Red meat IS inflammatory!

[Zizzle]

Many of you have probably seen articles in recent weeks about a sugar found in red meat. Looks like it may pose problems for us!

Detailed explanation by the author of Perfect Health Diet.

Summary:
Neu5Gc from mammalian meats, such as beef and pork, is incorporated into the cell surface coats and walls of gut microbes and some human cells, mainly in the gut and in tumors. Neu5gc in bacterial walls is immunogenic and 85% of people have detectable antibodies to Neu5Gc. Eating beef and pork supplies antigens for these antibodies, potentially triggering inflammation. There are concerns that this inflammation may have negative health effects.'

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2015/01/ne ... ease-part/

[tex]

Hi Zizzle,

That's not exactly news (despite some bloggers apparently just now "discovering" it). If you do a search of the archives for mammalian meat allergy you will find that this topic has been discussed numerous times all the way back to 2012. It's apparently caused by a tick bite. Here's an example post from the past:

Lone Star Tick Can make you allergic to meat.

The member who posted the first information about this condition seems to have it.

Tick Bites and Meat Allergies.

Tex

[Zizzle]

Tex,
I'm well-aware of the tick-borne meat allergy in the southern US states (STARI). I guess I didn't think this phenomenon of this meat sugar being an immune-stimulating substance was the same thing. Are you saying only the people with STARI will have an immune response to red meat?

[tex]

Yes, as far as I am aware. It's not just the southern U. S. If you read the thread at the last link that I posted, you will see that the member who wrote about it became infected in France. It can apparently be found in Europe, and probably any place in the world where there are ticks related to the Lone Star species.

Tex

[tex]

Zizzle,

Despite the fact that Homo sapiens evolved eating red meat, there are a lot of self-appointed experts today who seem to dedicate their lives to defaming red meat to try to convince anyone willing to believe them to stop eating it. I don't buy it. Common sense will tell you that most people will not react to a sugar (or whatever) in a food that has been a major part of our evolutionary diet for a couple of million years. We wouldn't be here if there were any truth to that claim.

This falls right in with the claims that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a carnivorous diet.

Tex

[Zizzle]

The PHD diet is very much in favor of consuming meat and red meat, so he's just trying to make sense of it all for his followers. He's a very thorough researcher.

[twirlitgirl]

thanks for passing on that article Zizzle, interesting to read. I don't do well with hamburger or pork and glad I read this article to know it is not all in my head. always learning something to help. on this journey with this disease to get in remission. one step at a time.
Lora

[twirlitgirl]

Hi Tex and Zizzle,
I have made a choice to stay away from both those meats and I am okay with that, just add it to the list of the foods no longer in my life and who knows if I will eat them again one day, for now, it is a no go for my body. It is good to hear both sides of this. thanks for that.
Lora

[Hopeful]

I sometimes wonder if people are reacting to the "new" way that livestock are raised instead of the diets they evolved to eat over millennia? Cows are grass eaters - not corn or soybean eaters. Pigs are omnivores who foraged across the landscape eating a variable diet - not corn and soybeans. We know that the strains of E.Coli that cause foodborne illness were not much of a problem before modern agriculture, when cows were eating their traditional diet. In what other ways has modern agriculture altered the meat that we're eating and how are we being effected by it??

[tex]

OK, I took the time to read that article (completely), and this issue is definitely not the Galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (Alpha-Gal) problem associated with mammalian meat allergy (unless researchers have their wires crossed, and they've made some incorrect associations). This is a totally unrelated issue.

I'm not sure what to make of it at this point, but logic dictates that it would be highly unlikely for us to evolve with the ability to produce Neu5Gc from Neu5Ac, and then suddenly (extremely abruptly, in evolutionary terms), not only devolve to lose that ability, but suddenly become allergic to it. The real stumbling block in my mind is this:

How could we devolve to become unable to produce such a common sugar, and suddenly become allergic to it, while retaining the ability to assimilate it into glycoproteins? That contradiction is a lot to accept, because as sophisticated as the human body is, it wouldn't be likely to make such a stupid mistake. I'm gonna have to think about this one for a while. And interestingly, this sugar is found in exactly the same species as the Alpha-Gal sugar, of mammalian meat allergy fame. Hmmmmm.

Even more interestingly, we all have a coating of it on all our cells:

Although humans can no longer synthesize Neu5Gc, we still have all the cellular machinery for utilizing it. When dietary Neu5Gc is absorbed into the body and enters cells, it can be incorporated into glycoproteins bound for the cell surface glycocalyx, just as Neu5Ac is.

As a result, Neu5Gc of dietary origin appears at low levels on the surface of human cells.

But, alas, we're supposedly allergic to it. Does anyone else see the incongruity in this? This is more than a little convoluted. And remember that most of the information in that article is conjecture/speculation as to how this could all come about as humans evolved (after all, no one writing about it was there to witness if firsthand). How good is our forensic science, 2 or 3 million years after the fact? I reckon it will take a lot of contemplation to sort this out. Very interesting.

Tex

[JFR]

This is what the author of this article concludes:

"Neu5Gc from mammalian meats, such as beef and pork, is incorporated into the cell surface coats and walls of gut microbes and some human cells, mainly in the gut and in tumors. Neu5gc in bacterial walls is immunogenic and 85% of people have detectable antibodies to Neu5Gc. Eating beef and pork supplies antigens for these antibodies, potentially triggering inflammation. There are concerns that this inflammation may have negative health effects."

In other words, highly speculative. There's nothing wrong with speculation but it is not fact. I suspect that almost any food examined closely enough would reveal something potentially harmful. If both pork and beef bother a person then avoiding them makes sense. If they don't why not continue eating them? So much research that is very small in scope is blown out of proportion by people and then acted upon. Red meat has gotten branded as unhealthy so people go looking for ways to prove it. I don't eat beef because of my Enterolab results but I do eat pork and this does not convince me to change.

Jean

[tex]

Red meat has gotten branded as unhealthy so people go looking for ways to prove it.

Ain't that the truth. This reminds me of the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies frequently come up with that "bomb" (that is, they can't be shown to be effective for treating whatever they were developed to treat), but rather than to take their lumps and write off all that money spent to develop the drug, they "invent" a new disease and promote the drug for that purpose.

IOW, making a decision to develop a campaign to discredit a certain food as unhealthy, and then searching high and low for ways to support that claim is reminiscent of developing a drug and then creating a market for it.

Tex

[tex]

To further explore the plausibility of this issue, here's a link (at the end of this post) to one of those articles that claims that scientists have proven that red meat causes cancer. IMO, this sentence toward the end of the article says it all:

The scientists have not done any tests on people.

That's "have not done any tests on people", as in, "If you're a mouse you might be concerned, but at this point only mice should take note, because scientists absolutely "have not done any tests on people". As usual, a lot of sensationalism and speculation, but absolutely no proof of any risk to humans. And to further crawfish on this absence of proof, the next line is:

"The final proof in humans will be much harder to come by," said Dr. Ajit Varki, the lead researcher.

Yep, much harder to come by. As in, "It probably will never happen", because humans are not genetically-modified (as in GMO) mice.

Sugar molecule in meat linked to increased cancer risk

Tex

[Gabes-Apg]

There are lots of food and drinks items that are inflammatory
dairy
alcohol
histamine foods
garlic / peppers
sugar
gluten
trans fats etc

if your diet is only 'high inflammation foods' then the red meat may well be an issue.
In MC world, I dont think it is an issue.

I think the article it is a bit of overkill sensationalism...

rare red meat is harder to digest than well cooked red meat.