Were mice?
They intentionally chemically triggered IBD in the mice, how the fuck is this conclusive of anything?
Going by the article, it was more that it made it worse when it happened, rather than starting it.
Eating food that is known to irritate IBD after inducing IBD will irritate IBD. Revelatory.
Next time I meet up with my mouse friends I’ll be sure to let them know.
Gotta love all the people suddenly realizing that vivisection is worthless… thinking that meat is natural for humans but not mice… wew.
For me this is a case of picking the lesser poison. I have IBD and FODMAPs give me major issues. This means most fruit and vegetables, plus dairy and wheat, cause major issues. Meat, including red meat, is one of the few foods which don’t cause me intestinal pain, bloating, and diarrhea. Studies indicate a not insignificant proportion of the population have issues with FODMAPs, and they also tend to fare much better with meat.
I used to have mediocre IBS symptoms. Never to the point of being debilitating, but such that I was always aware where the closest toilet was and got anxious if it was too far away.
There was an article about studies being done on using common antihistamin to treat IBS that helped in many cases. Tried it and never looked back. That pretty much solved my bowel ussues.
Thanks for the suggestion. Antihistamines help when symptoms are caused by histamine or histadine rich foods. Some people have overactive mast cell activity or produce too little DAO. You could also try DAO supplements. Which antihistamine works for you?
Well… I guess we’re just not going to bother taking into account that red meat isn’t part of a mouse’s diet? And that maybe they’re going to react poorly when force fed things they generally don’t eat? This type of bullshit science needs to be called out for what it is.
Next, maybe we should see how well whales react if we feed them 3,000lbs of french fries.
At the same time, a lot of places aren’t going to let scientists test on something closer to humans without something clearly showing a reason for it. The ethics board would wonder why they didn’t try it on mice first, and wouldn’t approve anything else.
That they found an effect in mice would be good justification to move up a step. If there was no effect, then that would be the end of that.
I assume you went through the actual published article and have the necessary expertise to come to this “bullshit” conclusion.
I don’t really know enough about mouse (and human) gut biome to know what the similarities and caveats are.
A quick google search will tell you what the primary diet of mice is: nuts and berries, small vertebrates and carrion.
Not USDA grade prime rib.
Not what the research is about though, but good doing your own research
Dude… it’s right in the article:
In the animal study, mice were fed three types of red meat – pork, beef and mutton – every day for two weeks.
Not sure where you the from, by where I’m at- mice can’t take down a pig, cow, or sheep. Even if they worked together with the other hunter/gatherer mice in their tribe and really thought hard about how badly they wanted it.
Garlic, onions, citrus and beans fuck up and can even possibly kill mice, so it’s not a straight comparison by any stretch
I’m not a mouse. What do I give a fuck?
You are not a black woman. So fuck black people and fuck women /s
I didn’t know we had so many PhD level gastroenterologists on Lemmy, I’m glad we’ve attracted such an educated community and we’re not filled with reactionary nerds who vaguely remember their freshman zoology class.
Personally know multiple carnivores who can’t stop shitting themselves and still swear by the diet.
I personally know a few carnivores that they wish they could shit more often than twice a week.
What’s your point?
Maybe the fact is true because my anecdotal evidence aligns with it.
I don’t shit myself, and I eat meat. Your “fact” has just been disproven. Do better.
What if I eat the red meat without stuffing it into a mouse first?
Need a new study for that.
mice were fed three types of red meat – pork, beef and mutton
I assume most mice don’t regularly eat large livestock.
Are mice evolved to eat red meat? The article doesn’t really say.
However, there were limitations to the study. As well as it being a mice model […]
In the animal study, mice were fed three types of red meat – pork, beef and mutton – every day for two weeks. Then, the researchers triggered colitis (a model for IBD) using a chemical called dextran sulfate sodium (DSS).
They definitely aren’t evolved to eat dextran sulfate sodium.
Yes, mice eat red meat.
Mice are omnivores and are opportunistic eaters. They’ll eat whatever they can find.
Mice do not eat that much meat of other mammals.
Giving an over abundance of it, for a long time, will shock the mouse.
Humans historically, also didn’t eat much meat up until very recently. More recent research suggests our ancient human ancestors were eating far more plants than meat
EDIT: For example:
Here we present the isotopic evidence of pronounced plant reliance among Late Stone Age hunter-gatherers from North Africa (15,000–13,000 cal BP), predating the advent of agriculture by several millennia
Isotopic testing shows that early humans primarily subsisted on herbivores and small game, including fish. Please refer to this study for Europe.
Early modern humans also appear to have regularly hunted large herbivores (55–57), but there is also evidence for the use of small game, including fish at some of these sites (15, 16).
Or this study, also from Nature, again studying the first modern humans and late Neandertals in Europe:
based on stable isotopes, the mammoth seems to contribute the major part of the dietary protein of humans in a time range between 50,000 and 30,000 years ago and across wide areas spanning from SW France11 to the Crimean Peninsula53 (Fig. 6, Supplementary Fig. 5–8).
It is inaccurate to state that humans did not eat much meat prior to modern times.
This is just not true in the bigger picture of human evolution. That paper focuses on humans in North Africa 15,000–13,000 years ago which is a very tiny snapshot in time and geography.
Eating meat is a major part of what separated archaic humans from other primates; it is theorized that the calories from meat is part of what helped us grow our larger brains. Homo Habilis was eating meat 2.6 million years ago, well before Homo Sapiens even existed. Homo Erectus hunted to the point of wiping out many large herbivores over a 1.5 million year time period. They are meat regularly enough for tapeworms to speciate specifically for us as hosts.
Humans and human ancestors have also been consuming large quantities of plants for far earlier than that. Here’s another paper looking 780,000 years ago finding a wide amount of plants consumed
we demonstrate that a wide variety of plants were processed by Middle Pleistocene hominins at the site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in Israel (33° 00’ 30” N, 35° 37’ 30” E), at least 780,000 y ago. These results further indicate the advanced cognitive abilities of our early ancestors, including their ability to collect plants from varying distances and from a wide range of habitats and to mechanically process them using percussive tools.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2418661121
I am not saying that hunting didn’t happen (it definitely did). I am just saying that more recent research is painting a very different picture of the level of consumption of it
If a species is straight up annihilating multiple species merely through predation, it’s not statistically possible for it to be a small amount of meat. A wide variety of plants eaten, as pointed out in that paper, doesn’t mean it was mostly a plant diet - if anything, that means it’s likely humans primarily only ate plants while traveling during a hunt.
yes, of course we ate lots of plants as well, that was never disputed. We were hunters and gatherers. The point is meat has absolutely been a significant part of our diets for millions of years (the exact ratio depending on the environment humans found themselves in). it is well documented by many direct lines of evidence as i laid out above.
I am not saying that hunting didn’t happen (it definitely did).
it didn’t just “happen” like once in a while. we are/were probably the best hunters ever seen on planet earth. we basically wiped out global megafauna over the last 1.5 million years.
I am just saying that more recent research is painting a very different picture of the level of consumption of it
what exactly do you mean by “very different picture”? that’s an extremely vague statement that could mean almost anything.
Primates in general are designed to eat red meat. Chimps, our closest cousin, go on regular hunts against other primates, and eat them
My point is that it was way more rare than what people’s diets look like today. Not zero but not dominant. Wide reliance on plants is even true before modern agriculture. For example:
Here we present the isotopic evidence of pronounced plant reliance among Late Stone Age hunter-gatherers from North Africa (15,000–13,000 cal BP), predating the advent of agriculture by several millennia
I myself am a victim of the modern diet, and lack of exercise. I almost died of high cholesterol and other related factors, before I started to eat better and be physically active.
I’m a firm believer in a varied diet, and that most people should have a less meaty intake.
Just, we are designed to be hunters and eat red meat
My parents fed me red meat for almost every dinner I can recall growing up. I’m early 30s and my cholesterol is very high. I was able to drop my cholesterol significantly in one month by changing my diet to mostly vegan with chicken and fish once or twice a week. Switched my morning eggs out to egg whites. Cooked in avocado oil instead of butter.
It depends on the populations.
Steppe populations from modern Ukraine easy through to the Urals lived mainly on meat and dairy 5000 years ago (even if they didn’t yet have the lactose tolerance adaptation).
deleted by creator
Was the first thing I thought of. “Standard diets,” vs non-standard pretty quickly calls into question how much we need to account for the divergence from typical. If I go to India (I’m from the USA), there will be meals that aren’t standard for me that might cause distress that are nonetheless fine for the local population.
Are mice evolved to eat red meat?
They haven’t. So haven’t we. 😄
Humans been eating big game ever since we figured how to hunt it.
In fact Homo Erectus beat us to it by a couple million years.
You mean a few million years of evolution couldn’t completely redesign our digestive system? Weak bruh.
Too bad humans are only like 200,000 years old.
Science < Wacky claims that confirm indoctrinated myths.
We haven’t been eating like this for a few million years, humans mostly subsisted off of whatever they could get. Eating red meat every day, or even every week, is very modern.
Fair, but our guts have already evolved to not being able to eat rotten meat. They’re apples and oranges, but still a relevant point.
Dietary evolution happens really fast, comparatively speaking.
Cool story.
Wierdo.
Homo primates (archaic humans like Homo Erectus) have been hunting prolifically for about 2 million years. That’s part of what makes us Homo; the large calorie surplus from big game hunting allowed our brains to grow larger.
afaik it’s inconclusive, and just as likely that big game was rare and supplemented by many other forms of hunting and gathering. It’s a lot easier to spear a fish or steal some eggs than to spend a whole day tracking down an elk until it collapsed from exhaustion.
More modern research does not suggest this made up most of the consumption for humans even before agriculture. For instance,
Our results unequivocally demonstrate a substantial plant-based component in the diets of these hunter-gatherers. This distinct dietary pattern challenges the prevailing notion of high reliance on animal proteins among pre-agricultural human groups
Buh buh buh joe rogan told me otherwise!!! \s \s \s
That’s part of what makes us Homo.
Go on 🤭
That’s fine, we already know how to cure any disease in mice.
Yeah that cure works for humans too. Far more cost effective. Just ask any insurance company, fascist, etc.
Look I’m all for the idea that we eat too much meat currently and all, but are mice really good analogs for humans in this instance? I’m not a scientist of any sort, so I really don’t know, but it seems to me like a creature that doesn’t naturally eat, like, any red meat would be a bad analog here.
Humans also don’t generally eat poison. But the mice in this study were poisoned with DSS after eating meat. Maybe meat is not the real culprit here…
I mean alcohol is poison, we have consumed that substance for longer than we(globally) have been eating tomatoes, potatoes, coffee and refined sugar.
Multiple cultures around the world have independently invented some form of alcohol
And other species also routinely ingests poison for pleasure.
Dolphins getting high on pufferfish toxins, Elephants getting absolutely shit faced on fermented fruits such as amarula
Honey I don’t know bout you but it’s Friday night this human is absolutely gonna be enjoying some poison!
They will eat anything… It is a rodent.
That’s it! Uninviting all the mice from the next BBQ.
They do terrible, terrible things to the guest bathroom
deleted by creator
Where’s that old Twitter bot that would append in mice to reports of these bullshit studies?
Does the Lemmy post title not have “in mice” in it for you? I added it to the title of the post to clarify this. It should show as
Red meat wreaks havoc on gut and drives inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in study on mice
Whereas the original title of the article was:
Red meat wreaks havoc on gut and drives inflammatory bowel disease
