3

votes

endogenous vs exogenous glycation/Maillard

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created April 20, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Can someone tell me the difference (if there is one) between the endogenous glycation (through the Maillard reaction) that takes place when sugar is ingested compared to searing a steak (as in the browning reaction) which is also supposed to be detrimental to health? If health compromising glycation occurs when sugar and proteins cross link then how is browning of fat or meat where there is no sugar comparable and equally destructive?

510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on May 05, 2011
at 08:16 PM

Well, my thought on any of the cyclic compounds is that they're highly reactive, particularly if they have an oxygen or a nitrogen (amine) in them. It's too bad I can't draw pictures here, but my general feeling is that when you get 1 or more phenyl group with a reactive species attached to it you have to option of bad things happening. The flat phenyl group can easily slide between the base pairs in your DNA and the reactive O or N can start reacting with your DNA. So from a purely mechanistic standpoint, that's bad. Whether we've evolved to repair that, I can't say.

3c997ffae3db9464325b96979346d9e9

(1290)

on May 05, 2011
at 12:56 AM

Thank you Mike for responding. There is never a distinction in anything I've read between the two. As far as the heterocyclic amines from browning meat go, how susceptible can man be to them given he's been roasting meat over an open fire for hundreds of thousands of years and has only evolved and thrived?

03281912f1cb9e4e771a8a83af302e3a

(1204)

on May 04, 2011
at 09:50 PM

I've been curious as well.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25482)

on April 20, 2011
at 09:37 PM

no one has this answer as yet......but it is being studied.

3c997ffae3db9464325b96979346d9e9

(1290)

on April 20, 2011
at 08:02 PM

thanks Thomas-Richard N

B4aa2df25a6bf17d22556667ff896170

(851)

on April 20, 2011
at 08:00 PM

definately bookmarking this study.. thanks

  • 3c997ffae3db9464325b96979346d9e9

    asked by

    (1290)
  • Views
    2.7K
  • Last Activity
    1522D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

4 Answers

5
510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on May 04, 2011
at 10:48 PM

My take on this (as a chemist, not a biochemist or a nutritionist) is that endogenous glycation is bad - it's irreversibly binding YOUR proteins to a sugar and makes them not good at their job (whatever that job was when it was a free protein). I don't think exogenous glycation (browning of meat, e.g.) could be bad, as the reaction is already done, i.e., you've already IRREVERSIBLY bound the meat protein into another compound. It's not going to be re-reacting in your body, as glycation is irreversible. A chemist would say that the glycated protein is much more stable and unreactive. So I can't see a problem with eating glycated proteins. However, when browning meat you could get other bad thingslike PAHs and whatnot, but I'm not including them in this discussion.

3c997ffae3db9464325b96979346d9e9

(1290)

on May 05, 2011
at 12:56 AM

Thank you Mike for responding. There is never a distinction in anything I've read between the two. As far as the heterocyclic amines from browning meat go, how susceptible can man be to them given he's been roasting meat over an open fire for hundreds of thousands of years and has only evolved and thrived?

510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on May 05, 2011
at 08:16 PM

Well, my thought on any of the cyclic compounds is that they're highly reactive, particularly if they have an oxygen or a nitrogen (amine) in them. It's too bad I can't draw pictures here, but my general feeling is that when you get 1 or more phenyl group with a reactive species attached to it you have to option of bad things happening. The flat phenyl group can easily slide between the base pairs in your DNA and the reactive O or N can start reacting with your DNA. So from a purely mechanistic standpoint, that's bad. Whether we've evolved to repair that, I can't say.

2
F4788693c810850b0767d4993b341806

on September 07, 2012
at 01:42 AM

The problem is that our bodies do have receptors (RAGE) for AGEs, which are equally activated by endogenous and exogenous AGEs. RAGE triggers inflammatory pathways that will injure the kidneys and pancreas (this is why some say protein is bad for the kidney, especially protein from animal sources). It is not necessarily protein that is bad for kidneys but the AGEs that are formed from cooking meat with high and dry cooking methods are the specific culprit.

Unfortunately our genes don't have much use for our bodies after our offspring have reached sexual maturity, so I don't think you can fall back on well if it taste better it must be preferred by the body philosophy.

Exogenous AGEs is likely why saturated fat is implicated in heart disease. Saturated fat is usually paired with a cooked animal protein. However the health message was to just reduce saturated fat, when really cooking methods should have been altered. Most fast food is cooked twice (high in exogenous AGEs). Baby formula is very high in AGEs. All school food is baked or fried processed proteins. Pizza (broiled cheese) is very high. Fried Bacon is very high (however microwaved is not). Hamburgers and fried chicken are top of the list too.

One of the main amino acids that undergoes glycation is lysine and it happens more readily in an alkaline environment. To reduce the amount of AGEs formed when cooking meats, marinate in an acidic liquid like vinegar or lemon juice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=20497781

1
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19483)

on January 04, 2012
at 05:28 PM

I was actually wondering about this myself recently, looking for an excuse to say BBQ is ok, but after considering it, here's what I conclude:

We've had fire for about a million years, or possibly more. Presumably, we used fire to cook meats with, and may have developed immunity to exogenous AGEs because of the time span.

While the gycation process may produce free radicals, as that process occurs externally, its free radicals would react with whatever they can from the environment (air, CO2, Carbon Monoxide from the fire, melting fats from the meat, etc.), before we eat them. Glycation does damage protein, but the danger we care about is the damage they cause to our own proteins, and not the damage done to the surface of the meat we're about to digest anyway.

As miked notes above, any highly reactive components are likely to first react with the proteins, sugars, and the fats from the meat itself, or the environment before we take our first bite, and any remaining, with our saliva as we chew them (and of course, possibly skin cells in our mouth, esophagus), and the acid + digestive enzymes in our stomachs before being absorbed in our intestines.

And of course we can't eat meat hot off the spit, or grill, because it would burn us, and so we have an incentive to let it cool, plus it tastes better if we let it rest for 5 minutes to let the juices redistribute, instead of running out. And some of us may add a pat of butter, or A1 sauce, etc. So there's plenty of opportunity for those free radicals, and AGEs to react with something else, and thus become stabilized, and no longer dangerous.

So I doubt that there's much danger in BBQ. So I'd be more worried about consuming carbs, which get broken down into glucose, and this is reactive to our proteins (endogenous AGEs), than I would about steak or BBQ.

Another clue is that steak tastes better to us, than boiled, steamed, or raw meat. It's as if our senses are telling us that it's a better source of nutrients, because it's easier to digest since the connective tissues have already been broken down.

I think that as long as we don't fool our sense of smell/taste with neolithic agents of disease, we can trust them.

1
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 20, 2011
at 07:53 PM

Just to challenge this assumption, here is a study that suggests that the glycation you speak of may have beneficial effects:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20705126

3c997ffae3db9464325b96979346d9e9

(1290)

on April 20, 2011
at 08:02 PM

thanks Thomas-Richard N

B4aa2df25a6bf17d22556667ff896170

(851)

on April 20, 2011
at 08:00 PM

definately bookmarking this study.. thanks

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!