I did not mean any offence to LDS when I asked. I was just wondering if the health statistics referred to might relate to where people live, rather than what they eat. I still do not think that there is a higher concentration of LDS anywhere in the world than there is in Utah, even if there are more outside the US than inside when you add them all up together. If I am wrong, someone link to the info on where there are more LDS than in Utah...

The relevant point would be where were the Latter Day Saints in the studies.

I know there are LDS all over, there is a Temple just up the road from me, and I am on the south coast of the UK.

Believe it or not, the last time I looked on a percentage basis there are more LDS in southern Idaho than in Utah. I remember it well because I lost an argument about it.

Ok, I'll believe it. I'll shut up and get back to the point too, before I cause any more trouble.

Malnutrition is a current problem in India, whereas the Brits have been out of there for more than 60 years. Or are you seriously questioning that malnutrition is a cause of poverty?
I think we'd find those same countries are the ones with the most malnutrition, mainly protein starvation.
I think it's very likely the people who are suffering from malnutrition in poor countries are getting very little if any meat in their diets. India is interesting because even those who can afford a good diet are mostly vegetarian, and India also has the highest number of diabetics in the world, mostly in that same population of vegetarians-by-choice.
I'm sure it's a factor, though one needs to consider the impact of nutrition on the immune system. I'd guess that malnutrition is common in populations without access to clean (or at least, cleaned) water.

I am quite seriously questioning that malnutrition is a cause of poverty, yes, if we are talking by comparison to poverty as a cause of malnutrition.

I do not know if it is fair to argue that a nation could recover from the systematic destruction of their industrial base in 60 years, but I am wondering if you think you have a case for arguing that all socio-political factors are irrelevant as causes poverty in India, compared to their preference for a vegetarian diet?



Obviously they are not getting much meat, malnutrition means they are not getting enough food. Do you have information indicating a common state of "protein starvation" amongst vegetarians who live in the world's wealthiest countries, or anywhere food shortage in general does not apply?



The total number of diabetics would be higher, where a nations total population is higher would it not?

Population of India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Indian_census

Population of USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...e_United_States

The USA has 1/12th of the population density of India.

Prevalence of Diabetes is higher in the USA
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=239

So is there a low consumption of meat going on in the USA then, because otherwise I think the argument that vegetarianism is causing the high number of diabetic people in India, as presented so far, just collapsed on unsuitable application of statistics.



So do you believe that these suggestions for visitors to India, from a nation that is not impoverished http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/destinationIndia.aspx do not apply if the traveller eats enough meat, because their healthy immune systems can cope?

A priori, the brain can't function properly when it's malnourished.

This brings up a few questions. Can a malfunctioning brain, the person who's brain is malfunctioning because of a deficient diet, nourish himself properly? Learn in school as well as other brains who are properly nourished? Work as well as others? Perform tasks as efficiently? Earn an equal living?

In my opinion, stupid and ignorant people don't do well economically or otherwise. A deficient diet can and will make people stupid and ignorant.

Yes, I agree with this, but a nation's economy would not function very well if an occupying foreign government had dismantled it's industrial base either would it? The issue is not can under nourishment cause poverty at all, it is is this really the only applicable cause of it in India.

And I will argue that it is possible to bring down a country's economy by introducing a deficient diet to its people. Sugar comes to mind.

I was thinking the same thing. Case in point....the United States, our elections and the economy.

That is true to, but we are not discussing potential ways to destroy a nation's economy here, we are talking about India, it's low life expectancy figures, the chosen diet of the Indian people, and this thread is originally about whether or not a high meat diet increases risk of bowel cancer.

I'm sorry, you lost me. I thought you said "The issue is not can under nourishment cause poverty at all, it is is this really the only applicable cause of it in India." I thought I was replying within context. Then you come around saying it's a different context. Then you come around again saying the context has changed again. Make up your mind please so I can follow what you're saying.

I cannot see where I have changed the contexts.

Whilst discussing the possibility of a high meat diet increasing the risk of bowel cancer, Wyvrn said and I saw alternative explanations for the lower life expectancy statistics in India, and we are still discussing them. I was under the impression that the relevance to high meat intake and bowel cancer is, using India as an example of widespread vegetarianism, it is unhealthy to avoid meat as well. For reasons that I have explained, and provided links for, I do not think the statistics on India are very useful for making this point.

If you were implying in this post



that the British ruined the Indian diet by introducing sugar, and thereby ruined their health and therefore their economy, I admit I did miss it. Sorry if this is the case. If this is the point that you were making, we are no longer on the matter of vegetarianism in India, since this was not introduced by the British.

I guess we'll just have to perpetually miss each other's point.

It's a vicious cycle, and improving nutrition especially in children is widely recognized among aid agencies and NGOs as a key requirement to breaking the cycle of poverty.
It would certainly be difficult for an endemically malnourished population.
Nope, I don't think that. I think the vegetarian diet in India is a significant factor, but never said or implied it's the only one.
I think protein deficiency is far more common in wealthier countries than some people realize. I observe signs of what appears to be mild kwashiorkor on an almost daily basis.

Diabetes is primarily found in people who can afford extra calories, junk food and a sedentary lifestyle. That would be nearly everyone in the USA, and the middle class in India, which coincidentally is close to the population of the USA.

The prevalence of diabetes between these populations is at least twice as high for India. And that's assuming that the diagnosis rate in India is as high as it is in the USA, which seems unlikely.

I was thinking that too.