SUGAR - NUMBER TWO CAUSE OF PHYSICAL PROBLEMS
From Hallelujah Acres
2. SUGAR
After animal products, which we took a long look at in
last week's Health Tip #415, the next most popular
DEAD,
FIBERLESS, and good-for-nothing KILLER food of our day
is
refined SUGAR! However, it is not a food substance at
all,
but rather a dangerous poison. Yet it is consumed by
almost
everyone in America, on a daily basis, and it does
horrible
things within the body. It is also something God never
intended our physical bodies to ever have to contend
with.
The only sugar God designed our physical bodies to
ever
have to deal with were the natural sugars found in the
LIVING, raw fruits and vegetables, that He, God,
created
and placed in the Garden!
Are you aware that a hundred years ago, the average
annual
intake of refined sugar was approximately 5 pounds per
person per year? Today, the average annual intake of
refined sugar is around 170 pounds per person per
year.
That means that if a person is consuming the Standard
American Diet (SAD), that person is placing into their
God
made physical bodies, over 50 teaspoons of refined
sugar
each and every day of their life. Thus a person who
lives
to the age of 70 will have placed into their body,
during
their lifetime, some 12,000 pounds of refined sugar.
Well,
let's take a look at what all that sugar is doing
within
our beautiful, God designed, physical body?
(1) REFINED SUGAR IS A DEAD FOOD
Refined sugar originated in a living plant, which
contained its complete complement of enzymes, but by
the
time it reaches the refined sugar stage, all life has
been
destroyed, and it has become a very DEAD food. Let's
look
for a moment at what they do with the original sugar
cane
or beet as they turn the living sugars found in the
plant,
into a refined, DEAD, product. The following
information
was taken from a newsletter written by Charlotte
Gerson:
"Sugar is a basic element in starchy food, however,
processed sugar is a completely different matter. The
sugar
we purchase in the supermarket for personal
consumption is
processed sugar. This kind of sugar is heated up in
chalk-
milk, so that calcium and protein are extracted. After
the
process, it becomes alkaloid, destroying all vitamin
content. In the second phase the sugar is mixed with
acid
chalk, carbonic gas, sulfur dioxide and finally with
natrium bicarbonate. The mixture is cooked and cooled
off
several times and thereafter crystallized and
centrifuged.
The dead mass is then treated with strontium
hydroxide.
Subsequently it arrives at the refinery where it is
passed
over chalk carbon acid to clean it. Dark coloring is
removed by adding sulfuric acid and then it is
filtered
with bone charcoal. Finally, it is colored with
Indathrenblue or the highly toxic Ultramarine. This
product's chemical composition is C12H22O11, which you
can
buy in shops as 'pure cane' sugar."
(2) REFINED SUGAR CONTAINS NO FIBER
Another important thing to understand about refined
sugar
is that just like we saw with foods of animal origin,
sugar
is devoid of all fiber. Let's remember here, that God
designed our bodies to move food through a very
extensive
digestive tract through means of fiber, and foods
containing no fiber create problems.
(3) REFINED SUGAR IS FRAGMENTED
Through heating and mechanical and chemical
processing,
all vitamins, proteins, fats, enzymes - indeed - every
single nutrient is removed until nothing but pure
white
sugar, pure 'naked calories,' pure refined
carbohydrate
remains. Sixty-four food elements are destroyed in the
processing. Fragmented foods set up nutritional
imbalances
that precipitate health problems galore.
(4) REFINED SUGAR IS HIGHLY ACIDIC
Like animal source foods, refined sugar is also 'acid
forming.' This means that the body must take vital
alkaline
minerals, calcium being the most plentiful, from the
body's
cells to metabolize refined sugar. This high sugar
use,
along with the consumption of animal products, causes
the
body to take so much calcium from our bones and teeth
that
the bones become osteoporotic and teeth decay.
(5) REFINED SUGAR CREATES BLOOD SUGAR DISORDERS
One pound of apples contains 263 calories, whereas,
one
pound of candy has 1800 calories. Refined sugar in
junk
foods is concentrated far beyond what the human body
was
ever designed by God to ever have to process at one
time.
Thus the body has to somehow deal with this incredible
large amount of sugar if it is going to survive. The
body
does deal with it, but in doing so, it often results
in
physical problems called DIABETES and HYPOGLYCEMIA.
DIABETES - In Health Tip #415 we learned that the
primary
cause of diabetes was the fat contained in animal
products.
But when a diabetic consumes refined sugar, the
pancreas
has difficulty producing adequate insulin when the
blood
sugar rises. Concentrated amounts of sugar cause a
rapid
rise in blood sugar. Chronic intake of sugar
eventually
exhausts the pancreas as it tries to compensate. Thus
the
diabetic is condemned to having to take
ever-increasing
amounts of insulin to compensate. Diabetes is the
'Number
Three Killer Disease," in America, preceded only by
cardiovascular related diseases and cancer.
HYPOGLYCEMIA - is the flip side of diabetes.
Hypoglycemia
occurs when the body still has a fairly strong
pancreas.
The body overreacts to a concentrated sugar intake and
releases too much insulin from the pancreas. Blood
sugar
levels then plummet far below the normal stable level.
The
suffering Hypoglycemic often experiences fatigue;
headaches; mental depression, and irritability. These
symptoms are often dealt with by the intake of some
more
refined sugar, and so the Hypoglycemic is often caught
in
an endless cycle that often causes the pancreas to
wear out
from all of the constant over stimulation - which
often
results in Diabetes, because now the sufferer cannot
produce sufficient insulin for normal metabolic
activities.
(6) REFINED SUGAR PROMOTES EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY
After a "sugarholic" has consumed a box of candy, or
bag
of cookies, or any large amount of refined sugar, they
know
how self-abused and depressed they feel. Sadly,
studies
reveal a strong link between juvenile and adult
criminal
offenses and sugar addiction. Similar research reveals
a
link between mental illness and sugar abuse. And
hypoglycemic reactions, for the very sensitive
consumer,
promote extreme irrationality, emotional instability,
and
oftentimes aggressiveness. Recent studies are
revealing
that sugar may be as involved in mental illness,
divorce,
and crime as alcohol has been found to be. Depression
is
also one of the most rapidly growing problems in our
society today, and refined sugar is one of the major
contributing factors! ADD and ADHD are running rampant
among our children and even some adults! It is a
problem
doctors are trying to treat with drugs, such as
Ritalin.
Isn't it a sad commentary, that these emotional
problems,
that were caused by the very toxic and poisonous,
addictive
drug (poison) called refined sugar, are then treated
with
another poison, a doctor prescribed drug! How sad! You
mother's who are having a problem with your child's
behavior might consider removing all sugar from their
diet.
(7) REFINED SUGAR CONTRIBUTES TO HEART DISEASE
Fat is not the only contributing factor in heart
disease.
Large amounts of refined sugar cause the insulin in
the
body to convert blood glucose (sugar) into fatty acids
and
triglycerides. Those on a high-sugar diet show
significantly higher levels of fat in their blood than
those who eat no refined sugar. This high fat content
in
the blood is directly related to the development of
plaque
build-up within the arteries, and ultimately, to
hardening
of the arteries.
(8) REFINED SUGAR LEADS TO ADDICTION AND WEIGHT GAIN
Sugar is highly caloric in its pure form, but then it
is
often combined with something containing high fat,
like
shortening, along with some salt, producing a tempting
goodie like candy, fudge, or a donut. Often these high
sugar foods are consumed with a high sugar drink, like
soda
pop. All of this sugar contributes to weight gain.
Recently
I read that if a person consumes just one 12-ounce can
of
soda pop a day, the 11-teaspoons of sugar in that soda
pop
could add 12 pounds to their weight in just one year.
Furthermore, because of the way it plays havoc with
emotions, refined sugar is highly addicting - it works
exactly like a protoplasmic poison, a drug. This means
that
once a sugarholic sufferer has given into this
crystalline
sweetness, they can't stop the addiction. And if they
dare
face withdrawal, the 'sugar blues' give them no peace
until
they return to the sugar, and resign themselves to
remain
fat.
Refined sugar is every bit as addictive as nicotine
and
alcohol! We have found that when a person decides to
adopt
The Hallelujah Diet, they usually do not have a great
deal
of difficulty eliminating the animal products, white
flour
products, table salt, or even caffeine (which is
another
addictive drug), but many find that the most difficult
substance to eliminate is refined sugar. Sugar has a
powerful addictive influence upon many people. Have
you
ever noticed that children, who are allowed to have
candy,
are always asking for more, while never being
satisfied no
matter how much you give them? It is because their
bodies
have become addicted to sugar and there bodies are
screaming for a fix.
(9) REFINED SUGAR COMPROMISES THE IMMUNE SYSTEM
Let's remember that the immune system is what God
built
into each of our physical bodies to protect us from
the
germs, viruses, and bacteria of this world. It is our
first
line of defense! Refined sugar is an immune system
suppressant! In other words, refined sugar cripples
and can
even knock out this first line of defense. Does that
not
give us a clue as to why so many people experience
infections, colds, the flu, along with other flu like
symptoms, and more? This editor hasn't experienced a
cold
or the flu, since eliminating refined sugar, and
adopting a
basically living plant source diet 30 years ago!
(10) SUGAR CONTRIBUTES TO A MYRIAD OF OTHER PHYSICAL
PROBLEMS
Refined sugar is associated with malnutrition and
decreased resistance to disease. Refined sugar impacts
quality of life as it increases the severity of PMS;
decreases cognitive or intellectual function,
especially in
children; sugar also contributes to our current
epidemic of
heart disease, and so much more.
Following is just a partial list of other health
problems
related to the intake of refined sugar: Acne,
addiction to
drugs and caffeine, alcoholism, allergies, anxiety,
behavior problems, binge eating, bloating, bone loss,
Candidiasis, depression, difficulty concentrating,
eczema,
edema, emotional problems, fatigue, food cravings,
hormonal
problems, hyperactivity, insomnia, menstrual
difficulties,
mental illness, mood swings, premature aging,
psoriasis,
and the list goes on and on.
To summarize, refined sugar and products made with it,
are
the second most often cause or contributing cause of
the
physical problems being experienced today. Refined
sugar
products are all DEAD, and FIBERLESS, and following
animal
source foods, the second most popular of the deadly,
KILLER
foods of our day. No wonder God says: "My people are
destroyed for lack of knowledge." Isn't it a sad
commentary, that instead of dealing with our physical
problems by dealing with their causes, and eliminating
those causes, we deal with their causes and symptoms,
with
the consumption of other poisonous drugs! All because
we
have failed to nourish our physical bodies the way
that God
designed in Genesis 1:29!
Share this on Facebook: Share
Showing posts with label toxin: processed sugar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label toxin: processed sugar. Show all posts
Monday, May 10, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sugar destroys your health...
Here is a list of ways sugar can affect your health:
|
Source: www.nancyappleton.com
Share this on Facebook: Share
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
High Fructose Corn Syrup Proven to Cause Human Obesity
High Fructose Corn Syrup Proven to Cause Human Obesity
By Vanessa Barrington, EcoSalon
December 24, 2009 LINK TO FULL ARTICLE BELOW
You've heard it before: a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If people are fat, it's their own fault for eating too much.
These words are usually spouted by PR hacks for the corn refiner's association – or the dietitians paid by them. They may not, as it turns out, be true.
We finally have the smoking corn cob, as it were: the study processed-food foes have been waiting for, indicating that high fructose corn syrup may be the cause of the huge upswing in childhood obesity and diabetes.
American consumption of all sugars is much higher than it should be for our health, but high fructose corn syrup has become a larger share of our sugar consumption due to the fact that much of our ingestion of this super cheap, highly processed sugar is involuntary. That's because it's not just used as a sweetener in cookies and sodas but as a food additive in things like bread, ketchup and other condiments, pasta sauce and coatings for frozen fried foods.
Why is it used so liberally? It increases shelf life and has other characteristics that food processors like. The reason it's really cheap is because the government subsidizes corn so heavily (and if you've read your Michael Pollan you already know this so I'll shut up now).
To read the full article: http://www.alternet.org/story/
Friday, October 30, 2009
The 10 Weirdest, Grossest Ingredients in Processed Food
The 10 Weirdest, Grossest Ingredients in Processed Food
By , WebEcoist
October 30, 2009
[excerpts; link to full article below]
Everyone now knows that processed and fast foods are not the bastions of nutrition, but that shouldn’t make these ingredients found inside them any less revolting. This list sends a clear message: when a packaged food contains more than five ingredients and includes some that are difficult to pronounce, stay away. Make a b-line straight to the organics aisle and go for vegan meals or vegetarian recipes instead.
1. Fertilizer in Subway Sandwich Rolls
While chemical fertilizers inevitably make it into our produce in trace amounts, you would not expect it to be a common food additive. However, ammonium sulfate can be found inside many brands of bread, including Subway’s. The chemical provides nitrogen for the yeast, creating a more consistent product.
2. Beaver Anal Glands in Raspberry Candy
The anal glands of a beaver, conveniently euphemized as castoreum, are a common ingredient in perfumes and colognes but are also sometimes used to -- believe it or not -- enhance the flavor of raspberry candies and sweets.
3. Beef Fat in All Hostess Products
While this may not bother the most ardent omnivore, others are shocked to discover that their favorite childhood treats contain straight-up beef fat. The ingredient comes included a list of other oils that may or may not be used, so it is always a gamble! It is enough to make some of us want to go vegan.
4. Crushed Bugs as Red Food Coloring
After killing thousands at a time, the dried insects are boiled to produce a liquid solution that can be turned to a dye using a variety of treatments. Some people worry that the coloring -- often called carmine or carminic acid -- could be listed as a “natural color,” disguising the fact that there are bugs in the product.
...
6. Sheep Secretions in Bubble Gum
The oils inside sheep’s wool are collected to create the goopy substance called lanolin. From there, it ends up in chewing gum (sometimes under the guise of “gum base”), but also is used to create vitamin D3 supplements.
...
9. Calf Stomach in Many Cheeses
In the UK, all cheeses are labeled as either suitable or not suitable for vegetarians because in Britain -- and everywhere else — many cheeses are made using rennet, which is the fourth stomach of a young cow. In the United States and most other countries, people are left to guess about the stomach-content of their cheese.
To read the full article: http://www.alternet.org/story/143560/
By , WebEcoist
October 30, 2009
[excerpts; link to full article below]
Everyone now knows that processed and fast foods are not the bastions of nutrition, but that shouldn’t make these ingredients found inside them any less revolting. This list sends a clear message: when a packaged food contains more than five ingredients and includes some that are difficult to pronounce, stay away. Make a b-line straight to the organics aisle and go for vegan meals or vegetarian recipes instead.
1. Fertilizer in Subway Sandwich Rolls
While chemical fertilizers inevitably make it into our produce in trace amounts, you would not expect it to be a common food additive. However, ammonium sulfate can be found inside many brands of bread, including Subway’s. The chemical provides nitrogen for the yeast, creating a more consistent product.
2. Beaver Anal Glands in Raspberry Candy
The anal glands of a beaver, conveniently euphemized as castoreum, are a common ingredient in perfumes and colognes but are also sometimes used to -- believe it or not -- enhance the flavor of raspberry candies and sweets.
3. Beef Fat in All Hostess Products
While this may not bother the most ardent omnivore, others are shocked to discover that their favorite childhood treats contain straight-up beef fat. The ingredient comes included a list of other oils that may or may not be used, so it is always a gamble! It is enough to make some of us want to go vegan.
4. Crushed Bugs as Red Food Coloring
After killing thousands at a time, the dried insects are boiled to produce a liquid solution that can be turned to a dye using a variety of treatments. Some people worry that the coloring -- often called carmine or carminic acid -- could be listed as a “natural color,” disguising the fact that there are bugs in the product.
...
6. Sheep Secretions in Bubble Gum
The oils inside sheep’s wool are collected to create the goopy substance called lanolin. From there, it ends up in chewing gum (sometimes under the guise of “gum base”), but also is used to create vitamin D3 supplements.
...
9. Calf Stomach in Many Cheeses
In the UK, all cheeses are labeled as either suitable or not suitable for vegetarians because in Britain -- and everywhere else — many cheeses are made using rennet, which is the fourth stomach of a young cow. In the United States and most other countries, people are left to guess about the stomach-content of their cheese.
To read the full article: http://www.alternet.org/story/143560/
Friday, May 1, 2009
Glucose, Fructose and Sucrose: What’s the Difference Between These Sugars … and Which is the Worst for Your Health?
Glucose, Fructose and Sucrose: What’s the Difference Between These Sugars … and Which is the Worst for Your Health?
by www.SixWise.com
http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/April/29/Glucose-Fructose-Sucrose-Whats-the-Difference.htm?source=nl
The sugar in your soda and other favorite sugary treats may all go down sweetly, but a groundbreaking new study found they act very differently once in your body.
The three main types of sugar in question are:
1. Glucose: made when your body breaks down starches
2. Fructose: the sugar found naturally in fruits and widely used in the form of high-fructose corn syrup
3. Sucrose: table sugar
Researchers from the University of California, Davis compared glucose and fructose consumption among 32 overweight or obese people and found they resulted in very different health changes.
To read the full article:
http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/April/29/Glucose-Fructose-Sucrose-Whats-the-Difference.htm?source=nl
by www.SixWise.com
http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/April/29/Glucose-Fructose-Sucrose-Whats-the-Difference.htm?source=nl
The sugar in your soda and other favorite sugary treats may all go down sweetly, but a groundbreaking new study found they act very differently once in your body.
The three main types of sugar in question are:
1. Glucose: made when your body breaks down starches
2. Fructose: the sugar found naturally in fruits and widely used in the form of high-fructose corn syrup
3. Sucrose: table sugar
Researchers from the University of California, Davis compared glucose and fructose consumption among 32 overweight or obese people and found they resulted in very different health changes.
To read the full article:
http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/April/29/Glucose-Fructose-Sucrose-Whats-the-Difference.htm?source=nl
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated with Mercury
High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated with Toxic Mercury, Says Research (opinion)
(NaturalNews) New research published in Environmental Health and conducted in part by a scientist at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has revealed that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is contaminated with the toxic heavy metal mercury.
That means that many of the products using HFCS may also be contaminated with mercury. Carbonated sodas are sweetened with HFCS, as are candy bars, bread, salad dressings, pizza sauce, fruit drinks and thousands of other grocery items.
Mercury is so highly toxic that it causes severe neurological disorders. It can also result in the loss of hair, teeth and nails as well as muscle weakness, loss of kidney function, emotional mood swings and memory impairment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercur...) (P.S. Somebody please update this Wikipedia page with this latest research about HFCS being a source for mercury exposure, too.)
The highest level of contamination found in the study was 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of HFCS. The EPA says that an average-sized woman should consume no more than 5.5 micrograms per day of mercury, meaning that the average American consumer may be eating five times the upper safety limit of mercury every day due to high-fructose corn syrup consumption if they consume the foods tested in the study.
That's because the average American consumes 12 teaspoons of HFCS every day! So just by eating the standard American diet of processed foods, consumers are right now potentially exposing themselves to exceedingly high levels of mercury that far surpass the safety limits set by the EPA.
Eating some sweetened yogurt? Mercury!
How about some salad dressing with HFCS? Mercury!
Want some ketchup on that burger? Mercury!
In fact, mercury is found in thousands of grocery products sold across the world right now. And it's no exaggeration to say that mainstream consumers of popular food items are likely suffering from widespread mercury poisoning (especially if you add in the mercury exposure they're getting from dental fillings).
Another toxic chemical, glutaraldehyde, is also used in the production of HFCS. It's so toxic that consuming even a small amount of it can burn a hole in your stomach.
But don't worry: The Corn Refiners Association insists that HFCS is a "natural" ingredient, and their Chicago-based PR firm Weber Shandwick is now also claiming that HFCS has been declared "natural" by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It hasn't really, of course, but that doesn't stop the press releases from claiming it has. (If you think a liquid sugar processed with glutaraldehyde and contaminated with mercury is "natural," then you've been duped. There's nothing natural about a processed food ingredient made with toxic chemicals.)
A Weber Shandwick representative calls me every time I post an article about HFCS, by the way, usually with demands that I remove the entire article. I've invited the Corn Refiners Association to a phone interview to defend their position that HFCS doesn't cause diabetes or obesity, and to answer questions about whether HFCS is really "natural." So far, they have declined to be interviewed. It seems they don't want to face real questions from an honest journalist who refuses to be censored by powerful corporations.
One thing I've got to say about the Corn Refiners Association is that they have a well-funded PR machine running around the internet trying to make everybody remove stories that say anything negative about HFCS.
I've noticed that the Corn Refiners Association is a master at spinning the truth. For example, the president of the CRA, Audrae Erickson, said this in a statement responding to the mercury findings: "Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two reagents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years."
Well sure, that's true. But what is Erickson NOT saying? She's not saying that ALL the HFCS is made without mercury. She just says that somewhere in the industry, somebody is using a mercury-free version of the caustic soda. That doesn't mean all the HFCS is mercury free, yet if you don't read her statement carefully, you might be misled into thinking that. Her statement, in fact, leaves open the possibility that 99% of all HFCS might still be manufactured using mercury.
Note carefully that Erickson does not say all HFCS sold in the U.S. is free from mercury. Instead, she makes a clever statement that results in most readers assuming that's what she means. The CRA is well known for using this kind of language spin tactics.
NaturalNews challenges the CRA to state that all HFCS is free from mercury (see below).
So don't worry about the mercury in your HFCS. Or the other toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing process. That's all natural, we're supposed to believe. And high-fructose corn syrup is a healthy, wholesome, all-American sweetener grown without pesticides by poor Midwestern farmers who have given their lives and souls to create a sweeter, happier America.
Or at least that's the fairy tale version of the story. In reality, HFCS is created by corporate agriculture giants using toxic pesticides and herbicides on the crops who subject their corn to numerous toxic chemicals in the creation of this potentially mercury-contaminated processed sweetener that promotes tooth decay, obesity, diabetes and possibly even neurological disorders thanks to the mercury.
Yum. I can't wait to gobble down another chocolate candy bar sweetened with this stuff...
Renee Dufault retired from the FDA last year. Only now, nearly a year after her retirement, has she dared to release her findings about mercury and high-fructose corn syrup.
Can you guess why? As an employee of the FDA, there's little question she would have been pressured into silence about the HFCS mercury contamination issue. A lot of powerful corporations that wield steady influence over the FDA would not be happy to see the truth come out about HFCS and mercury. So she waited until after retiring from the FDA to go public with these findings.
In fact, Reuters is now reporting that Dufault told the FDA about her findings, but the agency did nothing to act on them. Is anybody really surprised?
That's because the samples used in the study were taken in 2005. The CRA seems to imply they've cleaned up their act since then and are now using a mercury-free process (see statement from Erickson, above). But note that the CRA carefully avoids claiming all HFCS is free from mercury. Their official reply to the Environmental Health article is a perfect example of corporate doublespeak: http://www.corn.org/mercury-HFCS-st...
Specifically, note that the statement avoids promising that all HFCS meets the FDA's definition of the term "natural" or that all HFCS is free from mercury.
NaturalNews challenges the honesty of the Corn Refiners Association in making these seemingly deceptive statements. We request that if the CRA is really to be believed, it must publicly state that all HFCS sold in America today is free from mercury and that all HFCS meets the definition of "natural" as described by the FDA.
Don't hold your breath on that. I can already tell you the CRA will never make such statements because it knows they would be provably false. The truth is that last thing the CRA wants to make public, in my view. I think it's really in the business of creating the illusion of truth through clever P.R. tactics.
Doesn't anybody wonder why didn't the CRA recall the mercury-contaminated HFCS when it became aware of the issue?
If all HFCS is now manufactured in a mercury-free process (which is highly doubtful, by the way), then that means at some point the CRA must have realized HFCS was contaminated with mercury and it made a decision to switch to a mercury-free process. Why was the public never warned about the pre-2006 mercury in HFCS? And why weren't foods containing HFCS recalled from store shelves due to their mercury content?
If the CRA's present-day statements are to be believed, it means the group must have been aware of the mercury contamination of HFCS through 2005 and yet it did nothing to make that fact known to the public.
So even if HFCS is free from mercury today, the CRA has a lot of explaining to do. The group either knew about the mercury contamination and did nothing to warn the public, or it didn't know about the mercury contamination, putting it in a position of remarkable ignorance about the safety of a product it has routinely claimed to be "safe" and "natural" for many years.
So which is it? Is the CRA run by liars, or just fools?
My offer for a phone interview with a CRA representative remains open. If anybody from the CRA wants to get on the phone with me and defend HFCS, the door is wide open. You know how to reach me.
Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece. All statements are my own opinion and are obviously not agreed to by the CRA, which vigorously defends the safety of HFCS. Almost as if their jobs depended on it, come to think....
(NaturalNews) New research published in Environmental Health and conducted in part by a scientist at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has revealed that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is contaminated with the toxic heavy metal mercury.
That means that many of the products using HFCS may also be contaminated with mercury. Carbonated sodas are sweetened with HFCS, as are candy bars, bread, salad dressings, pizza sauce, fruit drinks and thousands of other grocery items.
Mercury is so highly toxic that it causes severe neurological disorders. It can also result in the loss of hair, teeth and nails as well as muscle weakness, loss of kidney function, emotional mood swings and memory impairment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercur...) (P.S. Somebody please update this Wikipedia page with this latest research about HFCS being a source for mercury exposure, too.)
The highest level of contamination found in the study was 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of HFCS. The EPA says that an average-sized woman should consume no more than 5.5 micrograms per day of mercury, meaning that the average American consumer may be eating five times the upper safety limit of mercury every day due to high-fructose corn syrup consumption if they consume the foods tested in the study.
That's because the average American consumes 12 teaspoons of HFCS every day! So just by eating the standard American diet of processed foods, consumers are right now potentially exposing themselves to exceedingly high levels of mercury that far surpass the safety limits set by the EPA.
Buy groceries, get free mercury!
High-fructose corn syrup is used in almost everything, it seems. A second study conducted by the same researchers reveals that nearly one-third of all grocery items sweetened with HFCS were contaminated with mercury.Eating some sweetened yogurt? Mercury!
How about some salad dressing with HFCS? Mercury!
Want some ketchup on that burger? Mercury!
In fact, mercury is found in thousands of grocery products sold across the world right now. And it's no exaggeration to say that mainstream consumers of popular food items are likely suffering from widespread mercury poisoning (especially if you add in the mercury exposure they're getting from dental fillings).
Where does all the mercury come from?
Most people don't know how high-fructose corn syrup is really made. One of those processes is a bizarre chemical brew involving the creation of caustic soda by exposing raw materials to pools of electrified mercury in a large vat. Through this process, the caustic soda gets contaminated with mercury, and when corn kernels are exposed to this caustic soda to break them down, that contamination is passed through to the HFCS.Another toxic chemical, glutaraldehyde, is also used in the production of HFCS. It's so toxic that consuming even a small amount of it can burn a hole in your stomach.
But don't worry: The Corn Refiners Association insists that HFCS is a "natural" ingredient, and their Chicago-based PR firm Weber Shandwick is now also claiming that HFCS has been declared "natural" by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It hasn't really, of course, but that doesn't stop the press releases from claiming it has. (If you think a liquid sugar processed with glutaraldehyde and contaminated with mercury is "natural," then you've been duped. There's nothing natural about a processed food ingredient made with toxic chemicals.)
A Weber Shandwick representative calls me every time I post an article about HFCS, by the way, usually with demands that I remove the entire article. I've invited the Corn Refiners Association to a phone interview to defend their position that HFCS doesn't cause diabetes or obesity, and to answer questions about whether HFCS is really "natural." So far, they have declined to be interviewed. It seems they don't want to face real questions from an honest journalist who refuses to be censored by powerful corporations.
One thing I've got to say about the Corn Refiners Association is that they have a well-funded PR machine running around the internet trying to make everybody remove stories that say anything negative about HFCS.
I've noticed that the Corn Refiners Association is a master at spinning the truth. For example, the president of the CRA, Audrae Erickson, said this in a statement responding to the mercury findings: "Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two reagents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years."
Well sure, that's true. But what is Erickson NOT saying? She's not saying that ALL the HFCS is made without mercury. She just says that somewhere in the industry, somebody is using a mercury-free version of the caustic soda. That doesn't mean all the HFCS is mercury free, yet if you don't read her statement carefully, you might be misled into thinking that. Her statement, in fact, leaves open the possibility that 99% of all HFCS might still be manufactured using mercury.
Note carefully that Erickson does not say all HFCS sold in the U.S. is free from mercury. Instead, she makes a clever statement that results in most readers assuming that's what she means. The CRA is well known for using this kind of language spin tactics.
NaturalNews challenges the CRA to state that all HFCS is free from mercury (see below).
The HFCS fairy tale
The CRA isn't just in the business of pushing HFCS, by the way. It's also in the business of denial. For example: Virtually everyone who understands holistic nutrition agrees that HFCS promotes diabetes and obesity. But in much the same way that Big Tobacco executives once swore that "nicotine is not addictive," the Corn Refiners Association insists that high-fructose corn syrup does not promote diabetes or obesity.So don't worry about the mercury in your HFCS. Or the other toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing process. That's all natural, we're supposed to believe. And high-fructose corn syrup is a healthy, wholesome, all-American sweetener grown without pesticides by poor Midwestern farmers who have given their lives and souls to create a sweeter, happier America.
Or at least that's the fairy tale version of the story. In reality, HFCS is created by corporate agriculture giants using toxic pesticides and herbicides on the crops who subject their corn to numerous toxic chemicals in the creation of this potentially mercury-contaminated processed sweetener that promotes tooth decay, obesity, diabetes and possibly even neurological disorders thanks to the mercury.
Yum. I can't wait to gobble down another chocolate candy bar sweetened with this stuff...
Politics at the FDA
There's an angle on this story that nobody is yet reporting. The lead author of this study, Renee Dufault, used to work for the FDA. In fact, she investigated the use of mercury at chlorine plants, where the manufacturing process results in the chlorine being contaminated with mercury. With chlorine being dumped into the public water supply, this is obviously a health concern.Renee Dufault retired from the FDA last year. Only now, nearly a year after her retirement, has she dared to release her findings about mercury and high-fructose corn syrup.
Can you guess why? As an employee of the FDA, there's little question she would have been pressured into silence about the HFCS mercury contamination issue. A lot of powerful corporations that wield steady influence over the FDA would not be happy to see the truth come out about HFCS and mercury. So she waited until after retiring from the FDA to go public with these findings.
In fact, Reuters is now reporting that Dufault told the FDA about her findings, but the agency did nothing to act on them. Is anybody really surprised?
Lies about mercury
The Corn Refiners Association, predictably, is attacking these study results, claiming "This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance..."That's because the samples used in the study were taken in 2005. The CRA seems to imply they've cleaned up their act since then and are now using a mercury-free process (see statement from Erickson, above). But note that the CRA carefully avoids claiming all HFCS is free from mercury. Their official reply to the Environmental Health article is a perfect example of corporate doublespeak: http://www.corn.org/mercury-HFCS-st...
Specifically, note that the statement avoids promising that all HFCS meets the FDA's definition of the term "natural" or that all HFCS is free from mercury.
NaturalNews challenges the honesty of the Corn Refiners Association in making these seemingly deceptive statements. We request that if the CRA is really to be believed, it must publicly state that all HFCS sold in America today is free from mercury and that all HFCS meets the definition of "natural" as described by the FDA.
Don't hold your breath on that. I can already tell you the CRA will never make such statements because it knows they would be provably false. The truth is that last thing the CRA wants to make public, in my view. I think it's really in the business of creating the illusion of truth through clever P.R. tactics.
Did the CRA know about the mercury contamination of HFCS?
But let's give the CRA the benefit of the doubt for a minute here. Let's suppose that right up to 2005, HFCS was routinely contaminated with mercury, but now suddenly it's all mercury free.Doesn't anybody wonder why didn't the CRA recall the mercury-contaminated HFCS when it became aware of the issue?
If all HFCS is now manufactured in a mercury-free process (which is highly doubtful, by the way), then that means at some point the CRA must have realized HFCS was contaminated with mercury and it made a decision to switch to a mercury-free process. Why was the public never warned about the pre-2006 mercury in HFCS? And why weren't foods containing HFCS recalled from store shelves due to their mercury content?
If the CRA's present-day statements are to be believed, it means the group must have been aware of the mercury contamination of HFCS through 2005 and yet it did nothing to make that fact known to the public.
So even if HFCS is free from mercury today, the CRA has a lot of explaining to do. The group either knew about the mercury contamination and did nothing to warn the public, or it didn't know about the mercury contamination, putting it in a position of remarkable ignorance about the safety of a product it has routinely claimed to be "safe" and "natural" for many years.
So which is it? Is the CRA run by liars, or just fools?
My offer for a phone interview with a CRA representative remains open. If anybody from the CRA wants to get on the phone with me and defend HFCS, the door is wide open. You know how to reach me.
Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece. All statements are my own opinion and are obviously not agreed to by the CRA, which vigorously defends the safety of HFCS. Almost as if their jobs depended on it, come to think....
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
You are what you eat - processed foods
You Are What You Eat - Processed Foods
Paul Chek
[This article is an excerpt from the newly released nine-hour
CD/Workbook program "You Are What You Eat!" by Paul Chek.]
http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=42
Do me a favor before you read the next paragraph - go to your
cupboards and refrigerator, and take a look at how many packaged
food items you have in your kitchen. While you are there pull out a
desert item (i.e. ice cream), a boxed item (i.e. breakfast cereal)
and any other item you have that is flavored (i.e. salad dressing)
and take a look at the labels. After reading the ingredients list,
ask yourself:
How many words am I unable to pronounce?
Which of these ingredients have I never heard of and/or have no idea
what it is?
Go take a look at those labels and, when you come back to finish
this article, I will tell you why you may be having such a hard time
flattening your abs, and why, even if they are flat, you may feel so
dull every day!
If you did this little exercise, you may be surprised at the number
of multi-syllable words that look more like they should be the
ingredients of super glue than of something you're eating.
It is time to enlighten you with regard to what some of these
ingredients are and what they can do to you. The gigantic and often
strange words listed as ingredients (where food items are supposed
to be!) are various concoctions used to color, stabilize, emulsify,
bleach, texturize, soften, preserve, sweeten, add or cover smells,
and flavor!
In case you were wondering just how many of these little chemicals
were sneaking into your mouth each year, current statistics say that
the FDA lists approximately 2800 international food additives and
about 3,000 chemicals, which are deliberately added to our food
supply. When considering the number of chemicals used in the process
of growing and processing food, by the food to the time it reaches
our stomach we have consumed between 10,000 and 15,000 chemicals a
day! (1)
While some of you may be thinking, "I don't eat that many food
additives," I have news for you. The FDA doesn't require food
additives considered to be Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) to be
put on an ingredients label.
Instead, all that is required are the words "artificial flavor"
or "artificial coloring" or "natural". The fact is, the average
American eats approximately his/her body weight in food additives
each year, or approximately 150 pounds; this statistic is roughly
the same for most English speaking countries.
Of this amount, 15 pounds or more will be used as flavoring agents,
preservatives and dyes, many of which are considered GRAS by the
FDA. Before you get comfortable with chemicals considered to be
GRAS, you should realize that to save time and money, the FDA allows
the food and additive manufacturers to notify them of the GRAS
status of their additives and they are allowed to provide their own
evidence to support their claim! Think about that for a moment.
Having the chemical manufacturers provide their own research showing
a given chemical is safe is like asking a cigarette manufacturer do
their own research showing cigarettes are safe! It's no wonder that
this takes place when billions of dollars are at stake and the
health of the average person is unimportant.
The fact of the matter is food and additive manufacturers, like drug
manufacturers, are running the largest study ever run in history -
and you are the guinea pigs! That's right.
It is only when they get enough reports about the damaging effects
of a given additive that they remove it from the GRAS list. With
that in mind, what are the chances of some doctor reporting to the
FDA that their patient suffered adverse reactions to acetaldehyde,
acetic acid, or agar-agar when they were merely on the label
as "food additives" and not listed individually because they are on
the GRAS list? Consider the side effects of these chemicals:
Acetaldehyde is known to be an irritant to mucous membranes, which
line your entire digestive tract, is a central nervous system
depressant and large doses may cause death.
Acetic acid may cause gastrointestinal distress, skin rashes and eye
irritation.
Agar-agar may cause flatulence, bloating (good bye abs!) and may
have a laxative effect (2).
Please realize, I just pulled these GRAS food additives out of a
book entitled "Food Additives, A Shopper's Guide To What's Safe &
What's Not" by Christine Hoza Farlow, D.C., and there are hundreds
more GRAS additives whose side-effects look more like something
Saddam Hussein would be interested in purchasing to use against
Americans than it does something to be put in food.
Yet millions of people are eating these chemicals every day!
By the way, don't be fooled by the use of the term "natural".
Insects, insect larvae, monkey guts, and even mercury are
all "natural" and are just a few of the natural items that end up in
your food! Eric Schlosser, in his book "Fast Food Nation", sums it
up nicely by quoting Terry Acree, a professor of food science
technology at Cornell University who says, "A natural flavor is a
flavor that's been derived with an out-of-date technology".
Food manufacturers play with your perception of what given words
mean and they know that if they can label an additive as "natural",
the health conscious label reading consumer is much more likely to
purchase it, yet just because something is natural, doesn't mean
it's better for you. After all, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and
cocaine are all natural, but none of them are good for you!
To show what is being hidden from us and is right under our nose
(literally!), consider these ingredients used in a Burger King
strawberry milk shake, but are not disclosed because they are GRAS:
Amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate,
benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl
isobutyrate, cinnamyl valerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl,
dipropyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate,
ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl Nitrate, ethyl
propionate, ethyl valerbate, heliotropin, hydroxyphrenyl-2butanone
(10% solution in alcohol), a-ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl
butrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl
anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine
carbonate, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential
oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobutyrate, orris butter,
phenethyl alcohol, rose, rum ether, g-undecalactone, vanillin, and
solvent (3)!
To make this even more alarming, the ingredients listed here are
only for the "strawberry flavoring" in a Burger King milk shake,
this doesn't include the ice cream or anything else in the shake!
Can you imagine what the ingredient list for Neapolitan ice cream
would look?
Our liver must process all of this (Figure 1A & 1B), and when our
liver becomes overworked, these chemicals can end up in our blood
stream, with almost unlimited access to the cells of our bodies, as
well as placing strain on our detoxification systems!
"Can't Just Eat One" Syndrome
Have you ever reached for a bag of chips while thinking, "I really
don't need these, but I'll just eat a few," only to end up reaching
back in the bag over and over until you reach the bottom?
Or how about a tub of ice cream - ever started out nibbling away
thinking "I'll just have a few bites," and next thing you know
you're scraping the bottom of the carton?
Don't feel bad if you do because, unless you were eating 100%
certified organic chips or ice cream, you most likely fell prey to
the chemical tricks food manufacturers are playing on your body and
your wallet!
It turns out that food scientists have determined how to manipulate
the part of your brain that controls food cravings called the
appestat.
The appestat constantly monitors the nutrient content of you blood
and only when fifty-one specific nutrients are present at their
proper levels will an individual feel entirely full and satisfied.
Food scientists have found that by adding or subtracting some of
these nutrients, they can manipulate your sense of hunger and
satiety.
While the research is still incomplete, it's believed that that
adding excess fat, sugar and salt to a food tends to make people
over eat (4).
This is why both sugar and salt show up in some of the strangest
places.
For example, would you have expected to find sugar in sandwich
meats? Have a look at the ingredients on the package in your
refrigerator and look for words ending with "ose".
Anything ending with this suffix is a sugar. While you're at it,
look at your catsup bottle, your canned soups, medicines and even
cigarettes! How sweet of them to play such tricks on your appetite
centers. If you are overweight, you are more than likely one of
millions of victims of chemical manipulation!
So how effective have the food manufacturers been with their
chemical games? Currently, approximately 90% of the money that
Americans spend on food is used to buy processed foods (3).
When you follow the advances in food science, there is loose
parallel in how much fast food Americans are purchasing and the
amount of chemical-trickery scientists do to our food.
Consider that in 1970, when the food sciences were comparatively
undeveloped, Americans spent approximately $6 billion a year on fast
foods.
By the year 2000, scientists had added thousands of new chemical
tricks to their arsenal and, with more attractive packaging and
advertising campaigns, fast food sales soured to $110 billion! This
combination of advertising and chemistry used by fast food
manufacturers is so successful that American fast food business
tycoons can't resist the opportunity to make billions by poisoning
almost every corner of the globe.
As of the middle of 2000, McDonald's planed on opening 650
restaurants in Asia, 550 in Europe, 350 in Latin America, 200 in the
US and another 250 in the rest of the world - a total of 1,500 new
restaurants in Asia were planned by 2002! (5).
Their strategic combination of marketing and scientific trickery
has been so successful that half of Australian children ages 9 and
10 thought that Ronald McDonald knew what kids should be eating;
McDonald's has become the favorite food eaten by children in China!
(6)
Table 1
America ranks among the lowest of all the major industrial nations
in terms of life expectancy, yet spends significantly more money on
health care than any country in the world.
Human beings, armed with some 10,000 taste buds, are thought to have
a fairly comprehensive sense of taste (7).
While you would think that we would be capable of using this
arsenal of taste buds to sniff-out foods of superior nutritional
quality to eat, it would appear that chemical science has put up an
effective smoke screen.
Approximately 50% of the American population have eaten themselves
into some degree of obesity and semi-starvation by consuming
nutritionally inadequate foods!
If that's not enough, the US spends more money on health care than
any other nation with each person averaging over $4,000 per year in
medical expenses.
Yet the US ranks last for life expectancy among all industrialized
nations, is far from being the healthiest nation (Table 1).
This is not hard to believe when you consider that in the year
2000, retail pharmacies in the US filled 3 billion prescriptions -
that's hardly what I would consider a healthy nation (8)!
Then when you take into account that there were 281 million people
living in the US in 2000, with 3 billion prescriptions being filled,
that's almost 11 prescriptions per person.
This means, for every person who doesn't buy a prescription, there
is someone else getting 22 filled each year!
With prescription drug sales amounting to $145 billion in the year
2000 alone (9), and an additional $20.8 billion coming from over the
counter retail sales (10), it would appear that the chemicals used
in commercial farming, fast food restaurants and processed food are
contributing a great deal of money to the medical and drug industry -
all one big happy family of multi-billionaires!
Is Processed Food Really Food?
Have you ever wondered how it is that today that, in spite of the
most advanced medical technology in history, in spite of the fact
that we have more doctors, therapists, nutritionists, diet experts
(per capita) and diet books than ever in history, we are more sick
than ever in history?
Could it be what we are eating? Were we always this sickly? I don't
think so, or we would never have withstood the selective pressures
of evolution! Something has gone wrong - VERY WRONG!
In 1936, a highly respected scientist, dentist and expert in human
nutrition named Weston A. Price, traveled the globe studying
indigenous populations and correlating their dietary habits with
their incidence of disease and dental carries (11).
Price found that in tribes and cultures consuming a whole-food diet
had virtually no dental carries (cavities) or disease!
Price also noted that diseases such as cancer were relatively
unheard of in many cultures. Look at the photos in Figure 2A and 2B
and ask yourself which Figure shows people who were eating "white
man's food" (processed food) and which were eating food native to
their culture!
(Used with kind permission from the Price-Pottenger Foundation.)
Figure 2A
Figure 2B
In Price's study of primitive cultures, he consistently noted that
they engaged in minimal food processing. Primitive peoples mostly
used fire to cook meats, but not all, as the Eskimos and others
commonly ate many portions of animals and fish raw.
Salting, lacto-fermentation and pickling were among the very few
methods of processing foods for storage and not surprisingly, these
methods have been found to increase the nutritional value of many
foods (12)!
Dr. Price's research was consistent with the research of famous
medical doctor, Francis Marrion Pottenger, who wrote the
book, "Pottenger's Cats". Pottenger clearly demonstrate using
extensive studies of cats that exposure to pasteurized milk and/or
cooked meats resulted in rapid onset of disease and bodily
malformation; his clinical observations suggested that similar
results occur in humans.
Because of the findings in his studies, Dr. Pottenger stated, "…
nutrition becomes one of the most important elements in preventive
medicine." Regardless of which disease process is studied, the link
between poor nutrition and disease, including cancer, clearly exists
in studies and clinical observations of animals and man. In fact, I
know of no study showing that a diet of processed foods provides
health-giving benefits when compared to a whole-food diet!
What you see in most shopping carts today are what I call "non-
foods". My definition of a non-food is, "Any food that costs more in
nutrition to digest, absorb and eliminate than it delivers to your
body."
Most people forget that there is a cost to metabolize anything you
put in your mouth. Literally every cell in the body needs proper
nutrition or it will die. There are billions of cells involved in
the processes of digestion, absorption and elimination of foods, not
including the nutritional demands of human movement. Yet as
indicated above, 90% of all the money spent on food in the US is
spent on FAST FOODS! So where does that leave you?
We don't need to be a doctor, nutritionist or research scientist to
figure out what's going on. We can use a simple accounting analogy
to get a clear image of the blunder we have purchased our way into.
Consider your body as a business. It costs money to run a business -
you must purchase goods and services such as supplies, electricity,
water, waste disposal and you must pay your workers.
If your business doesn't bring in enough money to pay your
expenses, including adequate money for you to make a living, the
business will go bankrupt! Your body is just like any business. You
have about 100 trillion cells, all of which are like little
employees working for you around the clock.
To keep your body running, it too needs water, air, energy and
supplies in the form of nutrition.
The business of running a body is also a little tricky because while
you may have an unproductive employee now and then in a business,
you can always lay them off or fire them.
In your body, you can't lay your cells off, you can't fire them,
and if you don't supply them with adequate nutrition to repair
themselves, they get sick and start to die. If this goes on long
enough, you too will go bankrupt and you will die!
Now, just look at the statistics for disease and drug-use in this
country and you will get a very good picture of what happens when
you consume a diet of "non-foods" -
foods that take more out of your bodily bank account than you have
in the account to spend.
Literally every time you eat candy, cookies, soda pop, processed
sandwich meats, white bread, white flower or pasteurized, processed
anything, you are deviating away from the dietary plan the human
body was designed for.
You are also spending more money/nutrition to process garbage
disguised as foods than the foods themselves bring in.
This leaves the body no choice but to draw upon your own tissues for
the nutrients it needs to try and survive. To prove my point, one
need only look at the skyrocketing rates of degenerative diseases,
which are highest - you guessed it - in those countries consuming
the highest percentage of processed foods.
CHEK POINTS:
If you can't pronounce a word on the label, don't eat it! If you
can't pronounce a word on a food label, chances are very good it is
a chemical that your liver will have to work to detoxify, and most
likely, your liver won't like it!
Dr. Price found in his research of healthy people that they ate
mostly unprocessed whole-foods and some minimally processed foods.
They lived in accordance with nature and if you want to have a
beautiful, healthy body, you should too!
If it's a non-food, don't eat it! The more non-foods you eat, the
more likely your body is to go bankrupt!
Remember, food manufacturers are NOT required to prove that their
products sustain life.
Pretty much every research dollar they spend is to determine how to
make foods cheaper, increase shelf life and how to trick you into
buying them. Just remember this Paul Chek rule - "The more money
they spend to market any food, the worse it is likely to be for
you"!
Good healthy food requires little marketing because people know it's
good for you. They need to convince you to eat their garbage, so
they need to spend a lot in marketing to ensure you do.
The longer it lasts on the shelf, the worse it is for you! Most
things in nature will not last more than a few days once picked or
killed for consumption.
Increasing a product's shelf life means stripping it of anything
that can eventually go bad or rancid out of it, such as enzymes,
vitamins, minerals and ultimately it's life force!
Many of the foods you eat today are so full of chemicals and
pesticide residues you can leave them sitting on the kitchen counter
for days on end and the ants won't even touch them! The bugs are
smarter than we are!
Never eat anything with "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated
oils/fats" in it! These are cooked fats that have been altered in a
way that make them very hard to digest, as well as being damaging to
the body.
This form of fat does not occur naturally in nature and in fact,
chemists say the molecular structure of hydrogenated fats more
closely resembles plastic than food! Read your food labels and you
will likely be surprised at how much hydrogenate fats and oils you
are eating!
Never eat any food product that has been "enriched"! The only reason
food manufacturers "enrich" foods is because they have completely
killed and stripped them in processing, leaving the foods so void of
nutrition and life-force that they must add things back to them so
they don't kill off all their customers!
If you read "Beating The Food Giants" by food scientist Paul A.
Stitt, he tells you that the food manufacturers purchase the
cheapest possible synthetic vitamins possible and they often apply
them to foods (i.e. cereals) on the way in the oven!
Any nutrition expert will tell you that most vitamins can't
withstand high heat and most of the rigors of processing. There is
also plenty of literature suggesting that some synthetic vitamins
may be toxic to the body!
Avoid eating anything that has been genetically modified or
genetically engineered! Currently, almost ALL processed foods
contain genetically modified organisms. This is an entire topic unto
itself, but eating any genetically modified food is a risk that you
may want to seriously consider if you value your health.
References
Dworkin, A. and Kella, W. "Thriving in a Toxic World." Olivenhain,
CA: Professional Preference, 1996.
Farlow, C.H. "Food Additives: A Shopper's Guide to What's Safe and
What's Not". KISS For Health Publishing, 2001.
Schiosser E. "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American
Meal". New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.
Stitt, P. "Beating the Food Giants". Natural Press; 1993.
The Ecologist, July/August 2000. News In Brief p.10
The Ecologist June 2001. "Pulling A Fast One", by Ian Elliott p.36
Chek, P. "Under the Veil of Deception". Encinitas, CA: A C.H.E.K
Institute Publication, 2002.
Prescription Drug Sales Increased By Nearly 20% Last Year in US.
http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/19/prescription_drugs.htm
US Drug Sales Up 15% Last Year. Reuters June 2, 2001.
Prescription Drugs and Mass Media Advertising 1999-2000. National
Institute for Health Care Management Foundation
Paul Chek
[This article is an excerpt from the newly released nine-hour
CD/Workbook program "You Are What You Eat!" by Paul Chek.]
http://www.chekinstitute.com/articles.cfm?select=42
Do me a favor before you read the next paragraph - go to your
cupboards and refrigerator, and take a look at how many packaged
food items you have in your kitchen. While you are there pull out a
desert item (i.e. ice cream), a boxed item (i.e. breakfast cereal)
and any other item you have that is flavored (i.e. salad dressing)
and take a look at the labels. After reading the ingredients list,
ask yourself:
How many words am I unable to pronounce?
Which of these ingredients have I never heard of and/or have no idea
what it is?
Go take a look at those labels and, when you come back to finish
this article, I will tell you why you may be having such a hard time
flattening your abs, and why, even if they are flat, you may feel so
dull every day!
If you did this little exercise, you may be surprised at the number
of multi-syllable words that look more like they should be the
ingredients of super glue than of something you're eating.
It is time to enlighten you with regard to what some of these
ingredients are and what they can do to you. The gigantic and often
strange words listed as ingredients (where food items are supposed
to be!) are various concoctions used to color, stabilize, emulsify,
bleach, texturize, soften, preserve, sweeten, add or cover smells,
and flavor!
In case you were wondering just how many of these little chemicals
were sneaking into your mouth each year, current statistics say that
the FDA lists approximately 2800 international food additives and
about 3,000 chemicals, which are deliberately added to our food
supply. When considering the number of chemicals used in the process
of growing and processing food, by the food to the time it reaches
our stomach we have consumed between 10,000 and 15,000 chemicals a
day! (1)
While some of you may be thinking, "I don't eat that many food
additives," I have news for you. The FDA doesn't require food
additives considered to be Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) to be
put on an ingredients label.
Instead, all that is required are the words "artificial flavor"
or "artificial coloring" or "natural". The fact is, the average
American eats approximately his/her body weight in food additives
each year, or approximately 150 pounds; this statistic is roughly
the same for most English speaking countries.
Of this amount, 15 pounds or more will be used as flavoring agents,
preservatives and dyes, many of which are considered GRAS by the
FDA. Before you get comfortable with chemicals considered to be
GRAS, you should realize that to save time and money, the FDA allows
the food and additive manufacturers to notify them of the GRAS
status of their additives and they are allowed to provide their own
evidence to support their claim! Think about that for a moment.
Having the chemical manufacturers provide their own research showing
a given chemical is safe is like asking a cigarette manufacturer do
their own research showing cigarettes are safe! It's no wonder that
this takes place when billions of dollars are at stake and the
health of the average person is unimportant.
The fact of the matter is food and additive manufacturers, like drug
manufacturers, are running the largest study ever run in history -
and you are the guinea pigs! That's right.
It is only when they get enough reports about the damaging effects
of a given additive that they remove it from the GRAS list. With
that in mind, what are the chances of some doctor reporting to the
FDA that their patient suffered adverse reactions to acetaldehyde,
acetic acid, or agar-agar when they were merely on the label
as "food additives" and not listed individually because they are on
the GRAS list? Consider the side effects of these chemicals:
Acetaldehyde is known to be an irritant to mucous membranes, which
line your entire digestive tract, is a central nervous system
depressant and large doses may cause death.
Acetic acid may cause gastrointestinal distress, skin rashes and eye
irritation.
Agar-agar may cause flatulence, bloating (good bye abs!) and may
have a laxative effect (2).
Please realize, I just pulled these GRAS food additives out of a
book entitled "Food Additives, A Shopper's Guide To What's Safe &
What's Not" by Christine Hoza Farlow, D.C., and there are hundreds
more GRAS additives whose side-effects look more like something
Saddam Hussein would be interested in purchasing to use against
Americans than it does something to be put in food.
Yet millions of people are eating these chemicals every day!
By the way, don't be fooled by the use of the term "natural".
Insects, insect larvae, monkey guts, and even mercury are
all "natural" and are just a few of the natural items that end up in
your food! Eric Schlosser, in his book "Fast Food Nation", sums it
up nicely by quoting Terry Acree, a professor of food science
technology at Cornell University who says, "A natural flavor is a
flavor that's been derived with an out-of-date technology".
Food manufacturers play with your perception of what given words
mean and they know that if they can label an additive as "natural",
the health conscious label reading consumer is much more likely to
purchase it, yet just because something is natural, doesn't mean
it's better for you. After all, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and
cocaine are all natural, but none of them are good for you!
To show what is being hidden from us and is right under our nose
(literally!), consider these ingredients used in a Burger King
strawberry milk shake, but are not disclosed because they are GRAS:
Amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate,
benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl
isobutyrate, cinnamyl valerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl,
dipropyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate,
ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl Nitrate, ethyl
propionate, ethyl valerbate, heliotropin, hydroxyphrenyl-2butanone
(10% solution in alcohol), a-ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl
butrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl
anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine
carbonate, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential
oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobutyrate, orris butter,
phenethyl alcohol, rose, rum ether, g-undecalactone, vanillin, and
solvent (3)!
To make this even more alarming, the ingredients listed here are
only for the "strawberry flavoring" in a Burger King milk shake,
this doesn't include the ice cream or anything else in the shake!
Can you imagine what the ingredient list for Neapolitan ice cream
would look?
Our liver must process all of this (Figure 1A & 1B), and when our
liver becomes overworked, these chemicals can end up in our blood
stream, with almost unlimited access to the cells of our bodies, as
well as placing strain on our detoxification systems!
"Can't Just Eat One" Syndrome
Have you ever reached for a bag of chips while thinking, "I really
don't need these, but I'll just eat a few," only to end up reaching
back in the bag over and over until you reach the bottom?
Or how about a tub of ice cream - ever started out nibbling away
thinking "I'll just have a few bites," and next thing you know
you're scraping the bottom of the carton?
Don't feel bad if you do because, unless you were eating 100%
certified organic chips or ice cream, you most likely fell prey to
the chemical tricks food manufacturers are playing on your body and
your wallet!
It turns out that food scientists have determined how to manipulate
the part of your brain that controls food cravings called the
appestat.
The appestat constantly monitors the nutrient content of you blood
and only when fifty-one specific nutrients are present at their
proper levels will an individual feel entirely full and satisfied.
Food scientists have found that by adding or subtracting some of
these nutrients, they can manipulate your sense of hunger and
satiety.
While the research is still incomplete, it's believed that that
adding excess fat, sugar and salt to a food tends to make people
over eat (4).
This is why both sugar and salt show up in some of the strangest
places.
For example, would you have expected to find sugar in sandwich
meats? Have a look at the ingredients on the package in your
refrigerator and look for words ending with "ose".
Anything ending with this suffix is a sugar. While you're at it,
look at your catsup bottle, your canned soups, medicines and even
cigarettes! How sweet of them to play such tricks on your appetite
centers. If you are overweight, you are more than likely one of
millions of victims of chemical manipulation!
So how effective have the food manufacturers been with their
chemical games? Currently, approximately 90% of the money that
Americans spend on food is used to buy processed foods (3).
When you follow the advances in food science, there is loose
parallel in how much fast food Americans are purchasing and the
amount of chemical-trickery scientists do to our food.
Consider that in 1970, when the food sciences were comparatively
undeveloped, Americans spent approximately $6 billion a year on fast
foods.
By the year 2000, scientists had added thousands of new chemical
tricks to their arsenal and, with more attractive packaging and
advertising campaigns, fast food sales soured to $110 billion! This
combination of advertising and chemistry used by fast food
manufacturers is so successful that American fast food business
tycoons can't resist the opportunity to make billions by poisoning
almost every corner of the globe.
As of the middle of 2000, McDonald's planed on opening 650
restaurants in Asia, 550 in Europe, 350 in Latin America, 200 in the
US and another 250 in the rest of the world - a total of 1,500 new
restaurants in Asia were planned by 2002! (5).
Their strategic combination of marketing and scientific trickery
has been so successful that half of Australian children ages 9 and
10 thought that Ronald McDonald knew what kids should be eating;
McDonald's has become the favorite food eaten by children in China!
(6)
Table 1
America ranks among the lowest of all the major industrial nations
in terms of life expectancy, yet spends significantly more money on
health care than any country in the world.
Human beings, armed with some 10,000 taste buds, are thought to have
a fairly comprehensive sense of taste (7).
While you would think that we would be capable of using this
arsenal of taste buds to sniff-out foods of superior nutritional
quality to eat, it would appear that chemical science has put up an
effective smoke screen.
Approximately 50% of the American population have eaten themselves
into some degree of obesity and semi-starvation by consuming
nutritionally inadequate foods!
If that's not enough, the US spends more money on health care than
any other nation with each person averaging over $4,000 per year in
medical expenses.
Yet the US ranks last for life expectancy among all industrialized
nations, is far from being the healthiest nation (Table 1).
This is not hard to believe when you consider that in the year
2000, retail pharmacies in the US filled 3 billion prescriptions -
that's hardly what I would consider a healthy nation (8)!
Then when you take into account that there were 281 million people
living in the US in 2000, with 3 billion prescriptions being filled,
that's almost 11 prescriptions per person.
This means, for every person who doesn't buy a prescription, there
is someone else getting 22 filled each year!
With prescription drug sales amounting to $145 billion in the year
2000 alone (9), and an additional $20.8 billion coming from over the
counter retail sales (10), it would appear that the chemicals used
in commercial farming, fast food restaurants and processed food are
contributing a great deal of money to the medical and drug industry -
all one big happy family of multi-billionaires!
Is Processed Food Really Food?
Have you ever wondered how it is that today that, in spite of the
most advanced medical technology in history, in spite of the fact
that we have more doctors, therapists, nutritionists, diet experts
(per capita) and diet books than ever in history, we are more sick
than ever in history?
Could it be what we are eating? Were we always this sickly? I don't
think so, or we would never have withstood the selective pressures
of evolution! Something has gone wrong - VERY WRONG!
In 1936, a highly respected scientist, dentist and expert in human
nutrition named Weston A. Price, traveled the globe studying
indigenous populations and correlating their dietary habits with
their incidence of disease and dental carries (11).
Price found that in tribes and cultures consuming a whole-food diet
had virtually no dental carries (cavities) or disease!
Price also noted that diseases such as cancer were relatively
unheard of in many cultures. Look at the photos in Figure 2A and 2B
and ask yourself which Figure shows people who were eating "white
man's food" (processed food) and which were eating food native to
their culture!
(Used with kind permission from the Price-Pottenger Foundation.)
Figure 2A
Figure 2B
In Price's study of primitive cultures, he consistently noted that
they engaged in minimal food processing. Primitive peoples mostly
used fire to cook meats, but not all, as the Eskimos and others
commonly ate many portions of animals and fish raw.
Salting, lacto-fermentation and pickling were among the very few
methods of processing foods for storage and not surprisingly, these
methods have been found to increase the nutritional value of many
foods (12)!
Dr. Price's research was consistent with the research of famous
medical doctor, Francis Marrion Pottenger, who wrote the
book, "Pottenger's Cats". Pottenger clearly demonstrate using
extensive studies of cats that exposure to pasteurized milk and/or
cooked meats resulted in rapid onset of disease and bodily
malformation; his clinical observations suggested that similar
results occur in humans.
Because of the findings in his studies, Dr. Pottenger stated, "…
nutrition becomes one of the most important elements in preventive
medicine." Regardless of which disease process is studied, the link
between poor nutrition and disease, including cancer, clearly exists
in studies and clinical observations of animals and man. In fact, I
know of no study showing that a diet of processed foods provides
health-giving benefits when compared to a whole-food diet!
What you see in most shopping carts today are what I call "non-
foods". My definition of a non-food is, "Any food that costs more in
nutrition to digest, absorb and eliminate than it delivers to your
body."
Most people forget that there is a cost to metabolize anything you
put in your mouth. Literally every cell in the body needs proper
nutrition or it will die. There are billions of cells involved in
the processes of digestion, absorption and elimination of foods, not
including the nutritional demands of human movement. Yet as
indicated above, 90% of all the money spent on food in the US is
spent on FAST FOODS! So where does that leave you?
We don't need to be a doctor, nutritionist or research scientist to
figure out what's going on. We can use a simple accounting analogy
to get a clear image of the blunder we have purchased our way into.
Consider your body as a business. It costs money to run a business -
you must purchase goods and services such as supplies, electricity,
water, waste disposal and you must pay your workers.
If your business doesn't bring in enough money to pay your
expenses, including adequate money for you to make a living, the
business will go bankrupt! Your body is just like any business. You
have about 100 trillion cells, all of which are like little
employees working for you around the clock.
To keep your body running, it too needs water, air, energy and
supplies in the form of nutrition.
The business of running a body is also a little tricky because while
you may have an unproductive employee now and then in a business,
you can always lay them off or fire them.
In your body, you can't lay your cells off, you can't fire them,
and if you don't supply them with adequate nutrition to repair
themselves, they get sick and start to die. If this goes on long
enough, you too will go bankrupt and you will die!
Now, just look at the statistics for disease and drug-use in this
country and you will get a very good picture of what happens when
you consume a diet of "non-foods" -
foods that take more out of your bodily bank account than you have
in the account to spend.
Literally every time you eat candy, cookies, soda pop, processed
sandwich meats, white bread, white flower or pasteurized, processed
anything, you are deviating away from the dietary plan the human
body was designed for.
You are also spending more money/nutrition to process garbage
disguised as foods than the foods themselves bring in.
This leaves the body no choice but to draw upon your own tissues for
the nutrients it needs to try and survive. To prove my point, one
need only look at the skyrocketing rates of degenerative diseases,
which are highest - you guessed it - in those countries consuming
the highest percentage of processed foods.
CHEK POINTS:
If you can't pronounce a word on the label, don't eat it! If you
can't pronounce a word on a food label, chances are very good it is
a chemical that your liver will have to work to detoxify, and most
likely, your liver won't like it!
Dr. Price found in his research of healthy people that they ate
mostly unprocessed whole-foods and some minimally processed foods.
They lived in accordance with nature and if you want to have a
beautiful, healthy body, you should too!
If it's a non-food, don't eat it! The more non-foods you eat, the
more likely your body is to go bankrupt!
Remember, food manufacturers are NOT required to prove that their
products sustain life.
Pretty much every research dollar they spend is to determine how to
make foods cheaper, increase shelf life and how to trick you into
buying them. Just remember this Paul Chek rule - "The more money
they spend to market any food, the worse it is likely to be for
you"!
Good healthy food requires little marketing because people know it's
good for you. They need to convince you to eat their garbage, so
they need to spend a lot in marketing to ensure you do.
The longer it lasts on the shelf, the worse it is for you! Most
things in nature will not last more than a few days once picked or
killed for consumption.
Increasing a product's shelf life means stripping it of anything
that can eventually go bad or rancid out of it, such as enzymes,
vitamins, minerals and ultimately it's life force!
Many of the foods you eat today are so full of chemicals and
pesticide residues you can leave them sitting on the kitchen counter
for days on end and the ants won't even touch them! The bugs are
smarter than we are!
Never eat anything with "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated
oils/fats" in it! These are cooked fats that have been altered in a
way that make them very hard to digest, as well as being damaging to
the body.
This form of fat does not occur naturally in nature and in fact,
chemists say the molecular structure of hydrogenated fats more
closely resembles plastic than food! Read your food labels and you
will likely be surprised at how much hydrogenate fats and oils you
are eating!
Never eat any food product that has been "enriched"! The only reason
food manufacturers "enrich" foods is because they have completely
killed and stripped them in processing, leaving the foods so void of
nutrition and life-force that they must add things back to them so
they don't kill off all their customers!
If you read "Beating The Food Giants" by food scientist Paul A.
Stitt, he tells you that the food manufacturers purchase the
cheapest possible synthetic vitamins possible and they often apply
them to foods (i.e. cereals) on the way in the oven!
Any nutrition expert will tell you that most vitamins can't
withstand high heat and most of the rigors of processing. There is
also plenty of literature suggesting that some synthetic vitamins
may be toxic to the body!
Avoid eating anything that has been genetically modified or
genetically engineered! Currently, almost ALL processed foods
contain genetically modified organisms. This is an entire topic unto
itself, but eating any genetically modified food is a risk that you
may want to seriously consider if you value your health.
References
Dworkin, A. and Kella, W. "Thriving in a Toxic World." Olivenhain,
CA: Professional Preference, 1996.
Farlow, C.H. "Food Additives: A Shopper's Guide to What's Safe and
What's Not". KISS For Health Publishing, 2001.
Schiosser E. "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American
Meal". New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.
Stitt, P. "Beating the Food Giants". Natural Press; 1993.
The Ecologist, July/August 2000. News In Brief p.10
The Ecologist June 2001. "Pulling A Fast One", by Ian Elliott p.36
Chek, P. "Under the Veil of Deception". Encinitas, CA: A C.H.E.K
Institute Publication, 2002.
Prescription Drug Sales Increased By Nearly 20% Last Year in US.
http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/19/prescription_drugs.htm
US Drug Sales Up 15% Last Year. Reuters June 2, 2001.
Prescription Drugs and Mass Media Advertising 1999-2000. National
Institute for Health Care Management Foundation
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Aging and Weight Gain: How NOT To Get Fatter As You Get Older
Aging and Weight Gain: How NOT to Get Fatter as You Get Older
by www.SixWise.com
You may remember your childhood years fondly as a time of bike rides, endless summers, and visits from the tooth fairy. Among these many pleasures from your younger years was also a seemingly endless metabolism -- and with it the ability to eat as many hamburgers, ice cream sandwiches, French fries and slices of birthday cake as you pleased without gaining a pound.
There's good news: weight gain as you age is NOT inevitable.
Sadly, as you get older, you lose this ability to burn off the calories as quickly, therefore holding on to those cupcakes and cheeseburgers far longer than you'd probably like to, and often in places you surely don't want to, such as your belly, hips and thighs. This begs the question -- why do we get fatter as we get older, and more importantly, can it be avoided?
Aging and Weight Gain -- Inevitable?
While there is no question that we tend to gain weight as we grow older, the big question still remains as to why this weight gain occurs and whether or not it is inevitable. There have been many studies devoted to discovering the causes of this weight gain.
One such study was conducted by Monash University researcher Dr. Zane Andrews, a neuroendocrinologist with the university's department of physiology. This study uncovered that one of the reasons the scale creeps up as you get older is that appetite-suppressing cells are attacked by free radicals after eating -- and this degeneration is more significant following meals rich in carbohydrates and sugars.
People between the ages of 25 and 50 are most at risk according to Dr. Andrews, as the neurons that tell people in this crucial age range not to overeat are being killed off. This reduction in appetite-suppressing cells could be one explanation for the complexity of adult-onset obesity.
What is also a factor is that the modern diet has become increasingly filled with sugars and carbohydrates, which is leading to premature cell deterioration.
Another reason that we gain weight as we get older is that muscles turn to fat as we age, decreasing our muscle mass and increasing body fat. This happens at around 30, when both men and women experience an up to 40% reduction in both muscle and bone mass.
This change, which begins at age 30 and reaches a plateau at about 60 or 70, coincides with a decrease in our physical abilities, affecting reaction time and rate at which we perform tasks. This causes many people to become less physically active, which sabotages their efforts to remain slim, as exercising and maintaining an active lifestyle are crucial to keeping an elevated metabolic rate and winning the battle of the bulge.
If you're between the ages of 25 and 50, eating a lot of carbs and sugar may deteriorate your appetite-suppressing cells.
Studies have shown that both men and women experience these changes similarly. However, women tend to have more difficulty with the weight issue, particularly after menopause, which occurs between the late-40s and early 50s. Around this time, about 60% of women experience some sort of weight gain, usually about a pound a year, most of it accumulating around the stomach. This is particularly frustrating for women due to the fact that the hormonal and metabolic changes that occur during menopause make it difficult, if not impossible, to shed this weight.
Another explanation for growing heavier as we grow older is simple genetics. If you're lucky enough to have a mother or grandmother who was naturally slim, even in their golden years, you might stay that way too. However, if you have relatives who got heavier as they got older, then chances are you may too.
A Weighty Issue
While staying slim is certainly more difficult as you age, for many weight gain is beginning in the younger years. There has been a steady increase in obesity rates among Americans over the last 20 years, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). In fact, Colorado is the only state in the union that has a prevalence of obesity less than 20%! And in 2007, the overall obesity rate jumped to nearly 26%, which is up from 24% in 2005.
While these numbers are distressing enough, what is even more alarming is the rate at which America's children are joining the ever-growing ranks of the obese. Perhaps due to poor diets and more time than ever spent in front of video games, computers, and TV sets, American children are heavier than ever, putting them at risk for diseases typically reserved for adults, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and hypertension.
To help address this crises, the CDC has launched a campaign called "Healthy People 2010," which seeks to decrease the number of obese Americans down to 15% by the year 2010 through a program of nutritional education and motivating people to get out and exercise more. In addition, many states such as New York have banned the use of dangerous trans fats in restaurants and require them to place calorie and fat information in all their menus.
Schools across the nation have begun to take vending machines off campuses and many have banned sugary foods such as cupcakes and candy from parties. And many campaigns, such as Boston's Metrowest Community Healthcare Foundation , have been established with the goal of educating parents about the severity of the problem and encouraging them to get their children away from the video games and out exercising, as well as eating better foods. This advice, while good for children, will also help parents to establish healthier lifestyle habits and hopefully keep to a healthy weight even as they get older.
Taking a Load Off
While weight gain is more likely to happen as you get older, it is not inevitable. There are many things you can do to help fight off those extra pounds. Staying active is key. While it may be tempting to forego physical activity as you age and perhaps your body starts to ache a bit more, exercise is crucial to not only staying slimmer, but to living longer and healthier lives.
The more physically fit you are, the easier it is to fend off disease. Regular exercise not only boosts your immune system, but it's good for your mental well-being too. The endorphins that are released during exercise even help stave off depression and anxiety, common problems faced as we grow older.
Along with exercise, you may also need to reevaluate your diet as you get older. Changing eating habits is never easy, especially if they've been engrained over several decades, but it is necessary if you want to maintain a healthy weight. While it's never good to eat that extra slice of pie on a regular basis, it is particularly important as you get older to avoid these "danger" foods and replace them with foods that cater more to the body's changing nutritional needs. If you are unsure of how best to tweak your diet, there are plenty of nutritionists that are willing to help construct a diet plan that will fit your needs.
For most of us, staying slim is no easy task, especially as we grow older and our bodies start to change. However, getting older doesn't have to equal getting heavier. Taking a few simple steps can help increase your odds of staying slim well into your golden years.
Recommended Reading
What Really Causes the "Beer Belly" in Men and How to Get Rid of Your Gut
Aging Gracefully: Enjoy a Vital, Fulfilling Life Regardless of Age
Sources
Science Daily August 2008
CDC: U.S. Obesity Trends
TheBostonChannel.com
by www.SixWise.com
You may remember your childhood years fondly as a time of bike rides, endless summers, and visits from the tooth fairy. Among these many pleasures from your younger years was also a seemingly endless metabolism -- and with it the ability to eat as many hamburgers, ice cream sandwiches, French fries and slices of birthday cake as you pleased without gaining a pound.
There's good news: weight gain as you age is NOT inevitable.
Sadly, as you get older, you lose this ability to burn off the calories as quickly, therefore holding on to those cupcakes and cheeseburgers far longer than you'd probably like to, and often in places you surely don't want to, such as your belly, hips and thighs. This begs the question -- why do we get fatter as we get older, and more importantly, can it be avoided?
Aging and Weight Gain -- Inevitable?
While there is no question that we tend to gain weight as we grow older, the big question still remains as to why this weight gain occurs and whether or not it is inevitable. There have been many studies devoted to discovering the causes of this weight gain.
One such study was conducted by Monash University researcher Dr. Zane Andrews, a neuroendocrinologist with the university's department of physiology. This study uncovered that one of the reasons the scale creeps up as you get older is that appetite-suppressing cells are attacked by free radicals after eating -- and this degeneration is more significant following meals rich in carbohydrates and sugars.
People between the ages of 25 and 50 are most at risk according to Dr. Andrews, as the neurons that tell people in this crucial age range not to overeat are being killed off. This reduction in appetite-suppressing cells could be one explanation for the complexity of adult-onset obesity.
What is also a factor is that the modern diet has become increasingly filled with sugars and carbohydrates, which is leading to premature cell deterioration.
Another reason that we gain weight as we get older is that muscles turn to fat as we age, decreasing our muscle mass and increasing body fat. This happens at around 30, when both men and women experience an up to 40% reduction in both muscle and bone mass.
This change, which begins at age 30 and reaches a plateau at about 60 or 70, coincides with a decrease in our physical abilities, affecting reaction time and rate at which we perform tasks. This causes many people to become less physically active, which sabotages their efforts to remain slim, as exercising and maintaining an active lifestyle are crucial to keeping an elevated metabolic rate and winning the battle of the bulge.
If you're between the ages of 25 and 50, eating a lot of carbs and sugar may deteriorate your appetite-suppressing cells.
Studies have shown that both men and women experience these changes similarly. However, women tend to have more difficulty with the weight issue, particularly after menopause, which occurs between the late-40s and early 50s. Around this time, about 60% of women experience some sort of weight gain, usually about a pound a year, most of it accumulating around the stomach. This is particularly frustrating for women due to the fact that the hormonal and metabolic changes that occur during menopause make it difficult, if not impossible, to shed this weight.
Another explanation for growing heavier as we grow older is simple genetics. If you're lucky enough to have a mother or grandmother who was naturally slim, even in their golden years, you might stay that way too. However, if you have relatives who got heavier as they got older, then chances are you may too.
A Weighty Issue
While staying slim is certainly more difficult as you age, for many weight gain is beginning in the younger years. There has been a steady increase in obesity rates among Americans over the last 20 years, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). In fact, Colorado is the only state in the union that has a prevalence of obesity less than 20%! And in 2007, the overall obesity rate jumped to nearly 26%, which is up from 24% in 2005.
While these numbers are distressing enough, what is even more alarming is the rate at which America's children are joining the ever-growing ranks of the obese. Perhaps due to poor diets and more time than ever spent in front of video games, computers, and TV sets, American children are heavier than ever, putting them at risk for diseases typically reserved for adults, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and hypertension.
To help address this crises, the CDC has launched a campaign called "Healthy People 2010," which seeks to decrease the number of obese Americans down to 15% by the year 2010 through a program of nutritional education and motivating people to get out and exercise more. In addition, many states such as New York have banned the use of dangerous trans fats in restaurants and require them to place calorie and fat information in all their menus.
Schools across the nation have begun to take vending machines off campuses and many have banned sugary foods such as cupcakes and candy from parties. And many campaigns, such as Boston's Metrowest Community Healthcare Foundation , have been established with the goal of educating parents about the severity of the problem and encouraging them to get their children away from the video games and out exercising, as well as eating better foods. This advice, while good for children, will also help parents to establish healthier lifestyle habits and hopefully keep to a healthy weight even as they get older.
Taking a Load Off
While weight gain is more likely to happen as you get older, it is not inevitable. There are many things you can do to help fight off those extra pounds. Staying active is key. While it may be tempting to forego physical activity as you age and perhaps your body starts to ache a bit more, exercise is crucial to not only staying slimmer, but to living longer and healthier lives.
The more physically fit you are, the easier it is to fend off disease. Regular exercise not only boosts your immune system, but it's good for your mental well-being too. The endorphins that are released during exercise even help stave off depression and anxiety, common problems faced as we grow older.
Along with exercise, you may also need to reevaluate your diet as you get older. Changing eating habits is never easy, especially if they've been engrained over several decades, but it is necessary if you want to maintain a healthy weight. While it's never good to eat that extra slice of pie on a regular basis, it is particularly important as you get older to avoid these "danger" foods and replace them with foods that cater more to the body's changing nutritional needs. If you are unsure of how best to tweak your diet, there are plenty of nutritionists that are willing to help construct a diet plan that will fit your needs.
For most of us, staying slim is no easy task, especially as we grow older and our bodies start to change. However, getting older doesn't have to equal getting heavier. Taking a few simple steps can help increase your odds of staying slim well into your golden years.
Recommended Reading
What Really Causes the "Beer Belly" in Men and How to Get Rid of Your Gut
Aging Gracefully: Enjoy a Vital, Fulfilling Life Regardless of Age
Sources
Science Daily August 2008
CDC: U.S. Obesity Trends
TheBostonChannel.com
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
124 ways sugar can ruin your health
124 Ways Sugar Can Ruin Your Health
by Nancy Appleton, Ph.D.
http://www.nancyappleton.com
Author of the book "Lick The Sugar Habit"
In addition to throwing off the body's homeostasis, excess sugar may
result in a number of other significant consequences. The following
is a listing of some of sugar's metabolic consequences from a variety
of medical journals and other scientific publications.
Sugar can suppress the immune system
Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in the body
Sugar can cause hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and
crankiness in children
Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides
Sugar contributes to the reduction in defense against bacterial
infection (infectious diseases)
Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function, the more sugar
you eat the more elasticity and function you loose
Sugar reduces high density lipoproteins
Sugar leads to chromium deficiency
Sugar leads to cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostrate, and rectum
Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose
Sugar causes copper deficiency
Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium
Sugar can weaken eyesight
Sugar raises the level of a neurotransmitters: dopamine, serotonin,
and norepinephrine
Sugar can cause hypoglycemia
Sugar can produce an acidic digestive tract
Sugar can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline levels in children
Sugar malabsorption is frequent in patients with functional bowel
disease
Sugar can cause premature aging
Sugar can lead to alcoholism
Sugar can cause tooth decay
Sugar contributes to obesity
High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn's disease, and
ulcerative colitis
Sugar can cause changes frequently found in person with gastric or
duodenal ulcers
Sugar can cause arthritis
Sugar can cause asthma
Sugar greatly assists the uncontrolled growth of Candida Albicans
(yeast infections)
Sugar can cause gallstones
Sugar can cause heart disease
Sugar can cause appendicitis
Sugar can cause multiple sclerosis
Sugar can cause hemorrhoids
Sugar can cause varicose veins
Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraceptive
users
Sugar can lead to periodontal disease
Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis
Sugar contributes to saliva acidity
Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity
Sugar can lower the amount of Vitamin E in the blood
Sugar can decrease growth hormone
Sugar can increase cholesterol
Sugar can increase the systolic blood pressure
Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children
High sugar intake increases advanced glycation end products
(AGEs)(Sugar bound non- enzymatically to protein)
Sugar can interfere with the absorption of protein
Sugar causes food allergies
Sugar can contribute to diabetes
Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy
Sugar can contribute to eczema in children
Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease
Sugar can impair the structure of DNA
Sugar can change the structure of protein
Sugar can make our skin age by changing the structure of collagen
Sugar can cause cataracts
Sugar can cause emphysema
Sugar can cause atherosclerosis
Sugar can promote an elevation of low density lipoproteins (LDL)
High sugar intake can impair the physiological homeostasis of many
systems in the body
Sugar lowers the enzymes ability to function
Sugar intake is higher in people with Parkinson’s disease
Sugar can cause a permanent altering the way the proteins act in the
body
Sugar can increase the size of the liver by making the liver cells
divide
Sugar can increase the amount of liver fat
Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in
the kidney
Sugar can damage the pancreas
Sugar can increase the body's fluid retention
Sugar is enemy #1 of the bowel movement
Sugar can cause myopia (nearsightedness)
Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries
Sugar can make the tendons more brittle
Sugar can cause headaches, including migraine
Sugar plays a role in pancreatic cancer in women
Sugar can adversely affect school children's grades and cause
learning disorders
Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha, and theta brain waves
Sugar can cause depression
Sugar increases the risk of gastric cancer
Sugar and cause dyspepsia (indigestion)
Sugar can increase your risk of getting gout
Sugar can increase the levels of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance
test over the ingestion of complex carbohydrates
Sugar can increase the insulin responses in humans consuming
high-sugar diets compared to low sugar diets
High refined sugar diet reduces learning capacity
Sugar can cause less effective functioning of two blood proteins,
albumin, and lipoproteins, which may reduce the body’s ability to
handle fat and cholesterol
Sugar can contribute to Alzheimer’s disease
Sugar can cause platelet adhesiveness
Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance; some hormones become underactive
and others become overactive
Sugar can lead to the formation of kidney stones
Sugar can lead to the hypothalamus to become highly sensitive to a
large variety of stimuli
Sugar can lead to dizziness
Diets high in sugar can cause free radicals and oxidative stress
High sucrose diets of subjects with peripheral vascular disease
significantly increases platelet adhesion
High sugar diet can lead to biliary tract cancer
Sugar feeds cancer
High sugar consumption of pregnant adolescents is associated with a
twofold increased risk for delivering a small-for-gestational-age
(SGA) infant
High sugar consumption can lead to substantial decrease in gestation
duration among adolescents
Sugar slows food's travel time through the gastrointestinal tract
Sugar increases the concentration of bile acids in stools and
bacterial enzymes in the colon
Sugar increases estradiol (the most potent form of naturally
occurring estrogen) in men
Sugar combines and destroys phosphatase, an enzyme, which makes the
process of digestion more dificult
Sugar can be a risk factor of gallbladder cancer
Sugar is an addictive substance
Sugar can be intoxicating, similar to alcohol
Sugar can exacerbate PMS
Sugar given to premature babies can affect the amount of carbon
dioxide they produce
Decrease in sugar intake can increase emotional stability
The body changes sugar into 2 to 5 times more fat in the bloodstream
than it does starch
The rapid absorption of sugar promotes excessive food intake in obese
subjects
Sugar can worsen the symptoms of children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Sugar adversely affects urinary electrolyte composition
Sugar can slow down the ability of the adrenal glands to function
Sugar has the potential of inducing abnormal metabolic processes in a
normal healthy individual and to promote chronic degenerative
diseases
I.Vs (intravenous feedings) of sugar water can cut off oxygen to the
brain
High sucrose intake could be an important risk factor in lung cancer
Sugar increases the 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
Sugar may impair the physiological homeostasis of many systems in
living organisms
In juvenile rehabilitation camps, when children were put on a low
sugar diet, there was a 44% drop in antisocial behavior
Sugar can cause gastric cancer
Sugar dehydrates newborns
Sugar can cause gum disease
Sugar increases the estradiol in young men
Sugar can cause low birth weight babies
----------------------------------------------------------
References
Sanchez, A., et al. Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophilic
Phagocytosis, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Nov
1973;261:1180_1184. Bernstein, J., al. Depression of Lymphocyte
Transformation Following Oral Glucose Ingestion. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition.1997;30:613.
Couzy, F., et al."Nutritional Implications of the Interaction
Minerals," Progressive Food and Nutrition Science 17;1933:65-87.
Goldman, J., et al. Behavioral Effects of Sucrose on Preschool
Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.1986;14(4):565_577.
Scanto, S. and Yudkin, J. The Effect of Dietary Sucrose on Blood
Lipids, Serum Insulin, Platelet Adhesiveness and Body Weight in Human
Volunteers, Postgraduate Medicine Journal. 1969;45:602_607.
Ringsdorf, W., Cheraskin, E. and Ramsay R. Sucrose,Neutrophilic
Phagocytosis and Resistance to Disease, Dental Survey.
1976;52(12):46_48.
Cerami, A., Vlassara, H., and Brownlee, M."Glucose and Aging."
Scientific American. May 1987:90. Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. The Role
of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science;
663:63-67.
Albrink, M. and Ullrich I. H. Interaction of Dietary Sucrose and
Fiber on Serum Lipids in Healthy Young Men Fed High Carbohydrate
Diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1986;43:419-428.
Pamplona, R., et al. Mechanisms of Glycation in Atherogenesis. Med
Hypotheses. Mar 1993;40(3):174-81.
Kozlovsky, A., et al. Effects of Diets High in Simple Sugars on
Urinary Chromium Losses. Metabolism. June 1986;35:515_518.
Takahashi, E., Tohoku University School of Medicine, Wholistic Health
Digest. October 1982:41:00
Kelsay, J., et al. Diets High in Glucose or Sucrose and Young Women.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1974;27:926_936. Thomas, B.
J., et al. Relation of Habitual Diet to Fasting Plasma Insulin
Concentration and the Insulin Response to Oral Glucose, Human
Nutrition Clinical Nutrition. 1983; 36C(1):49_51.
Fields, M.., et al. Effect of Copper Deficiency on Metabolism and
Mortality in Rats Fed Sucrose or Starch Diets, Journal of Clinical
Nutrition. 1983;113:1335_1345.
Lemann, J. Evidence that Glucose Ingestion Inhibits Net Renal Tubular
Reabsorption of Calcium and Magnesium. Journal Of Clinical Nutrition.
1976 ;70:236_245.
Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. Mar 2002;48;25. Taub, H. Ed. Sugar
Weakens Eyesight, VM NEWSLETTER;May 1986:06:00
Sugar, White Flour Withdrawal Produces Chemical Response. The
Addiction Letter .Jul 1992:04:00
Dufty, William. Sugar Blues. (New York:Warner Books, 1975).
Ibid.
Jones, T. W., et al. Enhanced Adrenomedullary Response and Increased
Susceptibility to Neuroglygopenia: Mechanisms Underlying the Adverse
Effect of Sugar Ingestion in Children. Journal of Pediatrics. Feb
1995;126:171-7.
Ibid.
Lee, A. T.and Cerami A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the
New York Academy of Science.1992;663:63-70.
Abrahamson, E. and Peget, A.. Body, Mind and Sugar. (New
York:Avon,1977.}
Glinsmann, W., Irausquin, H., and Youngmee, K. Evaluation of Health
Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydrate Sweeteners. F. D. A.
Report of Sugars Task Force. 1986:39:00 Makinen K.K.,et al. A
Descriptive Report of the Effects of a 16_month Xylitol Chewing_gum
Programme Subsequent to a 40_month Sucrose Gum Programme. Caries
Research. 1998; 32(2)107_12.
Keen, H., et al. Nutrient Intake, Adiposity, and Diabetes. British
Medical Journal. 1989; 1:00 655_658
Persson P. G., Ahlbom, A., and Hellers, G. Epidemiology.
1992;3:47-52.
Yudkin, J. New York: Sweet and Dangerous.:Bantam Books:1974: 129
Darlington, L., Ramsey, N. W. and Mansfield, J. R.
Placebo_Controlled, Blind Study of Dietary Manipulation Therapy in
Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lancet. Feb 1986;8475(1):236_238.
Powers, L. Sensitivity: You React to What You Eat. Los Angeles Times.
(Feb. 12, 1985). Cheng, J., et al. Preliminary Clinical Study on the
Correlation Between Allergic Rhinitis and Food Factors. Lin Chuang Er
Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi Aug 2002;16(8):393-396.
Crook, W. J. The Yeast Connection. (TN:Professional Books, 1984)..
Heaton, K. The Sweet Road to Gallstones. British Medical Journal. Apr
14, 1984; 288:00:00 1103_1104. Misciagna, G., et al. American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition. 1999;69:120-126.
Yudkin, J. Sugar Consumption and Myocardial Infarction. Lancet..Feb
6, 1971:1(7693):296-297. Suadicani, P., et al. Adverse Effects of
Risk of Ishaemic Heart Disease of Adding Sugar to Hot Beverages in
Hypertensives Using Diuretics. Blood Pressure. Mar 1996;5(2):91-71.
Cleave, T. The Saccharine Disease. (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing,
1974).
Erlander, S. The Cause and Cure
by Nancy Appleton, Ph.D.
http://www.nancyappleton.com
Author of the book "Lick The Sugar Habit"
In addition to throwing off the body's homeostasis, excess sugar may
result in a number of other significant consequences. The following
is a listing of some of sugar's metabolic consequences from a variety
of medical journals and other scientific publications.
Sugar can suppress the immune system
Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in the body
Sugar can cause hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and
crankiness in children
Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides
Sugar contributes to the reduction in defense against bacterial
infection (infectious diseases)
Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function, the more sugar
you eat the more elasticity and function you loose
Sugar reduces high density lipoproteins
Sugar leads to chromium deficiency
Sugar leads to cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostrate, and rectum
Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose
Sugar causes copper deficiency
Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium
Sugar can weaken eyesight
Sugar raises the level of a neurotransmitters: dopamine, serotonin,
and norepinephrine
Sugar can cause hypoglycemia
Sugar can produce an acidic digestive tract
Sugar can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline levels in children
Sugar malabsorption is frequent in patients with functional bowel
disease
Sugar can cause premature aging
Sugar can lead to alcoholism
Sugar can cause tooth decay
Sugar contributes to obesity
High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn's disease, and
ulcerative colitis
Sugar can cause changes frequently found in person with gastric or
duodenal ulcers
Sugar can cause arthritis
Sugar can cause asthma
Sugar greatly assists the uncontrolled growth of Candida Albicans
(yeast infections)
Sugar can cause gallstones
Sugar can cause heart disease
Sugar can cause appendicitis
Sugar can cause multiple sclerosis
Sugar can cause hemorrhoids
Sugar can cause varicose veins
Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraceptive
users
Sugar can lead to periodontal disease
Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis
Sugar contributes to saliva acidity
Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity
Sugar can lower the amount of Vitamin E in the blood
Sugar can decrease growth hormone
Sugar can increase cholesterol
Sugar can increase the systolic blood pressure
Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children
High sugar intake increases advanced glycation end products
(AGEs)(Sugar bound non- enzymatically to protein)
Sugar can interfere with the absorption of protein
Sugar causes food allergies
Sugar can contribute to diabetes
Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy
Sugar can contribute to eczema in children
Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease
Sugar can impair the structure of DNA
Sugar can change the structure of protein
Sugar can make our skin age by changing the structure of collagen
Sugar can cause cataracts
Sugar can cause emphysema
Sugar can cause atherosclerosis
Sugar can promote an elevation of low density lipoproteins (LDL)
High sugar intake can impair the physiological homeostasis of many
systems in the body
Sugar lowers the enzymes ability to function
Sugar intake is higher in people with Parkinson’s disease
Sugar can cause a permanent altering the way the proteins act in the
body
Sugar can increase the size of the liver by making the liver cells
divide
Sugar can increase the amount of liver fat
Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in
the kidney
Sugar can damage the pancreas
Sugar can increase the body's fluid retention
Sugar is enemy #1 of the bowel movement
Sugar can cause myopia (nearsightedness)
Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries
Sugar can make the tendons more brittle
Sugar can cause headaches, including migraine
Sugar plays a role in pancreatic cancer in women
Sugar can adversely affect school children's grades and cause
learning disorders
Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha, and theta brain waves
Sugar can cause depression
Sugar increases the risk of gastric cancer
Sugar and cause dyspepsia (indigestion)
Sugar can increase your risk of getting gout
Sugar can increase the levels of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance
test over the ingestion of complex carbohydrates
Sugar can increase the insulin responses in humans consuming
high-sugar diets compared to low sugar diets
High refined sugar diet reduces learning capacity
Sugar can cause less effective functioning of two blood proteins,
albumin, and lipoproteins, which may reduce the body’s ability to
handle fat and cholesterol
Sugar can contribute to Alzheimer’s disease
Sugar can cause platelet adhesiveness
Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance; some hormones become underactive
and others become overactive
Sugar can lead to the formation of kidney stones
Sugar can lead to the hypothalamus to become highly sensitive to a
large variety of stimuli
Sugar can lead to dizziness
Diets high in sugar can cause free radicals and oxidative stress
High sucrose diets of subjects with peripheral vascular disease
significantly increases platelet adhesion
High sugar diet can lead to biliary tract cancer
Sugar feeds cancer
High sugar consumption of pregnant adolescents is associated with a
twofold increased risk for delivering a small-for-gestational-age
(SGA) infant
High sugar consumption can lead to substantial decrease in gestation
duration among adolescents
Sugar slows food's travel time through the gastrointestinal tract
Sugar increases the concentration of bile acids in stools and
bacterial enzymes in the colon
Sugar increases estradiol (the most potent form of naturally
occurring estrogen) in men
Sugar combines and destroys phosphatase, an enzyme, which makes the
process of digestion more dificult
Sugar can be a risk factor of gallbladder cancer
Sugar is an addictive substance
Sugar can be intoxicating, similar to alcohol
Sugar can exacerbate PMS
Sugar given to premature babies can affect the amount of carbon
dioxide they produce
Decrease in sugar intake can increase emotional stability
The body changes sugar into 2 to 5 times more fat in the bloodstream
than it does starch
The rapid absorption of sugar promotes excessive food intake in obese
subjects
Sugar can worsen the symptoms of children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Sugar adversely affects urinary electrolyte composition
Sugar can slow down the ability of the adrenal glands to function
Sugar has the potential of inducing abnormal metabolic processes in a
normal healthy individual and to promote chronic degenerative
diseases
I.Vs (intravenous feedings) of sugar water can cut off oxygen to the
brain
High sucrose intake could be an important risk factor in lung cancer
Sugar increases the 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
Sugar may impair the physiological homeostasis of many systems in
living organisms
In juvenile rehabilitation camps, when children were put on a low
sugar diet, there was a 44% drop in antisocial behavior
Sugar can cause gastric cancer
Sugar dehydrates newborns
Sugar can cause gum disease
Sugar increases the estradiol in young men
Sugar can cause low birth weight babies
----------------------------------------------------------
References
Sanchez, A., et al. Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophilic
Phagocytosis, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Nov
1973;261:1180_1184. Bernstein, J., al. Depression of Lymphocyte
Transformation Following Oral Glucose Ingestion. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition.1997;30:613.
Couzy, F., et al."Nutritional Implications of the Interaction
Minerals," Progressive Food and Nutrition Science 17;1933:65-87.
Goldman, J., et al. Behavioral Effects of Sucrose on Preschool
Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.1986;14(4):565_577.
Scanto, S. and Yudkin, J. The Effect of Dietary Sucrose on Blood
Lipids, Serum Insulin, Platelet Adhesiveness and Body Weight in Human
Volunteers, Postgraduate Medicine Journal. 1969;45:602_607.
Ringsdorf, W., Cheraskin, E. and Ramsay R. Sucrose,Neutrophilic
Phagocytosis and Resistance to Disease, Dental Survey.
1976;52(12):46_48.
Cerami, A., Vlassara, H., and Brownlee, M."Glucose and Aging."
Scientific American. May 1987:90. Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. The Role
of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science;
663:63-67.
Albrink, M. and Ullrich I. H. Interaction of Dietary Sucrose and
Fiber on Serum Lipids in Healthy Young Men Fed High Carbohydrate
Diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1986;43:419-428.
Pamplona, R., et al. Mechanisms of Glycation in Atherogenesis. Med
Hypotheses. Mar 1993;40(3):174-81.
Kozlovsky, A., et al. Effects of Diets High in Simple Sugars on
Urinary Chromium Losses. Metabolism. June 1986;35:515_518.
Takahashi, E., Tohoku University School of Medicine, Wholistic Health
Digest. October 1982:41:00
Kelsay, J., et al. Diets High in Glucose or Sucrose and Young Women.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1974;27:926_936. Thomas, B.
J., et al. Relation of Habitual Diet to Fasting Plasma Insulin
Concentration and the Insulin Response to Oral Glucose, Human
Nutrition Clinical Nutrition. 1983; 36C(1):49_51.
Fields, M.., et al. Effect of Copper Deficiency on Metabolism and
Mortality in Rats Fed Sucrose or Starch Diets, Journal of Clinical
Nutrition. 1983;113:1335_1345.
Lemann, J. Evidence that Glucose Ingestion Inhibits Net Renal Tubular
Reabsorption of Calcium and Magnesium. Journal Of Clinical Nutrition.
1976 ;70:236_245.
Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. Mar 2002;48;25. Taub, H. Ed. Sugar
Weakens Eyesight, VM NEWSLETTER;May 1986:06:00
Sugar, White Flour Withdrawal Produces Chemical Response. The
Addiction Letter .Jul 1992:04:00
Dufty, William. Sugar Blues. (New York:Warner Books, 1975).
Ibid.
Jones, T. W., et al. Enhanced Adrenomedullary Response and Increased
Susceptibility to Neuroglygopenia: Mechanisms Underlying the Adverse
Effect of Sugar Ingestion in Children. Journal of Pediatrics. Feb
1995;126:171-7.
Ibid.
Lee, A. T.and Cerami A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the
New York Academy of Science.1992;663:63-70.
Abrahamson, E. and Peget, A.. Body, Mind and Sugar. (New
York:Avon,1977.}
Glinsmann, W., Irausquin, H., and Youngmee, K. Evaluation of Health
Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydrate Sweeteners. F. D. A.
Report of Sugars Task Force. 1986:39:00 Makinen K.K.,et al. A
Descriptive Report of the Effects of a 16_month Xylitol Chewing_gum
Programme Subsequent to a 40_month Sucrose Gum Programme. Caries
Research. 1998; 32(2)107_12.
Keen, H., et al. Nutrient Intake, Adiposity, and Diabetes. British
Medical Journal. 1989; 1:00 655_658
Persson P. G., Ahlbom, A., and Hellers, G. Epidemiology.
1992;3:47-52.
Yudkin, J. New York: Sweet and Dangerous.:Bantam Books:1974: 129
Darlington, L., Ramsey, N. W. and Mansfield, J. R.
Placebo_Controlled, Blind Study of Dietary Manipulation Therapy in
Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lancet. Feb 1986;8475(1):236_238.
Powers, L. Sensitivity: You React to What You Eat. Los Angeles Times.
(Feb. 12, 1985). Cheng, J., et al. Preliminary Clinical Study on the
Correlation Between Allergic Rhinitis and Food Factors. Lin Chuang Er
Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi Aug 2002;16(8):393-396.
Crook, W. J. The Yeast Connection. (TN:Professional Books, 1984)..
Heaton, K. The Sweet Road to Gallstones. British Medical Journal. Apr
14, 1984; 288:00:00 1103_1104. Misciagna, G., et al. American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition. 1999;69:120-126.
Yudkin, J. Sugar Consumption and Myocardial Infarction. Lancet..Feb
6, 1971:1(7693):296-297. Suadicani, P., et al. Adverse Effects of
Risk of Ishaemic Heart Disease of Adding Sugar to Hot Beverages in
Hypertensives Using Diuretics. Blood Pressure. Mar 1996;5(2):91-71.
Cleave, T. The Saccharine Disease. (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing,
1974).
Erlander, S. The Cause and Cure
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
