The 76 Dangers of Sugar
Picture courtesy technorati.com
Nancy Appleton, PhD., author of “Lick
the Sugar Habit”
has put together a comprehensive list of the numerable health effects sugar
contributes to. Some of these health effects are not by eating sugar
moderately over a long period of time, but occur directly after eating any
amount of sugar.
This list was the turning point that moved me into a natural, whole food,
sugar free diet. When I create desserts, I use a blend of xylitol,
which has a low glycemic index rating. Give a quick look through this list,
share it with others and start thinking…is sugar worth it? I don’t think
so. There are too many natural options to create the same sweetening effect,
that I haven’t looked at sugar in a couple of years.
The 76 Dangers of Sugar
Sugar can suppress your immune system and impair your defenses against
Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in your body: causes chromium and
copper deficiencies and interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.
Sugar can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline, hyperactivity, anxiety,
difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children.
Sugar can produce a significant rise in total cholesterol, triglycerides
and bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol.
Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function.
Sugar feeds cancer cells and has been connected with the development of
cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, rectum, pancreas, biliary tract,
lung, gallbladder and stomach.
Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose and can cause reactive
Sugar can weaken eyesight.
Sugar can cause many problems with the gastrointestinal tract including: an
acidic digestive tract, indigestion, malabsorption in patients with functional
bowel disease, increased risk of Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.
Sugar can cause premature aging. In fact, the single most important factor
that accelerates aging is insulin, which is triggered by sugar.
Sugar can lead to alcoholism.
Sugar can cause your saliva to become acidic, tooth decay, and periodontal
Sugar contributes to obesity. Sugar can cause autoimmune diseases such
as: arthritis, asthma, and multiple sclerosis.
Sugar greatly assists the uncontrolled growth of Candida Albicans (yeast
Sugar can cause gallstones.
Sugar can cause appendicitis.
Sugar can cause hemorrhoids.
Sugar can cause varicose veins.
Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraceptive
Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.
Sugar can cause a decrease in your insulin sensitivity thereby causing an
abnormally high insulin levels and eventually diabetes.
Sugar can lower your Vitamin E levels.
Sugar can increase your systolic blood pressure.
Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.
High sugar intake increases advanced glycation end products (AGEs),which
are sugar molecules that attach to and damage proteins in your body. AGEs
speed up the aging of cells, which may contribute to a variety of chronic and
Sugar can interfere with your absorption of protein.
Sugar causes food allergies.
Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.
Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.
Sugar can cause atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.
Sugar can impair the structure of your DNA.
Sugar can change the structure of protein and cause a permanent alteration
of the way the proteins act in your body.
Sugar can make your skin age by changing the structure of collagen.
Sugar can cause cataracts and nearsightedness.
Sugar can cause emphysema. High sugar intake can impair the
physiological homeostasis of many systems in your body.
Sugar lowers the ability of enzymes to function.
Sugar intake is higher in people with Parkinson’s disease.
Sugar can increase the size of your liver by making your liver cells
divide, and it can increase the amount of fat in your liver, leading to fatty
Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the
kidney such as the formation of kidney stones. Fructose is helping
to drive up rates of kidney disease.
Sugar can damage your pancreas.
Sugar can increase your body’s fluid retention.
Sugar is enemy #1 of your bowel movement.
Sugar can compromise the lining of your capillaries.
Sugar can make your tendons more brittle.
Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.
Sugar can reduce the learning capacity, adversely affect your children’s
grades and cause learning disorders.
Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha, and theta brain waves, which
can alter your ability to think clearly.
Sugar can cause depression.
Sugar can increase your risk of gout.
Sugar can increase your risk of Alzheimer’s disease. MRI
studies show that adults 60 and older who have high uric acid are four to five
times more likely to have vascular dementia, the second most common form of
dementia after Alzheimer’s.
Sugar can cause hormonal imbalances such as: increasing estrogen in men,
exacerbating PMS, and decreasing growth hormone.
Sugar can lead to dizziness.
Diets high in sugar will increase free radicals and oxidative stress.
A high sucrose diet of subjects with peripheral vascular disease
significantly increases platelet adhesion.
High sugar consumption by pregnant adolescents can lead to a substantial
decrease in gestation duration and is associated with a twofold-increased risk
for delivering a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infant.
Sugar is an addictive substance. Sugar can be intoxicating, similar to
Sugar given to premature babies can affect the amount of carbon dioxide
Decrease in sugar intake can increase emotional stability. Your body
changes sugar into 2 to 5 times more fat in the bloodstream than it does
The rapid absorption of sugar promotes excessive food intake in obese
Sugar can worsen the symptoms of children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Sugar adversely affects urinary electrolyte composition.
Sugar can impair the function of your adrenal glands.
Sugar has the potential of inducing abnormal metabolic processes in normal,
healthy individuals, thereby promoting chronic degenerative diseases.
Intravenous feedings (IVs) of sugar water can cut off oxygen to your brain.
Sugar increases your risk of polio.
High sugar intake can cause epileptic seizures.
Sugar causes high blood pressure in obese people.
In intensive care units, limiting sugar saves lives.
Sugar may induce cell death.
In juvenile rehabilitation centers, when children were put on low sugar
diets, there was a 44 percent drop in antisocial behavior.
Sugar dehydrates newborns.
Sugar can cause gum disease.
You can see the studies at Dr. Mercola’s website here,
or look at the references in Nancy Appleton’s book, “Lick
the Sugar Habit“.
Is Sugar Toxic?
New York Times Magazine
Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:44 CDT
© New York Times Magazine
On May 26, 2009, Robert Lustig gave a lecture called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth," which was posted on YouTube the following July. Since then, it has been viewed well over 800,000 times, gaining new viewers at a rate of about 50,000 per month, fairly remarkable numbers for a 90-minute discussion of the nuances of fructose biochemistry and human physiology.
Lustig is a specialist on pediatric hormone disorders and the leading expert in childhood obesity at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, which is one of the best medical schools in the country. He published his first paper on childhood obesity a dozen years ago, and he has been treating patients and doing research on the disorder ever since.
The viral success of his lecture, though, has little to do with Lustig's impressive credentials and far more with the persuasive case he makes that sugar is a "toxin" or a "poison," terms he uses together 13 times through the course of the lecture, in addition to the five references to sugar as merely "evil." And by "sugar," Lustig means not only the white granulated stuff that we put in coffee and sprinkle on cereal - technically known as sucrose - but also high-fructose corn syrup, which has already become without Lustig's help what he calls "the most demonized additive known to man."
It doesn't hurt Lustig's cause that he is a compelling public speaker. His critics argue that what makes him compelling is his practice of taking suggestive evidence and insisting that it's incontrovertible. Lustig certainly doesn't dabble in shades of gray. Sugar is not just an empty calorie, he says; its effect on us is much more insidious. "It's not about the calories," he says. "It has nothing to do with the calories. It's a poison by itself."
If Lustig is right, then our excessive consumption of sugar is the primary reason that the numbers of obese and diabetic Americans have skyrocketed in the past 30 years. But his argument implies more than that. If Lustig is right, it would mean that sugar is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles - heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers among them.
The number of viewers Lustig has attracted suggests that people are paying attention to his argument. When I set out to interview public health authorities and researchers for this article, they would often initiate the interview with some variation of the comment "surely you've spoken to Robert Lustig," not because Lustig has done any of the key research on sugar himself, which he hasn't, but because he's willing to insist publicly and unambiguously, when most researchers are not, that sugar is a toxic substance that people abuse. In Lustig's view, sugar should be thought of, like cigarettes and alcohol, as something that's killing us.
This brings us to the salient question: Can sugar possibly be as bad as Lustig says it is?
It's one thing to suggest, as most nutritionists will, that a healthful diet includes more fruits and vegetables, and maybe less fat, red meat and salt, or less of everything. It's entirely different to claim that one particularly cherished aspect of our diet might not just be an unhealthful indulgence but actually be toxic, that when you bake your children a birthday cake or give them lemonade on a hot summer day, you may be doing them more harm than good, despite all the love that goes with it. Suggesting that sugar might kill us is what zealots do. But Lustig, who has genuine expertise, has accumulated and synthesized a mass of evidence, which he finds compelling enough to convict sugar. His critics consider that evidence insufficient, but there's no way to know who might be right, or what must be done to find out, without discussing it.
If I didn't buy this argument myself, I wouldn't be writing about it here. And I also have a disclaimer to acknowledge. I've spent much of the last decade doing journalistic research on diet and chronic disease - some of the more contrarian findings, on dietary fat, appeared in this magazine - and I have come to conclusions similar to Lustig's.
The history of the debate over the health effects of sugar has gone on far longer than you might imagine. It is littered with erroneous statements and conclusions because even the supposed authorities had no true understanding of what they were talking about. They didn't know, quite literally, what they meant by the word "sugar" and therefore what the implications were.
So let's start by clarifying a few issues, beginning with Lustig's use of the word "sugar" to mean both sucrose - beet and cane sugar, whether white or brown - and high-fructose corn syrup. This is a critical point, particularly because high-fructose corn syrup has indeed become "the flashpoint for everybody's distrust of processed foods," says Marion Nestle, a New York University nutritionist and the author of Food Politics.
This development is recent and borders on humorous. In the early 1980s, high-fructose corn syrup replaced sugar in sodas and other products in part because refined sugar then had the reputation as a generally noxious nutrient. ("Villain in Disguise?" asked a headline in this paper in 1977, before answering in the affirmative.) High-fructose corn syrup was portrayed by the food industry as a healthful alternative, and that's how the public perceived it. It was also cheaper than sugar, which didn't hurt its commercial prospects. Now the tide is rolling the other way, and refined sugar is making a commercial comeback as the supposedly healthful alternative to this noxious corn-syrup stuff. "Industry after industry is replacing their product with sucrose and advertising it as such - 'No High-Fructose Corn Syrup,' " Nestle notes.
But marketing aside, the two sweeteners are effectively identical in their biological effects. "High-fructose corn syrup, sugar - no difference," is how Lustig put it in a lecture that I attended in San Francisco last December. "The point is they're each bad - equally bad, equally poisonous."
Refined sugar (that is, sucrose) is made up of a molecule of the carbohydrate glucose, bonded to a molecule of the carbohydrate fructose - a 50-50 mixture of the two. The fructose, which is almost twice as sweet as glucose, is what distinguishes sugar from other carbohydrate-rich foods like bread or potatoes that break down upon digestion to glucose alone. The more fructose in a substance, the sweeter it will be. High-fructose corn syrup, as it is most commonly consumed, is 55 percent fructose, and the remaining 45 percent is nearly all glucose. It was first marketed in the late 1970s and was created to be indistinguishable from refined sugar when used in soft drinks. Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical. In a 2010 review of the relevant science, Luc Tappy, a researcher at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who is considered by biochemists who study fructose to be the world's foremost authority on the subject, said there was "not the single hint" that H.F.C.S. was more deleterious than other sources of sugar.
The question, then, isn't whether high-fructose corn syrup is worse than sugar; it's what do they do to us, and how do they do it? The conventional wisdom has long been that the worst that can be said about sugars of any kind is that they cause tooth decay and represent "empty calories" that we eat in excess because they taste so good.
By this logic, sugar-sweetened beverages (or H.F.C.S.-sweetened beverages, as the Sugar Association prefers they are called) are bad for us not because there's anything particularly toxic about the sugar they contain but just because people consume too many of them.
Those organizations that now advise us to cut down on our sugar consumption - the Department of Agriculture, for instance, in its recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans, or the American Heart Association in guidelines released in September 2009 (of which Lustig was a co-author) - do so for this reason. Refined sugar and H.F.C.S. don't come with any protein, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants or fiber, and so they either displace other more nutritious elements of our diet or are eaten over and above what we need to sustain our weight, and this is why we get fatter.
Whether the empty-calories argument is true, it's certainly convenient. It allows everyone to assign blame for obesity and, by extension, diabetes - two conditions so intimately linked that some authorities have taken to calling them "diabesity" - to overeating of all foods, or under exercising, because a calorie is a calorie. "This isn't about demonizing any industry," as Michelle Obama said about her Let's Move program to combat the epidemic of childhood obesity. Instead it's about getting us - or our children - to move more and eat less, reduce our portion sizes, cut back on snacks.
Lustig's argument, however, is not about the consumption of empty calories - and biochemists have made the same case previously, though not so publicly. It is that sugar has unique characteristics, specifically in the way the human body metabolizes the fructose in it, that may make it singularly harmful, at least if consumed in sufficient quantities.
The phrase Lustig uses when he describes this concept is "isocaloric but not isometabolic." This means we can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different.
The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form - soda or fruit juices - the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.
In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it's clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers.
If what happens in laboratory rodents also happens in humans, and if we are eating enough sugar to make it happen, then we are in trouble.
The last time an agency of the federal government looked into the question of sugar and health in any detail was in 2005, in a report by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academies. The authors of the report acknowledged that plenty of evidence suggested that sugar could increase the risk of heart disease and diabetes - even raising LDL cholesterol, known as the "bad cholesterol" - but did not consider the research to be definitive. There was enough ambiguity, they concluded, that they couldn't even set an upper limit on how much sugar constitutes too much. Referring back to the 2005 report, an Institute of Medicine report released last fall reiterated, "There is a lack of scientific agreement about the amount of sugars that can be consumed in a healthy diet." This was the same conclusion that the Food and Drug Administration came to when it last assessed the sugar question, back in 1986. The F.D.A. report was perceived as an exoneration of sugar, and that perception influenced the treatment of sugar in the landmark reports on diet and health that came after.
The Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners Association have also portrayed the 1986 F.D.A. report as clearing sugar of nutritional crimes, but what it concluded was actually something else entirely. To be precise, the F.D.A. reviewers said that other than its contribution to calories, "no conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that are now current." This is another way of saying that the evidence by no means refuted the kinds of claims that Lustig is making now and other researchers were making then, just that it wasn't definitive or unambiguous.
What we have to keep in mind, says Walter Glinsmann, the F.D.A. administrator who was the primary author on the 1986 report and who now is an adviser to the Corn Refiners Association, is that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup might be toxic, as Lustig argues, but so might any substance if it's consumed in ways or in quantities that are unnatural for humans. The question is always at what dose does a substance go from being harmless to harmful? How much do we have to consume before this happens?
When Glinsmann and his F.D.A. co-authors decided no conclusive evidence demonstrated harm at the levels of sugar then being consumed, they estimated those levels at 40 pounds per person per year beyond what we might get naturally in fruits and vegetables - 40 pounds per person per year of "added sugars" as nutritionists now call them. This is 200 calories per day of sugar, which is less than the amount in a can and a half of Coca-Cola or two cups of apple juice. If that's indeed all we consume, most nutritionists today would be delighted, including Lustig.
But 40 pounds per year happened to be 35 pounds less than what Department of Agriculture analysts said we were consuming at the time - 75 pounds per person per year - and the U.S.D.A. estimates are typically considered to be the most reliable. By the early 2000s, according to the U.S.D.A., we had increased our consumption to more than 90 pounds per person per year.
That this increase happened to coincide with the current epidemics of obesity and diabetes is one reason that it's tempting to blame sugars - sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup - for the problem. In 1980, roughly one in seven Americans was obese, and almost six million were diabetic, and the obesity rates, at least, hadn't changed significantly in the 20 years previously. By the early 2000s, when sugar consumption peaked, one in every three Americans was obese, and 14 million were diabetic.
This correlation between sugar consumption and diabetes is what defense attorneys call circumstantial evidence. It's more compelling than it otherwise might be, though, because the last time sugar consumption jumped markedly in this country, it was also associated with a diabetes epidemic.
In the early 20th century, many of the leading authorities on diabetes in North America and Europe (including Frederick Banting, who shared the 1923 Nobel Prize for the discovery of insulin) suspected that sugar causes diabetes based on the observation that the disease was rare in populations that didn't consume refined sugar and widespread in those that did. In 1924, Haven Emerson, director of the institute of public health at Columbia University, reported that diabetes deaths in New York City had increased as much as 15-fold since the Civil War years, and that deaths increased as much as fourfold in some U.S. cities between 1900 and 1920 alone. This coincided, he noted, with an equally significant increase in sugar consumption - almost doubling from 1890 to the early 1920s - with the birth and subsequent growth of the candy and soft-drink industries.
Emerson's argument was countered by Elliott Joslin, a leading authority on diabetes, and Joslin won out. But his argument was fundamentally flawed. Simply put, it went like this: The Japanese eat lots of rice, and Japanese diabetics are few and far between; rice is mostly carbohydrate, which suggests that sugar, also a carbohydrate, does not cause diabetes. But sugar and rice are not identical merely because they're both carbohydrates. Joslin could not know at the time that the fructose content of sugar affects how we metabolize it.
Joslin was also unaware that the Japanese ate little sugar. In the early 1960s, the Japanese were eating as little sugar as Americans were a century earlier, maybe less, which means that the Japanese experience could have been used to support the idea that sugar causes diabetes. Still, with Joslin arguing in edition after edition of his seminal textbook that sugar played no role in diabetes, it eventually took on the aura of undisputed truth.
Until Lustig came along, the last time an academic forcefully put forward the sugar-as-toxin thesis was in the 1970s, when John Yudkin, a leading authority on nutrition in the United Kingdom, published a polemic on sugar called Sweet and Dangerous. Through the 1960s Yudkin did a series of experiments feeding sugar and starch to rodents, chickens, rabbits, pigs and college students. He found that the sugar invariably raised blood levels of triglycerides (a technical term for fat), which was then, as now, considered a risk factor for heart disease. Sugar also raised insulin levels in Yudkin's experiments, which linked sugar directly to type 2 diabetes. Few in the medical community took Yudkin's ideas seriously, largely because he was also arguing that dietary fat and saturated fat were harmless. This set Yudkin's sugar hypothesis directly against the growing acceptance of the idea, prominent to this day, that dietary fat was the cause of heart disease, a notion championed by the University of Minnesota nutritionist Ancel Keys.
A common assumption at the time was that if one hypothesis was right, then the other was most likely wrong. Either fat caused heart disease by raising cholesterol, or sugar did by raising triglycerides. "The theory that diets high in sugar are an important cause of atherosclerosis and heart disease does not have wide support among experts in the field, who say that fats and cholesterol are the more likely culprits," as Jane E. Brody wrote in The Times in 1977.
At the time, many of the key observations cited to argue that dietary fat caused heart disease actually support the sugar theory as well. During the Korean War, pathologists doing autopsies on American soldiers killed in battle noticed that many had significant plaques in their arteries, even those who were still teenagers, while the Koreans killed in battle did not. The atherosclerotic plaques in the Americans were attributed to the fact that they ate high-fat diets and the Koreans ate low-fat. But the Americans were also eating high-sugar diets, while the Koreans, like the Japanese, were not.
In 1970, Keys published the results of a landmark study in nutrition known as the Seven Countries Study. Its results were perceived by the medical community and the wider public as compelling evidence that saturated-fat consumption is the best dietary predictor of heart disease. But sugar consumption in the seven countries studied was almost equally predictive. So it was possible that Yudkin was right, and Keys was wrong, or that they could both be right. The evidence has always been able to go either way.
European clinicians tended to side with Yudkin; Americans with Keys. The situation wasn't helped, as one of Yudkin's colleagues later told me, by the fact that "there was quite a bit of loathing" between the two nutritionists themselves. In 1971, Keys published an article attacking Yudkin and describing his evidence against sugar as "flimsy indeed." He treated Yudkin as a figure of scorn, and Yudkin never managed to shake the portrayal.
By the end of the 1970s, any scientist who studied the potentially deleterious effects of sugar in the diet, according to Sheldon Reiser, who did just that at the U.S.D.A.'s Carbohydrate Nutrition Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and talked about it publicly, was endangering his reputation. "Yudkin was so discredited," Reiser said to me. "He was ridiculed in a way. And anybody else who said something bad about sucrose, they'd say, 'He's just like Yudkin.' "
What has changed since then, other than Americans getting fatter and more diabetic? It wasn't so much that researchers learned anything particularly new about the effects of sugar or high-fructose corn syrup in the human body. Rather the context of the science changed: physicians and medical authorities came to accept the idea that a condition known as metabolic syndrome is a major, if not the major, risk factor for heart disease and diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now estimate that some 75 million Americans have metabolic syndrome. For those who have heart attacks, metabolic syndrome will very likely be the reason.
The first symptom doctors are told to look for in diagnosing metabolic syndrome is an expanding waistline. This means that if you're overweight, there's a good chance you have metabolic syndrome, and this is why you're more likely to have a heart attack or become diabetic (or both) than someone who's not. Although lean individuals, too, can have metabolic syndrome, and they are at greater risk of heart disease and diabetes than lean individuals without it.
Having metabolic syndrome is another way of saying that the cells in your body are actively ignoring the action of the hormone insulin - a condition known technically as being insulin-resistant. Because insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome still get remarkably little attention in the press (certainly compared with cholesterol), let me explain the basics.
You secrete insulin in response to the foods you eat - particularly the carbohydrates - to keep blood sugar in control after a meal. When your cells are resistant to insulin, your body (your pancreas, to be precise) responds to rising blood sugar by pumping out more and more insulin. Eventually the pancreas can no longer keep up with the demand or it gives in to what diabetologists call "pancreatic exhaustion." Now your blood sugar will rise out of control, and you've got diabetes.
Not everyone with insulin resistance becomes diabetic; some continue to secrete enough insulin to overcome their cells' resistance to the hormone. But having chronically elevated insulin levels has harmful effects of its own - heart disease, for one. A result is higher triglyceride levels and blood pressure, lower levels of HDL cholesterol (the "good cholesterol"), further worsening the insulin resistance - this is metabolic syndrome.
When physicians assess your risk of heart disease these days, they will take into consideration your LDL cholesterol (the bad kind), but also these symptoms of metabolic syndrome. The idea, according to Scott Grundy, a University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center nutritionist and the chairman of the panel that produced the last edition of the National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines, is that heart attacks 50 years ago might have been caused by high cholesterol - particularly high LDL cholesterol - but since then we've all gotten fatter and more diabetic, and now it's metabolic syndrome that's the more conspicuous problem.
This raises two obvious questions. The first is what sets off metabolic syndrome to begin with, which is another way of asking, What causes the initial insulin resistance? There are several hypotheses, but researchers who study the mechanisms of insulin resistance now think that a likely cause is the accumulation of fat in the liver. When studies have been done trying to answer this question in humans, says Varman Samuel, who studies insulin resistance at Yale School of Medicine, the correlation between liver fat and insulin resistance in patients, lean or obese, is "remarkably strong." What it looks like, Samuel says, is that "when you deposit fat in the liver, that's when you become insulin-resistant."
That raises the other obvious question: What causes the liver to accumulate fat in humans? A common assumption is that simply getting fatter leads to a fatty liver, but this does not explain fatty liver in lean people. Some of it could be attributed to genetic predisposition. But harking back to Lustig, there's also the very real possibility that it is caused by sugar.
As it happens, metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance are the reasons that many of the researchers today studying fructose became interested in the subject to begin with. If you want to cause insulin resistance in laboratory rats, says Gerald Reaven, the Stanford University diabetologist who did much of the pioneering work on the subject, feeding them diets that are mostly fructose is an easy way to do it. It's a "very obvious, very dramatic" effect, Reaven says.
By the early 2000s, researchers studying fructose metabolism had established certain findings unambiguously and had well-established biochemical explanations for what was happening. Feed animals enough pure fructose or enough sugar, and their livers convert the fructose into fat - the saturated fatty acid, palmitate, to be precise, that supposedly gives us heart disease when we eat it, by raising LDL cholesterol. The fat accumulates in the liver, and insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome follow.
Michael Pagliassotti, a Colorado State University biochemist who did many of the relevant animal studies in the late 1990s, says these changes can happen in as little as a week if the animals are fed sugar or fructose in huge amounts - 60 or 70 percent of the calories in their diets. They can take several months if the animals are fed something closer to what humans (in America) actually consume - around 20 percent of the calories in their diet. Stop feeding them the sugar, in either case, and the fatty liver promptly goes away, and with it the insulin resistance.
Similar effects can be shown in humans, although the researchers doing this work typically did the studies with only fructose - as Luc Tappy did in Switzerland or Peter Havel and Kimber Stanhope did at the University of California, Davis - and pure fructose is not the same thing as sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. When Tappy fed his human subjects the equivalent of the fructose in 8 to 10 cans of Coke or Pepsi a day - a "pretty high dose," he says - their livers would start to become insulin-resistant, and their triglycerides would go up in just a few days. With lower doses, Tappy says, just as in the animal research, the same effects would appear, but it would take longer, a month or more.
Despite the steady accumulation of research, the evidence can still be criticized as falling far short of conclusive. The studies in rodents aren't necessarily applicable to humans. And the kinds of studies that Tappy, Havel and Stanhope did - having real people drink beverages sweetened with fructose and comparing the effect with what happens when the same people or others drink beverages sweetened with glucose - aren't applicable to real human experience, because we never naturally consume pure fructose. We always take it with glucose, in the nearly 50-50 combinations of sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. And then the amount of fructose or sucrose being fed in these studies, to the rodents or the human subjects, has typically been enormous.
This is why the research reviews on the subject invariably conclude that more research is necessary to establish at what dose sugar and high-fructose corn syrup start becoming what Lustig calls toxic. "There is clearly a need for intervention studies," as Tappy recently phrased it in the technical jargon of the field, "in which the fructose intake of high-fructose consumers is reduced to better delineate the possible pathogenic role of fructose. At present, short-term-intervention studies, however, suggest that a high-fructose intake consisting of soft drinks, sweetened juices or bakery products can increase the risk of metabolic and cardiovascular diseases."
In simpler language, how much of this stuff do we have to eat or drink, and for how long, before it does to us what it does to laboratory rats? And is that amount more than we're already consuming?
Unfortunately, we're unlikely to learn anything conclusive in the near future. As Lustig points out, sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are certainly not "acute toxins" of the kind the F.D.A. typically regulates and the effects of which can be studied over the course of days or months. The question is whether they're "chronic toxins," which means "not toxic after one meal, but after 1,000 meals." This means that what Tappy calls "intervention studies" have to go on for significantly longer than 1,000 meals to be meaningful.
At the moment, the National Institutes of Health are supporting surprisingly few clinical trials related to sugar and high-fructose corn syrup in the U.S. All are small, and none will last more than a few months. Lustig and his colleagues at U.C.S.F. - including Jean-Marc Schwarz, whom Tappy describes as one of the three best fructose biochemists in the world - are doing one of these studies. It will look at what happens when obese teenagers consume no sugar other than what they might get in fruits and vegetables. Another study will do the same with pregnant women to see if their babies are born healthier and leaner.
Only one study in this country, by Havel and Stanhope at the University of California, Davis, is directly addressing the question of how much sugar is required to trigger the symptoms of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. Havel and Stanhope are having healthy people drink three sugar- or H.F.C.S.-sweetened beverages a day and then seeing what happens. The catch is that their study subjects go through this three-beverage-a-day routine for only two weeks. That doesn't seem like a very long time - only 42 meals, not 1,000 - but Havel and Stanhope have been studying fructose since the mid-1990s, and they seem confident that two weeks is sufficient to see if these sugars cause at least some of the symptoms of metabolic syndrome.
So the answer to the question of whether sugar is as bad as Lustig claims is that it certainly could be. It very well may be true that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, because of the unique way in which we metabolize fructose and at the levels we now consume it, cause fat to accumulate in our livers followed by insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, and so trigger the process that leads to heart disease, diabetes and obesity. They could indeed be toxic, but they take years to do their damage. It doesn't happen overnight. Until long-term studies are done, we won't know for sure.
One more question still needs to be asked, and this is what my wife, who has had to live with my journalistic obsession on this subject, calls the Grinch-trying-to-steal-Christmas problem. What are the chances that sugar is actually worse than Lustig says it is?
One of the diseases that increases in incidence with obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome is cancer. This is why I said earlier that insulin resistance may be a fundamental underlying defect in many cancers, as it is in type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The connection between obesity, diabetes and cancer was first reported in 2004 in large population studies by researchers from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is not controversial. What it means is that you are more likely to get cancer if you're obese or diabetic than if you're not, and you're more likely to get cancer if you have metabolic syndrome than if you don't.
This goes along with two other observations that have led to the well-accepted idea that some large percentage of cancers are caused by our Western diets and lifestyles. This means they could actually be prevented if we could pinpoint exactly what the problem is and prevent or avoid that.
One observation is that death rates from cancer, like those from diabetes, increased significantly in the second half of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th. As with diabetes, this observation was accompanied by a vigorous debate about whether those increases could be explained solely by the aging of the population and the use of new diagnostic techniques or whether it was really the incidence of cancer itself that was increasing. "By the 1930s," as a 1997 report by the World Cancer Research Fund International and the American Institute for Cancer Research explained, "it was apparent that age-adjusted death rates from cancer were rising in the U.S.A.," which meant that the likelihood of any particular 60-year-old, for instance, dying from cancer was increasing, even if there were indeed more 60-years-olds with each passing year.
The second observation was that malignant cancer, like diabetes, was a relatively rare disease in populations that didn't eat Western diets, and in some of these populations it appeared to be virtually nonexistent. In the 1950s, malignant cancer among the Inuit, for instance, was still deemed sufficiently rare that physicians working in northern Canada would publish case reports in medical journals when they did diagnose a case.
In 1984, Canadian physicians published an analysis of 30 years of cancer incidence among Inuit in the western and central Arctic. While there had been a "striking increase in the incidence of cancers of modern societies" including lung and cervical cancer, they reported, there were still "conspicuous deficits" in breast-cancer rates. They could not find a single case in an Inuit patient before 1966; they could find only two cases between 1967 and 1980. Since then, as their diet became more like ours, breast cancer incidence has steadily increased among the Inuit, although it's still significantly lower than it is in other North American ethnic groups. Diabetes rates in the Inuit have also gone from vanishingly low in the mid-20th century to high today.
Now most researchers will agree that the link between Western diet or lifestyle and cancer manifests itself through this association with obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome - i.e., insulin resistance. This was the conclusion, for instance, of a 2007 report published by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research - Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer.
So how does it work? Cancer researchers now consider that the problem with insulin resistance is that it leads us to secrete more insulin, and insulin (as well as a related hormone known as insulin-like growth factor) actually promotes tumor growth.
As it was explained to me by Craig Thompson, who has done much of this research and is now president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the cells of many human cancers come to depend on insulin to provide the fuel (blood sugar) and materials they need to grow and multiply. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor (and related growth factors) also provide the signal, in effect, to do it. The more insulin, the better they do. Some cancers develop mutations that serve the purpose of increasing the influence of insulin on the cell; others take advantage of the elevated insulin levels that are common to metabolic syndrome, obesity and type 2 diabetes. Some do both. Thompson believes that many pre-cancerous cells would never acquire the mutations that turn them into malignant tumors if they weren't being driven by insulin to take up more and more blood sugar and metabolize it.
What these researchers call elevated insulin (or insulin-like growth factor) signaling appears to be a necessary step in many human cancers, particularly cancers like breast and colon cancer. Lewis Cantley, director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, says that up to 80 percent of all human cancers are driven by either mutations or environmental factors that work to enhance or mimic the effect of insulin on the incipient tumor cells. Cantley is now the leader of one of five scientific "dream teams," financed by a national coalition called Stand Up to Cancer, to study, in the case of Cantley's team, precisely this link between a specific insulin-signaling gene (known technically as PI3K) and tumor development in breast and other cancers common to women.
Most of the researchers studying this insulin/cancer link seem concerned primarily with finding a drug that might work to suppress insulin signaling in incipient cancer cells and so, they hope, inhibit or prevent their growth entirely. Many of the experts writing about the insulin/cancer link from a public health perspective - as in the 2007 report from the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research - work from the assumption that chronically elevated insulin levels and insulin resistance are both caused by being fat or by getting fatter. They recommend, as the 2007 report did, that we should all work to be lean and more physically active, and that in turn will help us prevent cancer.
But some researchers will make the case, as Cantley and Thompson do, that if something other than just being fatter is causing insulin resistance to begin with, that's quite likely the dietary cause of many cancers. If it's sugar that causes insulin resistance, they say, then the conclusion is hard to avoid that sugar causes cancer - some cancers, at least - radical as this may seem and despite the fact that this suggestion has rarely if ever been voiced before publicly. For just this reason, neither of these men will eat sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, if they can avoid it.
"I have eliminated refined sugar from my diet and eat as little as I possibly can," Thompson told me, "because I believe ultimately it's something I can do to decrease my risk of cancer." Cantley put it this way: "Sugar scares me."
Sugar scares me too, obviously. I'd like to eat it in moderation. I'd certainly like my two sons to be able to eat it in moderation, to not over consume it, but I don't actually know what that means, and I've been reporting on this subject and studying it for more than a decade. If sugar just makes us fatter, that's one thing. We start gaining weight, we eat less of it. But we are also talking about things we can't see - fatty liver, insulin resistance and all that follows. Officially I'm not supposed to worry because the evidence isn't conclusive, but I do.
About the author
Gary Taubes is a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation independent investigator in health policy and the author of Why We Get Fat. Editor: Vera Titunik
Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:19 CST
© Natural Society
The dangers of processed sugar consumption are documented, as are its
carcinogenic effects. But what about sugar free products? It turns out that
not only can these products contain a dangerous artificial sweetener called aspartame,
cells actually feed on sugar free products just as much as they do those
loaded with sugar.
In a study conducted by UCLA,
pancreatic cancer cells were
found to multiply and grow more rapidly when fueled by fructose, as opposed
to glucose or sucrose. More recently however, it has been found that even
staying sugar free can have similar implications. In a collaborative study,
it was found that in the absence
of a usable sugar source, cancer cells will instead use glutamine -
an amino acid - to survive and spread.
Of course fructose consumption (sugar-loaded products) are much more common
within the American diet and elsewhere. Fructose is most commonly consumed
from processed foods and soft drinks, in the form of mercury-loaded high fructose corn syrup.
Along with its
numerous health defects, perhaps the most concerning is the fact that this
carcinogenic substance is highly addictive and is breeding a new form of 'fructose alcoholism'.
New Discovery Shows How to 'Starve' Cancer Cells
The link between these products and cancer may seem grim, however the
research has actually isolated one of the main causes of cancer cell growth.
The study suggests that the process of inhibiting a glutamine enzyme known
as glutaminase may actually prove to be an effective counter measure
to the growth of cancer cells overall.
Effectively, this method aims to remove any usable resource for cancer cells
to flourish. The study states that when the investigators used a glutaminase
inhibitor, cancer cell samples in petri dishes stopped growing.
The idea is that creating an environment where the cancer has no means to
properly grow and metastasize will effectively reduce and prevent cancer
overall. Some methods like oxygen treatment, PH balance, and specific diet
guidelines have similar effects for eliminating cancer by inhibiting its
overall ability to flourish in the body. When it comes to cancer, prevention
is key. Key substances like vitamin D and turmeric are vital for halting
cancer in its tracks.
Tax 'Toxic' Sugar, Doctors Urge
Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00 CST
Sugar is so toxic that it should be taxed and slapped with regulations like alcohol, some U.S. researchers argue.
In a commentary published in Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature, doctors from the University of California, San Francisco, say that rising global rates of major killers such as heart disease and Type 2 diabetes aren't caused by obesity as commonly thought.
Instead, obesity is a marker for those health problems, and sugar is the true culprit, Dr. Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis said.
"We recognize that societal intervention to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby," they wrote.
Measures such as smoking bans in public places, the use of designated drivers and the addition of condom dispensers in public washrooms were also battlegrounds that are now taken for granted for public health, the authors said in calling for sugar regulations.
Taxing "added sugar" - any sweetener containing fructose that is added to food in processing, including sugar-sweetened beverages and sugared cereal.
Controlling the location and density of fast-food outlets and convenience stores around schools and offering incentives to open grocery stores and farmers' markets.
Limiting sales during the school day or designating an age limit to buy drinks with added sugar.
The researchers said sugar meets four criteria for regulation that are largely accepted by public health experts and that were first applied to alcohol. Those criteria are pervasiveness in society, toxicity, potential for abuse and negative impact on society.
Dietitians generally encourage people to eat a nutritious diet without focusing on a single nutrient.
Cancer Feeds on Fructose, America's Number One Source of Calories
Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:51 CDT
High-fructose corn syrup is the primary source of calories in the United States. In addition to containing mercury, a known carcinogen, cancer cells actually feed on high-fructose corn syrup after it is metabolized by the liver.
A new study, published in the Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, examined the link between refined sugar and cancer. The results add further evidence to the reports of many health experts and scientific studies that have drawn the connection between excess sugar consumption and the development of cancer.
The researchers highlighted the numerous ways in which fructose directly contributes to cancer risk and other health problems, including:
* DNA damage
* Altered cellular metabolism
* Increased production of free radicals
According to Lewis Cantley, director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, as much as 80 percent of all cancers are "driven by either mutations or environmental factors that work to enhance or mimic the effect of insulin on the incipient tumor cells."
Similar research published in the journal Cancer Research found that the way in which sugar is metabolized stimulates cancer growth. The researchers reported:
Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different ... These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation.
What is even more concerning is that the scientists conducting the research used pancreatic cancer cells, widely considered to be the most deadly form of cancer. The discovery was monumental because not only did the researchers prove that tumor cells feed on sugar (glucose), but the tumor cells used fructose for cell division in order to speed up the growth and spread of the cancer. Fructose consumption actually led to a massive increase in tumor cell growth and proliferation way beyond that of glucose.
This cancer-feeding fructose is what the majority of Americans are consuming on a daily
basis, to the point where high-fructose corn syrup is their number one source of calories. Even children are consuming excessive amounts of sugar in juice boxes, candy, and even 'healthy' sports beverages. The amount is so extreme that the average American consumes around 150 grams of sugar each day; whereas, many experts believe that the number should be around 15 grams per day or lower to prevent cancer.
The ubiquitous nature of fructose is so apparent in the food supply that it can be found in one form or another in 5 of the top 10 sources of calories in America, according to a USDA report. As cancer rates continue to explode, it is vital that dietary changes are made involving the emission of fructose from the global food supply. Natural sweeteners like Stevia contain 0 calories, and have been found to prevent and reverse diseases like diabetes. It is time we revolutionize the food supply and utilize natural sweeteners as tools to reduce cancer and obesity rates worldwide, naturally.
US: Half of Americans Drink Sugary Drinks Daily
Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:06 CDT
According to a new Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report, nearly half of the US population consumes sugar drinks on any given day, with teenagers consuming more sugar drinks than any other age group.
The drinks the CDC considers sugar drinks are fruit drinks, sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and sweetened bottled waters. Sugar drinks do not include diet drinks, 100% fruit juice, sweetened teas and flavored milks.
According to the CDC report, males drink on average 175 kcal from sugar drinks on any given day, while females consume 94 Kcal. The report shows that males consume more sweet beverages except in the 2-5 year old category.
Consumption of the beverages peaks in the 12-19 year old demographic and then declines into old age. The group with the highest consumption of sweet beverages is the 12-19 year old males who consume 273 kcal per day, while the group with the lowest consumption rate is the oldest females in the 60 and over category, with a consumption of 42 kcal daily.
The CDC report indicates that there are racial differences in the consumption habits of sugary drinks. The data shows that non-Hispanic black children consume 8.5% of their diet in sweet beverages, while non-Hispanic whites consume 7.7% and Mexican American consume 7.4%.
In the 20 and over category, non-Hispanic blacks again lead in daily consumption with 8.6% of their daily dietary intake as sugary beverages while Mexican American's consume 8.2% and Non-Hispanic Whites only consume 5.3% of their daily dietary intake as sugary drinks.
In response to the report, some cities are encouraging their citizens to decrease their consumption of sugary drinks. According to Reuters, the city health departments from Los Angeles, Boston, Philadelphia, San Antonio and Seattle announced plans for a campaign to encourage cutting down on sugary beverages.
Michael Jacobson, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) told Reuters, "We're concerned about sugary drinks because they are the only foods and beverages that have directly been linked to obesity...Reducing their consumption is the perfect place to start to reduce the epidemic."
The American Beverage Association, in dispute of the report's findings told ABC News, "Contrary to what may be implied by the introductory statement of this data brief that reaches back 30 years, sugar-sweetened beverages are not driving health issues like obesity. According to an analysis of federal government data presented to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, all sugar-sweetened beverages...account for only 7 percent of the calories in the average American's diet."
Too Little Too Late: EPA Builds List of Potentially Dangerous Chemicals. This list is adapted from an EPA poster presentation of chemicals with the strongest evidence of developmental neurotoxicity that the agency released.
Body Care Products Loaded with Mercury and Toxins. Users of mainstream cosmetics and personal care products regularly soak up cancer-linked sodium lauryl sulfate, phthalates associated with reproductive disorders, and mercury. Some products, like skin whitening cream, have been spotted with up to 300,000 parts per million of mercury, a known poison
Poisoned Water. Fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) has been linked with preventable diseases like arthritis, diabetes, osteosarcoma, Alzheimer's, Down's syndrome, osteoporosis, chronic fatigue, and hypocalcemia. Fluoride also damages the DNA by causing cells to mutate, which is one of the triggers of cancer.
Carcinogenic Dioxin Set Free: EPA Kneels to Monsanto and Big Agriculture. Dioxin is the most toxic man-made chemical known regarding damage to health and the environment. The EPA has withheld a study about dioxin for decades in order to protect large industries that produce dioxin while manufacturing herbicides and pesticides, plastics, chlorine, bleach, and other chemicals. In addition, industrialized agriculture (Big Ag) has pressured the EPA to withhold the report because dioxin becomes concentrated in animal products like meat, eggs and dairy.
Heavy Metals Found in Many Cosmetics Not Listed on Labels. The highest levels of arsenic, cadmium, and lead overall were found in lip gloss, which can be ingested orally. The U.S. Department of Labor links arsenic to stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate.
Cancer caused by modern man as it was virtually non-existent in ancient world. Modern records show that the disease rate has risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer. Prof Zimmerman said: “In an ancient society lacking surgical intervention, evidence of cancer should remain in all cases.
Photos and Effects of Deadly Parasites. I typically see parasites causing more constipation in patients than diarrhea, but some parasites are capable of changing the fluid balance in your gut and causing diarrhea. Trouble sleeping, skin irritations, mood changes, and muscle pain can all be caused by the toxins that parasites release into the bloodstream. These toxins often cause anxiety, which can manifest itself in different ways. For instance, waking up in the middle of the night or grinding your teeth in your sleep are signs that your body is experiencing anxiety while you rest. When these toxins interact with your neurotransmitters or blood cells, they can cause mood swings or skin irritation.
The Origins of Change: Mutations. 1) Chemical Mutagens – such as pesticides, benzene, methane, and many others. 2) Physics Mutagens – such as an ultraviolet ray or radioactivity. 3) Bio Mutagens – which are bacteria and viruses.
Cancer. Cancer is a diverse class of diseases which differ widely in their causes and biology. Any organism, even plants, can acquire cancer. Nearly all known cancers arise gradually, as errors build up in the cancer cell and its progeny mechanisms section for common types of errors.
Mercury in Fish Harms Immune System. The scientists found a clear link between the types and amounts of autoantibodies and mercury levels in individuals who eat fish.
The Real Cause Of Cancer And The Solution. The most repressive, most prejudiced and most obscenely intolerant branch of the international medical industry is undoubtedly that part of it which claims to deal with cancer.
...Man-Made AIDS. How many more AIDS deaths are required before people speak out against this secret genocide- and the obvious connection of vaccine experiments and the "introduction" of lethal viruses into "select populations"?
Aluminium - The Silent Killer. The accumulation of aluminium in the body is a risk factor not only for Alzheimer's disease but may also be linked to other neurological conditions such as Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis. Other complaints include fatigue, loss of memory, and premature ageing. Aluminum deoderants are a prime cause of breast cancer.
Understanding Disease. There is only one disease and there are only two causes of disease: deficiency and toxicity. Cells lacking what they need or exposed to something harmful will malfunction. Unless cells malfunction, there can be no disease.
Stop Making Cancer. Most disease that's being "manufactured" in the bodies of people today is created through controllable factors: What people eat, what chemicals they expose themselves too, how much exercise they get (or not), their state of mind, what supplements they take (or don't) and so on.
10 Foods You Must Never Eat. These foods that are so deadly and harmful that eating (or drinking) them on a regular basis will most assuredly chop years off your life, and guarantee that the years you have left will find you facing sickness, disease and very likely obesity. I call them the Evil Eight.
Gluten in your Diet. Explains why it is critical to eliminate gluten completely from your diet. There is no difference between whole wheat and white flour here. The biggest scam perpetrated on the unsuspecting public is the inclusion of "whole grains" in many processed foods full of sugar and wheat.
Domestic Detox: Extreme Home Cleaning. The idea is that the new technologies, all the crazy foods, the chemicals in the products we use - BPA plastics and other things - are stressors on the body.
The Hidden Time Bomb Within You: Inflammation. The cornerstone of health and healing - and yet - unless you learn the secrets to managing it - inflammation will also probably eventually kill you.
The Pink Slime in McDonalds Hamburgers. And you may (or may not) want to know about some other unusual chemicals being used in the production of some of our most-popular foods.
12 Charts Show Connection Between Roundup and Disease. Root-canaled teeth are essentially "dead" teeth that can become silent incubators for highly toxic anaerobic bacteria that can, under certain conditions, make their way into your bloodstream to cause a number of serious medical conditions - many not appearing until decades later.
97% Of Terminal Cancer Patients Had Root Canals. A study from the Journal of Organic Systems includes the following 12 charts which show the correlation between Roundup (technically known as “glyphosate”) and disease.
Roundup Kills More Than Weeds. Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in recent years because of the widespread adoption of genetically modified corn, soy and cotton varieties that Monsanto developed to be resistant to glyphosate,
Articles about The Dangers of Soy. Promoting soy foods as health foods while ignoring the dangers of soy and soy derivatives should be considered a crime against humanity. If you think this statement is too extreme, read these articles, and then see what you think!
A Summary of the Toxic Effects of Soy. Only one ounce of soy protein consumed daily causes breast abnormalities due to soy’s powerfully estrogenic effects. Soy causes increased incidence of thyroid disease, bone loss, gallbladder disease, cancer, infertility and heart disease....
Toxic Chemical Being Sold as a Health-Conscious Sweetener: Splenda. It can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs.
The 76 Dangers of Sugar. Sugar can cause premature aging. In fact, the single most important factor that accelerates aging is insulin, which is triggered by sugar. Sugar feeds cancer cells and has been connected with the development of cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, rectum, pancreas, biliary tract, lung, gallbladder and stomach.
Why 80 Percent of People Worldwide Will Soon Stop Eating Wheat. Why is there such a strong emphasis on the development of wheat products all over the world when there are so many adverse and crippling effects such as neurological impairment, dementia, heart disease, cataracts, diabetes, arthritis and visceral fat accumulation, not to mention the full range of intolerances and bloating now experienced by millions of people?
Immortal HeLa Cells And The Continuing Contamination Of Cancer And Vaccine Research. If you've ever been vaccinated, you've got a little HeLa in you.
Master Index of Health-Related Articles on BSI.International
Other Articles of Interest....
Healthful Foods You Should Never, Ever Eat. First and foremost, avoid most processed foods, unless it's labeled USDA 100% Organic. You can also avoid GM foods that are not found in processed foods, if you know what to look for. There are currently at least eight genetically modified food crops on the market.
Top 10 Scariest Food Additives. Even if you're not convinced of their danger, you have to admit this: The more filler ingredients you cut from your diet, the more space you have for wholesome, nutritious foods.
Get Saturated: Four Reasons Saturated Fat is Healthy. Your brain is fat. And that's a good thing. Your brain consists mainly of fat and cholesterol, and it needs saturated fat more than any other kind. It's the opposite of what the medical industry tells you, but it's true: eating a diet rich in saturated fats protects your heart.
President's Panel: 'Eat Organic, Ward Off Cancer'. The risk of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.
From garlic to bananas, don't bin the skin: Eating fruit and vegetable peel could combat cancer. Drop the peeler — eating the skins of fruit and vegetables could boost your nutritional intake of vitamins, combat cancer and increase your energy levels.
Eggs' Antioxidant Properties May Help Prevent Heart Disease and Cancer, Study Suggests. While eggs are well known to be an excellent source of proteins, lipids, vitamins and minerals, researchers at the University of Alberta recently discovered they also contain antioxidant properties, which helps in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Diet for Cancer Patients.Before viewing my diet suggestions, please understand that health begins with what you eliminate from your diet, not with what you add. The first step in recovery and healing is to remove the problem foods from your diet. Then you can replace them with the healthy food you should have been eating from the beginning.
Why You Should Eat More (not less) Cholesterol. Choline has a variety of functions in the body, including the synthesis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, cell-membrane signaling, lipid transport, and methylgroup metabolism. (4) In addition, it is an essential component of the many phospholipids that make up cell membranes, regulates several metabolic pathways, and aids detoxification in the body.
Celiac Disease on the Rise in U.S. If left undiagnosed, a person eating gluten in breads, processed foods and some dairy products may become increasingly malnourished. Even more, these areas can become permanently damaged and unable to absorb nutrients well after a person stops consuming gluten. In some cases, celiac can be deadly if left unnoticed, but the vast majority of cases are manageable.
Chlorella One of Nature's Most Powerful Detoxification Tools. Chlorella is one of the most widely studied food supplements in the world. Aside from being the subject of medical research in the USA, USSR, Germany, Japan, France, England and Israel, chlorella has been extensively studied as a food source since it is made up of a whopping 50 percent protein and is considered a complete amino acid-based food.
Benefits of Cinnamon Capsules or Tablets. Diets containing cinnamon naturally or in supplement form may prove beneficial in regulating blood sugar. Essential oils found in cinnamon have been demonstrated to possess anti-microbial properties, protecting against growth of bacteria and fungi.
A Headline You Will Never See: 60-year old Man Dies of High Cholesterol. Cholesterol doesn't harm, maim, or kill. It is simply used as a crude - very crude - marker. It is, in reality, a component of the body, of the cell wall, of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream. It is used a an indirect gauge, a "dipstick," for lipoproteins in the blood to those who don't understand how to identify, characterize, and quantify actual lipoproteins in the blood.
Which Fruits and Vegetables Are Most Effective Against Cancer? Cancer is not a disease whose origin is principally genetic, as many people continue to believe. It is a pathology that is closely linked to a range of lifestyle factors, particularly smoking and obesity (which stems from our sedentary habits and our dietary choices). Several studies have shown a direct link between the regular consumption of certain fruits and vegetables and a reduction in risk of developing various types of cancer.
15 Reasons to Eat Organic Food. Eating organic reduces your cancer risk. The rapidly increasing rates of cancer are at least partly linked to the use of these carcinogenic pesticides.
20 Practical uses for Cola Drinks. Proof that Coke does not belong in the human body.
Five Reasons You Need More Water. When you have enough water, your lymphatic system operates at peak, removing wastes and toxins from your body at a healthy rate. Water comprises 80% of your body and is the most important element to your well-being and health, outdistancing all others.
18 Foods That Should Never Be Eaten. We indeed are what we eat and what we are eating in many ‘first world nations’ is quite scary. The chemicals added to these ‘foods’ are disrupting our hormones, causing cancer and leading to a variety of health issues.
How Wheat (and Gluten) Triggers Weight Gain, Prediabetes, Diabetes and More. Hypothyroidism is an autoimmune disease in 90% of cases. In this article we discuss the connection between autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD) and gluten intolerance.
Why 80 Percent of People Worldwide Will Soon Stop Eating Wheat. Why is there such a strong emphasis on the development of wheat products all over the world when there are so many adverse and crippling effects such as neurological impairment, dementia, heart disease, cataracts, diabetes, arthritis and visceral fat accumulation, not to mention the full range of intolerances and bloating now experienced by millions of people?
Healthful Foods You should Never Ever Eat. Soy, corn, GMO, Sugar from sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, Cottonseed, Some varieties of zucchini, Canola (canola oil), Crookneck squash, etc.
The Key to Long Life is 'Avoiding Junk Food'. When asked for her secrets to a long life, the great-great-grandmother told local newspapers: 'I mind my own business,' and 'I don't eat junk food.'
Milk: It's Not All White. A cocktail of up to 20 chemicals in a glass of milk.
Kellogg’s, Corn Syrup, and Cancer. Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate, states Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA’s Jonsson Cancer Center.
MSG: Drug, Poison, Or Flavor-Enhancer? MSG (Ajino Moto) makes food that is bad for us taste really, really, really good, in essence compromising our health by tricking our taste buds and intuition into eating things that are intrinsically harmful, or harmful when eaten excessively. MSG is a toxic chemical that directly damages neurological tissue, as well as inducing a generalized endocrine disruption throughout the body known as "metabolic syndrome," the symptoms of which include hypertension, insulin resistance, elevated blood lipids and/or elevated blood sugar.
Master Index of Health-Related Articles on BSI.International