58
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
58 points (100.0% liked)
Science
13026 readers
152 users here now
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A few things that caught my attention:
The article does reinforce the commonsense that being a vegetarian is healthier for you than eating meat... But eating fried veggies still absorbs that damaged DNA into your system.
I think you misunderstood the article. About your points:
1 - "...potatoes, for instance, incurred less DNA damage at higher temperatures than meat for unknown reasons."
It's only at higher temperatures, and they only tried two kinds of meat and one veggie (potatoes).
2 - It doesn't talk about lab-grown meat at all. It mentions lab-grown cells, which are ~~probably bacteria~~ various types of human cells that they exposed to the heat-damaged DNA, and they absorbed the damaged DNA. (thanks @appel@whiskers.bim.boats for the correction)
~~Also I don't see how "being a vegetarian is healthier" is commonsense, but that's besides the point. The article doesn't reinforce any of that. It just says that:~~ The study does reference another study about how low meat consumption can lead to less cancer. And they say this would support their findings of less damaged DNA in plant material, therefore causing less genetic damage.
In summary (see @higgsbi@beehaw.org's comment here for a much better one):
a) Food gets DNA damage when heated up (even boiling).
b) That DNA damage can be absorbed by lab-grown cells and also by mice
c) They speculate cancer and genetic diseases are more probable because of the damaged DNA.
They have a very small food sample size, and didn't try many methods of cooking (they admit all of this). Which is to say: they have no idea yet how this impacts people, if at all.
I wanted to check which cells they used, because using bacteria would give it no power at all, as bacteria have very different uptake, DNA damage tolerance and DNA repair mechanisms. they used:
source
So they are all human cells, and the SW620 cells would be somewhat similar to our gut epithelial cells, as they once were the same. It's hard to be certain though, because immortal cell lines can accumulate many differences since they were isolated.
The SW620 cells did take up the damaged nucleosides, and more so than HeLa or MCF-7.
Thanks for the clarification! I definitely should've read the actual paper before commenting :)
I edited my comment to reflect this
I think what they meant by "being a vegetarian is healthier" is from the point of conclusion from this study referencing lower cancer (and all cause-mortality in referenced analysis) rates for plant based vs animal containing diets. I agree it's a tough claim to make since a vegetarian diet could literally just be oreos for 3 meals a day, but if I had to guess what they meant, it's probably what I mentioned.
More info from actual study here
I'll have you know we don't just eat Oreos. That's crazy. I have a (very) well rounded diet of Fritos, Lay's potato chips, nutter butters, sour patch kids... And Oreos.
That is some damn great food diversity if I've ever seen it
Oh, I see! Sorry, I only read the linked summary, didn't notice there was more!
They do reference a study about the risk of cancer depending on diet, and that it would support their conclusion that plant matter produces less DNA damage (therefore, less cancer on vegetarians). I see now where the other comment was coming from, thanks.