12 as it's only
found in animal products. Lower B 12 leaves higher levels of
homocystein, an amino acid in the body. This increases the risk of
heart diseases.

In north Indian vegetarians their genetic variation causes homocystein
levels to shoot up. But take heart, you can beat your inheritance. All
you have to do is take Vitamin B12 and folic acid.
The study has genetically profiled 55 communities in the country
...
bbc.co.uk
Taking certain vitamin supplements may adversely affect people's
lifespan, researchers have suggested.
Millions worldwide use antioxidant supplements such as vitamins A and
E, and beta-carotene.

Looking at dozens of previous studies, Copenhagen University
researchers suggested these appeared to raise, not lower, the risk of
early death.

excerpt bbc.co.uk
The team studied nearly 21,000 heart attack patients admitted
to 89 hospitals in 50 cities across the country.

The risk factors in India were the same as elsewhere and included
tobacco use, high levels of lipids in the blood due to diets rich in
saturated fat, and hypertension, the study said.

But, it noted, there were causes specific to India - the most
important being the time taken to get access to medical help.

On average, it took 300 minutes to reach a hospital in India, twice as
long in rich nations. "Few patients used an ambulance to reach the
hospital. Most used private or public transport" due to financial
constraints, the report says.

Poverty also prevents most Indians from obtaining routine treatments
including surgical procedures because most of them have to pay for it
themselves.

The study also found that many of the Indian patients were younger by
three to six years than those in richer nations.

Reply to this Message

Moorthy - 26 Apr 2008 16:57 GMT

The headlines on TV channels were uninformed, scare-mongering and
based not just poor but wrong science. Apparently these profound
conclusions are based on as yet unpublished study of Indian population
genetic. There is no way that a genetic study can provide information
about the blood concentrations of homocysteine, or B12 or folate,
unless they measured these metabolites. On the other hand, if they
measured the three key metabolites, then they need to demonstrate that
there was a causal link between vegetarianisms and vitamin B-related
increase in homocysteine.
Further, the most abundant source of folate, as the name of this
vitamin suggests, is leafy vegetables, as well as fruits and nuts and
not meat. In fact, meat eaters will have less folate intake. Although
B12 is present in meat, it is also abundant in eggs and dairy product.
Daily recommended intake for an adult for B12 is ~1.4mcg, which can be
supplied by a third litre of milk or two boiled eggs or a few slices
of cheese. So any one taking a few hundred ml of miks with very little
other dairy product will meet the target; some is made by bacteria in
the gut. I have nothing against meat eaters, vegans or any other food
fadist, but it is extremely irresponsible to dish out wrong
information. The more likely explanation is that invariably a bulk of
vegetarian Indians are poorer than those who can afford to eat meat,
and therefore these folks have many other risk factors, such as
smoking, stress, poor diet and poor access to health care.

> On Star News it did say that the vegeterian Indians were found
> to be at much higher risk than non vegeterian Indians in this study.
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> The study also found that many of the Indian patients were younger by
> three to six years than those in richer nations.

Reply to this Message