The Blueberry Deception

Source: (1867381 views) Uploaded 1/18/2011 8:10:02 PM by HealthRanger to YouTube

 

Video Information

The blueberries found in blueberry bagels, cereals, breads and muffins are REAL blueberries right? Wrong! Award-winning investigative journalist Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, exposes the deceptive chemical ingredients and dishonest marketing of "blueberry" products from big-name food and cereal companies. The blueberries, it turns out, are made from artificial colors, hydrogenated oils and liquid sugars. See more episodes at www.FoodInvestigations.com

TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO:

Pictures of blueberries are prominently displayed on the front of many food packages. Here they are on boxes of muffins, cereals and breads. But turn the packages around, and suddenly the blueberries disappear. They’re gone, replaced in the ingredients list with sugars, oils and artificial colors derived from petrochemicals.

This bag of blueberry bagels sold at Target stores is made with blueberry bits. And while actual blueberries are found further down the ingredients list, the blueberry bits themselves don’t even contain bits of blueberries. They’re made entirely from sugar, corn cereal, modified food starch, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, artificial flavor, cellulose gum, salt and artificial colors like Blue #2, Red #40, Green #3 and Blue #1. What’s missing from that list? Well, blueberries.
Where did the blueberries go?

They certainly didn’t end up in Total Blueberry Pomegranate Cereal. This cereal, made by General Mills, contains neither blueberries nor pomegranates. They’re nowhere to be found. But the cereal is made with red #40, blue #2 and other artificial colors. And it’s even sweetened with sucralose, a chemical sweetener. And that’s in addition to the sugar, corn syrup and brown sugar syrup that’s already on the label.

A lot of products that imply they’re made with blueberries contain no blueberries at all. And many that do contain a tiny amount of blueberries cut their recipes with artificial blueberry ingredients to make it look like their products contain more blueberries than they really do.
Kellogg’s Blueberry Pop Tarts shows a picture of plump blueberries right on the front of the box. But inside the box, there’s a lot more high fructose corn syrup than actual blueberries. And the corn syrup is given a blueberry color with the addition of — guess what? — red #40, blue #1 and blue #2 chemicals.

Kellogg’s Frosted Mini Wheats also come in a Blueberry Muffin variety, with fresh blueberries prominently featured on the front of the package. But inside, there are no actual blueberries to be found. Instead, you get "blueberry flavored crunchlets" — yes, crunchlets — made from sugars, soybean oil, red #40 and blue #2.

And, if you can believe it, the side panel of this box features the "Frosted Mini Wheats Bite Size" logo, followed by the words "blueberry muffin" with pictures of blueberries, finally followed by "The Whole Truth." Except it really isn’t the whole truth at all. It’s more like a half truth.
These marketing deceptions even continue on Kellogg’s website, where one page claims, "New Special K Blueberry Fruit Crisps are filled with blueberries and drizzled with vanilla icing." Except they aren’t, really. What they’re really filled with is apple powder, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, fructose, sugar, artificial colors red #40 and blue #1, all enhanced with a dash of blueberry puree concentrate.

Even seemingly "healthy" blueberry products can be deceptive. Betty Crocker’s Fiber One Blueberry muffin mix enhances its small amount of actual blueberries with petrochemical colors, too: Red #40, Blue #1 and Blue #2.
At least Betty Crocker’s Blueberry Muffin Mix admits it contains no real blueberries. Well, if you read the fine print, that is. It’s ingredients reveal "Artificial blueberry flavor bits" which are made from dextrose, Corn Flour, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Sugar, Citric Acid, Artificial Flavor, and of course the obligatory Blue #1 and Red #40.

When consumers buy blueberry cereals, muffins and mixes, they’re under the impression that they’re buying real blueberries. No ordinary consumer realizes they’re actually buying blue coloring chemicals mixed with hydrogenated oils and liquid sugars. That’s why this common industry practice of faking the blueberries is so deceptive.

Why can’t food companies just be more honest about it? Nature’s Path Organic Optimum Blueberry-Cinnamon Breakfast Cereal contains — get this — both blueberries and cinnamon.
Better yet, you won’t find any red #40, blue #2 or partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils in Nature’s Path products. They even use organic blueberries and organic cinnamon.
Health Valley Low-Fat Blueberry Tarts are also made with real blueberries. You won’t find any artificial coloring chemicals in this box.

So why can’t Kellogg, Betty Crocker, General Mills and Target stores use real blueberries in their products instead of deceptively formulating them with artificial petrochemical colors that mimic the purple color of blueberries? It’s probably because real blueberries are expensive. And artificial blueberry bits, made with sugar, partially hydrogenated oils and artificial colors, are dirt cheap. If these companies can fool consumers into thinking they’re buying real blueberries in their products, they can command a price premium that translates into increased profits.

Once again, in the food industry, deception pays off. And it pays big.
So what can YOU do to make sure you don’t get scammed by a food company trying to sell you red #40 and Blue #2 as if they were real blueberries? Read the ingredients. If you see artificial colors on the list — and they’re usually found at the very bottom of the ingredients list — just don’t buy that product. Put it back on the shelf and choose something else that’s not deceptively marketed. And that’s how you solve "the case of the missing blueberries."

This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, with Food Investigations for the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center, featured on NaturalNews.TV. If you enjoyed this episode, please share it with your friends. And watch NaturalNews.TV for a new episode each week. Take care.

Drinking This “Popular Poison” is Worse than Smoking

Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 21 2011 | 206,111views | Disponible en Español

 

Story at-a-glance

• The soda industry engages in many of the same marketing tactics as Big Tobacco, including forming “independent” front groups, funding research to discredit links to health problems, and making large donations to health organizations
• Soda is linked to numerous health problems among children and adults, including obesity, liver disease and even violent behavior; frequent soft drink consumption is associated with a 9-15% increase in aggressive behavior, according to new research
• Processed foods and junk foods are heavily marketed to kids and promoted to schools; manufacturers of sugar-laden processed foods pay “rebates” (aka “kickbacks”) to food service companies that serve school districts across the United States
• You can fight back against soda and junk-food giants by purchasing healthy, locally grown organic foods instead of processed foods and beverages

By Dr. Mercola

Soda, which is loaded with sugar primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup, is a leading contributor to the rising rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases facing Americans.

So when I say that drinking a can of soda is just as bad for you as smoking a cigarette (and maybe even worse) it is not an exaggeration.

Drinking soda is in many ways worse for you than smoking, and it is only because of massive marketing campaigns from the industry that these sugary beverages are deemed acceptable for our most vulnerable members of society – our kids.

In the 21st century there would indeed be an uproar if tobacco companies attempted to target our kids, but the soda companies do it everyday.

It’s time to wake up and face the facts: the soda industry is out for your children, and the message they send is every bit as damaging (and manipulative) as the one spewed by Big Tobacco.

Striking Similarities Between the Soda Industry and Big Tobacco

 

If I asked you to quickly recall a commercial or slogan from leading soda companies, like Coca-Cola or Pepsi, could you do it?

Chances are you’d have no trouble recalling the friendly polar bear commercials or “the real thing” logo, and if you asked your kids, they’d probably come up with a few too.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how beverage big-wigs have gotten their products firmly embedded into the homes of millions of Americans and others worldwide. Coca-Cola, for instance, spends close to $3 billion a year on advertising. With that amount of money it’s no wonder the company has managed to hold on to its wholesome reputation.

They, and other beverage giants, are also in the habit of forming strategic alliances with health organizations that make it appear as though they are looking out for your health, which is about as laughable as Big Tobacco sponsoring a marathon. And like Big Tobacco, they also create front groups to fight anti-soda legislation and science.

For instance, as Time magazine reported:

• The American Beverage Association, which represents Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other soft drink producers, has attacked suggestions to tax soda as “discriminatory.” Their organization is touted as a “neutral forum,” but in reality is devoted to discrediting negative press against soft drinks. For instance, in relation to obesity, ABA states, “All of our industry’s beverages can be enjoyed as part of a balanced lifestlye.”
• The soda industry has created the front group Americans Against Food Taxes, which runs anti-tax campaigns. As Kelly Brownell wrote in Time:
  

  “The name of the group implies a patriotic, grass roots movement, not a highly financed entity initiated and organized by industry.”

• Another industry-created front group, Foundation for a Healthy America, recently donated $10 million to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to research and prevent childhood obesity! Diet Coke has also teamed up with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to raise awareness for women’s heart health programs and was the official “Beverage of Choice” for the 2010 winter Olympics.
• The soda industry funds research to discredit links between soda drinking and health problems. Brownwell writes:
  

  “The tobacco industry paid scientists who did research disputing links between smoking and lung cancer, the addictive nature of nicotine, and the dangers of second-hand smoke. The soda industry funds scientists who reliably produce research showing no link between SSB [sugar-sweetened beverage] consumption and health. The tobacco industry bought favor from community and national organizations by giving large donations. In an ironic twist, Coca Cola and PepsiCo are corporate sponsors of the American Dietetic Association.”

The Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness (isn’t that name an oxymoron?) even creates continuing education courses for registered dietitians!

The Top Reason to Give Soda the Boot …

 

Some of you reading this are undoubtedly thinking, how bad could soda really be? From my perspective, there is absolutely NO REASON you or your kids should ever drink soda. If you were stranded in the middle of a desert with no other fluid available, then maybe, but other than that … none, nada, zip, zero. No excuses.

From a health perspective, drinking Coke or any soft drink is a disaster. Just one extra can of soda per day can add as much as 15 pounds to your weight over the course of a single year, not to mention increase your risk of diabetes by 85 percent. The primary reason why soda is so dangerous to your health?

Fructose.

The fructose content of the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) used in many popular soda brands has been sorely underestimated. Around 100 years ago the average American consumed a mere 15 grams of fructose a day, primarily in the form of fruit. One hundred years later, one fourth of Americans are consuming more than 135 grams per day, largely in the form of soda.

Fructose at 15 grams a day is harmless (unless you suffer from high uric acid levels). However, at nearly 10 times that amount it becomes a major cause of obesity and nearly all chronic degenerative diseases. Instead of consisting of 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose, many soda brands, including Coke, Pepsi and Sprite, contain as much as 65 percent fructose, nearly 20 percent higher than originally believed.

According to one study, the mean fructose content of all 23 sodas tested was 59 percent — higher than claimed by the industry. When you consider that Americans drink an average of 53 to 57 gallons of soda per year (depending on the source of your statistics), this difference in actual fructose content could make a huge difference in your health.

The Down and Dirty About Fructose

 

The American Beverage Association and other front groups will try to persuade you that fructose in high fructose corn syrup is no worse for you than sugar, but this is not true. ABA also claims there is “no association between high fructose corn syrup and obesity,” but a long lineup of scientific studies suggest otherwise.

For example:

• Dr. David Ludwig of Boston Children’s Hospital did a study of the effects of sugar-sweetened drinks on obesity in children. He found that for each additional serving of a sugar-sweetened drink, both body mass index and odds of obesity increased.
• The Fizzy Drink Study in Christchurch, England explored the effects on obesity when soda machines were removed from schools for one year. In the schools where the machines were removed, obesity stayed constant. In the schools where soda machines remained, obesity rates continued to rise.
• In a 2009 study, 16 volunteers were fed a controlled diet including high levels of fructose. Ten weeks later, the volunteers had produced new fat cells around their hearts, livers and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. A second group of volunteers who were fed a similar diet, but with glucose replacing fructose, did not have these problems.

Fructose is also a likely culprit behind the millions of U.S. children struggling with non-alcoholic liver disease, which is caused by a build-up of fat within liver cells. Fructose is very hard on your liver, in much the same way as drinking alcohol.

• Liver burden number one: After eating fructose, 100 percent of the metabolic burden rests on your liver—ONLY your liver can break it down. This is much different than consuming glucose, in which your liver has to break down only 20 percent, and the remaining 80 percent is immediately metabolized and used by the rest of the cells in your body.
• Liver burden number two: Fructose is converted into fat that gets stored in your liver and other tissues as body fat. Part of what makes fructose so bad for your health is that it is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar. For example, if you eat 120 calories of fructose, 40 calories are stored as fat. But if you eat the same amount of glucose, less than one calorie gets stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!

Fructose metabolism is very similar to the way alcohol is metabolized, which has a multitude of toxic metabolites that, if consumed in excess, can lead to non-alcoholic liver disease. For a complete discussion of fructose metabolism, see my comprehensive article about this.

Diet Soda is NOT a Safe Alternative to Regular Soda

 

If you think you’re better off drinking diet soda, think again. In fact, if I had to choose between the two, I’d take regular soda over diet. Instead of fructose, diet soda contains artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame or sucralose (Splenda). With all the research now available on aspartame and its various ingredients, it’s hard to believe such a chemical would even be allowed into the food supply, but it is, and it’s been silently wreaking havoc with people’s health for the past 30 years.

Just to refresh your memory, aspartame has been linked to the following health concerns, and Splenda is associated with many similar problems:

Lymphomas, leukemias, and brain cancer
Asthma

Neurological symptoms including headaches, depressed and anxious mood, seizures, memory loss, hallucinations, and dizziness
Visual changes

Weakness and fatigue
Joint pain

Sleep disorders
Weight gain and diabetes

Abdominal cramps, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea
Rashes and hives

Does Soda Actually Cause Violence?

 

It’s a well-known fact that poor diet, particularly one high in sugar, exacts a toll on your emotional health.

For example, one recent study published in the journal Psychology Today found a strong link between high sugar consumption and the risk of both depression and schizophrenia. It’s also a well-known fact that chronic inflammation plays a major role in heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and cancer. So consuming excessive amounts of sugary beverages can truly set off an avalanche of negative health events — both mental and physical.

A diet high in sugar, fructose and sweetened beverages like soda also causes excessive insulin release, which can lead to falling blood sugar levels, or hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia, in turn, causes your brain to secrete glutamate in levels that can cause agitation, depression, anger, anxiety and panic attacks.

One 1985 study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology found that reducing sugar intake had a positive impact on emotions. And another, the Los Angeles Probation Department Diet-Behavior Program: An Empirical Analysis of Six Institutional Settings, published in 1983, documented the results when juvenile delinquents were given a reduced-sugar diet. They saw a 44 percent reduction in the incidence of antisocial behavior during the subsequent 3 months, after the implementation of the revised diet.

So can drinking soda affect your child’s behavior?

Yes, it can.

A new study further supported this point, and revealed that frequent soft drink consumption was associated with a 9-15% point increase in the probability of engaging in aggressive actions, even after controlling for gender, age, race, body mass index, typical sleep patterns, tobacco use, alcohol use and having family dinners.

Researchers concluded:

“There was a significant and strong association between soft drinks and violence. There may be a direct cause-and-effect relationship, perhaps due to the sugar or caffeine content of soft drinks, or there may be other factors, unaccounted for in our analyses, that cause both high soft drink consumption and aggression.”

The effect is not a new finding, as in 1979 the now notorious “Twinkie Defense” was used in a murder trial for the first time.

As Discovery News reported:

“In a notorious 1979 San Francisco murder trial, lawyers blamed the killer’s actions on his recent switch from a health-food diet to one filled with Coca-Cola and other junk food. Their argument worked. Instead of a homicide ruling, the defendant was convicted of a lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. The legal strategy became known as the “Twinkie Defense,” and the precedent raised a number of questions that persist, despite years of research on the subject.”

Processed Food “Rebates” Dominate School Cafeterias

 

Soda manufacturers are not the only ones scheming for a permanent share of your child’s diet. In an article published on La Vida Locavore, Ed Bruske revealed, possibly for the first time, that manufacturers of sugar-laden processed foods pay “rebates” (aka “kickbacks”) to food service companies that serve school districts across the United States.

Bruske obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act that revealed more than 100 companies paid rebates to Chartwells, a food service management company hired by D.C. Public Schools. As you might suspect, the “rebates” present a conflict of interest that could prompt Chartwells to order food for your children based on the amount of rebate it will receive, versus the food’s nutritional value.

The end result?

School lunches that contain heavily processed foods like muffins, pizza, tator tots and flavored milk in lieu of fresh produce.

According to Bruske:

“Manufacturers pay rebates based on large volume purchases — literally, cash for placing an order. Rebates are said to be worth billions of dollars to the nation’s food industry, although manufacturers as well as the food service companies who feed millions of the nation’s school children every day — Chartwells, Sodexo and Aramark — treat them as a closely-guarded secret.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture requires that food service companies engaged in “cost reimbursable” contracts with schools credit any rebates they receive to their school clients. For more than a year, attorneys for D.C. Public Schools refused to make public an itemized list of rebates collected by Chartwells, claiming the information constituted “trade secrets.” The schools were overruled by Mayor Vincent Gray’s legal counsel after I filed an administrative appeal.

John Carroll, an assistant New York State attorney general investigating rebating practices there, has said rebates pose “an inherent conflict of interest” in school feeding programs because they favor highly processed industrial foods. In cases where schools pay a food service company a flat rate to provide meals, the companies are not required to disclose the rebates they collect. In those cases, Carroll recently told a U.S. Senate Panel, rebates tend to drive up the cost of food, cheating children out of nutrition they might otherwise have on their lunch trays.

Carroll also described cases where rebates discouraged the use of local farm products in school meals. Produce vendors can’t afford to pay a rebate for local apples. But in at least one case, a produce distributor raised the prices of his goods so that he could pay a rebate to a food service company. A Homeland Security sub-committee in the U.S. Senate is investigating possible rebate fraud in contracts across the entire federal government.”

The top contributors to Chatwells’ rebate dollars included Performance Food Group, which paid more than $400,000 over the last three years, followed by General Mills, Kraft Foods, Country Pure Foods and Jenny-O Turkey. Other companies who made the list include:

ConAgra
Otis Spunkmeyer
Kellog’s

Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, 7-Up
FritoLay
Tyson

Nestle
Cargill Meat Solutions
Campbell’s Foodservice

Raising a Life-Long Healthy Eater

 

Food and beverage companies spend $2 billion a year promoting unhealthy foods to kids, and while ultimately it’s the parents’ responsibility to feed their children healthy foods, junk food ads make this much more difficult than it should be. As a result, the state of most kids’ diets in the United States is not easy to swallow.

As The Interagency Working Group on Foods Marketed to Children (IWG) reported:

• Nearly 40% of children’s diets come from added sugars and unhealthy fats
• Only 21% of youth age 6-19 eat the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day

This is a veritable recipe for disease, and is a primary reason why today’s kids are arguably less healthy than many prior generations. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure — these are diseases that once appeared only in middle-age and beyond, but are now impacting children. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that by 2050, one in three U.S. adults will have diabetes — one of them could be your child if you do not take steps to cancel out the messages junk-food marketers are sending and instead teach them healthy eating habits.

Make no mistake, the advertisers are doing all they can to lure your child in, just as Big Tobacco did generations ago.

So you need to first educate yourself about proper nutrition and the dangers of junk food and processed foods in order to change the food culture of your entire family. To give your child the best start at life, and help instill healthy habits that will last a lifetime, you must lead by example. Children will simply not know which foods are healthy unless you, as a parent, teach it to them first.

My nutrition plan offers a step-by-step guide to feed your family right, and I encourage you to read through it now to learn how to make healthy eating decisions for you and your children.

If you want to get involved on a larger scale, the Prevention Institute’s “We’re Not Buying It” campaign is petitioning President Obama to put voluntary, science-based nutrition guidelines into place for companies that market foods to kids. You can sign this petition now. I also urge you to go a step further and stop supporting the companies that are marketing junk foods and beverages to your children today.

Ideally, you and your family will want to vote with your pocketbook and avoid processed food and sugary sodas while instead choosing unprocessed raw, organic and/or locally grown foods as much as possible. These are the foods your child will thrive on, and it’s important they learn what real, healthy food is right from the get-go.

This way, when they become tweens and teenagers, they may eat junk food here and there at a friend’s house, but they will return to real food as the foundation of their diet — and that habit will continue on with them for a lifetime.

 

Source: Dr. Mercola, Organic Consumers Association (OCA)

Milk The Deadly Poison

Uploaded by armanddarke on Sep 20, 2006 to YouTube

For More Information about Milk go to: http://www.notmilk.com/
Read Robert Cohen’s book Milk The Deadly Poison Available at Amazon.com or other major bookstores.

About the Author

Robert Cohen performed research in the 1970′s on the hormonal effects on the brain and behavior. Twenty-five years later, this father of three became concerned about the most controversial drug approval in FDA history, the genetically engineered hormone that is now in our milk supply. Along the way, Cohen discovered that milk is implicated in causing breast cancer, osteoporosis, heart disease, and chronic childhood illnesses. Cohen’s skills as a researcher, and his passion for the safety of his family, led to his single-minded pursuit to expose the truth about milk.

Based on his exhaustive and comprehensive research over the past six years, Cohen predicted the Mad Cow Disease outbreak. His dogged determination has set the American dairy industry on its ear. To insure that all citizens of the world learn the truth, Cohen founded and is executive director of America’s Dairy Education Board, a group of nationally prominent doctors dedicated to dispelling the myth that milk is nature’s perfect food.
===
This is a 1998 Hard Copy Special on MILK. What the government doesn’t want you to know about milk. Don’t drink milk, we know it contains fat and cholesterol but did you know it contains the protein CASEIN (which is basically a glue which leads to a lot of mucous build up and other health problems like asthma and congestion), milk also contains.. powerful growth hormones, viruses, a host of deadly chemical and biological bacterial agents, bovine proteins that cause allergies, insecticides, antibiotics, all this can trigger the growth of cancer and contributes to today’s problem of obese children (ever notice why young girls breasts develop faster?).

Cow’s milk is the number one allergic food in this country. It has been well documented as a cause in diarrhea, cramps, bloating, gas, gastrointestinal bleeding, iron-deficiency anemia, skin rashes, atherosclerosis, and acne. It is the primary cause of recurrent ear infections in children. It has also been linked to insulin dependent diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, infertility, and leukemia. Milk and refined sugar make two of the largest contributions to food induced ill health in our country.

IIs a Costco membership worth it on a whole foods diet?

GET YOUR KIDS INTO THE KITCHEN!

Uploaded by GreenSmoothieGirl on Jun 4, 2009 to YouTube

www.greensmoothiegirl.com

See how purchasing a Costco membership can pay for itself for those feeding their family a whole foods diet. Robyn from GreenSmoothieGirl.com will show you what she buys at Costco each week and how she gets her moneys worth from her yearly membership fee by purchasing quality fruits and vegetables and other whole foods items at Costco.

Weight Loss Diet – Is Your Medicine Making You Fat!

GET YOUR KIDS INTO THE KITCHEN!

 

 

By Shane Nolan

 

Few people taking Medications for common Ailments expect to gain Weight! Those pills the Doctor or Specialist recommend or prescribed may be what is causing you to stack on the Kilos and making your weight loss diet even more difficult to manage. Many drugs can boost your appetite, cause bloating and slow your metabolism to a crawl. Here’s what to do.

Pharmaceutical Drugs on the market today are known to have many side-effects with some possibly being worse than the symptoms they are supposed to be relieving.

* STEROIDS-weight loss reversal.

> Some patients on Steroids can have an increase in their weight by up to 7% or more. Studies have found some patients had weight gains of up to 12.5 to 15 kilograms with long term use.

> Steroids treat conditions such as allergies, asthma and arthritis conditions. They mimic hormones that regulate your metabolism and immune system, and help by reducing inflammation and suppressing the immune system. However, an excess of steroids can mimic levels of Cortisol, the stress hormone. As the body needs more energy when stressed, it re-distributes fat to the stomach for easy access. Fat is also sometimes stored on the back of the neck, a condition known as Cushing’s Syndrome.

> Steroids also cause more sugar to be released into your blood, which is stored as fat, causes fluid retention and can greatly decrease the benefits of your weight loss diet.

> Obesity specialist study comments: “Corticosteroids commonly lead to weight gain by increasing appetite and depositing fat in the abdomen and trunk. Doctors should explain to patients that weight gain can occur and advise that they increase their activity levels and focus more on their weight loss diet or regime”.

> Talk with your doctor or specialist if you have any concerns on any medications you may be taking. If possible, try to reduce the strength of your medication or reduce the amount taken, but ONLY if you have been advised by your doctor or specialist first.

> Try Other Options- Many natural health products on the market today can help you with your ailments, just as well as, and very often much better than most pharmaceutical drugs. Natural products for your weight loss diet, arthritis and general health are safer and better options.

*DIABETES DRUGS-weight loss Inhibitor.

> Possible Weight Gains- Sulfonylureas lead to weight gain of 2.5 to 5 kilograms during the 1st year of taking this drug. TZD’s have been linked to weight increases of 1 to 2.5 kilograms over a year.

> Many people with type 2 diabetes are prescribed Sulfonylureas, which stimulates the body to make more insulin to lower blood sugar levels. But. sometimes they cause blood sugars to drop so far that they cause hunger and make patients eat more putting pressure on your weight loss diet regime.

> Another group of diabetes drugs, Thiazolidinediones (TZD’s), help make the body more sensitive to insulin, but also cause it to hold onto salt, causing swelling and weight gain inhibiting your weight loss.

> The Australian Diabetes Council state that some medications do not contribute to weight gain, such as Biguanides and Dpp-4 Inhibitors. But there are other medications that will contribute to weight gain.

> All medications have side-effects, if you are concerned about heart disease, gaining weight etc, exercising for 30minutes every day and a quality weight loss diet of natural products, can be incredibly helpful.

> The Australian Diabetes Council dieticians state that weight loss for people with type 2 diabetes who are also overweight is extremely difficult and can be very stressful. A quality diet and proper control is vitally important in controlling and preventing further complications.

> Natural products with no side-effects can help your body with vital ingredients which help your major organs, and to provide the necessary boost to promote overall bodily functions.

*BLOOD PRESSURE DRUGS-makes weight loss difficult.

> Beta Blockers treat high blood pressure, anxiety and irregular heart beat by lessening your adrenaline’s action on the nervous system. Eventually, blood pressure drops and the heart and your metabolism slows. These drugs can also make patients feel very tired and make weight loss difficult as well.

> Beta Blockers do not usually cause weight gain themselves but can make it very difficult for weight loss. Because these drugs limit how fast the heart can beat, they can reduce the ability to be fully active and burn fat.

> Some patients may be able to switch to Ace Inhibitors, which dampen down levels of the hormone Angiotensin 11, these relax blood vessels and makes blood pressure drop without sparking hunger pangs.

As stated above, every pharmaceutical drug has some side-effect which can be very dangerous and can cause organ damage, ulcers, or some nasty ailment when the product was originally administered to help another ailment. Plain and simply, these drugs are not good for the human body and it’s organs.

If you are truly concerned about your current medication, there are many other Natural Weight Loss, Heart Health, Arthritis Pain Relief and general Overall Health Products available today that can achieve excellent results.

For more Information about natural products you can Email me or Visit the Natural Health Product Blog to learn more or View more about the great products, on the links below. Natural products are easily absorbed by the body are a better and much safer option for You or Your loved ones!

Regards Shane Nolan

Source: Published At: Isnare.com Free Articles Directory – http://www.isnare.com/

• About Shane Nolan

—Email Me.—Visit Natural Health Products Blog!View Products and Learn More!!

Isorhamnetin – A Natural Way To Prevent Cancer and Diabetes

 

By: Tom Parker

 

Isorhamnetin is a flavonol and phytonutrient (a group of chemical compounds that are found in plant based foods but not considered essential to human health) that has been linked with cancer and diabetes prevention. In this article I will be discussing isorhamnetin in greater detail and providing you with a summary of its main functions, the best food sources, the recommended daily allowances (RDAs) and the potentially adverse effects of consuming too much or too little.

1) DISCOVERY:

Isorhamnetin was discovered by the Hungarian biochemist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi in 1938 as part of the flavonoid family. Gyorgyi initially believed that he had discovered a new vitamin and so named the flavonoids vitamin P. However, it was later discovered that unlike vitamins, the flavonoids are not essential to human health.

2) FUNCTION:

Like many of the flavonols, isorhamnetin is a powerful antioxidant which protects your body’s cells from damaging free radicals (harmful by-products of oxygen related reactions). It can also prevent multiple types of cancer (including esophageal cancer, liver cancer and lung cancer) and reduce the complications associated with diabetes (which include diabetic cataracts and high blood glucose levels). In addition to this, isorhamnetin can help keep your heart healthy by preventing arteriosclerosis (hardening and loss of elasticity within the arteries), preventing high blood pressure and protecting the heart’s cells against oxidative damage.

3) RDA:

Isorhamnetin is not believed to be essential in humans so no RDA has been established for this flavonol.

4) FOOD SOURCES:

Isorhamnetin can be found in numerous plant based foods. Some of the best sources include almonds (7.05 milligrams (mg) per 100 grams (g)), chives (6.75mg per 100g), dill weed (43.5g per 100g), fennel leaves (9.3mg per 100g), red onion (4.25mg per 100g) and turnip greens (between 5mg and 10mg per 100g).

5) OVERDOSE SYMPTOMS:

At the time of writing no overdose symptoms have been linked with isorhamnetin consumption.

6) DEFICIENCY SYMPTOMS:

At the time of writing no deficiency symptoms have been linked with isorhamnetin consumption.

7) SUMMARY:

Whilst there is still a lot more research to be done on isorhamnetin, the early signs are very promising. Not only can it help you fight a number of nasty health conditions (including cancer and diabetes) but it also keeps your heart healthy. Furthermore, isorhamnetin rich foods contain high levels of other health boosting nutrients which means eating these foods allows you to unlock many more health benefits. So make sure you eat almonds, add chives to your dishes and cook with red onions to enjoy all the health benefits listed in this article and more.

---

Article Source: http://www.articlesnatch.com

About the Author:
Tom Parker owns Free Fitness Tips – a fantastic source of free, impartial fitness advice. You can learn more about isorhamnetin and the other flavonols by visiting his website.

Preventing Diabetic Foot Complications

 

 

 

 

By: Bruce Lashley

 

Foot amputation is one of the most serious complications that diabetics may encounter. Fortunately, diabetics do not have to bear the burden of keeping their feet healthy alone. Not all amputations associated with diabetes can be avoided, but with routine foot examinations by a podiatrist and daily self-examination of the feet by the patient, diabetic foot complications may be prevented. In order to thwart these complications, an understanding of how and why these problems occur must be recognized.

Understanding Diabetic Foot Complications: Diabetes causes an increase of sugar levels in the blood, which causes a process of “glycosylation” to be increased. Glycosylation is a normal process in the body that attaches chains of molecules to protein found in nerves, tendons, and cartilage. Increased glycosylation, over time, begins to damage the function of these structures.

A vital function of nerves is the ability to convey pain, which allows us to recognize problems with our body. Due to the importance of pain as our body’s fire alarm, damaged nerves become a major risk factor for formation of diabetic foot wounds. Increased glycosylation of nerves leads to decreased pain sensation and therefore results in the loss of protective sensation. This situation becomes detrimental to diabetics, who are now unaware of small lacerations, wounds or callus on their feet that might lead to more serious complications such as ulcers and bone infections. If wounds are left untreated, they may result in amputation.

In addition to increased sugar levels, diabetics also tend to have high lipid concentrations in the blood. This produces the build up of plaque in the arteries, which results in poor circulation to tissues. Tissues depend on blood circulation for nutrients and oxygen to stay healthy and fight infections. Consequently, circulatory problems may not directly lead to ulcers on the feet, but exacerbates diabetic foot complications by creating a poor environment for wounds to heal.

 
The Role of the Podiatrist in Diabetic Foot Care: Podiatric diabetic foot examinations are used to assess the risk of diabetic wounds and usually follow a methodical procedure that examines the entire foot from joint mobility and skin condition to nerve and vascular function.

 
Vascular Exam: In a routine diabetic foot exam, circulation is determined by feeling for pulses in the feet. If pulses are not felt or are weak, then an ultrasound Doppler test may be used to listen and record the status of the pulses. If the Doppler test indicates poor circulation, the podiatrist may refer the patient to a vascular physician in order to treat the patient to enhance the blood circulation to the feet. The podiatrist may also observe any swelling, skin color changes, and cold temperature in the feet, as this may indicate poor circulation as well.

Neurological Exam: In a neurological exam of the foot, the loss of protective sensation is assessed by using an instrument called a Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament, which is made out of a thin plastic wire. While the podiatrist touches the patient’s feet with the monofilament wire, the patient closes his or her eyes and tells the doctor whether or not they feel the instrument. An inability to feel the wire indicates that the patient cannot appropriately protect himself or herself from injury. These injuries can be cuts, callus or foreign body. It is important to note that neglecting the discovery of any of these injuries even for a single day can lead to an ulcer and later, an amputation.

Skin Exam: During the skin exam, calluses, cracking, and nail conditions are noted and evaluated. Thick nails may result in painful ingrown nails or pressure soars that can harbor bacteria and lead to infections in the foot. . The condition of the skin is examined as well to ensure that there is no fungal growth, foreign bodies, and excessive moisture or dryness that promotes bacteria growth and skin deterioration.

Muscular Exam: In order to prevent excessive pressure on the feet, bony prominences will be identified. The range of motion of joints is assessed by measuring joint motion with a tractograph. If there are painful bony prominences and decrease joint mobility, specialized diabetic shoes may be needed to provide extra depth for the feet and decrease friction against the skin. The combination of increased pressure and loss of protective sensation increases the risk of ulcers in diabetic patients. Additionally, muscle strength is evaluated in order to determine the stability of the foot. If muscle strength is found to be weak, bracing may be recommended to provide support.

 
The Role of the Diabetic Patient and Family Members in Diabetic Foot Care: The responsibility of the diabetic patient and family members in preventing diabetic foot complications is just as important as the roles of the podiatrist. Here are tips to take care of diabetic feet:

 
1. Since diabetics are at risk of losing sensation in their feet, it is imperative that self-inspection of the feet is performed every day. If it is difficult to bend the knees to see the bottom of the foot, a magnifying mirror can be used. The mirror can be placed on the ground, while the patient looks to find any sores or foreign objects in the feet. If there are family members to assist the patient, they can inspect the feet for any wounds as well. If lesions are noted, the patient should see a podiatrist promptly to ensure timely and proper treatment of the wound.

2. Routine podiatric visits are important in maintaining diabetic foot health, especially since during these visits, calluses and nails can be debrided to relieve any excessive pressure to the feet. Furthermore, routine visits can provide early warning signals of impending problems, as detailed in this article.

 
3. Diet and blood sugar level should be controlled to decrease the progression of loss of protective sensation in the feet.

4. Daily foot hygiene should be incorporated into diabetic foot care. This includes washing the feet and changing socks daily. Making sure that the foot has adequate moisture, which can be ensured by moisturizing lotion. Be careful with over-moisturized feet for this may lead to the breakdown of skin.

5. Ensure that shoes fit comfortably to avoid pressure to the feet. When buying shoes, a wide toe box is advised.

6. Avoid walking barefoot to prevent stepping on foreign objects.

 
8. Be cautious when taking baths or going to steam rooms because with decreased sensation, the chances of getting burns increases. When taking baths, test the water first with a thermometer or your hand.
Copyright (c) 2010 Bruce Lashley

---

Article Source: http://www.articlesnatch.com

About the Author:
Bruce Lashley, DPM
Dr. Lashley is a podiatrist practicing in midtown Manhattan for the past 27 years. He specializes in the conservative and surgical management of the foot.
In October 2009, Dr Lashley moved his office to a new modern facility at 353 Lexington Avenue, in NYC.
For more information on Dr. Lashley visit his web site.
http://www.footdoctornyc.com/

American Diabetes Month – Time To Raise Awareness Of Diabetes Prevention And Control

 

 

 

 

By: Fabiola Delgado de la Flor

 

Diabetes is a severe illness that affects nearly 25.8 million or 8.3% of the American population. Its incidence has been increasing exponentially with every passing year. In the year 2007 alone, almost 250,000 deaths were attributed to Diabetes – directly or indirectly. Sadly, this figure has been rising every year. However, you can contribute to the cause and help to create awareness by wearing awareness ribbon pins during American Diabetes Month this November.

First of all, it should be realized that amongst the 25.8 million people who are affected by Diabetes, nearly one third of them are not aware of it. Either intentionally or unintentionally, they do not take the occurrence of Diabetes seriously, making the disease’s severity only worse. As such, it is our responsibility to make people conscious about it. You can increase awareness by wearing red ribbons and by educating people in your community about this condition. What you do can help to save lives from potential risk.

The American Diabetes Month is filled with events all around the country that not only call for people who are affected by the disease but also people who do not have it as well. You should realize that 79 million people have been diagnosed with pre-diabetes; a condition in which some of the symptoms of diabetes are observed. All they need to do is avoid factors that only speed up the progress of diabetes. During Diabetes Awareness Month, it’s important to educate these people about what they can do to prevent contracting the disease which in the medium and long term can save their lives.

Diabetes is not only a deadly disease, but it is also one which can cause the occurrence of other life-threatening conditions, such as blindness, heart diseases, foot ulcers, chronic pain, and even kidney failure. Moreover, the occurrence of heart strokes is often worsened when it occurs in conjunction with high blood sugar.

On the other hand, people suffering from diabetes often become quite depressed. Not being able to do what you want or physical limitations, sometimes make people victim of clinical and chronic depression. In November, you can show to these people that there’s hope and that you care by taking part of this national crusade.

Whether you have diabetes or not, it’s very important to support this cause and help to spread awareness. There are many ways you can team up for this campaign, from volunteering, donations, events or simply by wearing red ribbon pins during the month of November, it’s up to you how you want to take action!

---

Article Source: http://www.articlesnatch.com

About the Author:
Sienna Pacific is a manufacturer of Awareness Pins and Cure Diabetes Stickers of the highest quality and offers free artwork with your Custom Lapel Pins order. Or if you wish, you can browse their awareness products in their online store.

My Raw Food Journey – 6 month update: Parts 1 and 2

Source: Uploaded by GreenMomZoe on Jul 5, 2010 to YouTube

 Comments (GreenMomZoe)

Hi, I have a question. I have never even had kids yet, but my belly looks like I am pregnant!! The rest of my body is skinny, I have always been like this and i can’t seem to lose my belly fat. My mom and grandma also have big bellys, but small arms, legs and so I know it’s hereditary. I am a semi-vegetarian. I still eat fish, eggs and chicken, no other animals. I do eat a lot of sugar, but my stomach has always been big. What can I do??

fantard100 1 week ago

@fantard100 To target the belly, the best approach is crunches to strengthen the abdominal muscles.

GreenMomZoe 2 days ago

How do you look now,  2011? you look great anyway!

GiselleBellyDancer 2 weeks ago

@GiselleBellyDancer I look pretty much the same. My diet is a bit less raw – 60% to 75% – but it’s working fine.

GreenMomZoe 1 week ago

Top Comments

@LordShandor I will have to disagree. Losing 30 lbs. in 6 months is not exactly “invisible” change in one’s body. And how do you know that I eat “too many” calories and don’t exercise “enough”? I have not gained any weight since that video was made (actually lost 5 lb. more) and I’m constantly moving and on the go with my business RAWbundant. I barely get free time to sit down and rest. So you are incorrect in your assumptions.

GreenMomZoe 6 months ago

How tall are you? You look great and don’t lose too many curves. You have a nice hourglass shape like me! I’m 5’4 and my body looks best at 135-140. If I lose more I start to look hollow in the face.

katjastar1  1 month ago

Love your accent btw…

rickmack22 2 days ago

@BadMarriageMORECawbs I’m not sure if you are referring to me as “delusional” and wanting to be “anorexic” because those were NEVER my goals! I’ve been a professional volleyball player for many years and carried weight at about 165 – 175 lbs at 5’11″. I was NEVER a skeleton-looking woman because my body isn’t built to be skinny. But being over 200 lbs. made me feel fat…it just wasn’t me. There is a big difference between wanting to look skinny and wanting to look fit.

GreenMomZoe 2 days ago

i agree, shes delusional and sounds like her goal is to look like an anorexic skeleton . sick , i know alot of women who have been brainwashed by the media to think someone weighing 120 pounds is Fat ! im convinced they all want to look like twigs of skin and bone, this fat phobia with women is starting to get Psychotic and turn into a Mental disorder

BadMarriageMORECawbs 3 days ago

Part 2

Vitamin D and Diabetes – Can We Prevent It?

Source: Uploaded by UCtelevision on Feb 26, 2009 to YouTube

Can vitamin D help prevent certain cancers and other diseases such as type 1 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain autoimmune and chronic diseases? To answer these questions and more, UCSD School of Medicine and GrassrootsHealth bring you this innovative series on vitamin D deficiency.

Join nationally recognized experts as they discuss the latest research and its implications. In this program, Frank Garland, PhD, discusses vitamin D and the opportunity for prevention of diabetes.

In Memoriam

Frank C. Garland, PhD.
1950-2010

 

Source: Uploaded by vitaminDaction on Aug 22, 2010 to YouTube

“childhood obesity” asthma, diabetes, allergies, “food allergies”, ADHD, behavior problems

Source: Uploaded by lunalas on Oct 19, 2009 to YouTube

Hang in there parents of children with ADHD, asthma, diabetes, obesity, allergies, food allergies, bloody noses, agression, depression, doing badly in school, fighting, eating junk food, Mcdonald’s junkie.

I have had a dream/vision after many hours of praying and meditating for my son. There is a little known connection between babies on commercial formula, milk allergy, food allergies, asthma, diabetes and obesity including various behavorial problems. I am going to finish my research and write an e- book which will be available soon for a very low price that anyone can afford. It will be less than $10. I am going to make the connections your doctor won’t make because he is being paid by the pharmaceutical industry and wants to keep your child sick and on medications for life. Let’s all get together and run these horrible people and corporations off.

If you want to learn more about your child’s allergies, asthma, diabetes, behavior problems, bloody noses, aggression, depression, trouble in school, addiction to processed and junk foods, send $2 to Paypal with your email address for a full report. lunalas@cox.net ….soon I will have an e-book.

Edible Schoolyard

Source: Uploaded by FoodFightTheDoc on Mar 31, 2010 to YouTube

This clip tells the story of the Edible Schoolyard at Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School in Berkeley, California. The program was started by Alice Waters in 1994 and continues to be one of the most successful schoolyard garden programs in the US.

Enriched Wheat Flour (Killer Flour)

Source: Uploaded by incontinencedoc on Dec 21, 2009 to YouTube

Dr. Andrew Siegel discusses the unhealthy effects of refined wheat products.

Healthy Foods And Cacao: Part Two

 

By: Marilyn Reid

 

 

As was discussed in Healthy Foods and Cacao: Part One, our bodies need raw materials to fight off the side effects of living. Our bodies are, literally, under attack, either by the normal processes of living (oxygen) or the other things we encounter on a daily basis that leave our bodies open to attack (H1N1). What we feed our bodies will either help in the fight or tear it down further. There are other minerals and nutrients our bodies need to do that work effectively.

It is the sweet potato, not the carrot, that will have the greatest impact on your vision. Sweet potatoes outpower carrots. One carrot contains 203% of the daily recommended vitamin a, but a sweet potato weighs in with 262.2% of the daily recommended dose. Sweet potatoes also contain vitamin C and B6 are known to help the body fight off inflammation.

Tomatoes contain vitamin C and vitamin A, but they also contain potassium (8% of the RDA). Tomatoes real punch comes from lycopene, which is present when tomatoes are cooked. Lycopene made headlines because of its impact on prostate cancer, but research has indicated that it may also be beneficial in warding of stomach, colon, breast, and lung cancers. Regardless, tomatoes are incredibly high in antioxidants and should be part of everyone’s diet.

Mom was right about eating your broccoli. As with all the superfoods so far reviewed, broccoli is high in antioxidant vitamins, like A and C, but it is also high in fiber, folic acid and even calcium. Broccoli contains 178 milligrams in one cup. (Milk has 300 in one cup, but also the fat that goes with it and no fiber.) A diet high in good fiber has been shown to ward off rectal and colon cancers.

Dense in antioxidants, cacao nibs are packed with a whole host of nutrients, making it a great choice for brain health. As discussed in the article Organic Cacao, the Department of Metabolism and Nutrition, in Madrid, Spain, reported that cacaos the glucose retardation index of cocoa . . . were similar to other natural commercial insoluble fibres. In other words, the good fiber in cacao helped keep glucose levels down. The chromium in cacao nips is known to reduce ones cravings for sugary foods (http://healthyfoodrawdiet.com/cacao/cacao-nibs). It has also been shown to reduce the platelet levels in the bloodstream, inhibiting the formation of clogged arteries and reducing the risk of cardiovascular problems. While cacao nibs do contain fat, it is important to remember that our bodies need fat to process nutrients.

Salmon is more evidence that not all fats are created equally. The fat in salmon is essential for our bodies, but more so our brains. The omega 3 fatty acids in salmon have no equal. It must be noted that for salmons benefits to be maximized, it is critical that one consumes wild catch salmon, as farm raised salmon omega 3 are significantly lower. It is believed that farm-raised salmon does not enjoy the normal diet as salmon out in the wild and does therefore not contain the same benefits. The quality of the meat suffers and the salmon can in fact suffer from more infections and must therefore be treated with antibiotics, leading to a whole host of other issues.

You are what you eat. If you fuel your body with superfoods that are rich in nutrients and good fats, your body will be better able to ward off infection and perform the way in which it was intended. Salmon, cacao nibs, tomatoes, broccoli, sweet potatoes are some of the best foods for fueling our body to fight off expected invaders, like free radicals that lead to oxidization, and unexpected invaders, like cancer cells.

---

Article Source: http://www.articlesnatch.com

About the Author:
Flavonoids are a type of antioxidants, a superfood (http://www.healthyfoodrawdiet.com/cacao)

Healthy Foods And Cacao: Part One

By: Marilyn Reid

What makes a food a healthy food? What properties does it have to make it a nutritional super food? We age because our bodies break down and wear out. Why? From the moment we draw our first breath, we begin the, usually, slow process of dying. Every breath gets us a step closer. The unfair part is that the process of aging is initiated with breath. Oxygen, so vital for our living, brings us daily closer to death. Think of the aging process as rusting. That is why antioxidants are so essential. They help the body deal with the process of rusting and thereby help stave off aging and help the body function optimally.

Green tea is quite a powerhouse. In the last couple of years, dentists have been recommending green tea because it has been shown to kill the bacteria causing plaque. As we know, dental plaque is, indeed, related to cardiovascular plaque and those with oral issues often also have heart issues. Further, studies have shown that green tea is beneficial in treating mouth and throat infections, which might explain its connection to a decrease in esophageal cancers. Green tea has been linked in several studies with a reduction of cancer proclivities, probably because of its high levels of antioxidants.

Usually, when we think of cacao, we think of hot cocoa. Cacao, even cacao tea http://healthyfoodrawdiet.com/cacao/cacao-tea), however, has often been recommended as a substitute for other, more harmful drinks. While cacao does contain some caffeine, it tends to be less acidic than coffee or black tea and therefore tolerated more easily. Furthermore, cacao, especially unprocessed and unsugared, has loads of other health benefits. Containing such properties as Phenylethylamine, it is able to induce both a sense of calmness and alertness. Cacaos levels of flavonoids are unsurpassed by most foods and contain other minerals like magnesium and chromium provide the body with nutrients that will stave off sugar cravings.

Blueberries, like green tea, are loaded with antioxidant vitamins. Blueberries, cousins to cranberries and bilberries, have been shown to promote urinary tract health. Interestingly, the tartness associated with wild blueberries is one of the reasons blueberries are so potent. That tartness leads to helping the body in becoming more alkaline (and less acidic). Acidity, we know, makes our system work harder. Our body has to strip magnesium and calcium from our bones to reduce the bodys acidity and make it more alkaline. Over time, a high level of acid in the body will affect the kidneys that are under load from the acidity and are working overtime to neutralize it. Blueberries, on the other hand, help restore and maintain a good level of alkalinity.

It has been suggested by numerous studies that cancer itself may be the body’s reaction to being under the load of inflammation over time. Any time we force our bodies to work overtime and we do not give our bodies the raw materials it needs to deal with that level of stress, we invite a whole host of other issues. Superfoods, like cacao, green tea, and blueberries are generally high in antioxidants and help the body fight inflammation, while providing it with the nutrients it needs to function optimally.

---

Article Source: http://www.articlesnatch.com

About the Author:
Flavonoids are a type of antioxidants, a superfood (http://www.healthyfoodrawdiet.com/cacao)

Diabetes, Heart Disease, and Stroke

Education Programs

• National Diabetes Education Program
• National Kidney Disease Education Program

 

 

On this page:

• • What is diabetes?
  • What is pre-diabetes?
  • What is the connection between diabetes, heart disease, and stroke?
  • What are the risk factors for heart disease and stroke in people with diabetes?
  • What is metabolic syndrome and how is it linked to heart disease?
  • What can I do to prevent or delay heart disease and stroke?
  • How will I know whether my diabetes treatment is working?
  • What types of heart and blood vessel disease occur in people with diabetes?
  • How will I know whether I have heart disease?
  • What are the treatment options for heart disease?
  • How will I know whether I have had a stroke?
  • What are the treatment options for stroke?
  • Points to Remember
  • Hope through Research
  • For More Information

Having diabetes or pre-diabetes puts you at increased risk for heart disease and stroke. You can lower your risk by keeping your blood glucose (also called blood sugar), blood pressure, and blood cholesterol close to the recommended target numbers-the levels suggested by diabetes experts for good health. (For more information about target numbers for people with diabetes, see “How will I know whether I have heart disease?”.) Reaching your targets also can help prevent narrowing or blockage of the blood vessels in your legs, a condition called peripheral arterial disease. You can reach your targets by:

• choosing foods wisely
• being physically active
• taking medications if needed

If you have already had a heart attack or a stroke, taking care of yourself can help prevent future health problems. 

What is diabetes?

Diabetes is a disorder of metabolism-the way our bodies use digested food for energy. Most of the food we eat is broken down into glucose, the form of sugar in the blood. Glucose is the body’s main source of fuel.

After digestion, glucose enters the bloodstream. Then glucose goes to cells throughout the body where it is used for energy. However, a hormone called insulin must be present to allow glucose to enter the cells. Insulin is a hormone produced by the pancreas, a large gland behind the stomach.

In people who do not have diabetes, the pancreas automatically produces the right amount of insulin to move glucose from blood into the cells. However, diabetes develops when the pancreas does not make enough insulin, or the cells in the muscles, liver, and fat do not use insulin properly, or both. As a result, the amount of glucose in the blood increases while the cells are starved of energy.

Over time, high blood glucose levels damage nerves and blood vessels, leading to complications such as heart disease and stroke, the leading causes of death among people with diabetes. Uncontrolled diabetes can eventually lead to other health problems as well, such as vision loss, kidney failure, and amputations.

Diabetes can lead to heart and blood vessel disease. 

What is pre-diabetes?

Pre-diabetes is a condition in which blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of diabetes. Pre-diabetes is also called impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance. Many people with pre-diabetes develop type 2 diabetes within 10 years. In addition, they are at risk for heart disease and stroke. With modest weight loss and moderate physical activity, people with pre-diabetes can delay or prevent type 2 diabetes and lower their risk of heart disease and stroke. 

What is the connection between diabetes, heart disease, and stroke?

If you have diabetes, you are at least twice as likely as someone who does not have diabetes to have heart disease or a stroke. People with diabetes also tend to develop heart disease or have strokes at an earlier age than other people. If you are middle-aged and have type 2 diabetes, some studies suggest that your chance of having a heart attack is as high as someone without diabetes who has already had one heart attack. Women who have not gone through menopause usually have less risk of heart disease than men of the same age. But women of all ages with diabetes have an increased risk of heart disease because diabetes cancels out the protective effects of being a woman in her child-bearing years.

People with diabetes who have already had one heart attack run an even greater risk of having a second one. In addition, heart attacks in people with diabetes are more serious and more likely to result in death. High blood glucose levels over time can lead to increased deposits of fatty materials on the insides of the blood vessel walls. These deposits may affect blood flow, increasing the chance of clogging and hardening of blood vessels (atherosclerosis).

 

What are the risk factors for heart disease and stroke in people with diabetes? 

Diabetes itself is a risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Also, many people with diabetes have other conditions that increase their chance of developing heart disease and stroke. These conditions are called risk factors. One risk factor for heart disease and stroke is having a family history of heart disease. If one or more members of your family had a heart attack at an early age (before age 55 for men or 65 for women), you may be at increased risk.

You can’t change whether heart disease runs in your family, but you can take steps to control the other risk factors for heart disease listed here:

• Having central obesity.
• Central obesity means carrying extra weight around the waist, as opposed to the hips. A waist measurement of more than 40 inches for men and more than 35 inches for women means you have central obesity. Your risk of heart disease is higher because abdominal fat can increase the production of LDL (bad) cholesterol, the type of blood fat that can be deposited on the inside of blood vessel walls.
• Having abnormal blood fat (cholesterol) levels.
•  
  - LDL cholesterol can build up inside your blood vessels, leading to narrowing and hardening of your arteries-the blood vessels that carry blood from the heart to the rest of the body. Arteries can then become blocked. Therefore, high levels of LDL cholesterol raise your risk of getting heart disease.
  - Triglycerides are another type of blood fat that can raise your risk of heart disease when the levels are high.
  - HDL (good) cholesterol removes deposits from inside your blood vessels and takes them to the liver for removal. Low levels of HDL cholesterol increase your risk for heart disease.
• Having high blood pressure.
• If you have high blood pressure, also called hypertension, your heart must work harder to pump blood. High blood pressure can strain the heart, damage blood vessels, and increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, eye problems, and kidney problems.
• Smoking.
• Smoking doubles your risk of getting heart disease. Stopping smoking is especially important for people with diabetes because both smoking and diabetes narrow blood vessels. Smoking also increases the risk of other long-term complications, such as eye problems. In addition, smoking can damage the blood vessels in your legs and increase the risk of amputation.

 

What is metabolic syndrome and how is it linked to heart disease?

 

Metabolic syndrome is a grouping of traits and medical conditions that puts people at risk for both heart disease and type 2 diabetes. It is defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program as having any three of the following five traits and medical conditions:

Traits and Medical Conditions
Definition

Elevated waist circumference
Waist measurement of

• 40 inches or more in men
• 35 inches or more in women

Elevated levels of triglycerides

• 150 mg/dL or higher
  or
• Taking medication for elevated triglyceride levels

Low levels of HDL (good) cholesterol

• Below 40 mg/dL in men
• Below 50 mg/dL in women
  or
  Taking medication for low HDL cholesterol levels

Elevated blood pressure levels

• 130 mm Hg or higher for systolic blood pressure or
• 85 mm Hg or higher for diastolic blood pressure
  or
  Taking medication for elevated blood pressure levels

Elevated fasting blood glucose levels

• 100 mg/dL or higher
  or
• Taking medication for elevated blood glucose levels

What can I do to prevent or delay heart disease and stroke?

Even if you are at high risk for heart disease and stroke, you can help keep your heart and blood vessels healthy. You can do so by taking the following steps:

• Make sure that your diet is “heart-healthy.”Meet with a registered dietitian to plan a diet that meets these goals:
  • Include at least 14 grams of fiber daily for every 1,000 calories consumed. Foods high in fiber may help lower blood cholesterol. Oat bran, oatmeal, whole-grain breads and cereals, dried beans and peas (such as kidney beans, pinto beans, and black-eyed peas), fruits, and vegetables are all good sources of fiber. Increase the amount of fiber in your diet gradually to avoid digestive problems.
  • Cut down on saturated fat. It raises your blood cholesterol level. Saturated fat is found in meats, poultry skin, butter, dairy products with fat, shortening, lard, and tropical oils such as palm and coconut oil. Your dietitian can figure out how many grams of saturated fat should be your daily maximum amount.
  • Keep the cholesterol in your diet to less than 300 milligrams a day. Cholesterol is found in meat, dairy products, and eggs.
  • Keep the amount of trans fat in your diet to a minimum. It’s a type of fat in foods that raises blood cholesterol. Limit your intake of crackers, cookies, snack foods, commercially prepared baked goods, cake mixes, microwave popcorn, fried foods, salad dressings, and other foods made with partially hydrogenated oil. In addition, some kinds of vegetable shortening and margarines have trans fat. Check for trans fat in the Nutrition Facts section on the food package.
• Make physical activity part of your routine. Aim for at least 30 minutes of exercise most days of the week. Think of ways to increase physical activity, such as taking the stairs instead of the elevator. If you haven’t been physically active recently, see your doctor for a checkup before you start an exercise program.
• Reach and maintain a healthy body weight. If you are overweight, try to be physically active for at least 30 minutes a day, most days of the week. Consult a registered dietitian for help in planning meals and lowering the fat and calorie content of your diet to reach and maintain a healthy weight. Aim for a loss of no more than 1 to 2 pounds a week.
• If you smoke, quit. Your doctor can help you find ways to quit smoking.
• Ask your doctor whether you should take aspirin. Studies have shown that taking a low dose of aspirin every day can help reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke. However, aspirin is not safe for everyone. Your doctor can tell you whether taking aspirin is right for you and exactly how much to take.
• Get prompt treatment for transient ischemic attacks (TIAs). Early treatment for TIAs, sometimes called mini-strokes, may help prevent or delay a future stroke. Signs of a TIA are sudden weakness, loss of balance, numbness, confusion, blindness in one or both eyes, double vision, difficulty speaking, or a severe headache.

 

How will I know whether my diabetes treatment is working?

You can keep track of the ABCs of diabetes to make sure your treatment is working. Talk with your health care provider about the best targets for you.

A stands for A1C (a test that measures blood glucose control). Have an A1C test at least twice a year. It shows your average blood glucose level over the past 3 months. Talk with your doctor about whether you should check your blood glucose at home and how to do it.

A1C target

Below 7 percent

Blood glucose targets

Before meals
90 to 130 mg/dL

1 to 2 hours after the start of a meal
Less than 180 mg/dL

B is for blood pressure. Have it checked at every office visit.

Blood pressure target

Below 130/80 mm Hg

C is for cholesterol. Have it checked at least once a year.

Blood fat (cholesterol) targets

LDL (bad) cholesterol
Under 100 mg/dL

Triglycerides
Under 150 mg/dL

HDL (good) cholesterol
For men: above 40 mg/dL
For women: above 50 mg/dL

Control of the ABCs of diabetes can reduce your risk for heart disease and stroke. If your blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels aren’t on target, ask your doctor what changes in diet, activity, and medications can help you reach these goals.

 

What types of heart and blood vessel disease occur in people with diabetes?

Two major types of heart and blood vessel disease, also called cardiovascular disease, are common in people with diabetes: coronary artery disease (CAD) and cerebral vascular disease. People with diabetes are also at risk for heart failure. Narrowing or blockage of the blood vessels in the legs, a condition called peripheral arterial disease, can also occur in people with diabetes.

Coronary Artery Disease

Coronary artery disease, also called ischemic heart disease, is caused by a hardening or thickening of the walls of the blood vessels that go to your heart. Your blood supplies oxygen and other materials your heart needs for normal functioning. If the blood vessels to your heart become narrowed or blocked by fatty deposits, the blood supply is reduced or cut off, resulting in a heart attack.

Cerebral Vascular Disease

Cerebral vascular disease affects blood flow to the brain, leading to strokes and TIAs. It is caused by narrowing, blocking, or hardening of the blood vessels that go to the brain or by high blood pressure.

Stroke

A stroke results when the blood supply to the brain is suddenly cut off, which can occur when a blood vessel in the brain or neck is blocked or bursts. Brain cells are then deprived of oxygen and die. A stroke can result in problems with speech or vision or can cause weakness or paralysis. Most strokes are caused by fatty deposits or blood clots-jelly-like clumps of blood cells-that narrow or block one of the blood vessels in the brain or neck. A blood clot may stay where it formed or can travel within the body. People with diabetes are at increased risk for strokes caused by blood clots.

A stroke may also be caused by a bleeding blood vessel in the brain. Called an aneurysm, a break in a blood vessel can occur as a result of high blood pressure or a weak spot in a blood vessel wall.

TIAs

TIAs are caused by a temporary blockage of a blood vessel to the brain. This blockage leads to a brief, sudden change in brain function, such as temporary numbness or weakness on one side of the body. Sudden changes in brain function also can lead to loss of balance, confusion, blindness in one or both eyes, double vision, difficulty speaking, or a severe headache. However, most symptoms disappear quickly and permanent damage is unlikely. If symptoms do not resolve in a few minutes, rather than a TIA, the event could be a stroke. The occurrence of a TIA means that a person is at risk for a stroke sometime in the future. See page 3 for more information on risk factors for stroke.

Heart Failure

Heart failure is a chronic condition in which the heart cannot pump blood properly-it does not mean that the heart suddenly stops working. Heart failure develops over a period of years, and symptoms can get worse over time. People with diabetes have at least twice the risk of heart failure as other people. One type of heart failure is congestive heart failure, in which fluid builds up inside body tissues. If the buildup is in the lungs, breathing becomes difficult.

Blockage of the blood vessels and high blood glucose levels also can damage heart muscle and cause irregular heart beats. People with damage to heart muscle, a condition called cardiomyopathy, may have no symptoms in the early stages, but later they may experience weakness, shortness of breath, a severe cough, fatigue, and swelling of the legs and feet. Diabetes can also interfere with pain signals normally carried by the nerves, explaining why a person with diabetes may not experience the typical warning signs of a heart attack.

Peripheral Arterial Disease

Another condition related to heart disease and common in people with diabetes is peripheral arterial disease (PAD). With this condition, the blood vessels in the legs are narrowed or blocked by fatty deposits, decreasing blood flow to the legs and feet. PAD increases the chances of a heart attack or stroke occurring. Poor circulation in the legs and feet also raises the risk of amputation. Sometimes people with PAD develop pain in the calf or other parts of the leg when walking, which is relieved by resting for a few minutes.

 

How will I know whether I have heart disease?

One sign of heart disease is angina, the pain that occurs when a blood vessel to the heart is narrowed and the blood supply is reduced. You may feel pain or discomfort in your chest, shoulders, arms, jaw, or back, especially when you exercise. The pain may go away when you rest or take angina medicine. Angina does not cause permanent damage to the heart muscle, but if you have angina, your chance of having a heart attack increases.

A heart attack occurs when a blood vessel to the heart becomes blocked. With blockage, not enough blood can reach that part of the heart muscle and permanent damage results. During a heart attack, you may have

• chest pain or discomfort
• pain or discomfort in your arms, back, jaw, neck, or stomach
• shortness of breath
• sweating
• nausea
• light-headedness

Symptoms may come and go. However, in some people, particularly those with diabetes, symptoms may be mild or absent due to a condition in which the heart rate stays at the same level during exercise, inactivity, stress, or sleep. Also, nerve damage caused by diabetes may result in lack of pain during a heart attack.

Women may not have chest pain but may be more likely to have shortness of breath, nausea, or back and jaw pain. If you have symptoms of a heart attack, call 911 right away. Treatment is most effective if given within an hour of a heart attack. Early treatment can prevent permanent damage to the heart.

Your doctor should check your risk for heart disease and stroke at least once a year by checking your cholesterol and blood pressure levels and asking whether you smoke or have a family history of premature heart disease. The doctor can also check your urine for protein, another risk factor for heart disease. If you are at high risk or have symptoms of heart disease, you may need to undergo further testing.

 

What are the treatment options for heart disease?

Treatment for heart disease includes meal planning to ensure a heart-healthy diet and physical activity. In addition, you may need medications to treat heart damage or to lower your blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. If you are not already taking a low dose of aspirin every day, your doctor may suggest it. You also may need surgery or some other medical procedure.

For additional information about heart and blood vessel disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, call the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Health Information Center at 301-592-8573 or see www.nhlbi.nih.gov on the Internet.

[

How will I know whether I have had a stroke?

The following signs may mean that you have had a stroke:

• sudden weakness or numbness of your face, arm, or leg on one side of your body
• sudden confusion, trouble talking, or trouble understanding
• sudden dizziness, loss of balance, or trouble walking
• sudden trouble seeing out of one or both eyes or sudden double vision
• sudden severe headache

If you have any of these symptoms, call 911 right away. You can help prevent permanent damage by getting to a hospital within an hour of a stroke. If your doctor thinks you have had a stroke, you may have tests such as a neurological examination to check your nervous system, special scans, blood tests, ultrasound examinations, or x rays. You also may be given medication that dissolves blood clots.

 

What are the treatment options for stroke?

At the first sign of a stroke, you should get medical care right away. If blood vessels to your brain are blocked by blood clots, the doctor can give you a “clot-busting” drug. The drug must be given soon after a stroke to be effective. Subsequent treatment for stroke includes medications and physical therapy, as well as surgery to repair the damage. Meal planning and physical activity may be part of your ongoing care. In addition, you may need medications to lower your blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol and to prevent blood clots.

For additional information about strokes, call the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at 1-800-352-9424 or see www.ninds.nih.gov on the Internet.

 

Points to Remember

• If you have diabetes, you are at least twice as likely as other people to have heart disease or a stroke.
• Controlling the ABCs of diabetes-A1C (blood glucose), blood pressure, and cholesterol-can cut your risk of heart disease and stroke.
• Choosing foods wisely, being physically active, losing weight, quitting smoking, and taking medications (if needed) can all help lower your risk of heart disease and stroke.
• If you have any warning signs of a heart attack or a stroke, get medical care immediately-don’t delay. Early treatment of heart attack and stroke in a hospital emergency room can reduce damage to the heart and the brain.

 

For More Information

National Diabetes Education Program
1 Diabetes Way
Bethesda, MD 20892-3600
Phone: 1-800-438-5383
Fax: 703-738-4929
Internet: www.ndep.nih.gov

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Health Information Center
P.O. Box 30105
Bethesda, MD 20824-0105
Phone: 301-592-8573
Fax: 301-592-8563
Email: nhlbiinfo@nhlbi.nih.gov
Internet: www.nhlbi.nih.gov

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Brain Resources and Information Network (BRAIN)
P.O. Box 5801
Bethesda, MD 20824-5801
Phone: 1-800-352-9424
Fax: 301-402-2186
Internet: www.ninds.nih.gov

Weight-control Information Network
1 WIN Way
Bethesda, MD 20892-3665
Phone: 1-877-946-4627
Fax: 202-828-1028
Email: win@info.niddk.nih.gov
Internet: www.win.niddk.nih.gov

American Diabetes Association
National Call Center
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1742
Phone: 1-800-DIABETES (1-800-342-2383)
Fax: 703-549-6995
Email: askADA@diabetes.org
Internet: www.diabetes.org

American Association of Diabetes Educators
100 West Monroe, Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60603-1922
Phone: 1-800-338-3633
Diabetes Educator Access Line: 1-800-TEAMUP4 (1-800-832-6874)
Fax: 312-424-2427
Email: aade@aadenet.org
Internet: www.diabeteseducator.org

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International
120 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005-4001
Phone: 1-800-533-2873
Fax: 212-785-9595
Email: info@jdrf.org
Internet: www.jdrf.org

American Heart Association
7272 Greenville Avenue
Dallas, TX 75231-4596
Phone: 1-800-AHA-USA1 (242-8721)
Fax: 214-369-3685
Internet: www.americanheart.org

Source:

The National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse is a service of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse
1 Information Way
Bethesda, MD 20892-3560
Phone: 1-800-860-8747
TTY: 1-866-569-1162
Fax: 1-703-738-4929
Email: ndic@info.niddk.nih.gov
Internet: www.diabetes.niddk.nih.gov

The Best Core Pilates Workout Video

Source: Uploaded by diethealth on Aug 14, 2008 to YouTube

A free online exercise and fitness Pilates total abs and core workout video you can do in five minutes.

Is Sugar Toxic ?

---

April 13, 2011

Is Sugar Toxic?

By GARY TAUBES 

On May 26, 2009, Robert Lustig gave a lecture called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” which was posted on YouTube the following July. Since then, it has been viewed well over 800,000 times, gaining new viewers at a rate of about 50,000 per month, fairly remarkable numbers for a 90-minute discussion of the nuances of fructose biochemistry and human physiology.

Lustig is a specialist on pediatric hormone disorders and the leading expert in childhood obesity at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, which is one of the best medical schools in the country. He published his first paper on childhood obesity a dozen years ago, and he has been treating patients and doing research on the disorder ever since.

The viral success of his lecture, though, has little to do with Lustig’s impressive credentials and far more with the persuasive case he makes that sugar is a “toxin” or a “poison,” terms he uses together 13 times through the course of the lecture, in addition to the five references to sugar as merely “evil.” And by “sugar,” Lustig means not only the white granulated stuff that we put in coffee and sprinkle on cereal — technically known as sucrose — but also high-fructose corn syrup, which has already become without Lustig’s help what he calls “the most demonized additive known to man.”

It doesn’t hurt Lustig’s cause that he is a compelling public speaker. His critics argue that what makes him compelling is his practice of taking suggestive evidence and insisting that it’s incontrovertible. Lustig certainly doesn’t dabble in shades of gray. Sugar is not just an empty calorie, he says; its effect on us is much more insidious. “It’s not about the calories,” he says. “It has nothing to do with the calories. It’s a poison by itself.”

If Lustig is right, then our excessive consumption of sugar is the primary reason that the numbers of obese and diabetic Americans have skyrocketed in the past 30 years. But his argument implies more than that. If Lustig is right, it would mean that sugar is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles — heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers among them.

The number of viewers Lustig has attracted suggests that people are paying attention to his argument. When I set out to interview public health authorities and researchers for this article, they would often initiate the interview with some variation of the comment “surely you’ve spoken to Robert Lustig,” not because Lustig has done any of the key research on sugar himself, which he hasn’t, but because he’s willing to insist publicly and unambiguously, when most researchers are not, that sugar is a toxic substance that people abuse. In Lustig’s view, sugar should be thought of, like cigarettes and alcohol, as something that’s killing us.

This brings us to the salient question: Can sugar possibly be as bad as Lustig says it is?

It’s one thing to suggest, as most nutritionists will, that a healthful diet includes more fruits and vegetables, and maybe less fat, red meat and salt, or less of everything. It’s entirely different to claim that one particularly cherished aspect of our diet might not just be an unhealthful indulgence but actually be toxic, that when you bake your children a birthday cake or give them lemonade on a hot summer day, you may be doing them more harm than good, despite all the love that goes with it. Suggesting that sugar might kill us is what zealots do. But Lustig, who has genuine expertise, has accumulated and synthesized a mass of evidence, which he finds compelling enough to convict sugar. His critics consider that evidence insufficient, but there’s no way to know who might be right, or what must be done to find out, without discussing it.

If I didn’t buy this argument myself, I wouldn’t be writing about it here. And I also have a disclaimer to acknowledge. I’ve spent much of the last decade doing journalistic research on diet and chronic disease — some of the more contrarian findings, on dietary fat, appeared in this magazine —– and I have come to conclusions similar to Lustig’s.

The history of the debate over the health effects of sugar has gone on far longer than you might imagine. It is littered with erroneous statements and conclusions because even the supposed authorities had no true understanding of what they were talking about. They didn’t know, quite literally, what they meant by the word “sugar” and therefore what the implications were.

So let’s start by clarifying a few issues, beginning with Lustig’s use of the word “sugar” to mean both sucrose — beet and cane sugar, whether white or brown — and high-fructose corn syrup. This is a critical point, particularly because high-fructose corn syrup has indeed become “the flashpoint for everybody’s distrust of processed foods,” says Marion Nestle, a New York University nutritionist and the author of “Food Politics.”

This development is recent and borders on humorous. In the early 1980s, high-fructose corn syrup replaced sugar in sodas and other products in part because refined sugar then had the reputation as a generally noxious nutrient. (“Villain in Disguise?” asked a headline in this paper in 1977, before answering in the affirmative.) High-fructose corn syrup was portrayed by the food industry as a healthful alternative, and that’s how the public perceived it. It was also cheaper than sugar, which didn’t hurt its commercial prospects. Now the tide is rolling the other way, and refined sugar is making a commercial comeback as the supposedly healthful alternative to this noxious corn-syrup stuff. “Industry after industry is replacing their product with sucrose and advertising it as such — ‘No High-Fructose Corn Syrup,’ ” Nestle notes.

But marketing aside, the two sweeteners are effectively identical in their biological effects. “High-fructose corn syrup, sugar — no difference,” is how Lustig put it in a lecture that I attended in San Francisco last December. “The point is they’re each bad — equally bad, equally poisonous.”

Refined sugar (that is, sucrose) is made up of a molecule of the carbohydrate glucose, bonded to a molecule of the carbohydrate fructose — a 50-50 mixture of the two. The fructose, which is almost twice as sweet as glucose, is what distinguishes sugar from other carbohydrate-rich foods like bread or potatoes that break down upon digestion to glucose alone. The more fructose in a substance, the sweeter it will be. High-fructose corn syrup, as it is most commonly consumed, is 55 percent fructose, and the remaining 45 percent is nearly all glucose. It was first marketed in the late 1970s and was created to be indistinguishable from refined sugar when used in soft drinks. Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical. In a 2010 review of the relevant science, Luc Tappy, a researcher at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who is considered by biochemists who study fructose to be the world’s foremost authority on the subject, said there was “not the single hint” that H.F.C.S. was more deleterious than other sources of sugar.

The question, then, isn’t whether high-fructose corn syrup is worse than sugar; it’s what do they do to us, and how do they do it? The conventional wisdom has long been that the worst that can be said about sugars of any kind is that they cause tooth decay and represent “empty calories” that we eat in excess because they taste so good.

By this logic, sugar-sweetened beverages (or H.F.C.S.-sweetened beverages, as the Sugar Association prefers they are called) are bad for us not because there’s anything particularly toxic about the sugar they contain but just because people consume too many of them.

Those organizations that now advise us to cut down on our sugar consumption — the Department of Agriculture, for instance, in its recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans, or the American Heart Association in guidelines released in September 2009 (of which Lustig was a co-author) — do so for this reason. Refined sugar and H.F.C.S. don’t come with any protein, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants or fiber, and so they either displace other more nutritious elements of our diet or are eaten over and above what we need to sustain our weight, and this is why we get fatter.

Whether the empty-calories argument is true, it’s certainly convenient. It allows everyone to assign blame for obesity and, by extension, diabetes — two conditions so intimately linked that some authorities have taken to calling them “diabesity” — to overeating of all foods, or underexercising, because a calorie is a calorie. “This isn’t about demonizing any industry,” as Michelle Obama said about her Let’s Move program to combat the epidemic of childhood obesity. Instead it’s about getting us — or our children — to move more and eat less, reduce our portion sizes, cut back on snacks.

Lustig’s argument, however, is not about the consumption of empty calories — and biochemists have made the same case previously, though not so publicly. It is that sugar has unique characteristics, specifically in the way the human body metabolizes the fructose in it, that may make it singularly harmful, at least if consumed in sufficient quantities.

The phrase Lustig uses when he describes this concept is “isocaloric but not isometabolic.” This means we can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different.

The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.

In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers.

If what happens in laboratory rodents also happens in humans, and if we are eating enough sugar to make it happen, then we are in trouble.

The last time an agency of the federal government looked into the question of sugar and health in any detail was in 2005, in a report by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academies. The authors of the report acknowledged that plenty of evidence suggested that sugar could increase the risk of heart disease and diabetes — even raising LDL cholesterol, known as the “bad cholesterol”—– but did not consider the research to be definitive. There was enough ambiguity, they concluded, that they couldn’t even set an upper limit on how much sugar constitutes too much. Referring back to the 2005 report, an Institute of Medicine report released last fall reiterated, “There is a lack of scientific agreement about the amount of sugars that can be consumed in a healthy diet.” This was the same conclusion that the Food and Drug Administration came to when it last assessed the sugar question, back in 1986. The F.D.A. report was perceived as an exoneration of sugar, and that perception influenced the treatment of sugar in the landmark reports on diet and health that came after.

The Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners Association have also portrayed the 1986 F.D.A. report as clearing sugar of nutritional crimes, but what it concluded was actually something else entirely. To be precise, the F.D.A. reviewers said that other than its contribution to calories, “no conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that are now current.” This is another way of saying that the evidence by no means refuted the kinds of claims that Lustig is making now and other researchers were making then, just that it wasn’t definitive or unambiguous.

What we have to keep in mind, says Walter Glinsmann, the F.D.A. administrator who was the primary author on the 1986 report and who now is an adviser to the Corn Refiners Association, is that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup might be toxic, as Lustig argues, but so might any substance if it’s consumed in ways or in quantities that are unnatural for humans. The question is always at what dose does a substance go from being harmless to harmful? How much do we have to consume before this happens?

When Glinsmann and his F.D.A. co-authors decided no conclusive evidence demonstrated harm at the levels of sugar then being consumed, they estimated those levels at 40 pounds per person per year beyond what we might get naturally in fruits and vegetables — 40 pounds per person per year of “added sugars” as nutritionists now call them. This is 200 calories per day of sugar, which is less than the amount in a can and a half of Coca-Cola or two cups of apple juice. If that’s indeed all we consume, most nutritionists today would be delighted, including Lustig.

But 40 pounds per year happened to be 35 pounds less than what Department of Agriculture analysts said we were consuming at the time — 75 pounds per person per year — and the U.S.D.A. estimates are typically considered to be the most reliable. By the early 2000s, according to the U.S.D.A., we had increased our consumption to more than 90 pounds per person per year.

That this increase happened to coincide with the current epidemics of obesity and diabetes is one reason that it’s tempting to blame sugars — sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup — for the problem. In 1980, roughly one in seven Americans was obese, and almost six million were diabetic, and the obesity rates, at least, hadn’t changed significantly in the 20 years previously. By the early 2000s, when sugar consumption peaked, one in every three Americans was obese, and 14 million were diabetic.

This correlation between sugar consumption and diabetes is what defense attorneys call circumstantial evidence. It’s more compelling than it otherwise might be, though, because the last time sugar consumption jumped markedly in this country, it was also associated with a diabetes epidemic.

In the early 20th century, many of the leading authorities on diabetes in North America and Europe (including Frederick Banting, who shared the 1923 Nobel Prize for the discovery of insulin) suspected that sugar causes diabetes based on the observation that the disease was rare in populations that didn’t consume refined sugar and widespread in those that did. In 1924, Haven Emerson, director of the institute of public health at Columbia University, reported that diabetes deaths in New York City had increased as much as 15-fold since the Civil War years, and that deaths increased as much as fourfold in some U.S. cities between 1900 and 1920 alone. This coincided, he noted, with an equally significant increase in sugar consumption — almost doubling from 1890 to the early 1920s — with the birth and subsequent growth of the candy and soft-drink industries.

Emerson’s argument was countered by Elliott Joslin, a leading authority on diabetes, and Joslin won out. But his argument was fundamentally flawed. Simply put, it went like this: The Japanese eat lots of rice, and Japanese diabetics are few and far between; rice is mostly carbohydrate, which suggests that sugar, also a carbohydrate, does not cause diabetes. But sugar and rice are not identical merely because they’re both carbohydrates. Joslin could not know at the time that the fructose content of sugar affects how we metabolize it.

Joslin was also unaware that the Japanese ate little sugar. In the early 1960s, the Japanese were eating as little sugar as Americans were a century earlier, maybe less, which means that the Japanese experience could have been used to support the idea that sugar causes diabetes. Still, with Joslin arguing in edition after edition of his seminal textbook that sugar played no role in diabetes, it eventually took on the aura of undisputed truth.

Until Lustig came along, the last time an academic forcefully put forward the sugar-as-toxin thesis was in the 1970s, when John Yudkin, a leading authority on nutrition in the United Kingdom, published a polemic on sugar called “Sweet and Dangerous.” Through the 1960s Yudkin did a series of experiments feeding sugar and starch to rodents, chickens, rabbits, pigs and college students. He found that the sugar invariably raised blood levels of triglycerides (a technical term for fat), which was then, as now, considered a risk factor for heart disease. Sugar also raised insulin levels in Yudkin’s experiments, which linked sugar directly to type 2 diabetes. Few in the medical community took Yudkin’s ideas seriously, largely because he was also arguing that dietary fat and saturated fat were harmless. This set Yudkin’s sugar hypothesis directly against the growing acceptance of the idea, prominent to this day, that dietary fat was the cause of heart disease, a notion championed by the University of Minnesota nutritionist Ancel Keys.

A common assumption at the time was that if one hypothesis was right, then the other was most likely wrong. Either fat caused heart disease by raising cholesterol, or sugar did by raising triglycerides. “The theory that diets high in sugar are an important cause of atherosclerosis and heart disease does not have wide support among experts in the field, who say that fats and cholesterol are the more likely culprits,” as Jane E. Brody wrote in The Times in 1977.

At the time, many of the key observations cited to argue that dietary fat caused heart disease actually support the sugar theory as well. During the Korean War, pathologists doing autopsies on American soldiers killed in battle noticed that many had significant plaques in their arteries, even those who were still teenagers, while the Koreans killed in battle did not. The atherosclerotic plaques in the Americans were attributed to the fact that they ate high-fat diets and the Koreans ate low-fat. But the Americans were also eating high-sugar diets, while the Koreans, like the Japanese, were not.

In 1970, Keys published the results of a landmark study in nutrition known as the Seven Countries Study. Its results were perceived by the medical community and the wider public as compelling evidence that saturated-fat consumption is the best dietary predictor of heart disease. But sugar consumption in the seven countries studied was almost equally predictive. So it was possible that Yudkin was right, and Keys was wrong, or that they could both be right. The evidence has always been able to go either way.

European clinicians tended to side with Yudkin; Americans with Keys. The situation wasn’t helped, as one of Yudkin’s colleagues later told me, by the fact that “there was quite a bit of loathing” between the two nutritionists themselves. In 1971, Keys published an article attacking Yudkin and describing his evidence against sugar as “flimsy indeed.” He treated Yudkin as a figure of scorn, and Yudkin never managed to shake the portrayal.

By the end of the 1970s, any scientist who studied the potentially deleterious effects of sugar in the diet, according to Sheldon Reiser, who did just that at the U.S.D.A.’s Carbohydrate Nutrition Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and talked about it publicly, was endangering his reputation. “Yudkin was so discredited,” Reiser said to me. “He was ridiculed in a way. And anybody else who said something bad about sucrose, they’d say, ‘He’s just like Yudkin.’ ”

What has changed since then, other than Americans getting fatter and more diabetic? It wasn’t so much that researchers learned anything particularly new about the effects of sugar or high-fructose corn syrup in the human body. Rather the context of the science changed: physicians and medical authorities came to accept the idea that a condition known as metabolic syndrome is a major, if not the major, risk factor for heart disease and diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now estimate that some 75 million Americans have metabolic syndrome. For those who have heart attacks, metabolic syndrome will very likely be the reason.

The first symptom doctors are told to look for in diagnosing metabolic syndrome is an expanding waistline. This means that if you’re overweight, there’s a good chance you have metabolic syndrome, and this is why you’re more likely to have a heart attack or become diabetic (or both) than someone who’s not. Although lean individuals, too, can have metabolic syndrome, and they are at greater risk of heart disease and diabetes than lean individuals without it.

Having metabolic syndrome is another way of saying that the cells in your body are actively ignoring the action of the hormone insulin — a condition known technically as being insulin-resistant. Because insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome still get remarkably little attention in the press (certainly compared with cholesterol), let me explain the basics.

You secrete insulin in response to the foods you eat — particularly the carbohydrates — to keep blood sugar in control after a meal. When your cells are resistant to insulin, your body (your pancreas, to be precise) responds to rising blood sugar by pumping out more and more insulin. Eventually the pancreas can no longer keep up with the demand or it gives in to what diabetologists call “pancreatic exhaustion.” Now your blood sugar will rise out of control, and you’ve got diabetes.

Not everyone with insulin resistance becomes diabetic; some continue to secrete enough insulin to overcome their cells’ resistance to the hormone. But having chronically elevated insulin levels has harmful effects of its own — heart disease, for one. A result is higher triglyceride levels and blood pressure, lower levels of HDL cholesterol (the “good cholesterol”), further worsening the insulin resistance — this is metabolic syndrome.

When physicians assess your risk of heart disease these days, they will take into consideration your LDL cholesterol (the bad kind), but also these symptoms of metabolic syndrome. The idea, according to Scott Grundy, a University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center nutritionist and the chairman of the panel that produced the last edition of the National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines, is that heart attacks 50 years ago might have been caused by high cholesterol — particularly high LDL cholesterol — but since then we’ve all gotten fatter and more diabetic, and now it’s metabolic syndrome that’s the more conspicuous problem.

This raises two obvious questions. The first is what sets off metabolic syndrome to begin with, which is another way of asking, What causes the initial insulin resistance? There are several hypotheses, but researchers who study the mechanisms of insulin resistance now think that a likely cause is the accumulation of fat in the liver. When studies have been done trying to answer this question in humans, says Varman Samuel, who studies insulin resistance at Yale School of Medicine, the correlation between liver fat and insulin resistance in patients, lean or obese, is “remarkably strong.” What it looks like, Samuel says, is that “when you deposit fat in the liver, that’s when you become insulin-resistant.”

That raises the other obvious question: What causes the liver to accumulate fat in humans? A common assumption is that simply getting fatter leads to a fatty liver, but this does not explain fatty liver in lean people. Some of it could be attributed to genetic predisposition. But harking back to Lustig, there’s also the very real possibility that it is caused by sugar.

As it happens, metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance are the reasons that many of the researchers today studying fructose became interested in the subject to begin with. If you want to cause insulin resistance in laboratory rats, says Gerald Reaven, the Stanford University diabetologist who did much of the pioneering work on the subject, feeding them diets that are mostly fructose is an easy way to do it. It’s a “very obvious, very dramatic” effect, Reaven says.

By the early 2000s, researchers studying fructose metabolism had established certain findings unambiguously and had well-established biochemical explanations for what was happening. Feed animals enough pure fructose or enough sugar, and their livers convert the fructose into fat — the saturated fatty acid, palmitate, to be precise, that supposedly gives us heart disease when we eat it, by raising LDL cholesterol. The fat accumulates in the liver, and insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome follow.

Michael Pagliassotti, a Colorado State University biochemist who did many of the relevant animal studies in the late 1990s, says these changes can happen in as little as a week if the animals are fed sugar or fructose in huge amounts — 60 or 70 percent of the calories in their diets. They can take several months if the animals are fed something closer to what humans (in America) actually consume — around 20 percent of the calories in their diet. Stop feeding them the sugar, in either case, and the fatty liver promptly goes away, and with it the insulin resistance.

Similar effects can be shown in humans, although the researchers doing this work typically did the studies with only fructose — as Luc Tappy did in Switzerland or Peter Havel and Kimber Stanhope did at the University of California, Davis — and pure fructose is not the same thing as sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. When Tappy fed his human subjects the equivalent of the fructose in 8 to 10 cans of Coke or Pepsi a day — a “pretty high dose,” he says —– their livers would start to become insulin-resistant, and their triglycerides would go up in just a few days. With lower doses, Tappy says, just as in the animal research, the same effects would appear, but it would take longer, a month or more.

Despite the steady accumulation of research, the evidence can still be criticized as falling far short of conclusive. The studies in rodents aren’t necessarily applicable to humans. And the kinds of studies that Tappy, Havel and Stanhope did — having real people drink beverages sweetened with fructose and comparing the effect with what happens when the same people or others drink beverages sweetened with glucose — aren’t applicable to real human experience, because we never naturally consume pure fructose. We always take it with glucose, in the nearly 50-50 combinations of sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. And then the amount of fructose or sucrose being fed in these studies, to the rodents or the human subjects, has typically been enormous.

This is why the research reviews on the subject invariably conclude that more research is necessary to establish at what dose sugar and high-fructose corn syrup start becoming what Lustig calls toxic. “There is clearly a need for intervention studies,” as Tappy recently phrased it in the technical jargon of the field, “in which the fructose intake of high-fructose consumers is reduced to better delineate the possible pathogenic role of fructose. At present, short-term-intervention studies, however, suggest that a high-fructose intake consisting of soft drinks, sweetened juices or bakery products can increase the risk of metabolic and cardiovascular diseases.”

In simpler language, how much of this stuff do we have to eat or drink, and for how long, before it does to us what it does to laboratory rats? And is that amount more than we’re already consuming?

Unfortunately, we’re unlikely to learn anything conclusive in the near future. As Lustig points out, sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are certainly not “acute toxins” of the kind the F.D.A. typically regulates and the effects of which can be studied over the course of days or months. The question is whether they’re “chronic toxins,” which means “not toxic after one meal, but after 1,000 meals.” This means that what Tappy calls “intervention studies” have to go on for significantly longer than 1,000 meals to be meaningful.

At the moment, the National Institutes of Health are supporting surprisingly few clinical trials related to sugar and high-fructose corn syrup in the U.S. All are small, and none will last more than a few months. Lustig and his colleagues at U.C.S.F. — including Jean-Marc Schwarz, whom Tappy describes as one of the three best fructose biochemists in the world — are doing one of these studies. It will look at what happens when obese teenagers consume no sugar other than what they might get in fruits and vegetables. Another study will do the same with pregnant women to see if their babies are born healthier and leaner.

Only one study in this country, by Havel and Stanhope at the University of California, Davis, is directly addressing the question of how much sugar is required to trigger the symptoms of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. Havel and Stanhope are having healthy people drink three sugar- or H.F.C.S.-sweetened beverages a day and then seeing what happens. The catch is that their study subjects go through this three-beverage-a-day routine for only two weeks. That doesn’t seem like a very long time — only 42 meals, not 1,000 — but Havel and Stanhope have been studying fructose since the mid-1990s, and they seem confident that two weeks is sufficient to see if these sugars cause at least some of the symptoms of metabolic syndrome.

So the answer to the question of whether sugar is as bad as Lustig claims is that it certainly could be. It very well may be true that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, because of the unique way in which we metabolize fructose and at the levels we now consume it, cause fat to accumulate in our livers followed by insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, and so trigger the process that leads to heart disease, diabetes and obesity. They could indeed be toxic, but they take years to do their damage. It doesn’t happen overnight. Until long-term studies are done, we won’t know for sure.

One more question still needs to be asked, and this is what my wife, who has had to live with my journalistic obsession on this subject, calls the Grinch-trying-to-steal-Christmas problem. What are the chances that sugar is actually worse than Lustig says it is?

One of the diseases that increases in incidence with obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome is cancer. This is why I said earlier that insulin resistance may be a fundamental underlying defect in many cancers, as it is in type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The connection between obesity, diabetes and cancer was first reported in 2004 in large population studies by researchers from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is not controversial. What it means is that you are more likely to get cancer if you’re obese or diabetic than if you’re not, and you’re more likely to get cancer if you have metabolic syndrome than if you don’t.

This goes along with two other observations that have led to the well-accepted idea that some large percentage of cancers are caused by our Western diets and lifestyles. This means they could actually be prevented if we could pinpoint exactly what the problem is and prevent or avoid that.

One observation is that death rates from cancer, like those from diabetes, increased significantly in the second half of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th. As with diabetes, this observation was accompanied by a vigorous debate about whether those increases could be explained solely by the aging of the population and the use of new diagnostic techniques or whether it was really the incidence of cancer itself that was increasing. “By the 1930s,” as a 1997 report by the World Cancer Research Fund International and the American Institute for Cancer Research explained, “it was apparent that age-adjusted death rates from cancer were rising in the U.S.A.,” which meant that the likelihood of any particular 60-year-old, for instance, dying from cancer was increasing, even if there were indeed more 60-years-olds with each passing year.

The second observation was that malignant cancer, like diabetes, was a relatively rare disease in populations that didn’t eat Western diets, and in some of these populations it appeared to be virtually nonexistent. In the 1950s, malignant cancer among the Inuit, for instance, was still deemed sufficiently rare that physicians working in northern Canada would publish case reports in medical journals when they did diagnose a case.

In 1984, Canadian physicians published an analysis of 30 years of cancer incidence among Inuit in the western and central Arctic. While there had been a “striking increase in the incidence of cancers of modern societies” including lung and cervical cancer, they reported, there were still “conspicuous deficits” in breast-cancer rates. They could not find a single case in an Inuit patient before 1966; they could find only two cases between 1967 and 1980. Since then, as their diet became more like ours, breast cancer incidence has steadily increased among the Inuit, although it’s still significantly lower than it is in other North American ethnic groups. Diabetes rates in the Inuit have also gone from vanishingly low in the mid-20th century to high today.

Now most researchers will agree that the link between Western diet or lifestyle and cancer manifests itself through this association with obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome — i.e., insulin resistance. This was the conclusion, for instance, of a 2007 report published by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research — “Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer.”

So how does it work? Cancer researchers now consider that the problem with insulin resistance is that it leads us to secrete more insulin, and insulin (as well as a related hormone known as insulin-like growth factor) actually promotes tumor growth.

As it was explained to me by Craig Thompson, who has done much of this research and is now president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the cells of many human cancers come to depend on insulin to provide the fuel (blood sugar) and materials they need to grow and multiply. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor (and related growth factors) also provide the signal, in effect, to do it. The more insulin, the better they do. Some cancers develop mutations that serve the purpose of increasing the influence of insulin on the cell; others take advantage of the elevated insulin levels that are common to metabolic syndrome, obesity and type 2 diabetes. Some do both. Thompson believes that many pre-cancerous cells would never acquire the mutations that turn them into malignant tumors if they weren’t being driven by insulin to take up more and more blood sugar and metabolize it.

What these researchers call elevated insulin (or insulin-like growth factor) signaling appears to be a necessary step in many human cancers, particularly cancers like breast and colon cancer. Lewis Cantley, director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, says that up to 80 percent of all human cancers are driven by either mutations or environmental factors that work to enhance or mimic the effect of insulin on the incipient tumor cells. Cantley is now the leader of one of five scientific “dream teams,” financed by a national coalition called Stand Up to Cancer, to study, in the case of Cantley’s team, precisely this link between a specific insulin-signaling gene (known technically as PI3K) and tumor development in breast and other cancers common to women.

Most of the researchers studying this insulin/cancer link seem concerned primarily with finding a drug that might work to suppress insulin signaling in incipient cancer cells and so, they hope, inhibit or prevent their growth entirely. Many of the experts writing about the insulin/cancer link from a public health perspective — as in the 2007 report from the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research — work from the assumption that chronically elevated insulin levels and insulin resistance are both caused by being fat or by getting fatter. They recommend, as the 2007 report did, that we should all work to be lean and more physically active, and that in turn will help us prevent cancer.

But some researchers will make the case, as Cantley and Thompson do, that if something other than just being fatter is causing insulin resistance to begin with, that’s quite likely the dietary cause of many cancers. If it’s sugar that causes insulin resistance, they say, then the conclusion is hard to avoid that sugar causes cancer — some cancers, at least — radical as this may seem and despite the fact that this suggestion has rarely if ever been voiced before publicly. For just this reason, neither of these men will eat sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, if they can avoid it.

“I have eliminated refined sugar from my diet and eat as little as I possibly can,” Thompson told me, “because I believe ultimately it’s something I can do to decrease my risk of cancer.” Cantley put it this way: “Sugar scares me.”

Sugar scares me too, obviously. I’d like to eat it in moderation. I’d certainly like my two sons to be able to eat it in moderation, to not overconsume it, but I don’t actually know what that means, and I’ve been reporting on this subject and studying it for more than a decade. If sugar just makes us fatter, that’s one thing. We start gaining weight, we eat less of it. But we are also talking about things we can’t see — fatty liver, insulin resistance and all that follows. Officially I’m not supposed to worry because the evidence isn’t conclusive, but I do.

Gary Taubes (gataubes@gmail.com) is a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation independent investigator in health policy and the author of “Why We Get Fat.”

Source: Organic Consumers Association/New York Times

Diabetes: A Guide for African American Families, Parts 1,2 & 3 – Time: 27:54

Part One:

Part Two:

Part Three:

Source: aacepr on YouTube

What to Eat: Sensible Choices in an Era of Food Confusion

Proper nutrition is on all of our minds, but how do we make smart choices in today’s world of savvy marketing? Join us for this eye-opening lecture from one of the leading author’s on how the food industry influences our nutrition and health. Marion Nestle, Ph.D., is an author and professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University. Series: “UCSD Moores Cancer Center Presents”

Source: UCtelevision on YouTube

« Previous Page — Next Page »

• 

• Subcribe Here

  Subscribe in a reader

• Subscribe via Email

  Enter your email address:

  Delivered by FeedBurner

• Tags

  acne alternative autism blood glucose blood sugar cancer children corporations depression diabetes Diabetes Information Diabetes Prevention diabetic diet disease exercise fat FDA food glucose GMO health healthy heart disease HFCS insulin Marion Nestle Michael Pollan Monsanto Natalie niddk NIH Nutrition obesity organic Organic Consumers Association prevention stroke sugar teens treatment type 1 diabetes type 2 diabetes video weight loss

• Categories

  Select Category Alternative Medicine  (28) Communities and Real Food  (2) Diabetes  (5) Diabetes and African Americans  (7) Diabetes and Diet  (62) Diabetes and Latin-Americans  (8) Diabetes and Native Americans  (5) Diabetes and Poverty  (2) Diabetes and Weight Loss  (10) Diabetes and Youth  (38) Diabetes Cooking  (3) Diabetes Information  (79) Diabetes Prevention  (54) Diabetes Resources  (61) Diabetes Reversal  (5) Diabetes Treatments  (21) Entertainment  (14) Excercise  (8) Exercise  (1) Food and Corporations  (44)    Politics  (13) Food and Politics  (4) FoodSpook Comments  (20) Health and Politics  (18) Health Information  (87) Health Resources  (5) Lecture  (29) Medical Mayhem  (3) Mental Wellness  (1) Natural Treatments  (11) Nutrition  (85)    Diabetes and Nutrition  (39) Organic Resources  (3) Type 1 Diabetes  (1) Uncategorized  (25) Video  (40) Weight Loss  (12) World Diabetes  (2)

• Archives

  • May 2012 (4)
  • April 2012 (18)
  • March 2012 (25)
  • February 2012 (25)
  • January 2012 (18)
  • December 2011 (23)
  • November 2011 (25)
  • October 2011 (25)
  • September 2011 (30)
  • August 2011 (30)
  • July 2011 (30)
  • June 2011 (24)
  • May 2011 (27)
  • April 2011 (27)
  • March 2011 (12)
  • August 2010 (1)
  • November 2009 (4)
  • October 2009 (8)
  • September 2009 (18)
  • August 2009 (20)
  • July 2009 (16)
  • June 2009 (20)
  • May 2009 (26)
  • April 2009 (6)
  • March 2009 (5)
  • February 2009 (2)
  • December 2008 (2)
  • November 2008 (12)
  • October 2008 (54)
  • September 2008 (14)
  • August 2008 (3)

• StatPress TopPosts

  • Food Industry Secrets
  (12065)
  • Your Feet, Skin and Diabetes
  (10601)
  • Acne: Resource Information-Health, A to Z
  (10109)
  • Medical Organizations A to Z
  (9762)
  • Diabetes Topics, A to Z
  (3419)

• Translate to:
  ArabicBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishFilipinoFinnishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHindiIndonesianItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianNorwegianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwedishUkrainianVietnamese
  
  Powered by Google Translate.