The Real Problem With Non Nutritious Sweeteners

For many years now, non nutritious sweeteners (or NNS) like aspartame, sucralose, stevia and acesulfame-K were thought to have an influence on insulin and insulin secretion.

The reality is a bit different.

This article will not discuss which is the best sweetener and how they can be detrimental or not for your overall health, but rather discuss how they interact with your system and cause the weight gain associated with the consumption of diet soda and other sweetener-laden foods (1,2) .

First, let’s take a look at the insulin hypothesis. For a couple of years now, many experts have believed that the insulin response to NNS was to blame for the weight gain and increase in food consumption. NNS like sucralose and stevia have been studied thoroughly and their impact on insulin is either inconclusive or really weak (3,5). Their action is not on insulin per se, but on the incretin hormone GLP-1.

GLP-1 is a hormone secreted by the intestinal L cells that will encourage insulin secretion and is known to assist the pancreas in managing the amount of insulin being released (4). Interestingly, aspartame doesn’t seem to have the same properties. Since sucralose and stevia* do not contain any significant calories , how can they stimulate the secretion of an hormone known to interact with food?

The actions of these NNS are mediated by the sweet taste receptors T1r2 and T1r3 (6,7,12). T1r3 taste receptor on the tongue is usually positive for GLP-1R, who is the receptor for GLP-1. Thus GLP-1 is also secreted by the tongue and is proposed to play a role in the “sweet taste” (9) being experienced. These receptors are also known to have a positive effect on incretin GLP-1 secretion. So if the effects on insulin secretion are minimal, what’s the big deal?

The main problem with NNS consumption is with the brain and the satiety effect .The mechanism that detects sweetness (taste) goes like this: as soon as a food touches the tongue, information about it is sent to the primary taste cortex. Then neurons in the primary taste cortex send projections to areas associated with the brain’s primary reward-pathway located in the dopaminergic midbrain, which will induce a release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward and pleasure. The food reward system is essential for the control of food intake and controlling eating behavior.

The activation of T1r3 and Trmp5 (a cation channel that it is essential for transduction of bitter, sweet and umami tastes (13)) by NNS will be enough to activate a cascade of signals. The good news is that the reward center can be activated by calorie dense food too, as these receptors are not the sole mechanism of activation (14,15). Even though the NNS can activate a portion of the taste receptors, a phenomenon made even worse by occasional use, the problem is that they cannot reproduce the dopamine response associated with sucrose intake in the long run (16,17).

A study demonstrates that even though sucralose will be pleasant to the taste and can fool the conscious mind, the dopaminergic midbrain areas in relation to the behavioral reward response are not fooled so easily and do not activate as well with sucralose as they do with sucrose (16). The taste of sweetness is so potent that it is able to cause a reward response even greater then cocaine (18).

So the big picture is, sweetness is inherently pleasant (19). It is also related to a complex system of associations which includes the brain and the reward system. This system is responsible for producing sensory signals and information to inform the body and to allow it to produce the associated responses upon tasting of a certain food. This system originally contributed to the maintenance of energy balance but in the case of NNS, the absence of calories or dilution of calories will impair this complex system (20). Sweet taste and sugar might not be recognized for what they are and might be confused for the other.

So the problem with NNS seems caused more by a shift in behavior than a metabolic effect, but although a link has previously been established between obesity and the activation of the reward system, clear associations with NNS or artificial sweeteners consumption and alterations of the brain activity and obesity will require further studies on this topic are needed to get all the pieces of the puzzle. One example is the implication of other appetite controlling hormones like leptin will need to be elucidated to improve our comprehension of this phenomenon. Until then, moderation is the key and both sugar and NNS should be consumed sparingly, even more so in people who suffer from diabetes or obesity, as their appetite regulation hormones are already altered.

*Stevia is actually being studied as a way to help with postprandial hyperglycemia , which recent studies indicate is an important contributor to the development of insulin resistance and Type 2 diabete3,10.11.

Source
http://www.strengthsensei.com/the-real-problem-with-non-nutritious-sweeteners/

References

1. Swithers SE, Artificial sweeteners produce the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements; Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Sep;24(9):431-41. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2013.05.005

2. Fowler SP1, Williams K, Resendez RG, Hunt KJ, Hazuda HP, Stern MP, Fueling the obesity epidemic? Artificially sweetened beverage use and long-term weight gain; Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008 Aug;16(8):1894-900. doi: 10.1038/oby.2008.284

3. Stephen D. Anton, Ph.D., Corby K. Martin, Ph.D., Hongmei Han, M.S., Sandra Coulon, B.A., William T. Cefalu, M.D., Paula Geiselman, Ph.D., and Donald A. Williamson, Ph.D, Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food intake, satiety, and postprandial glucose and insulin levels; Appetite. Aug 2010; 55(1): 37–43.

4. Jang HJ1, Kokrashvili Z, Theodorakis MJ, Carlson OD, Kim BJ, Zhou J, Kim HH, Xu X, Chan SL, Juhaszova M, Bernier M, Mosinger B, Margolskee RF, Egan JM., Gut-expressed gustducin and taste receptors regulate secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Sep 18;104(38):15069-74

5. M. Yanina Pepino, PHD, Courtney D. Tiemann, MPH, MS, RD, Bruce W. Patterson, PHD, Burton M. Wice, PHD and Samuel Klein, MD, Sucralose Affects Glycemic and Hormonal Responses to an Oral Glucose Load, Diabetes Care September 2013 vol. 36 no. 9 2530-2535

6. Xiaodong Li, Lena Staszewski, Hong Xu, Kyle Durick, Mark Zolle, and Elliot Adler, Human receptors for sweet and umami taste; PNAS vol. 99 no. 7 Xiaodong Li, 4692–4696, doi: 10.1073/pnas.072090199

7. Zhao GQ, Zhang Y, Hoon MA, Chandrashekar J, Erlenbach I, Ryba NJ, Zuker CS., The receptors for mammalian sweet and umami taste, Cell. 2003 Oct 31;115(3):255-66

8. Itaru Kojima and Yuko Nakagawa, The Role of the Sweet Taste Receptor in Enteroendocrine Cells and Pancreatic β-Cells; Diabetes Metab J. Oct 2011; 35(5): 451–457

9. Bronwen Martin, Cedrick D. Dotson, Yu-Kyong Shin, Sunggoan Ji, Daniel J. Drucker, Stuart Maudsley, and Steven D. Munger, Modulation of taste sensitivity by GLP-1 signaling in taste buds; Ann N Y Acad Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC Aug 1, 2013

10. Viswanathan V, Clementina M, Nair BM, Satyavani K., Risk of future diabetes is as high with abnormal intermediate post-glucose response as with impaired glucose tolerance, J Assoc Physicians India. 2007 Dec;55:833-7.

11. Shivanna N, Naika M, Khanum F, Kaul VK., Antioxidant, anti-diabetic and renal protective properties of Stevia rebaudiana; J Diabetes Complications. 2013 Mar-Apr;27(2):103-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2012.10.001

12. Maartje C. P. Geraedts and Steven D. Munger, Gustatory stimuli representing different perceptual qualities elicit distinct patterns of neuropeptide secretion from taste buds; J Neurosci. Apr 24, 2013; 33(17): 7559–7564.

13. Liman ER., TRPM5 and taste transduction, TRPM5 and taste transduction; Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2007;(179):287-98.

14. Ivan E. de Araujo8email, Albino J. Oliveira-Maia8, Tatyana D. Sotnikova, Raul R. Gainetdinov, Marc G. Caron, Miguel A.L. Nicolelis, Sidney A. Simon, Food Reward in the Absence of Taste Receptor Signaling; Neurons Volume 57, Issue 6, p930–941, 27 March 2008

15. Duke Medicine News and Communications, Brain Pleasure Pathway Responds to Calorie-Rich Foods, Not Just Sugar Flavor, Mar. 26, 2008 online

16. Guido K.W. Frank, Tyson A. Oberndorfer, Alan N. Simmons, Martin P. Paulus, Julie L. Fudge, Tony T. Yang, Walter H. Kaye, Sucrose activates human taste pathways differently from artificial sweetener, NeuroImage Volume 39, Issue 4, 15 February 2008, Pages 1559–1569

17. Erin Greena, Claire Murphy, Altered processing of sweet taste in the brain of diet soda drinkers; Physiology & Behavior Volume 107, Issue 4, 5 November 2012, Pages 560–567

18.Lenoir M, Serre F, Cantin L, Ahmed SH. Intense sweetness surpasses cocaine reward; PLoS One. 2007 Aug 1;2(8):e698.

19. Beauchamp GK. Development of sweet taste. Dobbing J, editor. , ed Sweetness. London

20. Sánchez-Lasheras C1, Könner AC, Brüning JC., Integrative neurobiology of energy homeostasis-neurocircuits, signals and mediators; Front Neuroendocrinol. 2010 Jan;31(1):4-15. doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2009.08.002

THE TRUTH ABOUT SOY MILK

Soy milk is made by soaking soybeans, grinding them with water. The fluid which results after straining is called soy milk. The health benefits of soy milk are controversial, because like milk, soy is a common food allergen. The milk industries ad campaigns boast about how low fat milk, fat free milk and soy milk are accepted healthy by the medical industry.Unlike milk from a cow, soy milk has no lactose, which makes it a viable alternative to cow’s milk for those suffering from lactose intolerance. Soy milk is promoted as a healthier alternative to cows milk and people have begun to replace many foods in their diet with soy products. There are alot of recent studies to prove that consuming soy can be harmful to your health.

When soy is processed it does not guarantee filtering for toxin elimination. Soy milk has to be heated at high temperatures, it will result in a break down of the protein which is found in soy. When the soy has been consumed the body can have trouble breaking it down causing side effects that can range from diarrhea, cramps and headaches. Preservatives are added to the soy so they can have a longer shelf life, these preservatives can too cause side effects within the body. Phytates are found in soy, these decrease the amounts of nutrients that are absorbed in our body such as iron and zinc. 

Soy has high levels of phytoestrogens which are plant derived compounds, these mimic the hormone estrogen which is found in our body. When we consume phytoestrogens they upset the endocrine functions within our body which can disrupt thyroid functioning in women. This is unhealthy for women who have hypothyroidism as soy can slow down the function of the thyroid gland.  The plant compounds in soy milk which mimic estrogen can block normal estrogen in the human body, this can cause infertility and increase your risk for breast cancer.

When men consume soy the phytoestrogens can reduce testosterone, which may lead to a lowered sperm count making it harder to conceive. 

One of the worst problems with soy comes from the fact that 90 to 95 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically modified (GM), and these are used to create soy protein isolate. Genetically modified soybeans are designed to be ‘Roundup ready’, which means they are created to withstand heavy doses of herbicides without killing the plant. The active ingredient in Roundup herbicide is called glyphosate, which is responsible for the disruption of the delicate hormonal balance of the female reproductive cycle. Pregnant women should avoid soy milk as glyphosate is toxic to the placenta. If the placenta has been damaged the result can be miscarriage or birth defects. Feeding your infant soy-based formula can cause a host of health problems including behavioral problems, food allergies and digestive distress, early puberty and fertility problems, asthma and cancer.

If you are going to drink soy milk always buy organic. Other alternatives are almond milk, rice milk or organic and raw cows milk.

Source
http://www.juliaandlibby.com/2012/12/11/the-truth-about-soy-milk/

Is Soy Bad For You, or Good? The Shocking Truth

Soy is definitely one of the most controversial foods in the world.

Depending on who you ask, it is either a wonderful superfood or a hormone disrupting poison.

As with most things in nutrition, there are good arguments on both sides.

What is Soy and How is it Used?

Soybeans are legumes that originated in East Asia, but are now being produced on a large scale in the United States.

Soy is used to make many different foods. Soybeans can be eaten whole, with the immature types being called edamame. Soybeans must be cooked, as they are poisonous when raw.

Soy is used in tofu, soy milk and various dairy and meat substitutes. It is also used in fermented foods like miso, natto and tempeh, which are commonly consumed in some Asian countries.

Over 90% of soy produced in the U.S. is genetically modified and the crops are sprayed with the herbicide Roundup, which may be associated with adverse effects on health (1).

Interestingly, whole soybeans are rarely consumed in Western countries. The majority of soy in the diet comes from the refined products that are processed from the soybeans.

Most of the soy crop in the U.S. is used to produce soybean oil, which is extracted using the chemical solvent hexane. Soybean oil supplied about 7% of calories in the U.S. diet in the year 1999 (2).

What remains of the soybean after the fat has been extracted is called soybean meal, which is about 50% protein. The majority of soybean meal is used to feed livestock, but it can also go through further processing to produce isolated soy protein.

Because it’s cheap and has certain functional properties, soybean oil and soy protein have found their way into all sorts of processed foods, so most people in the U.S. are consuming significant amounts of soy without even knowing about it.

Soy protein is also the major ingredient in soy-based infant formulas.

Bottom Line: Most soy in the U.S. is used to make soybean oil. The waste product is then used to feed livestock or processed to produce soy protein. Whole soybeans are rarely consumed.

Nutrients in Soybeans

Whole soybeans contain a range of important nutrients.

100 grams (about 3.5 ounces) of mature, boiled, whole soybeans contain large amounts of Manganese, Selenium, Copper, Potassium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Iron, Calcium, Vitamin B6, Folate, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1) and Vitamin K.

This portion of soybeans also contains 173 calories, with 9 grams of fat, 10 grams of carbs (6 of which are fiber) and 17 grams of protein (4).

The respectable amount of nutrients needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because soybeans are also very high in phytates, substances that bind minerals and reduce their absorption.

Soybeans are a pretty good source of protein. They’re not as good as meat or eggs, but better than most other plant proteins. However, processing soy at a high temperature can denature some of the proteins and reduce their quality.

The fatty acids in soybeans are mostly Omega-6 polyunsaturated fats. This can be problematic because too many Omega-6s in the diet can lead to inflammation and all sorts of health issues (5, 6).

For this reason, it is very important to avoid soybean oil (and other vegetable oilshigh in Omega-6) and processed foods that contain it.

Be aware that the nutrient composition of soy depends dramatically on the type of soy food. Whole soybeans can be nutritious, while refined soy-derived products like soy protein and soybean oil aren’t nutritious at all.

Bottom Line: Whole soybeans are rich in micronutrients, but they also contain phytates which block absorption of minerals. Soybeans are very rich in Omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can cause problems.

Soy May Have Some Health Benefits

It wouldn’t be right to talk about all the bad stuff without mentioning the good. The truth is that there is some evidence of health benefits in certain people.

Soy has been well researched for its cholesterol lowering effects and several studies show that soy protein can reduce Total and LDL cholesterol, although others find no effect (7, 8, 9, 10).

It’s important to keep in mind that even IF soy reduces cholesterol (which studies don’t agree on), there is no guarantee that this will lead to a decrease in heart disease.

Observational studies show a mixed bag of results. Some studies show a reduced risk of heart disease, others do not (11,12).

There are also some observational studies showing that soy can reduce the risk of prostate cancer in old age, which is the most common cancer in men (13, 14).

Bottom Line: There is some evidence that soy can lower cholesterol levels, although studies show conflicting results. Men who consume soy are at a lower risk of developing prostate cancer in old age.

Soy Contains Isoflavones That Function as Endocrine Disruptors

Estrogens are steroid hormones mostly found in females, where they play a major role in regulating sexual development and reproductive cycles.

Estrogens are also found in men, although in smaller amounts.

The way estrogens (and other steroid hormones) work, is that they travel into the nuclei of cells and activate the estrogen receptor.

When that happens, there are changes in gene expression, leading to some kind of physiologic effect.

The problem with the estrogen receptor is that it isn’t very selective in the substances that can activate it. Some substances in the environment that look like estrogen can activate it too.

This is where the whole soy thing gets interesting…

Soy contains large amounts of biologically active compounds called isoflavones, which function as phytoestrogens… that is, plant-based compounds that can activate estrogen receptors in the human body (15).

These isoflavones are classified as endocrine disruptors, chemicals that interfere with the normal function of hormones in the body. The key isoflavones in soy are genistein, daidzein and glycitein.

This can cause reduced estrogen activity due to the isoflavones blocking the actual, more potent estrogen from binding, or it can lead to an increased estrogen activity due to the isoflavones activating the receptors (16).

Soy Isoflavones May Affect The Risk of Breast Cancer

Due to the estrogenic activity, these isoflavones are often used as a natural alternative to estrogenic drugs to relieve symptoms of menopause.

In fact, isoflavones can reduce symptoms when women are going through menopause, as well as reduce the risk of bone loss in elderly women, just like estrogen replacement therapy (17, 18).

However, this use is controversial and many believe that the risks outweigh any potential benefit.

Animal studies show that soy isoflavones can cause breast cancer (19, 20, 21). There are also human studies showing that soy isoflavones can stimulate the proliferation and activity of cells in the breasts.

In one study, 48 women were split into two groups. One group ate their normal diet, the other supplemented with 60 grams of soy protein.

After only 14 days, the soy protein group had significant increases in proliferation (increase in number) of the epithelial cells in the breasts, which are the cells that are most likely to turn cancerous (22).

In another study, 7 of 24 women (29.2%) had an increased number of breast epithelial cells when they supplemented with soy protein (23).

These changes may indicate an increased risk of breast cancer, which is the most common cancer in women. However, many observational studies show that women who consume soy actually have a reduced risk of breast cancer (24, 25).

It is a good idea not to make decisions based on observational studies… which tend to be unreliable. The biological changes in the breasts and the studies where soycauses breast cancer in rodents are a major cause for concern.

There are also some small human studies where soy caused mild disruptions of the menstrual cycle, leading to delayed menses and prolonged menstruation (26, 27).

Bottom Line: Soy isoflavones can increase the multiplication of cells in the breasts. However, observational studies show a reduced risk of breast cancer. Soy may lead to mild disruptions of the normal menstrual cycle.

Soy, Testosterone and Male Reproductive Health

Even though men have some amount of estrogen, having significantly elevated levels is not normal.

Therefore, it seems logical that increased estrogen activity from soy isoflavones could have some effects on men.

In rats, exposure to soy isoflavones in the womb can lead to adverse effects on sexual development in males (28, 29).

In one human study, 99 men attending an infertility clinic were studied. The men that had eaten the most soy for the past 3 months had the lowest sperm count (30).

Of course, this study is just a statistical correlation and does not prove that it was the soy that lead to decreases in sperm count.

Another study found that 40 milligrams per day of soy isoflavones for 4 months had no effect on hormones or semen quality (31).

Many believe that soy can reduce testosterone levels, but the effect appears to be weak and inconsistent. Some studies show a small reduction, while others find no effect (32, 33).

Bottom Line: Exposure to estrogen-like compounds in the womb can lead to adverse effects on males. Studies on the effects of soy on testosterone and sperm quality are inconclusive.

Soy May Interfere With The Function of The Thyroid

The isoflavones in soy also function as goitrogens, which are substances that interfere with thyroid function.

They can inhibit function of the enzyme thyroid peroxidase, which is essential for production of thyroid hormones (34, 35).

One study in 37 Japanese adults revealed that 30 grams (about 1 oz) of soybeans for 3 months raised levels of Thyroid Stimulating hormone (TSH), a marker of impaired thyroid function.

Many subjects experienced symptoms of hypothyroidism, including malaise, constipation, sleepiness and thyroid enlargement. These symptoms went away after they stopped consuming the soybeans (36).

However, there are other studies showing that soy has either no effect or only a very mild effect on thyroid function in humans (37, 38, 39).

Bottom Line: Even though soy isoflavones have been shown to inhibit the function of a key enzyme in the thyroid, there is not enough evidence to conclude that they contribute to hypothyroidism in adults.

Soy-Based Baby Formula is a Bad Idea

Exposing infants to isoflavones by feeding them soy-based infant formula can have harmful effects.

In one study, infant girls fed soy formula had significantly more breast tissue at 2 years of age than those who were fed breast milk or dairy-based formula (40).

Another study showed that girls fed soy formula were much more likely to go through puberty at a younger age (41).

There is also evidence that soy formula during infancy can lead to a lengthening of the menstrual cycle and increased pain during menses in adulthood (42).

Soy is also very high in manganese, MUCH higher than breast milk, which may lead to neurological problems and ADHD (43, 44). Soy infant formula is also high in aluminum, which can cause all sorts of problems (45, 46).

There is no question about it… breast milk is by far the best nourishment for babies. For women who can not breastfeed, milk-based formula is a much better option than soy-based formula, which should only be used as a last resort.

Bottom Line: There is significant evidence that soy-based infant formula can cause harm, both via its isoflavone content and its unnaturally high content of manganese and aluminum.

Fermented Soy May be Safe in Small Amounts

It is true that many Asian populations have consumed soy without apparent problems.

In fact, these populations tend to be much healthier than Westerners, although they’ve started to suffer many of the same diseases now that the Western diet has invaded those countries.

The thing is… these populations usually consume fermented soy products like natto, miso and tempeh.

Fermenting soy degrades some of the phytic acid, although it doesn’t get rid of the isoflavones (47).

Natto may be especially healthy, as it also contains a significant amount of Vitamin K2, which is important for cardiovascular and bone health and many people aren’t getting enough of (48, 49).

The dose makes the poison… and phytoestrogens are probably fine if you don’t eat that much. If you’re going to consume soy, choose fermented soy products and use small amounts.

Take Home Message

Reviewing the evidence on soy is incredibly confusing. For every study showing harm, there is another one showing beneficial effects.

However, I’d like to point out that in every study I looked at that showed beneficial effect, the study was either sponsored by the soy industry, or the authors had some kind of financial ties to the soy industry.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that their studies are invalid, but it’s something to keep in mind.

At the end of the day, it is important for women who are pregnant, plan on becoming pregnant, or are breastfeeding, to avoid soy and other sources of endocrine disrupting compounds.

Avoiding soy infant formula is very important as well. It should only be used as a last resort.

However, the evidence is too weak and inconsistent to conclude that moderate amounts of soy cause harm in adults.

I personally choose to avoid soy… even though the evidence is inconclusive, the fact that it is a relatively new food in the diet that contains endocrine disrupting compounds is reason enough for me.

Comment below what you think of this article? Do you support it? Are you For or Against Soy milk or any soy products? I personally am Against. Let me know what you think :)


Source
http://authoritynutrition.com/is-soy-bad-for-you-or-good/

Hidden Hazards in Common Foods

Processed Meats

In 1994, the National Cancer Institute released a bulletin stating that hot dogs have been directly linked to childhood leukemia. Our school systems still serve hot dogs.
In nearly all processed meats are nitrates and nitrites. Both of these turn into nitrosamines during digestion. Nitrosamines are carcinogenic. There are two ways to turn this carcinogen into harmless chemicals:

1. Drink three or more cups of Green Tea with each meal.
2. Insure that your intestinal flora (probiotics such as acidophilus and bifidus) is adequate. Both of these methods will turn harmful toxins into harmless chemicals.
3. Take NAC (N. Acetyl Cysteine) with meals. This too turns carcinogens into harmless chemicals. 

Additionally, processed meats contain cholesterol, however, cholesterol is not a problem; the problem is oxidized cholesterol; or rancid cholesterol. These are damaging to your cardiovascular system. Top
Oh, by the way. There's another way to protect yourself against nitrates and nitrites: don't eat them (or cut back).
Pickles and Salt Cured Foods
Yes, your favorite pickles, and anchovies, contain carcinogens. Your best defense is the same defense used above with processed meats.
NutraSweet (Equal, Aspartame)
The FDA has received more complaints about this artificial sweetener than from any other food additive they have ever passed. Complaints range from headaches, to stomach cramps, to muscle fatigue, and NutraSweet has been linked to neurological disorders such as Fibromyalgia and Alzheimer’s Disease.
At 85 degrees, all drinks containing NutraSweet undergo a transformation. The NutraSweet turns into formaldehyde.
Now for the scary news. No medical journal has reported this, however, industry magazines, such as Flying Safety and Navy Physiology have: at high altitudes, because NutraSweet contains 10% methanol, oxygen deprivation soon follows consumption of diet sodas, leading to dizziness, loss of vision, sudden memory loss, and even epileptic fits.
When the FDA passed NutraSweet, they banned a harmless sweetener, Stevia, which comes from a plant. It has been used for over 200 years with no side effects. Japan originally made their diet Coke with Stevia, until they decided to standardize with the rest of the world. Soon after the FDA banned Stevia, a grass roots effort started up demanding the FDA show proof that Stevia was harmful. Since the FDA had no research to prove it harmful, they dragged their feet a couple of years, and finally gave in before Congress began an investigation. You can now purchase Stevia in most health food stores.
If you want the full story on Aspartame, how it passed through the FDA and what it does to you, we suggest you get the movie, Sweet Misery.
Top
Artificial Coloring
Research show that all artificial food coloring produce changes at the cellular level. Dr Andrew Weil’s books point to these artificial colors as an underlying cause of cancers.
Caramel Coloring
Caramel coloring is burnt sugar. Ask any biologist about burnt sugar, and he will tell you that it is a carcinogen. Additionally, scientists have used caramel coloring in lab experiments on mice to interfere with leukocyte action (white cells). In other words, caramel coloring is immunosuppressive. The FDA knows this and insures that anything containing caramel coloring must note this on the label. Just luckily, this immunosuppressive property of caramel coloring drops away when you quit ingesting it. Top
Milk
Did you know that if you take a calf’s mother’s milk, pasteurize it, and give it back to the calf, it will die?
It is estimated that upwards of 40% of Americans have some form of milk intolerance, either lactose intolerance or milk allergies. If you have either one of these problems (and you may not know because years of milk drinking have made you get used to the reaction), your immune system suffers with each glass of milk.
See also: The Myth of Pasteurization.
Homogenized Milk
If you drink non homogenized fat free milk, you have nothing to worry about. However if you drink even two percent, odds are, the milk is homogenized. Homogenization releases an enzyme (usually part of the milk itself and harmless) that attacks your arteries. When arteries are pitted by this enzyme, the so called "bad" cholesterol tries to repair the pits by laying down patches in the holes. Bad cholesterol isn’t. It is trying to save your life and stop you from bleeding to death, internally. Studies of heavy milk drinkers who are in high school, show arteries with walls covered by cholesterol and plaque. Researchers said that the arteries of these students compared easily to those of people in their sixties. (Try this for more information on The Cholesterol Myths.)
Fats
For years we’ve been told by the National Cancer Institute that fats are responsible for cancer. However, new research shows that only certain fats are responsible for cancer, and that others actually fight cancer. In the Middle East, women have a 40% less chance of breast cancer, and yet their diet is better than 50% fat. However, their fat comes from Olive Oil. Top
Dr Andrew Weil recommends only using Olive Oil in your diet. Some people think Canola Oil, since it is a monounsaturated oil, is a good choice. However, most Canola Oil is chemically processed, and residues from these chemicals end up in the oil. Cold pressed Canola Oil is much better, however, its cost, about $50 per gallon, is usually prohibitive. It is not recommended.
Cotton Seed Oil: the herbicides and pesticides we put on our food are regulated by the Department of Agriculture. Since cotton is not considered a food, there are no rules as to which herbicides or pesticides may be used on it.
Two oils that are highly recommended are Coconut Oil and Palm Oil.
Rancid oils are highly oxidizing and carcinogenic. It is believed that the greatest cause of cancer in pets comes from rancid oils. Most people purchase large bags of dog and cat foods, open them, and keep them open till they are finished. As a human, we wouldn’t eat a bag of potato chips left open over night, but we will serve our animals food from a bag that has been left open for weeks. To avoid rancid oils in your food, keep your olive oil refrigerated. And if you bake using whole wheats or prefer brown rice to processed white rice, because these unprocessed foods contain natural oils, they too must be refrigerated.
Partially Hydrogenated Oils: in Europe, there is a movement to outlaw the use of partially hydrogenated oils, sometimes referred to as transfatty oils. These "man made" oils have been directly connected to skin cancer. Additionally, because their structure is so close to that of cholesterol, they take the place of cholesterol in the body. Where does the body use cholesterol? Your cell membranes contain cholesterol, as well as most of your brain. In your cell membranes, cholesterol forms the hydrophobic bond that keeps us from melting when we are wet. It is theorized, because transfatty oils have a long shelf life, that when they invade your body’s cells, they make the cell membrane nearly impermeable, not allowing toxins out or nutrition in. Additionally, Dr Johanna Budwig from Germany has been telling us since the fifties that these oils are responsible for most heart disease and cancers, and she reversed these two diseases using a simple recipe of flax oil and cottage cheese. Our cell membranes need the Essential Fatty Acids found in flax and fish oils. They are essential, not optional.
Budwig’s Recipe: three tablespoons of flax oil mixed with cottage cheese. According to her research, the flax oil must be bound to protein in order to become water soluble. However, this recipe tastes, to most Americans, terrible. You can modify this recipe the way I do, by adding a bit more cottage cheese, apple cider vinegar, lemon juice, chopped celery, red pepper, and carrots, and a little kelp powder (a salt substitute with many minerals) or Celtic Sea Salt. Dr Budwig recommends eating this at least once a day (twice a day is optimal), if you have cancer, heart disease or an immune system disorder (the oils are not called essential because they are optional, they are essential), and at least once a week for prevention. (For more on Budwig and Omegasentials, a product that was designed from Budwig's research, check out: Johanna Budwig Revisited.)
A wonderful book to read is Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill. At the top of the list is Hemp oil, followed closely by Flax oil. Hemp oil, as you probably know, comes from the Hemp (marijuana) plant. Because our government doesn’t allow live hemp seeds imported into America, the seeds are first denatured. This gives us doubt as to the quality of Hemp oil and its contents.
Back to Partially Hydrogenated Oils: these are artificially saturated oils. In other words, the package might say, "No Cholesterol" but the truth is, this stuff is artificial cholesterol. The food industry loves these oils because of this, and because saturated fats (artificial or not) are flavor enhancers. Additionally, these oils have a long shelf life. So, while most of Europe is trying to outlaw these dangerous oils, our country’s food industry is escalating their use. To avoid partially hydrogenated oils, you must learn to read labels. They are found in most cocoas, nearly all baked goods, margarines, shortenings, non dairy coffee creamers, nearly all cookies and crackers, breads, nearly all junk foods including the microwavable popcorns, and most tortillas.
Partially Hydrogenated Oils are a leading cause of Type 2 Diabetes (non-insulin dependant) and heart disease. They change the proteins in our bodies in such a way as to reject insulin. The pancreas creates the insulin, but the body can't use it. Our diets are high in sugars, so the pancreas creates more and more insulin. The pancreas becomes overworked. Because the pancreas produces enzymes that eat cancers, is it any wonder that people with diabetes have much greater chances of getting cancer than those without? Top
American Heart Association Finally Gives In

October of 1998 will go down in history! For the past 20 years the American Heart Association has slapped its seal of approval on products containing Partially Hydrogenated Oils: breads, cereals, margarine. They ignored all the research that consistently connected these oils to heart disease (and numerous other diseases) opting to take donations and grants from those companies poisoning our food supply with these dangerous oils. It had to happen. The truth will out. The American Heart Association is now warning us (thought not too loudly) to keep consumption of these oils to a minimum. This is a major victory for every American.

Processed Sugar
Did you know that processed sugar is immunosuppressive? Many studies have proven this. The book, Sugar Blues discusses the actual biological response the body goes through after ingesting processed sugars, demonstrating his thesis that processed sugar is a drug, and not a food.
Please note, all sugars are immuno-suppressive, but processed are the worst. Top
The sugar from one can of soda pop can suppress your immune system for up to 6 full hours.
To make a long process short, within minutes of ingesting sugar, your blood sugar levels rise. The body, wishing to maintain homeostasis (a state of balance) does everything in its power to reduce this level of sugar. Though the human body can do many things at once, when it must focus its efforts on one process, other processes suffer. To use the example from above, when the pancreas is producing insulin, it is not producing enzymes to fight cancer.
Additionally, the World Health Organization now reports that Type 2 Diabetes is at epidemic proportions in countries where sugar and starches are consumed regularly (nearly all baked goods contain partially hydrogenated oils in the form of "vegetable shortening"). This type of diabetes is not caused by the pancreas not making insulin, but by the body’s inability to use insulin. We’ve over sugared ourselves… literally to death.
What is the best sugar? None really, but if you must have sugar, try a nutritional sugar, such as Sucanat (dehydrated cane juice), maple syrup (contains glyconutrients not found elsewhere), and honey (the only alkalizing sugar). The best sugar substitute is stevia. Personally, we treat all man made sweeteners as if they were poison (and some just might be).
Now here is something that every oncologist learns in medical school, though most seem to forget when they begin their practice: cancer needs sugar to grow. In the fifties, Dr Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering the metabolic action of cancers. He discovered that the process is anaerobic, or without oxygen. In other words, cancer metabolizes through a process of fermentation. Fermentation requires sugar. When a cancer patient ingests sugars (and starches and carbohydrates), it is the cancer that pulls the sugars from the blood stream. Cancer kills by starving the rest of the body.
Now, you may think this is a lot of hooey, probably because the American Cancer Society gives out cookies and Ensure™, or doctors give away cookies after chemotherapy, but researchers at the University of Minnesota are now testing a "smart bomb" based upon Warburg's research. A chemotherapeutic agent is wrapped in a coating that makes it harmless to the body until it finds a spot in the body where there is no oxygen. The only spot in a human body with no oxygen is a cancer site. Once in the oxygen free environment, the chemotherapy is released. (Note: we learned about this in 1994, but have yet to hear any updates.)
Additionally, you may have heard that apricot pits contain cyanide. However, some researchers knew that the cyanide was coated with sugars. This too acts as a smart bomb. The cancer needs the sugar. When these little smart bombs arrive at the cancer site, the cancer eats away at the sugar releasing the cyanide.
Note: apricot pits do NOT actually contain cyanide. They contain nitriloside. Cancer cells contain beta-glucosidase, an enzyme. When they meet, they create cyanide. See also: Laetrile.
Why don’t we all know about this? Well, some of us do. The Sloan Kettering Cancer Center knew about this. One of their public relations people, Ralf Moss, who’s job was to write up for the public the research conducted there, quit his job when research on apricot pits was suppressed. He now writes about the Cancer Industry, his latest book being Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Use of Toxic Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer . You see, the medicine made from these peach pits is called Laetrile. Top
References and Further Reading:
Sanchez A, et al. Role of sugars in human neutrophilic phagocytosis. American Journal of Clinical  Nutrition 1973; 26: 1180-84

Ringsdorf WM jr, Cheraskin E and Ramsey RR jr. Sucrose, Neutrophilic Phagocytosis, and Resistance to Disease. Dent Surv 1976; 52 (12): 46-48

Sugar Blues

Articles TOC

International Wellness Directory Home Page

Copyright © 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2005
International Wellness Directory
Contact us

You may copy, print, reprint, and/or transfer this entire article, if and only if it is unmodified and in its complete state with this copyright notice attached and all the links work properly.

Source
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/misc/hidden_h.htm