Human evolution and Gc sialic acid.

I've recently watched a rather compelling lecture (embedded below) that even if the facts with associated theory don't hold up, the negative health correlation stands. Our fellow mammals are for petting and riding. Not for eating or drinking! There may be a reason other apes do not fall victim to a significant number of diseases and pathogens that impact humans. That reason may be a sugar called sialic acid type-Gc which humans lost the ability to produce some time during our evolution. We still find it in our bodies however, as it is found in red meat and dairy, and it's a sugar that tumors thrive on.

evolutionmatters.ucsd.edu...

I will also discuss my own group’s research on the many genetic and biochemical differences between humans and great apes in relation to cell surface sugars called “sialic acids” and their implications for understanding human susceptibility to certain infections, unusual features of the human immune system, the human birth process, and the human brain. I will also discuss our research on surprising findings regarding one sialic acid called “Gc”, which is found in the great apes, but not in humans. This non-human molecule can be incorporated into the human body from dietary sources such as red meat and milk, and is also now contaminating biotherapeutic molecules that are produced using animal-derived materials. Humans, however, have also been found to have antibodies directed against Gc. This could potentially explain certain dietary associations with human disease, as well as negative reactions to some biotherapeutic products.

From what I've found googling around it looks like poultry and fish have extremely low or nonexistent levels of Gc. A good thing too because vegetarianism simply does not provide nutrients or fats found in sufficient quantities or as highly soluble a form as in meat.

I'm convinced diet is the primary source of many if not most chronic health problems. Particularly in the West, where we find rancid oils and concentrated fruit sugars in every aisle of the supermarket. But now it appears there may be a cause for the correlation observed between eating red meat or dairy products and certain types of cancer or chronic disease.

So, having already eliminated beef and pork from my diet, it's soy milk for me!





[edit on 26-5-2008 by apc]

Great article, I already gave up red meats, as pork and beef, due to cholesterol control.

Fish and occasional poultry is enough for me, I will never be a vegetarian because is other issues that vegetarian diets bring that are not very healthy either.

I read a book a long time ago about the benefits of eating a diet low or none base on red meats to control inflammation, the book was more to help people with chronic inflammatory diseases.

One other thing to consider when been a meat eater is that our sources of red meat in this nation are shady and keep away from the eyes of the consumer.

When we have other nations that do not want our beef is because everybody outside the US knows what is going on while we here are kept blind and stupid.

Indeed there is a serious problem with the food industry in this country, one which the vege's love to tout, however that is a separate issue which I try not blend with diet. It is an industrial and cultural problem whereas this is a problem of biology.

That's interesting they recommend restricting red meat to aid in chronic inflammation. The body's production of antibodies against Gc could very well be the culprit.

I actually wnet through a phase about 5 years ago where I was completely repulsed by red meat. I still have issues eating steak, but I can eat other processed meats with no problem. Everyone called me mental, lol. I just had issues.

The ATS thread, We Weren't Designed To Eat Meat, Here Is Proof, kinda amused me in this respect. The one thing it said (in the article) was that humans have to process meat in order to eat it, and pointed out that humans are generally repulsed by the thought, etc. One thing I've noticed though, is that I see fish in a river and I DO start getting hungry. I don't think I would have any problem grabbing a trout out of a stream and eating it right there. As further proof of this, humans have no problem eating and digesting raw fish, such as Sushi, but if we try to eat raw red meat, we have the potential to get really sick, or pork.

But, getting sick from fish is basically (with the exception of certain fish, of course...) dependent on the purity of the water... as well as the cleanliness of the preperation area.

I have not problem with raw fish either, many years ago I learned to enjoy the delicacies of eating sushi.

Tuna is better eaten when fresh not canned, I always ask for tuna rolls because its benefits.

I have Japanese friends that take the tuna fresh, slice it very thin with ginger, wasabi and soy sauce and eat it like that as a snack.

Raw fish also has much higher omega-3 content as cooking breaks down this essential fatty acid. Not only is omega-3 vital in brain development, it has an anti-inflammatory action on the joints. Funny that fish and red meat have such opposing influences the body. Possibly because fish was a staple for many if not most early humans whereas feeding on rodents, small game, and larger animals required weapons and traps which man had not yet invented. It's pretty easy to stand in a river and grab fish. Bears do it all the time.

Exactly even early men was eating mostly fish as it was plentiful in their times.

The hunting and Gathering came much later and was base on wild birds, large animals were only killed for their skin and to have the meat dry out for winter times, or eaten right away because it would spoil.

Meat was not an everyday source of food.