Gotta Die of Something. Red meat triggers toxic immune reaction which causes cancer, scientists find

From THE TELEGRAPH

Quote :

Red meat has been linked to cancer for decades, with research suggesting that eating large amounts of pork, beef or lamb raises the risk of deadly tumours.

But for the first time scientists think they know what is causing the effect. The body, it seems, views red meat as a foreign invader and sparks a toxic immune response.

Researchers have always been puzzled about how other mammals could eat a diet high in red meat without any adverse health consequences.

Now they have discovered that pork, beef and lamb contains a sugar which is naturally produced by other carnivores but not humans.
It means that when humans eat red meat, the body triggers an immune response to the foreign sugar, producing antibodies which spark inflammation, and eventually cancer.

In other carnivores the immune system does not kick in, because the sugar – called Neu5Gc – is already in the body.
Scientists at the University of California proved that mice which were genetically engineered so they did not produce Neu5Gc naturally developed tumours when they were fed the sugar.

"This is the first time we have directly shown that mimicking the exact situation in humans increases spontaneous cancers in mice,” said Dr Ajit Varki, Professor of Medicine and Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of California "The final proof in humans will be much harder to come by."

"This work may also help explain potential connections of red meat consumption to other diseases exacerbated by chronic inflammation, such as atherosclerosis and type 2 diabetes.

"Of course, moderate amounts of red meat can be a source of good nutrition for young people. We hope that our work will eventually lead the way to practical solutions for this catch-22."

Red meat is a good source of protein, vitamin and minerals, but an increasing body of research suggests too much is bad for long-term health.

Health experts recommend eating no more than 2.5oz (70g) a day, the equivalent of three slices of ham, one lamb chop or two slices of roast beef a day

A study published by Harvard University in June suggested that a diet high in red meat raised the risk of breast cancer for women by 22 per cent.

In 2005 a study found those who regularly ate 5.6oz (160g) of red meat a day had one third higher risk of bowel cancer.
The average person in the UK has 2.5oz (70g) meat a day 3oz (88g) among men, 2oz (52g) among women) but 33 per cent have more than 3.5oz (100g) a day.

Previous research has suggested that a pigment in red meat may also damage the DNA of cells lining the digestive system.
The new research was published online in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

I am headed out the door to buy some big fat rib-eyes from Sam's. Yum.

Hemochromatosis is genetic, very rare, and runs on both sides of my family. Hereditary hemochromatosis (he-moe-kroe-muh-TOE-sis) causes your body to absorb too much iron from the food you eat. The excess iron is stored in your organs, especially your liver, heart and pancreas. The excess iron can poison these organs, leading to life-threatening conditions such as cancer, heart arrhythmias and cirrhosis.

So, as much as I love red meat (as well as most everything else high in iron... beans, leafy greens, etc.), nearly everyone in our family has had to really watch our intake. It sucks. The primary treatment for hemochromatosis is bloodletting. Fer realz. So... I'm not interested. I will do my best to keep my iron intake managed.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hemochromatosis/basics/definition/con-20023606

Since everything actually occurs in the mind I am going to print that steak picture and stick it across from my chair at the table then when I am eating my broccoli I will imagine I am eating that steak...I will probably get imaginary cancer...what a world...

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Since everything actually occurs in the mind I am going to print that steak picture and stick it across from my chair at the table then when I am eating my broccoli I will imagine I am eating that steak...I will probably get imaginary cancer...what a world...

Hmm, I wonder if I imagine that...

I don't eat a lot of red meat but when I do I want it to be GOOD. Christmas we had some GREAT beef tenderloin. That will do me for a while.

For god's sake. Today's cancer headline:

Most Types of Cancer Just ‘Bad Luck,’ Researchers Say

Two thirds of cancers could be explained as biological misfortune

Researchers have found that bad luck plays a major role in determining most types of cancer, rather than genetics or risky lifestyle choices such as smoking.

The results, published in the journal Science on Thursday, found that random DNA mutations that amass in the body when stem cells divide into various tissues cause two thirds of cancers.

After examining 31 cancer types, researchers found 22 were from mutations in stem cells that could not be prevented.

Cancers that could be explained with biological bad luck included pancreatic, leukemia, bone, testicular, ovarian and brain cancer.

But the researchers say lifestyle choices such as avoiding smoking, eating healthily and staying out of the sun will help to prevent certain cancers, just not all of them.

http://time.com/3651785/cancer-bad-luck/

Ricey, I read today that HH folks have so much iron stored that, come lean times when food is scarce, you would have an advantage over us regular folks.

Similarly, sickle cell sufferers have a pretty good immunity from malaria. Some genetic variants exist today because they gave people an advantage for survival.

Huh... I have never heard that before. Hemochromatosis very nearly killed my uncle about 6 months ago, so... :/

riceme wrote:

Huh... I have never heard that before. Hemochromatosis very nearly killed my uncle about 6 months ago, so... :/

I didn't look it up or anything. While relaxing on the can, I read from one of my Uncle John's Bathroom Readers. Yesterday's had a section about HH... and sickle cell anemia.

Uncle John's has stories that rarely go over two pages and is supposed to be all fact, but I have caught them at least once retelling a story that wasn't completely true. It is probably more accurate than Wikipedia.