Another (potential) strike against red meat
Replies
-
It does amuse me a little that the very same people who, in a fitness related thread, will be banging on about the importance of 'evidence' and 'research' dismiss 'evidence' and 'research' without any thought or argument, when it doesn't fit with their particular view on the world.
I don't care who does and doesn't eat read meat, for the record. But the dodgy logic on this thread entertains me.
One research paper is not enough to prove a theory, especially not one that disagrees with current theories/huge numbers of other studies. It should not be just dismissed, it should be a reason to conduct further studies and investigate more. Yellowabc's post explains this in detail.
So just because people are not saying "oh, I'd better stop eating red meat right now" on the basis of this study, does not mean they're not being scientific. They are. The first thing to do with any research paper is to appraise it... when I was at university, learning how to appraise research papers was a large part of a 20 credit module (normal modules were just 10 credits) which just shows how important a skill it is. IMO it should be taught in high school, at least to a basic degree (and in fact understanding the limitations of and identifying problems in the design of scientific experiments is already taught in high school, albeit at a more simple level).
I haven't seen the actual paper yet so I'm reserving my judgement on it, but a few appraisal questions that I've asked myself from reading about this study are:
- how well the researchers controlled for other lifestyle factors that may have led to atherosclerosis
- what kind of red meat they were eating (wild meat vs organic farmed meat vs industrial farmed fresh meat vs processed meat)
- was it done on humans or animals
- was there any cross-cultural aspect to it (e.g. comparing red meat eaters in the USA with modern hunter-gatherer populations that eat a similar quantity of red meat)
- etc
Even if it was a very well designed study, it still begs a lot of questions for further research such as:
- does it make a difference if the meat is traditionally/organically farmed
- does this still happen in hunter-gatherers and other people who eat only or mainly wild meat
- does anything else in a person's diet limit this effect, e.g. whether eating certain other foods with the red meat stop this from occurring
- how did the human race survive for 3 million years eating red meat if it has this effect (which leads to questions regarding wild vs farmed vs industrial meat, and/or whether anything else in a hunter-gatherer or scavenger-gatherer diet would stop this from occurring)
So you see, questioning research and asking further questions about it is a very necessary part of the scientific method.
As to why you see less of this with established scientific theories, it's because there's already a huge body of evidence supporting it, explaining how and why it works, and how it is applied in the real world, etc etc etc. In other words, it's not just one study, it's a whole body of evidence. Yes scientists can and do argue against the prevailing theories... but they don't expect anyone to overturn established theory based on one study alone... they expect for the new theory to be tested and retested and if it stands up to that testing, to be tested some more, explained (i.e. research to find out why it works like that), applied to real world situations, tested some more, and if it withstands all that it's probably true and then it becomes accepted, and the old theories are rejected.... but not without putting all of what was discovered about them into context (e.g. how Newton's laws still work on earth (and are still used even in rocket science, even though they're not totally correct and don't work at light speed or close to black holes etc... Einstein's theories replaced Newton's in terms of explaining how it all works, but as Newton's laws are correct on earth and planets generally, they're still used on earth for practical applications.)0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.0 -
/SNIP
For me, this comment from this blog is perhaps the most important thing to focus on:
"What's lost in all the hysteria is the fact that the study at hand could in fact provide insights into the often-touted involvement of the gut microbiome in the etiology of all sorts of diseases... this, and not the "red meat is fill in whatever you like for you" debate, is what could actually help us to reduce the number of CVD related deaths on both an the large nation- and world-wide, as well as on a personal level."
http://suppversity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/meaty-news-choline-carnitine-bacteria.html?spref=fb
I think that's really interesting as well!0 -
you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study
I didn't.
0 -
http://examine.com/blog/media-sensationalism:-meat-is-bad-for-your-heart/
"TL;DR?
The study found that in genetically modified mice, a high (but not impossible) dosage of l-carnitine did double plaque buildup. This may or may not be related to TMAO, we cannot say. This may or may not happen in humans, we cannot say. Overall? It's just preliminary research that should only interest other researchers, not the layperson.
At this time, restricting your carnitine consumption is not a prudent response for most people."
The study also found that in human subjects who were not long-term vegetarians, carnitine increased serum TMAO levels. It's important to realize that part of the study involved actual humans.
How bad is that? That's what we don't know. But TMAO does appear to be associated with cardiovascular disease.
Exactly, and if anyone had bothered to read the article it says that. I guess most people don't understand how nutrition research works. A single study faling to "prove" something does not make it invalid, debunked or bad data. If it did, 99.9999999% of all studies would be bad.0 -
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
I think this is an interesting point. The opposite could also be true. That red meat is and always has been "that bad". Atherosclerosis is the "bad" most often associated with red meat. This typically takes decades to develop. It is only since the use of medical procedures and drugs that prevent or reverse atherosclerosis that man has begun to live beyond the time it would take for it to develop and kill.0 -
Good, because I don't eat red meat.0
-
I don't care. I'm eating it anyway.0
-
Life is 100% fatal0
-
Life is 100% fatal
Impossible.0 -
no it isntGood time to be vegetarian.
Yah it is0 -
Well yeah, with that attitudeLife is 100% fatal0 -
It does amuse me a little that the very same people who, in a fitness related thread, will be banging on about the importance of 'evidence' and 'research' dismiss 'evidence' and 'research' without any thought or argument, when it doesn't fit with their particular view on the world.
I don't care who does and doesn't eat read meat, for the record. But the dodgy logic on this thread entertains me.
Interesting. I have not actually seen that in this thread.
Are you sure? The first few pages seemed to me to be largely focused on 'ah, rubbish, I'm going to carry on eating meat, and vegetarians are silly'... Perhaps we read a different thread?
I have never seen those people 'bang on about the importance of evidence'. The ones that I have seen do that, for the most part, actually debated the specifics.0 -
http://examine.com/blog/media-sensationalism:-meat-is-bad-for-your-heart/
"TL;DR?
The study found that in genetically modified mice, a high (but not impossible) dosage of l-carnitine did double plaque buildup. This may or may not be related to TMAO, we cannot say. This may or may not happen in humans, we cannot say. Overall? It's just preliminary research that should only interest other researchers, not the layperson.
At this time, restricting your carnitine consumption is not a prudent response for most people."
The study also found that in human subjects who were not long-term vegetarians, carnitine increased serum TMAO levels. It's important to realize that part of the study involved actual humans.
How bad is that? That's what we don't know. But TMAO does appear to be associated with cardiovascular disease.
Exactly, and if anyone had bothered to read the article it says that. I guess most people don't understand how nutrition research works. A single study faling to "prove" something does not make it invalid, debunked or bad data. If it did, 99.9999999% of all studies would be bad.
I do not see where that was said.0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.0 -
red meat hardens and clogs arteries? NO WAY! lol0
-
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
yep, and that's exactly why the OP called it a "potential strike against red meat", and didn't say "why red meat is bad"0 -
The list associated with cardiovascular disease is very, very long, and TMAO seems to be another one.neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?0 -
red meat hardens and clogs arteries? NO WAY! lol
WAY! That's exactly what the study proved.0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?
at what cost?0 -
red meat hardens and clogs arteries? NO WAY! lol
WAY! That's exactly what the study proved.
No, it did not.0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?
at what cost?
Huh?0 -
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?
at what cost?
Huh?
yyyeah.... antibiotics aren't great for us. but we can save that discussion for another time/thread if you want.0 -
Standing in sun light MAY lead to skin cancer.0
-
neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.
This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.
(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)
your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.
the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.
if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.
*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.
The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.
A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.
And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.
The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?
at what cost?
Sorry, I had missed the human antibio challenge (just went back - its on pg 2).
It gives the same results as the mice --- i.e.:l-carnitine–supplemented mice that received antibiotics did not show enhanced atherosclerosis, these results are consistent with the notion that it is a downstream microbiota-dependent metabolite, not l-carnitine itself, that promotes atherosclerosis.
@Reddy: As to the cost? Umm, it's a study of 5 people with an AB protocol for a week - so perhaps $100 for the drugs total? Or do you have a point about the cost of antibiotics in general?
Back to the study. It's damn fine.
As I mentioned and neanderthin highlightsThe list associated with cardiovascular disease is very, very long, and TMAO seems to be another one.
Wikipedia has a very nice list of the risks and even classifies them:Modifiable
Diabetes[15] or Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) +
Dyslipoproteinemia[15] (unhealthy patterns of serum proteins carrying fats & cholesterol): +
High serum concentration of low-density lipoprotein (LDL, "bad if elevated concentrations and small"), and / or very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) particles, i.e., "lipoprotein subclass analysis"
Low serum concentration of functioning high density lipoprotein (HDL "protective if large and high enough" particles), i.e., "lipoprotein subclass analysis"
An LDL:HDL ratio greater than 3:1
Tobacco smoking, increases risk by 200% after several pack years[15]
Having hypertension +, on its own increasing risk by 60%[15]
Elevated serum C-reactive protein concentrations[15][16]
Vitamin B6 deficiency[17][18][19]
Dietary iodine deficiency and hypothyroidism, which cause elevated serum cholesterol and of lipid peroxidation[20][21][22][23][24]
Nonmodifiable
Advanced age[15]
Male sex[15]
Having close relatives who have had some complication of atherosclerosis (e.g. coronary heart disease or stroke)[15]
Genetic abnormalities,[15] e.g. familial hypercholesterolemia
Lesser or uncertain
The following factors are of relatively lesser importance, are uncertain or unquantified:
Obesity[15] (in particular central obesity, also referred to as abdominal or male-type obesity) +
A sedentary lifestyle[15]
Hypercoagulability[25][26][27]
Postmenopausal estrogen deficiency[15]
High intake of saturated fat (may raise total and LDL cholesterol)[28]
Intake of trans fat (may raise total and LDL cholesterol while lowering HDL cholesterol)[15][29]
High carbohydrate intake[15]
Elevated serum levels of triglycerides +
Elevated serum levels of homocysteine
Elevated serum levels of uric acid (also responsible for gout)
Elevated serum fibrinogen concentrations
Elevated serum lipoprotein(a) concentrations[15]
Chronic systemic inflammation as reflected by upper normal WBC concentrations, elevated hs-CRP and many other blood chemistry markers, most only research level at present, not clinically done.[30]
Stress[15] or symptoms of clinical depression
Hyperthyroidism (an over-active thyroid)
Elevated serum insulin levels +[31]
Short sleep duration[32]
Chlamydia pneumoniae infection[15]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis
What the article DOES suggest is that chronic L-carnitine supplementing (ie those "health" bar I buy every once in a while) is a bad idea.
(my edits)The marked effects of an acute l-carnitine challenge [mice] on TMA and TMAO production suggested that chronic l-carnitine supplementation may significantly alter intestinal microbial composition, with an enrichment for taxa better suited for TMA production from l-carnitine.
...
Further analyses revealed several bacterial taxa whose proportion was significantly associated (some positively, others inversely) with dietary l-carnitine and with plasma TMA or TMAO concentrations (P < 0.05) ... Notably, a direct comparison of taxa associated with plasma TMAO concentrations in humans versus in mice failed to identify common taxa. These results are consistent with prior reports that microbes identified from the distal gut of the mouse represent genera that are typically not detected in humans.
So, chronic high levels of carnitine supplements -> possibly a bad idea (at least in mice) logically in humans, even if flora are not the same.
I'd say this type of work supports that for this risk and mechanism a vegetarian diet might be a good idea. However, given the risks/value of meat it is a)secondary to losing weight and being actively healthy, b) secondary to managing other currently better identified risks and needs to be balanced with the social, lifestyle and value of meat as a nutrient/protein source.
However carnitine has been shown to be very useful as an antioxidant protection .... endothelial cells in vascular tissue!
And of course, low levels of carnitine have a roll in inducing osteoporosis. So trying to eliminate it completely is not a good idea... (plus your body normally produces it...)
So moderation, balance once again is the key. Now what is a good balance?0 -
@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.0
-
Standing in sun light MAY lead to skin cancer.
actually UV rays are really good for your heart
in moderation0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions