Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Anyone heard about "Carnetine" in red meat? page

  1. #1
    laras's Avatar
    laras is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3

    Anyone heard about "Carnetine" in red meat?

    Shop Now
    So I was just watching the news and a doctor was on, talking about a bacteria called "carnetine", that is found in red meat and in our guts, and that it causes heart disease. The doctor went on to say that it's not the fat and cholesterol that cause heart disease, but this bacteria, and that researchers are developing an antibiotic to fight this bacteria. Sounds strange. It almost sounded like he was suggesting we all need antibiotics to fight this bacteria and stave off heart disease (I cry BS on that one).

    Has anyone else learned about this?

    -Lara

  2. #2
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by laras View Post
    So I was just watching the news and a doctor was on, talking about a bacteria called "carnetine", that is found in red meat and in our guts, and that it causes heart disease. The doctor went on to say that it's not the fat and cholesterol that cause heart disease, but this bacteria, and that researchers are developing an antibiotic to fight this bacteria. Sounds strange. It almost sounded like he was suggesting we all need antibiotics to fight this bacteria and stave off heart disease (I cry BS on that one).

    Has anyone else learned about this?

    -Lara
    Someone who posted a few hours before you on this very board had -- look about four posts down. Here's the link given there:

    Red meat + wrong bacteria = bad news for hearts : Nature News & Comment

    Carnitine is actually a compound synthesized from amino acids and has an important biological role:

    Carnitine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The claim seems actually to be that the action of certain strains of gut bacteria on L-carnitine can:

    [increase] blood levels of trimethylamine-N-oxide ... a compound that, evidence suggests, can alter the metabolism of cholesterol and slow the removal of cholesterol that accumulates on arteries' walls.
    I say "seems" -- I didn't look up the references at the bottom of the article linked there to see whether I thought they had said what Nature thought they had.

    Even if they had, should we rush away with the idea that the case is proved? After all for about the last fifty years we've been told that saturated fat is the problem. Was that true? Apparently not.

    We're told "evidence suggests". Are you going to change your lifestyle on the basis of someone claim that "evidence" (not cited) ... "suggests". And, in truth, evidence cannot "suggest" anything. Only conscious, rational beings -- humans -- can make suggestions. But humans make mistakes ... and frequently jump to conclusions. Are their suggestions warranted here?

    So, on the previous claims about saturated fat:

    Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

    Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.
    (My emphasis: and isn't that one to think about?)

    Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease

    So do we now hang our hats on this new suggestion? Or is it "once bitten, twice shy" ?

    I think gut bacteria likely have all sorts of interesting effects on our health, and that we've but scratched the surface of that. I'm, nevertheless, suspicious of claims that people have worked out once for all that they are implicated in this particular problem in just this particular way.

    I'm inclined to think that behind this claim, apart from anything else, there's likely to be an emotional reluctance to drop the shaky claim that "red meat" is problematic in one way or another -- if not in way x, then in way y, or in any other way someone can dream up. Note what's said in the linked article:

    But even when they took l-carnitine supplements, vegans and vegetarians made far less TMAO than meat eaters. Faecal studies showed that meat eaters and non-meat eaters also had very different types of bacteria in their guts. Hazen says that a regular diet of meat probably encourages the growth of bacteria that can turn l-carnitine into TMAO.
    But are vegetarians and vegans generally healthier than people eating a mixed diet? There's a heck of a lot of good evidence that quite unequivocally shows otherwise. See Cordain's latest book for more on that:

    The Paleo Answer: 7 Days to Lose Weight, Feel Great, Stay Young: Loren Cordain: 9781118404157: Amazon.com: Books

    One can find studies that appear to indicate that "red meat" is "unhealthy" in a number of ways if one tries hard enough. But then you have to ask: "How well did those studies control for other factors?" See here:

    Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat

    In conclusion, it's an interesting suggestion. I'm not claiming any expertise in the area, but I will say that it seems to me that nothing has been proved, to say the least. I'd be interested to know what other people here think. It looks to me like people desperately grabbing a secondary hypothesis (namely that the action of bacteria on L-carnitine is problematic) in order to keep a rusty old clapped-out primary hypothesis (namely that red meat is problematic) on the road.

    And, even if it is true -- which, I repeat, we don't know -- might it not be possible that some other factor in one's diet -- eating the stomach contents of ruminant animals; eating putrid meat; eating organ meats; eating bitter herbs ... or dirt .. or who knows what? -- might change the bacteria and completely change the problem? Heck, what might be the effect on antibiotics or antibacterial hand-cleaners on the gut microbiome?

    Some primitive societies lived on almost nothing other than meat from game animals, at least at certain seasons of the year, and seem to have been very healthy on it. North American Plains Indians are a good example:

    Guts and Grease: The Diet of Native Americans - Weston A Price Foundation

  3. #3
    Rickyg25's Avatar
    Rickyg25 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    30
    Here is what I just posted in the other thread:

    I saw this study too. Here are my thoughts:

    Interesting article that I read fully and my understanding is this: it's not that red meat is the culprit. It's when the carnatine found in red meat interacts with a specific type of gut bacteria...that gut bacteria metabolizes the carnatine to form TMAO which may be a biomarker for heart attacks.

    More research needs to be done to determine which gut bacteria (there are millions if not billions, some healthy and some unhealthy) actually cause this reaction. My question is: does someone with a healthy gut (a very small slice of the American population) react the same way to carnatine intake? In one leg of the experiment they gave the patients a course of strong antibiotics that wiped out all of their gut bacteria (good and bad) and after that they showed no increase of TMAO in the blood after eating steak. So clearly its a certain gut bacteria that does this when it comes into contact with carnatine. Most Americans have totally unhealthy guts (due to overuse of antibiotics, diet, etc) that are abundant in bad bacteria (such as candida), and I wonder if that could be the reason for the reaction.

    Additionally, my next question would be: Does the presence of TMAO in the blood alone (meaning without an inflammatory environment, and no other markers for cardio vascular disease or heart failure) indicate that someone is more likely to die of a heart attack? What about people who eat right (a paleo, anti-inflammatory diet), supplement to stave off inflammation, get good sleep, good exercise, and are able to successfully manage their stress levels? Those people would have no other factors other than some increase (MAYBE) in TMAO in their blood. Does that alone cause a heart attack.

    My educated guess would be NO. But more research is needed to fully understand this. Personally, for me this changes nothing. I will still eat red meat as long as it comes from a high quality source (organic, grass fed) and I am keeping my inflammation levels low and staying generally healthy through good lifestyle choices.

  4. #4
    Rickyg25's Avatar
    Rickyg25 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    30
    nice post, Lewis!

  5. #5
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickyg25 View Post
    nice post, Lewis!
    So's yours.

    I think we agree: it's interesting, but you can't place too much reliance on it; and even if it's true as far as it goes other factors may play a part. As you say, why not stress? (which I missed).

  6. #6
    Rickyg25's Avatar
    Rickyg25 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •