Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 130 posts

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

#71

Post by chimprich »

moccachino wrote: post #64
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…

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

There's a few others. We have phenomenal dexterity and throwing ability, for example. We're also very competitive in other areas that are arguable whether they're "physical" abilities, such as visual acuity and ability to make sounds.

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

#72

Post by tomp »

glastra wrote: post #35

> Atherosclerosis -- the clogging of arteries with fatty deposits What a way to start an article in a website with "science" in its name. Atheroma is an accumulation of white blood cells. White. Blood. Cells. Not fat. "Meat bad, saturated fat bad, eat your necessarily fortified grains and heart-healthy industrially extracted seed oils."

For the rest of readers confused about this thread - Peter Attia (longevity & performance focused doctor) did a long blog series on atherosclerosis

https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-pa...

my TL;DR (as a non-doctor): LDL "cholesterol" (actually proteins carrying cholesterol and "fat" (triglycerides) in blood) has a tendency to get "stuck" in artery walls. That causes inflamation, which attracts macrophages which also get stuck, and so on until you get plaques ("clogged arteries") and one plaque breaks off and causes a heart attack. Consuming saturated fat / cholesterol is problematic because it causes a decrease of LDL-sensitive receptors and consequentially more LDL in blood. If I understand correctly, the later part of the previous statement is considered settled science ("we know how it actually works" - 1985 Nobel Prize was awarded for this), while the first part (diet) seems to be somewhat debated and has mostly statistical justification ("evidence suggests") and also depends on an individual's genetics.

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

#73

Post by lostmsu »

bkyan wrote: post #27
jldugger wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the benefit of this gene is... we die of heart attacks unless we go jogging regularly? Where do I sign up to get it back?

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

What is a development for animals might be a regression for us.

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

#74

Post by AnthonBerg »

glastra wrote: post #35

> Atherosclerosis -- the clogging of arteries with fatty deposits What a way to start an article in a website with "science" in its name. Atheroma is an accumulation of white blood cells. White. Blood. Cells. Not fat. "Meat bad, saturated fat bad, eat your necessarily fortified grains and heart-healthy industrially extracted seed oils."

Would you please supply references, and perhaps some more context?

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

#75

Post by cc439 »

Interesting, I was always under the impression that chipmunks were susceptible to heart attacks. I can't remember where I read it and I can't find a current source but you are apparently not supposed to harass chipmunks because they can experience stress induced heart attacks when threatened/chased. I've also seen potential evidence for this when my cat chased one around a parking lot only for it to collapse after sprinting around for a solid minute. It was immobile, looked short of breath and eventually died at some point between when I brought my cat in and the next morning.

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

#76

Post by Ensorceled »

masklinn wrote: post #69
Ensorceled wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are quite a few instances where wild animals have almost unlimited food and reduced predators, in every instance I’ve heard of, they just breed like crazy.

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 more curious animal rights positions.

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

#77

Post by CamperBob2 »

cc439 wrote: post #75

Interesting, I was always under the impression that chipmunks were susceptible to heart attacks. I can't remember where I read it and I can't find a current source but you are apparently not supposed to harass chipmunks because they can experience stress induced heart attacks when threatened/chased. I've also seen potential evidence for this when my cat chased one around a parking lot only for it to collapse after sp…

Rabbits, too.

The whole premise behind this headline seems bogus.

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

#78

Post by humanrebar »

masklinn wrote: post #63
chosenbreed37 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder whether or not we should distinguish between domesticated animals and wild ones

It would be an interesting (if difficult) experiment but from what I know wild animals will absolutely gorge themselves if they can. The difference is that in the wild, this is tends to be quickly followed by a resource crash from a normal cycle (e.g. winter crash after summer glut) and / or population explosion. I don't know that any organism has had evolutionary-scale periods over which to psychologically integrate…

I have seen wild geese eat too much seed from bird feeders and practically lose the ability to fly.

I suspect the correcting mechanism for that is generally predation.

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

#79

Post by humanrebar »

cpp4life wrote: post #57
raxxorrax wrote: post #45

I have the feeling this has much more to do with our self inflicted lifestyle than genetic factors. Maybe no other animal is just that stupid.

Or no other animal is smart enough to be able to produce an abundance of food for the scale of population that we can. And also no other animal has capitalism which motivates actors to make the food supply as addictive as possible.

Most of the other animals get eaten when they stop being athletic.

But some seem fine with layers of blubber. It's a feature, not a bug sometimes.

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

#80

Post by johnkpaul »

glastra wrote: post #37
bitwize wrote: post #31

On the other hand, cats -- for example -- are highly prone to kidney failure in a way that humans are not.

Cats, being obligate carnivores and lacking a proper mechanism for extracting energy out of fatty acids (e.g. ketogenesis in humans), have actually very efficient kidneys to dispose of all the nitrogen coming from their protein-exclusive metabolism. Domestic cats are at risk, but that is more a result of domestication and improper feeding (carbohydrate) than evolution or genetics. Unless I am missing something, of co…

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?

Post reply on HN