6 ms·

A vegetarian diet could cause long-term genetic changes

90 points by pitchka 11y ago

onion2k 11y ago
This isn't particularly surprising once you understand that your DNA isn't immutable. Lots of things can change you genetically. For example, a male smoker can have changes in his DNA that increases the probability that his children could get cancer[1], and the grandchildren of a woman who smokes have a higher risk of asthma[2]. Everything that has a significant impact on your body probably changes your genetic make-up in some small way. [1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247104.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247104.php [2] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/elf-gsh092515.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/elf-gsh092515...
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  Lamark got it right XD
  - louprado 11y ago
    And you got it wrong: Lamarck
- awl130 11y ago
  epigenome
- louprado 11y ago
  There's a related RadioLab episode on this topic. A Scandinavian researcher showed that if you underwent caloric restriction in your adolescence, then surprisingly, your descendants are less likely to suffer from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses related to diet. http://www.radiolab.org/story/251876-inheritance/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/251876-inheritance/
dschiptsov 11y ago
There. Is. No. Data. Flow. From. Phenotype. Back. To. Genotype. It just does not work that way. Mutations could be favorable and unfavorable, but there is no mechanism that "adaptations" are encoded back into genome. Some random mutation which persisted in one population and wiped out in another has been selected due to environmental factors, such as climate and availability of food sources, does not imply that it is necessarily better or advantageous for a different environment. And, of course, a diet could not cause genetic changes. Mutations could be selected in a population within some particular environment or wiped out in another.
- mjpuser 11y ago
  That isn't the claim they are making, because that would be a huge claim. I think the author knows that the occurrence of mutations aren't present because they are eating veggies. Instead, they mean they are being selected because they are eating veggies.
  - dschiptsov 10y ago
    Correlation is not causation.
- fpoling 11y ago
  Phenotype changes can affect the rate of mutations and lead to faster evolution allowing to discover in time a trait essential for survival under new conditions. Although indirect, this is still a data flow. Without a particular phenotype the population would simply not able to discover in time the necessary mutation and survive.
  - dschiptsov 10y ago
    Nope. Mutations in a single organism are almost irrelevant. They must propagate via offsprings (be selected in meiosis) and eventually spread throughout population, otherwise they will be lost. This is a protective mechanism without which there will be no stable traits and no complex organic life at all.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ajarmst 11y ago
Ok. Couple of points: (1) A vegan diet can't "cause" genetic changes. My diet is a part of my behaviour, and short of exposing myself to lethal amounts of radiation or carcinogens, I can't modify my genes with my behaviour. (2) However, if we modify an organism's environment (by, say, restricting what is available to eat), then over many generations, we should expect that organism's descendants to adapt to that change. I guess more experimental confirmation of evolution is nice, but it's not really very exciting. [Edit: Minor grammar picks]
- petewailes 11y ago
  Sorry, but that's just wrong.
  - ajarmst 11y ago
    Thanks. I really appreciate your nuanced critique of the argument.
- andyjohnson0 11y ago
  "...I can't modify my genes with my behaviour." This is incorrect. Your behaviour changes your environment (both directly and/or by exposing you to new/altered environments) and your environment modifies how your genes are expressed. See the wikipedia page for Epigenetics: "Epigenetics [...] is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence. Hence, epigenetic research seeks to describe dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell." [1] These mechanisms act on an individual and are separate from Darwinian adaptation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics EDIT: "and your environment modifies your genes" -> "and your environment modifies how your genes are expressed"
  - deepnet 11y ago
    Epigenetics is about gene expression, the genetic code isn't changed. The Danish/ Swedish famine study that first proved epigenetics was real showed that starvation during puberty affected the height of granchildren by switching off genes that were still present. The third generation is unaffected precisely because it is not genetic change. Enviroment only affects genes by reproduction, successful genes are inhereted or not - there is no change in genes during a lifetime - that would be Lamarkism and he was wrong. Lifestyle affects methlyation markers,which are added and change gene expression for a few generations. The underlying genes are not changed and are still inhereted, once the methlyation 'wears off' everything will be as before.
xbmcuser 11y ago
They should have analysed Pakistanis with the Indians many of which few generation ago were vegetarians before converting to Islam. Would really show how many generation it takes for the dna to change etc
- edge17 11y ago
  True, though there's a lot of this going on in just the Indian population as well. Generally, people tend to eat more meat as incomes rise. That is true in the west as well as the east.
  - sremani 11y ago
    xbmcuser is talking about tradition of vegetarianism due to faith, which does not linearly increase meat consumption in certain groups. Actually the traditionally vegetarian groups tended to be economically above average in India.
  - negamax 11y ago
    Upper (rich) class in India is mostly vegeterian, including current prime minister. Historically, outclass eat meat as they were cut off from farm based civilisation.
    - danans 11y ago
      That pattern, to the degree it exists, is relatively recent, compared to the evolutionary time scale. It is no older than the religious encoding of vegetarianism in India, which is ~2k years old, and even that was widespread only at a later date. A better explanation is to compare to other populations with similar environments, like Africa. In fact the graphic in the article shows a similarly higher rate of the alleles in question.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
hiou 11y ago
Title is misleading. This is across an entire population over generations. Should be changed to something similar to that. This sounds like it happens to an individual if they eat a vegetarian diet for a long period of time.
- bcpermafrost 11y ago
  Title isnt misleading. The title literally said what its content contained.
  - eganist 11y ago
    A vegetarian diet carries a certain implication, specifically that we're speaking about such a diet in one person. "Widespread vegetarian diets among a population could cause changes over time" is wholly different and apparently more accurate.
    - bcpermafrost 11y ago
      The implication is subjective. The title said "A" Vegetarian diet. It never referenced whom, what gender or the scope of the study, so in a literal sense, the title wasnt misleading at all. I took the implication "A" Vegetarian diet, as in any or all contexts with in a long time period.
      - tertius 11y ago
        "A" implies that the effect would be felt in a singular case.
        crpatino 11y ago
        Not if you know the difference between genotype and fenotype.
        l1n 11y ago
thaw13579 11y ago
For those who are interested, here's the article (open access): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/09/molbev.msw049.abstract http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/09/molbe... It's worth pointing out that here "genetic changes" means evolutionary adaptation over many generations, not some sort of mutagenic effect
pmyjavec 11y ago
"there's also an increased risk of the creation of inflammatory acids linked to heart disease and colon cancer, especially in combination with vegetable oils." But last week red meat gave us colon cancer!?!?

90 points by pitchka 11y ago

This isn't particularly surprising once you understand that your DNA isn't immutable. Lots of things can change you genetically. For example, a male smoker can have changes in his DNA that increases the probability that his children could get cancer[1], and the grandchildren of a woman who smokes have a higher risk of asthma[2]. Everything that has a significant impact on your body probably changes your genetic make-up in some small way. [1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247104.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247104.php [2] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/elf-gsh092515.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/elf-gsh092515...

LoSboccacc 11y ago
Lamark got it right XD
- louprado 11y ago
  And you got it wrong: Lamarck
awl130 11y ago
epigenome
louprado 11y ago
There's a related RadioLab episode on this topic. A Scandinavian researcher showed that if you underwent caloric restriction in your adolescence, then surprisingly, your descendants are less likely to suffer from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses related to diet. http://www.radiolab.org/story/251876-inheritance/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/251876-inheritance/

dschiptsov 11y ago

There. Is. No. Data. Flow. From. Phenotype. Back. To. Genotype. It just does not work that way. Mutations could be favorable and unfavorable, but there is no mechanism that "adaptations" are encoded back into genome. Some random mutation which persisted in one population and wiped out in another has been selected due to environmental factors, such as climate and availability of food sources, does not imply that it is necessarily better or advantageous for a different environment. And, of course, a diet could not cause genetic changes. Mutations could be selected in a population within some particular environment or wiped out in another.

mjpuser 11y ago
That isn't the claim they are making, because that would be a huge claim. I think the author knows that the occurrence of mutations aren't present because they are eating veggies. Instead, they mean they are being selected because they are eating veggies.
- dschiptsov 10y ago
  Correlation is not causation.
fpoling 11y ago
Phenotype changes can affect the rate of mutations and lead to faster evolution allowing to discover in time a trait essential for survival under new conditions. Although indirect, this is still a data flow. Without a particular phenotype the population would simply not able to discover in time the necessary mutation and survive.
- dschiptsov 10y ago
  Nope. Mutations in a single organism are almost irrelevant. They must propagate via offsprings (be selected in meiosis) and eventually spread throughout population, otherwise they will be lost. This is a protective mechanism without which there will be no stable traits and no complex organic life at all.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ajarmst 11y ago

Ok. Couple of points: (1) A vegan diet can't "cause" genetic changes. My diet is a part of my behaviour, and short of exposing myself to lethal amounts of radiation or carcinogens, I can't modify my genes with my behaviour. (2) However, if we modify an organism's environment (by, say, restricting what is available to eat), then over many generations, we should expect that organism's descendants to adapt to that change. I guess more experimental confirmation of evolution is nice, but it's not really very exciting. [Edit: Minor grammar picks]

petewailes 11y ago
Sorry, but that's just wrong.
- ajarmst 11y ago
  Thanks. I really appreciate your nuanced critique of the argument.
andyjohnson0 11y ago
"...I can't modify my genes with my behaviour." This is incorrect. Your behaviour changes your environment (both directly and/or by exposing you to new/altered environments) and your environment modifies how your genes are expressed. See the wikipedia page for Epigenetics: "Epigenetics [...] is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence. Hence, epigenetic research seeks to describe dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell." [1] These mechanisms act on an individual and are separate from Darwinian adaptation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics EDIT: "and your environment modifies your genes" -> "and your environment modifies how your genes are expressed"
- deepnet 11y ago
  Epigenetics is about gene expression, the genetic code isn't changed. The Danish/ Swedish famine study that first proved epigenetics was real showed that starvation during puberty affected the height of granchildren by switching off genes that were still present. The third generation is unaffected precisely because it is not genetic change. Enviroment only affects genes by reproduction, successful genes are inhereted or not - there is no change in genes during a lifetime - that would be Lamarkism and he was wrong. Lifestyle affects methlyation markers,which are added and change gene expression for a few generations. The underlying genes are not changed and are still inhereted, once the methlyation 'wears off' everything will be as before.

xbmcuser 11y ago

They should have analysed Pakistanis with the Indians many of which few generation ago were vegetarians before converting to Islam. Would really show how many generation it takes for the dna to change etc

edge17 11y ago
True, though there's a lot of this going on in just the Indian population as well. Generally, people tend to eat more meat as incomes rise. That is true in the west as well as the east.
- sremani 11y ago
  xbmcuser is talking about tradition of vegetarianism due to faith, which does not linearly increase meat consumption in certain groups. Actually the traditionally vegetarian groups tended to be economically above average in India.
- negamax 11y ago
  Upper (rich) class in India is mostly vegeterian, including current prime minister. Historically, outclass eat meat as they were cut off from farm based civilisation.
  - danans 11y ago
    That pattern, to the degree it exists, is relatively recent, compared to the evolutionary time scale. It is no older than the religious encoding of vegetarianism in India, which is ~2k years old, and even that was widespread only at a later date. A better explanation is to compare to other populations with similar environments, like Africa. In fact the graphic in the article shows a similarly higher rate of the alleles in question.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

hiou 11y ago

Title is misleading. This is across an entire population over generations. Should be changed to something similar to that. This sounds like it happens to an individual if they eat a vegetarian diet for a long period of time.

bcpermafrost 11y ago
Title isnt misleading. The title literally said what its content contained.
- eganist 11y ago
  A vegetarian diet carries a certain implication, specifically that we're speaking about such a diet in one person. "Widespread vegetarian diets among a population could cause changes over time" is wholly different and apparently more accurate.
  - bcpermafrost 11y ago
    The implication is subjective. The title said "A" Vegetarian diet. It never referenced whom, what gender or the scope of the study, so in a literal sense, the title wasnt misleading at all. I took the implication "A" Vegetarian diet, as in any or all contexts with in a long time period.
    - tertius 11y ago
      "A" implies that the effect would be felt in a singular case.
      - crpatino 11y ago
        Not if you know the difference between genotype and fenotype.
        l1n 11y ago

thaw13579 11y ago

For those who are interested, here's the article (open access): http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/09/molbev.msw049.abstract http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/09/molbe... It's worth pointing out that here "genetic changes" means evolutionary adaptation over many generations, not some sort of mutagenic effect

pmyjavec 11y ago

"there's also an increased risk of the creation of inflammatory acids linked to heart disease and colon cancer, especially in combination with vegetable oils." But last week red meat gave us colon cancer!?!?