
A red meat-derived glycan promotes inflammation and cancer progression - sfilipov
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/542.abstract
======
Evgeny
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_tr...](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2qwwr4/red_meat_triggers_toxic_immune_reaction_which/cnaap2f)

------
hirenj
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
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
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-m...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-
myth_b_214390.html)

[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
Practice common habits from people who carry good health into old age. The
science of nutrition is more confusing and contradicting than ever.

~~~
stephencanon
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
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.

~~~
stephencanon
The vast majority of the vodka martinis were consumed in her kitchen between
10am and 1pm, not at social events =)

------
jere
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-
unheal...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-meat-unhealthy-
part-vi.html)

Part I: [http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/10/is-meat-
unheal...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/10/is-meat-unhealthy-
part-i.html)

I can elaborate a little more, but in short Guyenet is incredibly balanced and
professional on this sort of stuff.

------
kenrick95
Reminds me of this: [http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/](http://kill-or-
cure.herokuapp.com/)

------
radoslawc
In the mean time red meat cures cancer:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ3C0mrZ3ZY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ3C0mrZ3ZY)

~~~
gus_massa
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
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)

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

~~~
latch
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
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
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).

