7 ms·

A red meat-derived glycan promotes inflammation and cancer progression

46 points by sfilipov 12y ago

Evgeny 12y ago
Previous discussion (shorter than I would expect) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8819065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8819065 An explanation that I could actually understand https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2qwwr4/red_meat_triggers_toxic_immune_reaction_which/cnaap2f https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2qwwr4/red_meat_tr...
kenrick95 12y ago
Reminds me of this: http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
radoslawc 12y ago
In the mean time red meat cures cancer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ3C0mrZ3ZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ3C0mrZ3ZY
- gus_massa 12y ago
  My transcript from the video, at 4:05 > For some weird reason, the mitochondria in cancer cell are defective. I never heard this before. Is there an article (published in a peer review journal) that support this?
  - beagle3 12y ago
    It's been suspected (and proved in some specific cases) since the 1920's - see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis
- Lewton 12y ago
  Some skepticism: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-canc...
- Cowicide 12y ago
  Well, if one is to rely on anecdotal evidence only... there's been no studies to back it up. There's also this: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/ketogenic_diet/cancer_part_1.html http://www.naturalhealth365.com/ketogenic_diet/cancer_part_1...
hirenj 12y ago
I missed the discussion on this last time this came up, but this fits squarely within my area of research, so it would be remiss of me not to pass comment. The Reddit link from Evgeny does a pretty good job of giving the gist of the research. The big puzzle here is the precise mechanism by which this kind of thing can occur. To some degree, the binding of particular sugar-binding proteins to these newly incorporated sialic acids could perhaps influence cellular processes. What exactly is binding the sugars, and which molecules the sugars are incorporated onto will help with understanding the cellular processes. The paper linked is an elaboration on Ajit Varki's work - but there's a lot more we don't understand about it than we do understand before we go about making conclusions. For what it's worth, I believe that Varki is not eating red meat [1]. I will try to get a look at his plate at the next conference dinner. edit: [1] I'm not sure if he previously ate meat, so I removed the "now".
- samatman 12y ago
  I'm curious about the validity of a mouse model for this subject. I remember early reports that rapeseed oil causes cancer in rats, followed by the discovery that feeding rats large amounts of any oil gives them cancer, because it's a bad model. I don't think of small rodents as being particularly carnivorous, and as eating bugs and small bites of rotten meat when they do eat animals. Could this be affecting the results of this study?
egeozcan 12y ago
Red meat gives you cancer, each vegetable has a weird side effect, carbs should be avoided, seafood can poison you, etc. I'm ignorant like the most of the population and I'm scared. We still don't really "know" what's good for us, and that makes me want to return to what kept us going during the 99% of the time-span of our evolution. But then, even that is a topic of discussion, I see[1]. I don't even want to get into the form and frequency of food consumption. Maybe in a few hundred years[2], we'll have enough research to say something like "well, eat X, Y and Z, N times a day and you should be fine with a statistical confidence of 95%". The biggest problem is, most people just hang on to the first thing that "works" for them, then keep suggesting everyone that they should do exactly as they do. [1][1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-m... [1][2]: http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/ http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/ [2]: Maybe I'm too optimistic?
- skylan_q 12y ago
  Practice common habits from people who carry good health into old age. The science of nutrition is more confusing and contradicting than ever.
  - stephencanon 12y ago
    Right. My grandmother was tack-sharp into her 90s, and her daily diet was pretty much vodka martinis, steak and eggs, ice cream and cigarettes. I'll just do that ...
    - BSousa 12y ago
      Amazingly enough, that may actually be good for you. Why? Most likely, she didn't really care about the health aspects of it, had those in social events (the vodka martinis) and enjoyed more stress-free eating that folks nowadays. I don't promote unhealthy eating, but between unhealthy eaten care free lifestyle or health obsessed, stressed everything gives you cancer lifestyle, I believe the former will be better.
kbart 12y ago
I don't pay attention to such articles anymore. For every "meat is bad" research/article you can find "meat is good" one, usually publicized nearly simultaneously. It's more like politics aimed to confirm someone's (or certain group's, depends on who paid a grant) bias, not science.
tptacek 12y ago
Why then is Argentina's cancer rate so low compared to that of Europe and the US?
- ambler0 12y ago
  Ignoring all the other things that affect cancer rates, a difference between Argentinian and American beef does come time mind: I believe that grass fed beef is still the norm in Argentina, whereas most US beef is grain fed.
- latch 12y ago
  Don't know if total ignorance is a blessing or not in this case, but.... Perhaps it has to do with how the animal is raised (grain vs grass?), or how the meat is prepared. Maybe there's something else in their diet or culture or even genetics which helps to offset it. Maybe they are dying of something else. Maybe the numbers of under-reported. Maybe cancer rates are more impacted by other factors, like smoking and drinking, and this is, relatively speaking, a drop in the bucket.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    If you follow the Reddit comment linked and referenced from this thread that gives the high-level immunological summary of what's supposed to be happening here, it's hard to see how grass vs. corn fed beef could be making that much of a difference.
    - Cowicide 12y ago
      Grass-fed steak has about twice as many omega-3s as a typical grain-fed steak. And since grass-fed cattle are typically leaner, almost all cuts of grass-fed beef have less total fat than beef from corn-raised cattle. Of course, Beef Magazine will refute those numbers with industry-sponsored "studies", but I tend to take them with a grain of salt (just like my steak).
jere 12y ago
Stephan Guyenet has a 6 part series called "Is Meat Unhealthy?" In his last post a few weeks ago he addressed this study and here is part of the relevant section: >This study needs to be interpreted in the proper context. First, it was conducted in mice. Second, the amount of Neu5Gc in the diet was equivalent to a diet composed entirely of beef-- and not just any beef, but the highest-Neu5Gc beef measured in the study (beef Neu5Gc ranges 10-fold). The exposure to dietary Neu5Gc was therefore some 40-fold higher than what most red meat eaters would experience. Still, the study outlines a plausible mechanism for a link between red meat and cancer, and that helps increase our confidence in the observational findings. Part VI: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-meat-unhealthy-part-vi.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-meat-unheal... Part I: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/10/is-meat-unhealthy-part-i.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/10/is-meat-unheal... I can elaborate a little more, but in short Guyenet is incredibly balanced and professional on this sort of stuff.

46 points by sfilipov 12y ago

Previous discussion (shorter than I would expect) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8819065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8819065 An explanation that I could actually understand https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2qwwr4/red_meat_triggers_toxic_immune_reaction_which/cnaap2f https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2qwwr4/red_meat_tr...

kenrick95 12y ago

Reminds me of this: http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/

radoslawc 12y ago

In the mean time red meat cures cancer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ3C0mrZ3ZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ3C0mrZ3ZY

gus_massa 12y ago
My transcript from the video, at 4:05 > For some weird reason, the mitochondria in cancer cell are defective. I never heard this before. Is there an article (published in a peer review journal) that support this?
- beagle3 12y ago
  It's been suspected (and proved in some specific cases) since the 1920's - see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis
Lewton 12y ago
Some skepticism: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-canc...
Cowicide 12y ago
Well, if one is to rely on anecdotal evidence only... there's been no studies to back it up. There's also this: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/ketogenic_diet/cancer_part_1.html http://www.naturalhealth365.com/ketogenic_diet/cancer_part_1...

hirenj 12y ago

I missed the discussion on this last time this came up, but this fits squarely within my area of research, so it would be remiss of me not to pass comment. The Reddit link from Evgeny does a pretty good job of giving the gist of the research. The big puzzle here is the precise mechanism by which this kind of thing can occur. To some degree, the binding of particular sugar-binding proteins to these newly incorporated sialic acids could perhaps influence cellular processes. What exactly is binding the sugars, and which molecules the sugars are incorporated onto will help with understanding the cellular processes. The paper linked is an elaboration on Ajit Varki's work - but there's a lot more we don't understand about it than we do understand before we go about making conclusions. For what it's worth, I believe that Varki is not eating red meat [1]. I will try to get a look at his plate at the next conference dinner. edit: [1] I'm not sure if he previously ate meat, so I removed the "now".

samatman 12y ago
I'm curious about the validity of a mouse model for this subject. I remember early reports that rapeseed oil causes cancer in rats, followed by the discovery that feeding rats large amounts of any oil gives them cancer, because it's a bad model. I don't think of small rodents as being particularly carnivorous, and as eating bugs and small bites of rotten meat when they do eat animals. Could this be affecting the results of this study?

egeozcan 12y ago

Red meat gives you cancer, each vegetable has a weird side effect, carbs should be avoided, seafood can poison you, etc. I'm ignorant like the most of the population and I'm scared. We still don't really "know" what's good for us, and that makes me want to return to what kept us going during the 99% of the time-span of our evolution. But then, even that is a topic of discussion, I see[1]. I don't even want to get into the form and frequency of food consumption. Maybe in a few hundred years[2], we'll have enough research to say something like "well, eat X, Y and Z, N times a day and you should be fine with a statistical confidence of 95%". The biggest problem is, most people just hang on to the first thing that "works" for them, then keep suggesting everyone that they should do exactly as they do. [1][1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-m... [1][2]: http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/ http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/ [2]: Maybe I'm too optimistic?

skylan_q 12y ago
Practice common habits from people who carry good health into old age. The science of nutrition is more confusing and contradicting than ever.
- stephencanon 12y ago
  Right. My grandmother was tack-sharp into her 90s, and her daily diet was pretty much vodka martinis, steak and eggs, ice cream and cigarettes. I'll just do that ...
  - BSousa 12y ago
    Amazingly enough, that may actually be good for you. Why? Most likely, she didn't really care about the health aspects of it, had those in social events (the vodka martinis) and enjoyed more stress-free eating that folks nowadays. I don't promote unhealthy eating, but between unhealthy eaten care free lifestyle or health obsessed, stressed everything gives you cancer lifestyle, I believe the former will be better.

kbart 12y ago

I don't pay attention to such articles anymore. For every "meat is bad" research/article you can find "meat is good" one, usually publicized nearly simultaneously. It's more like politics aimed to confirm someone's (or certain group's, depends on who paid a grant) bias, not science.

tptacek 12y ago

Why then is Argentina's cancer rate so low compared to that of Europe and the US?

ambler0 12y ago
Ignoring all the other things that affect cancer rates, a difference between Argentinian and American beef does come time mind: I believe that grass fed beef is still the norm in Argentina, whereas most US beef is grain fed.
latch 12y ago
Don't know if total ignorance is a blessing or not in this case, but.... Perhaps it has to do with how the animal is raised (grain vs grass?), or how the meat is prepared. Maybe there's something else in their diet or culture or even genetics which helps to offset it. Maybe they are dying of something else. Maybe the numbers of under-reported. Maybe cancer rates are more impacted by other factors, like smoking and drinking, and this is, relatively speaking, a drop in the bucket.
- tptacek 12y ago
  If you follow the Reddit comment linked and referenced from this thread that gives the high-level immunological summary of what's supposed to be happening here, it's hard to see how grass vs. corn fed beef could be making that much of a difference.
  - Cowicide 12y ago
    Grass-fed steak has about twice as many omega-3s as a typical grain-fed steak. And since grass-fed cattle are typically leaner, almost all cuts of grass-fed beef have less total fat than beef from corn-raised cattle. Of course, Beef Magazine will refute those numbers with industry-sponsored "studies", but I tend to take them with a grain of salt (just like my steak).

jere 12y ago

Stephan Guyenet has a 6 part series called "Is Meat Unhealthy?" In his last post a few weeks ago he addressed this study and here is part of the relevant section: >This study needs to be interpreted in the proper context. First, it was conducted in mice. Second, the amount of Neu5Gc in the diet was equivalent to a diet composed entirely of beef-- and not just any beef, but the highest-Neu5Gc beef measured in the study (beef Neu5Gc ranges 10-fold). The exposure to dietary Neu5Gc was therefore some 40-fold higher than what most red meat eaters would experience. Still, the study outlines a plausible mechanism for a link between red meat and cancer, and that helps increase our confidence in the observational findings. Part VI: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-meat-unhealthy-part-vi.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-meat-unheal... Part I: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/10/is-meat-unhealthy-part-i.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/10/is-meat-unheal... I can elaborate a little more, but in short Guyenet is incredibly balanced and professional on this sort of stuff.