- This topic has 5 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
Not sure if any of you have seen this, however as someone who eats a lot of meat, this article caught my eye. http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/dec/29/red-meat-cancer-varki-neu5Gc-sialic/It blames the molecule Neu5Gc, found in red meat, for leading to inflammation & cancer in humans. The hypothesis goes like this: Humans no longer make their own Neu5Gc. However, when we eat it in the form of red meat, it is incorporated into our tissues. Once there, the body recognizes it as foreign and mobilizes antibodies against it, leading to inflammation and ultimately, a higher risk of cancer. Some things that bug me about this:1) The study was in mice (genetically engineered to not make their own Neu5Gc)2) The UT San Diego article points out that the same authors have done other studies showing that humans lost the ability to make their own Neu5Gc through evolution. So, this leads me to wonder, did we cease making Neu5Gc because we evolved to eat red meat, and thus didn't need to waste energy making it? Advantage seems to have been in being less susceptible to disease.3) Dose would seem to matter, in this case type of meat and frequency of consumption. Pork, lamb and various various cuts of beef all have different levels of Neu5Gc vs chicken, turkey & fish that don't have any Neu5Gc.I don't have access to the actual full paper, but abstract can be found here:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/12/25/1417508112I mainly eat chicken and pork, but I don't think this is going to keep me from our weekly burger and steak nights. Especially in light of the new information that about two thirds of all cancers are a result of "Bad Luck". “It’s a baseline risk of being an animal that has cells that need to divide.”reference:http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/01/simple-math-explains-why-you-may-or-may-not-get-cancer?rss=1Thoughts from those more knowledgeable about Neu5Gc and its relationship to cancer?
I have heard of that study. IMO it needs to be investigated more thoroughly because the evidence is sketchy.http://chriskresser.com/does-red-meat-cause-inflammationWhat I'd be more concerned about is PUSF levels. Non-grass fed beef as well as most seed cooking oils are high in Omega 6. A supplemental intake of Omega 3 helps balance Omega 6 but really what we should be doing is reduce Omega 6 as much as we can as it has been shown high levels of all PUFA's are toxic.http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBTzzI8qdUwIIAgyJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzYnB2MjdnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDU1OF8x/RV=2/RE=1420321609/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.pubfacts.com%2fdetail%2f20077187%2fAssessing-the-metabolic-and-toxic-effects-of-anticonvulsant-doses-of-polyunsaturated-fatty-acids-on-/RK=0/RS=thP4GAGN18pAsoBwWU1hvyPMxGI-High Omega 6 foods: http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000141000000000000000-w.htmlOn another note for those of you who drink alcohol: High Omega 6 consumption plus alcohol is very liver toxic.Bottom line: I'm not too concerned about Neu5Gc.
I think there are toxic compounds in every food on the planet. Unless, you have some sort of medical condition that prevents you from eating something or you have some special dietary need, I don't see the point in avoiding any food. What I'd like to know from the health nuts is what are we supposed to eat?
What I'd like to know from the health nuts is what are we supposed to eat?
Pesticide free, chemical free, all natural, organic... grass. ;D
I think there are toxic compounds in every food on the planet. Unless, you have some sort of medical condition that prevents you from eating something or you have some special dietary need, I don't see the point in avoiding any food. What I'd like to know from the health nuts is what are we supposed to eat?
Wait until you get older...
I think there are toxic compounds in every food on the planet. Unless, you have some sort of medical condition that prevents you from eating something or you have some special dietary need, I don't see the point in avoiding any food. What I'd like to know from the health nuts is what are we supposed to eat?
Wait until you get older...
What do you mean?
I think there are toxic compounds in every food on the planet. Unless, you have some sort of medical condition that prevents you from eating something or you have some special dietary need, I don't see the point in avoiding any food. What I'd like to know from the health nuts is what are we supposed to eat?
Wait until you get older...
What do you mean?
It simply means as you age food intolerances begin to show. Nobody gets cancer from what they ate (drank or smoked) yesterday. They got it from what they ate (drank or smoked) for the last 20 years.
I think there are toxic compounds in every food on the planet. Unless, you have some sort of medical condition that prevents you from eating something or you have some special dietary need, I don't see the point in avoiding any food. What I'd like to know from the health nuts is what are we supposed to eat?
Wait until you get older...
What do you mean?
It simply means as you age food intolerances begin to show. Nobody gets cancer from what they ate (drank or smoked) yesterday. They got it from what they ate (drank or smoked) for the last 20 years.
My point was different people have different dietary needs. Some people can't eat eggs, some people can't eat fish. We aren't all the same.Also there is a lot of things that can give you cancer, not just the foods you eat. A lot of it is outside our control as well.
My point was different people have different dietary needs. Some people can't eat eggs, some people can't eat fish. We aren't all the same.Also there is a lot of things that can give you cancer, not just the foods you eat. A lot of it is outside our control as well.
OK now I'm confused: "different people have different dietary needs."How so? We all need vitamins, minerals, & macronutrients and it's pretty much set within a range of what's minimum to a toxic level."Some people can't eat eggs, some people can't eat fish." That's allergic reactions to specific foods. It doesn't mean we can't get what nutrients we need from different sources."Also there is a lot of things that can give you cancer, not just the foods you eat. A lot of it is outside our control as well." Actually I think there's quite a bit in our control, not only in reducing risk factors but repairing genetic mutations. It's the DNA repair enzymes in foods, like those containing magnesium for example, that help repair mutations.
My point was different people have different dietary needs. Some people can't eat eggs, some people can't eat fish. We aren't all the same.Also there is a lot of things that can give you cancer, not just the foods you eat. A lot of it is outside our control as well.
OK now I'm confused: "different people have different dietary needs."How so? We all need vitamins, minerals, & macronutrients and it's pretty much set within a range of what's minimum to a toxic level."Some people can't eat eggs, some people can't eat fish." That's allergic reactions to specific foods. It doesn't mean we can't get what nutrients we need from different sources."Also there is a lot of things that can give you cancer, not just the foods you eat. A lot of it is outside our control as well." Actually I think there's quite a bit in our control, not only in reducing risk factors but repairing genetic mutations. It's the DNA repair enzymes in foods, like those containing magnesium for example, that help repair mutations.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I don't even disagree with anything you said. All I said was it's foolish to avoid a food just because some study found a toxic compound in the food. I never said that pursuing a healthy diet that isn't carcinogenic is a waste of time.If it is proven that red meat can give you cancer like how cigarettes can, then I'd say to stop eating red meat. If you stop eating a food because a study says that is contains a carcinogen, you aren't going to have anything to eat.
The only point I was trying to make in the OP's posts was to watch for high Omega 6 levels.
Tacking onto the “age related” discussion, it's interesting that the study author himself hypothesizes that younger people shouldn't worry, but older people may be at more risk. There are definitely advantages to being young. From the first link:"In general, lean red meat’s nutritional benefits — it’s a rich source of iron, for instance — may outweigh the cancer risks for people younger than 30 or 40, Varki said. After that age threshold, the harmful effects tend to predominate."
So I should stop feeding hamburgers to my cattle?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.