For the "Diseases of Civilization" crew, it now appears that atherosclerosis was present in ancient Egypt. Of course, these folks weren't eating a low carb diet though they did enjoy their cattle, ducks and geese.. It's of note that calcified plaque was even found in mummies of folks who died under age 45.........

Mummies with Heart Disease???? Say it ain't so

But why blame the meat?
These are people who ate breads and porridge and consumed around 4 litres 2 litres of strong beer/wine daily.

Where is the evidence it was the meat that was causing the obesity and heart disease. Remember also these would have been outdoor grass raised animals and not the indoor raised corn/grain fed pigs/cattle rich in omega 6 and deficient in vitamin d and omega 3 we have today.

I thought the Egyptians were major grain-eaters.

When you have eaten three loaves of bread and swallowed two jugs of beer, and the body has not yet had enough, fight against it.
Beer, together with bread, oil and vegetables, was an important part of the wages workers received from their employers. The standard daily ration during pharaonic times was two jars containing somewhat more than two litres each. It was a healthier drink than water drawn from the river or some canal, which was often polluted.

Yes indeed they were--the fertile floodplains of the Nile were ideal agricultural grounds. So it is not surprising to me that they developed diseases of civilization with such a grain-heavy diet.

I'm gonna assume this is all true;

1) Consumed Neu5gc becomes incorporated into the body tissues. There wouldn't be any there if we didn't eat it.


2) "a potent bacterial toxin called subtilase cytotoxin specifically targets human cells that have a non-human, cellular molecule on their surface. The molecule –N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) – is a type of glycan, or sugar molecule, that humans don't naturally produce"

What is being said here is that tissues with the Neu5Gc form of sialic acid incorporated into them are susceptible to subtilase cytotoxin, and that tissues with Neu5Ac, the human form, are not.

So, before the mutation that caused our inability to manufacture Neu5Gc, would we have been more susceptible to this toxin, or less?




Largest amounts of Neu5Gc in humans are found in cancer and fetal cells. I'm not sure about the blood vessels, but something cancer and fetal and intestinal cells have in common is rapid proliferation. The type of sialic acid incorporated into new growth could be expected to be more susceptible to the dietary form of sialic acid consumed. During long-term maintenance and repair, the Neu5Gc from rapid growth might be replaced by Neu5Ac. Notice that Neu5Gc doesn't need to be a cause of rapid proliferation or cancer for this to be true.

I say, eat the food, avoid the toxin. And don't confuse the two.

Then again...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...35/?tool=pubmed

Mice genetically modified to be Neu5Gc deficient suffer hearing loss in old age (would red meat help against this?) and also,





I wonder if the slowed healing is related to the loss of hearing? Decreased wound healing suggests decreased proliferation, and maybe less cancer?

Evidence for a human-specific mechanism for diet and antibody-mediated inflammation in carcinoma progression



Varki had to resort to implanting tumours that produce Neu5Gc into Neu5Gc deficient mice; he couldn't get where he wanted to go by just feeding them the stuff.





That's from Diversity in Specificity, Abundance and Composition of Anti-Neu5Gc Antibodies in Normal Humans: Potential Implications for Disease

One cancer might be promoted through low-grade inflammation. But, was another cancerous mutation defeated, before it became well established? This isn't something you can show by implanting a tumour, and watching it grow.

Phew! Good thing you told me that. I was just about to inject that stuff accidentally while I was enjoying my juicy, fat and utterly tasty beef rib steak.

Is red meat more susceptible to be contaminated than say, beets? Is it because it's red? Is it because it's meat? Is the problem because of red meat, or because of the contaminant? Is red meat a contaminant? Is it the contaminant? Can this contaminant also be in other things that the article doesn't say? If it's not the meat, then couldn't it be how we get this meat? If we got the meat in a different way, then wouldn't the problem go away?

Don't mind me, I'm just thinking aloud.

It seems to me that none of these studies that villifies meat ever differentiate between feed-lot meats and grass-fed meats. Anybody wanna bet that there's a health difference between the two? I'm guessing that virtually all of these studies involved the use of feed-lot meats which are usually way more contaminated than grass-fed and a different nutritional profile.

So does Neu5Gc occur in poorly cooked meat or no amount of heat will kill it?

Who cares!! Too much analysis just messes with your head. Either eat it or dont, but I dont see huge amounts of people dropping dead cos they have - afterall the human race as been eating it since it was invented! Either eat red meat or dont - simples!

I have to mention that surely at this time, there are far more concerning and dangerous things about than worrying about a molecule of Neu5Gc

Jo xxx

I don't mean to be rude, but did you join this forum just to tell people that meat is bad for them? That's what most of your posts seem to be about.

I pretty much came to the same conclusion.

I agree too!!

Jo xxx