Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack • Hacker News Board

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#111

Post by ordu » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #83

ordu wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that I wish CMAH gene back: > Interestingly, the evolutionary loss of the CMAH gene appears to have produced other significant changes in human physiology, including reduced human fertility and enhanced ability to run long distances. Reduced fertility doesn't seem for me important, we have a contraception for that. But enhanced ability to run long distances seems very convenient. I can ride a bicycle or…

Lots of animals can walk long distances just fine. If you don't run long distances, I'm guessing you wouldn't notice any difference.

I believe you would. Anyone would. Body didn't just stop working when you run faster or longer, body gradually develops pain. When you start to feel it, it feels not as a pain, but as a discomfort, which gradually becomes stronger, then it becomes pain, then it grows to an unbearable level. If your running/walking abilities were lower than they are, you would walk slower, to keep the same level of discomfort.

> Lots of animals can walk long distances just fine.

Not like humans. Humans walk faster than most of animals. As I understand it, it is due to aerobic ability mostly, human could absorb more of oxygen per minute and use it to oxidize glucose or fats to get ATP to power muscles. Other animals could absorb less oxygen per minute, so their body could output less power for a long time. Horse have 1 hp, but for relatively short amount of time. Then it needs to rest. Human could catch up with a horse before it managed to process all the lactic acid accumulated while horse moved (it needs oxygen to process lactic acid into ATP). This way human could outrun (or even outwalk) horse. (Maybe not the modern human with a car spending most of his day in a chair, but modern human have a car, so he could move faster than horse and for longer distances. So it does not counts.)

Though maybe it is not just aerobic ability, I think. Horse eats plants with a limited density of energy, it increases mass of horse, making it less energy efficient than human who eats foods with higher Kcal/gramm.

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#112

Post by bkyan » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #84

bkyan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other benefit (of not having this gene) is post-birth brain development.

That's one of our many genetic differences but the article and paper don't include the word "brain." Do you have a source showing that it's related to this particular gene?

Oh, sorry for not including the source, earlier. Here it is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129338/

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#113

Post by vijay_nair » Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 11:30 PM UTC

evanagon wrote: post #100

vijay_nair wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to call attention to the "oxidized" part of "oxidized LDL" as that's what makes LDL so dangerous. While pathologies of LDL and fat hog the limelight, it's important to keep a close eye on the third villain in the fight against AS and that is immune system pathologies mainly chronic inflammation. Immune cells kill using peroxides, superoxides and other free radicals. Anyone with an over-active immune system tha…

Helpful comment. I have an overactive immune system and I'm always on the lookout for ways to get it to relax. I've done elimination diets and had blood tests to determine foods I react to. I've also met with nutritionists to create meal plans. But over the long term I tend to gravitate back to foods that my family and friends tend to eat which includes stuff that jacks up my immune system (kid didn't finish her mac…

I assume you're talking about celiac disease? If you have already sought professional help I don't think there's anything new I can tell you besides the usual suspects like "grit your teeth and stick to the diet" or "find someone who can keep you on track like wife, siblings or friends".

That said, if I was in your position and if I couldn't tackle the problem in any of the standard ways, I'd take an NSAID like aspirin¹ on "cheat" days to temporarily suppress the immune system as an experiment and see how that works. I found a 1982 issue² of The Lancet where someone had the same idea and reports success with this strategy but I'm not even close to a medical professional and this is just one data point so YMMV, caveat emptor etc, etc.

---

¹But not ibuprofen or other NSAIDs, those seem to worsen the problem — https://www.thedailybeast.com/research-shows-link-between-ns.... Aspirin however has its own set of side-effects (bleeding risk, may interact with medication you are already taking etc) so strict diet is still the safest, long-term solution for now.

²http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/s0140-6736(82)90024-1: 650mg Aspirin, 5-15 mins before meals, not after. Again, this is NOT medical advice, it is just one data point.

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#114

Post by dang » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 4:55 AM UTC

fifnir wrote: post #67

dang wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, could you please not break the site guidelines like this? Internet forums are certainly full of comments that don't necessarily know about things. If you know more, the thing to do is to share some of what you know so we all can learn—not degrade the quality of the site even further. If you'd take the spirit of this site more to heart, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Fair enough. But this happens in every biologically relevant discussion.. Every time results are reported on mice, someone will criticize that it wasn't done on humans, as if biologists are complete ignoramuses and not intimately familiar with the strengths and limitations of their own science. If an engineer presented a model of a bridge and someone jumped in to say "buh, but you didn't ACTUALLY BUILD the bridge so…

It's allowed in the sense that people are allowed to be wrong and/or ignorant because that's what most of us are on most topics. We can't stop that any more than King Canute could stop the waves. The important question is, what's the best way to handle it if we want to have an internet forum that doesn't suck? Experience teaches that the answer is: the patient supply of correct information by people who do know about a topic.

I don't mean to minimize how infuriating it is to be surrounded by a flood of ignorance and wrongness. But that's the situation you're in if you're knowledgeable. Railing against it only makes things worse. Being able to contain the annoyance, so that it doesn't drive your communication, is a hard prereq for doing something good about it.

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#115

Post by glastra » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 6:49 AM UTC

_0w8t wrote: post #107

glastra wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess he was extrapolating and referring to the idea that carbohydrate consumption is the root cause of most, if not all, modern diseases. An idea held by many, including me.

In Mongolia in rural areas people eat just meat. Dearth from heart decease and liver cancers are leading causes of dearth there. On the other hand, life expectancy in Mongolia is 70 years, while in mostly vegetarian India it is 69.5. Just from that one can easily see that blaming one particular food group is not productive.

Yes, they eat just meat, but smoking prevalence is over 50% [0], and alcoholism is rampant [1].

Bad example, to be honest. In fact, liver cancer can be directly attributed to drinking.

A life expectancy of 70 years under such conditions is actually astonishing.

[0]: https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/Mongolia.pdf

[1]: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112485...

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#116

Post by barrkel » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:23 AM UTC

ordu wrote: post #68

moccachino wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read somewhere that running very long distances is basically the only physical thing humans can do better than any other animal.

Pretty close. I heard that humans are second after dogs.

Per https://www.quora.com/What-animals-are-better-long-distance-... humans are best in hot arid places, horses are best in cooler temperate zones as the only other sweating animal, and dogs are best in cold climates, where their breathing isn't as badly affected by panting as it would be in hotter climates.

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#117

Post by seventhtiger » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:42 AM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #76

masklinn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, even if the crash is not an environmental cycle, a crash will generally occur because the glut of resources allows a population explosion which eventually consumes the available resource.

This is one of the hardest systems effects to explain to people every time there is a deer cull; the population doesn't stabilize, it grows until the food runs out and then crashes with vast numbers of deer starving to death. That a fair number of people still believe that it's more "natural", and thus better, for the bulk of the herd to starve to death rather than a percentage of the herd being hunted is one of the…

The unnatural aspect is that we have replaced their natural predators. Perhaps our careful management is sufficient, but there might be unforeseen functions of those predators which we are not fulfilling.

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#118

Post by foldr » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 10:30 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #85

Ensorceled wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the hardest systems effects to explain to people every time there is a deer cull; the population doesn't stabilize, it grows until the food runs out and then crashes with vast numbers of deer starving to death. That a fair number of people still believe that it's more "natural", and thus better, for the bulk of the herd to starve to death rather than a percentage of the herd being hunted is one of the…

> one of the more curious animal rights positions. It makes sense from the point of view of "stop messing with it for fuck's sake". Probably doesn't make the situation better one way or the other of course, deer population explosions are largely caused by humans having removed most of the top predators, and being significant stressors for the rest ( https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/humans-p... ). T…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9yruQM1ggc

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#119

Post by johnkpaul » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 10:51 AM UTC

glastra wrote: post #91

johnkpaul wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I see comments blaming carbohydrate intake for large swaths of problems I find it challenging because I agree and then feel that I am seen as a heretic or extremely gullible. Do you ever feel that way?

Yes. I don't usually express my opinions on nutrition, metabolism and/or health in general in the open, because I know they go against what is currently mainstream and they would be met (as elsewhere in this submission) with extreme resistance. I can't blame the others, though, as I once was in their same position and know how it feels when deeply ingrained ideas are challenged from the outside. I have learned to liv…

Thank you for this. This is very helpful both practically and emotionally.

I also try not to say a word about my beliefs. That was much easier before having children who are offered carbohydrates constantly.

Re: Evolutionary gene loss may explain why only humans are prone to heart attack

#120

Post by glastra » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 12:05 PM UTC

_0w8t wrote: post #106

johnkpaul wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I see comments blaming carbohydrate intake for large swaths of problems I find it challenging because I agree and then feel that I am seen as a heretic or extremely gullible. Do you ever feel that way?

“carbohydrate“ is extremely bad term in nutrition. There is fundamental difference between eating whole food plants like potatoes or drinking sugary drinks. Yet both are formally carbohydrates.

What do you think potato starch is metabolized into in your body? Starting in your mouth (salivary amylase).