3 ms·
> because she's a vegetarian. 400 million Indians are vegetarian (milk and/or eggs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_India http://en.wikipedia.or
by chime 16y ago
> because she's a vegetarian.
400 million Indians are vegetarian (milk and/or eggs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_India and I've been a vegetarian all my life. Last year I ran 50 miles non-stop in Grand Teton at 10,000ft elevation so I can say from personal experience that it is certainly possible to be healthy on a balanced vegetarian diet. I can't say the same about veganism though and it's not popular in India at all: http://business.in.com/article/recliner/being-vegan-in-india/4482/1 http://business.in.com/article/recliner/being-vegan-in-india...
- rtrunck 16y agoI totally agree that it may be possible. But a deeper question is it optimum? We are coders, what could the A/B/C test of Vegan/Vegetarian/Carnivore be? No judgement, just interesting to me.
- riffraff 16y agowhile I agree with your base assumption (living without eating meat is not a health drama) pointing out to vegetarian indians is a fallacy that people should stop making. We have no knowledge of related/correlated facts about those 400M people, so you can _for example_ follow the fallacy and say: Life expectancy in india is lower than the world average and a lot lower than other "poor" countries where vegetarianism is not common, such as north korea, brazil or the palestinian territories. Thus vegetarianism leads to at a shorter life. Proof by underanalyzed example is not a good one.