A New Way to Manage Metastatic Liver Cancer - Fructose

These cancer thrive on fructose…so turn off their supply.

Xiling Shen, PhD, associate professor in the department of biomedical engineering at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Published Date: August 10, 2018   Publication: Bottom Line Health

CANCER TREATMENT

A New Way to Manage Metastatic Liver Cancer

Many forms of cancer find their way to the liver. A simple change to your diet could make a big difference in your health.

When you’re battling cancer, you want to do everything possible to improve your prognosis. Exciting research published in the journal Cell Metabolism found that making a simple change in your diet can have a significant impact on your health.

Most people who die from cancer don’t die from their primary cancer, which can often be surgically removed, but from cancer cells that have metastasized to another part of the body. The liver is one place cancer cells like to go and grow. In fact, metastatic liver cancer is more common than primary liver cancer.

The study found that colon cancer cells that migrate to the liver learn to feast on fructose, the sugar that’s extremely common in the American diet not so much because it’s found naturally in fruit, but because it’s added in great quanitities to processed foods.

Why is that so potentially significant for cancer patients? The liver is a major place in the body that stores and breaks down excessive fructose. So the theory is that reducing the amount of fructose eaten could deter the growth of these cancer cells. And if cancer hasn’t yet spread to the liver, reducing the amount of fructose eaten might reduce the risk of liver metastasis taking hold.

The enzyme that the liver uses to break down fructose is called ALDOB, and colon cancer cells that find their way to the liver adapt to produce the same enzyme. The metabolized fructose fuels their growth in the liver, in which is like a candy store to these cancer cells, said Xiling Shen, PhD, one of the study’s researchers.

Blocking ALDOB could be a new way to manage liver metastasis, and Dr. Shen’s team is working on a drug to do just that. But in the meantime, it makes sense for people with liver metastasis to cut back on fructose consumption, Shen said.

Because of all the added sugars in packaged and processed foods, the average American eats four to five times more fructose today than a century ago when our main source was the fructose found naturally in fruit. It sounds counterintuitive, but experts say that unless you’re gorging on it, fruit doesn’t contribute significantly to the problem (and fruit contains antioxidants and an array of other healthful nutrients). Here are the foods you unquestionably want to avoid:

• All types of refined sugar, such as white, brown and powdered sugars and packaged foods with high amounts of it like sweetened breakfast cereals
• Corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup—the primary sweeteners used in candy, sodas, sweetened juices and commercial baked goods
• Agave, honey, molasses, sorghum, maple and and pancake syrup

This study looked at metastasis of colon cancer, but several other cancers also often travel to the liver, including lung, breast, pancreatic and stomach cancers and melanoma. It’s reasonable to assume that other cancer cells would also take advantage of any fructose in the liver and grow quickly, said Shen.

https://bottomlineinc.com/health/cancer-treatment/managing-metastatic-liver-cancer

MUST READ: Can the Conventional Medical Profession Be Trusted?

An analysis of the studies found whopping discrepancies between promised efficacies and the real McCoy. Many common treatments do more harm than good, so browse this website before agreeing to proceed. Plus, see how this chef 'miraculously' saved her father's life.

February 6, 2018 

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Story at-a-glance

• Trust in the medical profession has dramatically declined in recent decades. In 1966, more than 75 percent of Americans had great confidence in medical professionals; today only 34 percent do
• Only 25 percent have confidence in the U.S. health system and a mere 14 percent trust the federal government will do what’s right most of the time
• A glaring example of how little attention our medical system affords health is the fact that U.S. hospitals and senior care institutions still insist on serving highly processed, sugary foods and meal replacement beverages
• Research by John Ioannidis, one of the world's foremost experts on the credibility of medical research, shows as much as 90 percent of the published medical information relied on by doctors is flawed or incorrect
• Research published in 2016 concluded that medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S., killing an estimated 250,000 Americans each year

By Dr. Mercola

According to a recent article in The New York Times, growing distrust in the medical profession poses a threat to public health and safety.1 “Trust is crucial in the relationship between patients and health care providers, but it's been on the decline in recent decades,” Dr. Dhruv Khullar, a physician at New York Presbyterian Hospital and a researcher at Weill Cornell Department of Healthcare Policy and Research writes, noting that:

“Mistrust in the medical profession — particularly during emergencies like epidemics — can have deadly consequences. In 1966, more than three-fourths of Americans had great confidence in medical leaders; today, only 34 percent do.

Compared with people in other developed countries, Americans are considerably less likely to trust doctors, and only a quarter express confidence in the health system. During some recent disease outbreaks, less than one-third of Americans said they trusted public health officials to share complete and accurate information. Only 14 percent trust the federal government to do what’s right most of the time.”

Trust Requires Trustworthiness

Trust in the conventional medical paradigm has declined for a good reason. As noted by Khullar, “Waning trust in the health system is partly a result of the sometimes well-founded public perception that its key players pursue profits at the expense of patients.” Indeed, how is anyone expected to trust a system as riddled with corporate profit bias as what we currently have?

Doctors, while well-intentioned, have by and large become untrustworthy for the simple fact that they stopped thinking for themselves and fell into a corporate for-profit scheme that depends on chronic illness. Few are those who buck the system, do their own research rather than getting their information from pharmaceutical reps, and focus on patient education about preventive strategies that don’t involve costly drugs or surgical interventions.

A healthy whole food diet, exercise, proper breathing and movement, sensible sun exposure and grounding — these are all simple foundational aspects of good health that cost very little or nothing. Yet they’re rarely if ever considered when it comes time to address illness. The article also rightfully notes that transparency is a key feature that inspires trust, and honest transparency has become increasingly difficult to come by.

As just one example, the list of medical professionals, nutritional professionals and academics who pose as independent experts sharing their well-educated stances with the public — when in fact they are paid shills for one corporation or another — has grown longer with each passing year. Hiding conflicts of interest has become the norm, it seems, and honest disclosure of possible conflicts of interest is a cornerstone of the kind of transparency needed to build trust.

Following are a few blaring examples showcasing why distrust in the medical system is actually warranted, and could be viewed as a sign of sanity prevailing over orchestrated attempts to undermine public health and well-being.

CDC and Coca-Cola — Still ‘Partners in Health’

In 2015, it was revealed that a Coca-Cola front group called the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN) was founded to cast doubts on claims that soda consumption is a major if not primary cause of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and related health problems. The network, funded with millions from Coca-Cola that were never publicly disclosed, pushed the already debunked theory that to maintain a healthy weight, all you need is more exercise.  

After that public relations nightmare, Coca-Cola vowed to be more transparent about its funding of scientists and health partnerships, but as noted in a recent report by Russ Greene,2 the company has not changed its ways.

While Coca-Cola claims to publish “all relevant funding of well-being related research, partnerships and health professionals and scientific experts” every six months, when comparing the company’s data with annual reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention (CDC) and the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), Greene discovered major discrepancies.

As it turns out, Coca-Cola failed to report some of its largest payments to the CDC. “Coca-Cola donated to the [CDC’s] Foundation in 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017, according to the Foundation’s annual fiscal reports. And yet a search for ‘Centers for Disease Control’ in Coca-Cola’s website yields no results since 2012,” Greene writes.

He also notes that these payments seem to be at odds with statements made by former CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, who last year stated he’d been “winding down Coke-funded programs” during his tenure, and had “basically canceled” the CDC’s Coca-Cola run anti-obesity campaign, saying he couldn’t justify having “Coca-Cola run an obesity campaign that had an exclusive focus on physical activity.”

Conflict of Interest Policy Forbids CDC Foundation From Partnering With Soda Giant

Frieden also claimed he’d encouraged the company to provide nonexercise-related donations, but that nothing had come of it, with the exception of a $20,000 donation for a program linked to fighting the Ebola virus.

“Frieden’s claims … are not consistent with the fact that Coca-Cola donated to the CDC Foundation during every single year of his tenure except 2014,” Greene writes, “And Coca-Cola’s ‘transparency’ archive is hiding at least four separate payments to the CDC Foundation. So, both parties are acting as if they’re ashamed of their partnership. And yet it persists.”

Perhaps most importantly, the CDC Foundation’s acceptance of funding from Coca-Cola is at odds with its own conflict of interest policy, which does not permit “Partnership with an organization that represents any product that exacerbates morbidity or mortality when used as directed (mission compatibility).” Anyone who has read even a fraction of the research on sugar and sweetened beverages in recent years would agree that Coca-Cola does not qualify as a CDC “mission compatible” health partner.

Coca-Cola Still Hides NIH Payments

Coca-Cola has also neglected to report payments to the FNIH, Greene found. Since the FNIH is a nongovernmental entity, it is not subject to the same policies and regulations as the NIH itself. This, as noted on the FNIH’s website, allows the foundation “to have a unique role” in public and private partnerships. As noted by Greene:3

“The NIH Foundation is essentially a money launderer. It provides corporations that are banned by NIH’s conflict of interest policy from donating directly to NIH with a convenient loophole. For example, Coca-Cola can’t pay the NIH directly, but it can pay the NIH Foundation, which then transfers the money to the NIH … Coca-Cola is listed twice as a donor to the NIH Foundation in 2015. But Coca-Cola’s archives do not list an NIH Foundation payment that year …

[A]t this point, is there any reason to believe that we’ve been allowed to see the full extent of the Coca-Cola partnerships with CDC and NIH? Consider that we have corrected Coca-Cola’s archives multiple times in the past, and they updated their records shortly thereafter.” 

Hospitals Serve Sugar-Laden Processed Foods

Another glaring example of how little attention our medical system affords health is the fact that U.S. hospitals and senior care institutions still insist on serving highly processed, sugary foods and “nutritional shakes” like Ensure and Boost.4,5 Fruit juices are another unhealthy staple. Even diabetics are served ample amounts of bread and other refined carbs that will ensure they’ll never be able to keep their blood sugar under control.6

Sugar, especially high-fructose corn syrup, is the very last thing a sick person needs while trying to recuperate and recover, and if there ever was a place where healthy eating should be the norm, it would be in our hospitals. Yet hospital meals are chockful of sugars, chemicals and genetically engineered ingredients that do your body no good.

Take Ensure, for example. Of its 36 itemized ingredients, the first six are corn syrup, corn maltodextrin, sugar (sucrose), corn oil, sodium and calcium caseinates, soy protein isolate and artificial flavor.

This horrendous concoction is typically given as complete meal replacements to people who cannot chew or swallow and need to use a feeding tube. At present, there appears to be just one organic, whole food-based feeding tube formula on the market. It’s called Liquid Hope,7 and was created by Robin Gentry McGee, a health and lifestyle coach and chef, whose father suffered a brain injury that left him in a coma in 2005. Refusing to feed him what she calls “garbage,” she eventually created her own formula.

“I basically created it because I had to. I was trying to save my dad’s life, and to me giving him the high-fructose corn syrup sugar water was not an option,” she explained back in 2013.8 Her formula contains over 20 organic whole food ingredients. “Within six weeks the healing was [so] profound that his M.D. called me up and told me it was a miracle,” McGee told a reporter. “But it wasn’t a miracle, it was nutrition.” 

Science-Based Medicine Requires Patients to Take Control of Their Health

John Ioannidis is one of the world's foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have repeatedly shown that many of the conclusions biomedical researchers arrive at in their published studies are exaggerated or flat-out wrong. Yet this is the “science-based evidence” doctors use to prescribe drugs or recommend surgery. According to Ioannidis’ findings, as much as 90 percent of the published medical information relied on by doctors is flawed or incorrect.9

He’s not the only one who has reached this conclusion. In fact, the idea that conventional medical treatments are “scientifically proven” and based on solid science is quite the misnomer. According to 2007 data from the British Medical Journal’s “Clinical Evidence” website, of the 2,500 treatments evaluated, only 15 percent were rated as beneficial. A whopping 46 percent had an efficacy rating of “unknown.”10,11

In other words, nearly half of accepted medical treatments used in general practice were not scientifically proven to work or provide benefit for the patient. Granted, that’s a significant improvement over statistics compiled in 1978, when the Office of Technology Assessment concluded only 10 to 20 percent of medical treatments had evidence to support their use.12 Research also shows that many novel medical treatments gain popularity over older standards of care due mostly to clever marketing, not solid science.

An investigation13 by the Mayo Clinic published in 2013 proved this point. To determine the overall effectiveness of medical care, researchers tracked the frequency of medical reversals over the past decade. Not only did they find that reversals are common across all classes of medical practice, but they too confirmed that a significant proportion of medical treatments offer no patient benefit.

The most telling data in the report confirm that many common medical treatments actually do more harm than good. Of the studies that tested an existing standard of care, 40 percent reversed the practice as it was found to be either ineffective or harmful. Only 38 percent of the studies reaffirmed existing standards.

The remaining 22 percent were inconclusive. This means that anywhere between 40 and 78 percent of the medical testing, treatments and procedures you receive are of no benefit to you — or are actually harmful — according to clinical studies.

Scientific Bias and Fraud Are a Growing Problem

In more recent years, the shocking prevalence of scientific bias and outright fraud14 has also garnered attention, as this trend undermines the credibility of the field of science altogether.15 A major weakness is the fact that many studies that fail to find a benefit never see the light of day, and when only positive findings are published, it presents an incredibly skewed view of the facts.

Then there’s the influence of funding, which has repeatedly and consistently been shown to have a dramatic impact on study results. As previously reported in Live Science:16

“One of the most well-known examples of bias involves the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) paroxetine (Paxil), an anti-anxiety medicine. The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline suppressed results from four trials that not only failed to show treatment effectiveness for off-label use of its SSRI among children and teens, but also showed possible increased risk of suicidal tendencies in this age group.”

Modern Medicine Is the Third Leading Cause of Death

Doctors (not to mention drug companies) may bemoan the lack of trust and faith in their offerings, but you certainly cannot claim that it’s an undeserved trend. In 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield published a study revealing that doctors are in fact the third leading cause of death in the U.S., killing an estimated 225,000 patients annually.17 Her statistics showed that each year:

• 12,000 die from unnecessary surgery
• 7,000 die from medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 die from other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 die from hospital-acquired infections
• 106,000 die from the negative side effects of drugs taken as prescribed

Unfortunately, few believed it, and no affirmative action was ever taken to address and correct the situation. So, when new data was published in 2016, showing the situation has only gotten worse, I for one was not surprised.

The study,18 published in the BMJ, concluded that medical errors now kill an estimated 250,000 Americans each year — an increase of about 25,000 people annually from Starfield’s estimates — and these numbers may still be vastly underestimated as deaths occurring at home or in nursing homes were not included.

Many media outlets, including The Washington Post,19 bore headlines saying medical errors are “now” the leading cause of death, but the truth is, modern medicine has been the third leading cause of death for at least two decades, that we know of. Research20published in 2013 estimated that preventable hospital errors kill 210,000 Americans each year — a figure that is very close to the latest statistics.

However, when deaths related to diagnostic errors, errors of omission and failure to follow guidelines were included, the number skyrocketed to 440,000 preventable hospital deaths each year. That’s inching ever closer to the death toll from cancer — the second leading cause of death in the U.S. — which is projected to claim just over 609,000 Americans this year.21

Overtesting, Overtreatment and Hospital-Acquired Infections Also Take a Toll

Overtesting and overtreatment are also part of the problem. Instead of dissuading patients from unnecessary or questionable interventions, the system rewards waste and incentivizes disease over health. According to a 2012 report by the Institute of Medicine, an estimated 30 percent of all medical procedures, tests and medications may in fact be unnecessary,22 at a cost of at least $750 billion a year. To learn which tests and interventions may do more harm than good, browse through the Choosing Wisely website.23

Other grim statistics revealing the hazards of modern medicine include rates of hospital-acquired infections. According to CDC statistics,24,25 1 in 25 patients end up with a hospital-acquired infection, and about 75,000 people die from these infections each year.26Medicare patients may be at even greater risk. According to the 2011 Health Grades Hospital Quality in America Study,27 1 in 9 Medicare patients developed a hospital-acquired infection.

Take Control of Your Health

Considering everything mentioned so far, is it any wonder that trust in the medical profession has dwindled to about one-third, or that only 1 in 4 Americans trust the health care system as a whole? Bear in mind, the examples included above are just a sampling. I haven’t even touched on the corruption and conflicts of interest involving the food industry at large, or the fact that junk food purveyors fund and provide much of the educational material for our nutrition professionals.

The take-home message is that you cannot be too careful when it comes to medical and nutritional advice. On the whole, our medical establishment has a long way to go before they will regain their old aura as the ultimate authority on health. In the meantime, remember you are ultimately responsible for your own health, and while it’s certainly wise to listen to health professionals you trust, it cannot hurt to get a second or third opinion.

Seeking input and feedback from alternative health professionals can also provide you with alternatives you may never get from a conventional doctor. More often than not, successfully addressing chronic illness will require a holistic approach that may include both conventional and complementary approaches.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/02/06/declined-trust-in-conventional-medical-profession.aspx

How to count on food – Part 5

Some biochemists might joke that it is a crying shame that most people are not aware of E1105 (lysozyme) – for this enzyme additive is found in human tears and other body fluids, such as saliva, amniotic fluid, etc.

July 9, 2017 Food, Food News, Living, Viewpoints

By CHRIS CHAN


Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5   Part 6

E1203 (polyvinyl alcohol) is a compound used to glaze the outside of dried fruits in muesli, to prevent dehydration. Photo: VisualHunt.com

Some biochemists might joke that it is a crying shame that most people are not aware of E1105 (lysozyme) – for this enzyme additive is found in human tears and other body fluids, such as saliva, amniotic fluid, etc.

Lysozyme has an interesting history, being originally identified by Alexander Fleming in 1922 as the reason why egg whites are generally antibacterial. It is also the first enzyme to be detected which contains all 20 of the common amino acids; the study of lysozyme led to the eventual understanding of how enzymes work in the body. In food, E1105’s primary function is to act as an antimicrobial preservative, particularly against early bacterial biofilms in cheeses. If you are interested in how and why biofilms develop, refer to tinyurl.com/star2-biofilm.

If you like gooey confections, oozing with liquid caramel or syrups, then you have to thank E1103 (invertase). This is an enzyme which inverts sugar (or sucrose) into a syrupy blend of glucose and fructose, which oddly actually tastes significantly sweeter than sugar itself – and with a pleasantly dense, moist texture. The inverted sugar is then mixed with flavourings and used for your mucilaginous candy bars.

And if foods have too many calories, there are additives to moderate that too, such as E1200 (polydextrose), a synthetic low-calorie polymer of glucose used to replace sugar, starch and fats in cakes, confections, desserts, cereals, beverages, salad dressings, etc. It is classed as a soluble fibre and used mostly in diet foods or meals for diabetics. E1200 is derived from the interaction of glucose with two other natural additives, E330 (citric acid) and E420 (sorbitol) – and adding E1200 to food automatically “converts” low fibre content food into high fibre food. However, one commonly-observed and problematic side effect is excessive bowel laxation, so much so that the FDA requires a warning on the food label if any portion of food contains more than 15g of polydextrose. Possibly, actor Jack Nicholson had consumed too much E1200 when he was famously quoted as saying that one can never trust a fart.

Both E1201 (polyvinylpyrrolidone) and E1202 (polyvinylpolypyrrolidone) sound more like rocket fuels than food additives, but these synthetic compounds are used quite commonly in food processing. E1201 is used as a stabiliser and water-soluble dispersant for other additives, such as flavourings. E1202 is a cross-linked version of E1201, and is not water soluble but is capable of absorbing water and swelling very rapidly – this makes it a good disintegrant (dispersal agent) for medication pills. E1202 is also used for fining (filtering) beers and wines, as it binds well with polyphenols and tannins, precipitating these impurities and thus clarifying the alcoholic liquids.

Despite its chemical name, E1203 (polyvinyl alcohol) is more likely to be encountered in your breakfast bowl than at your local rave club. It is one of the compounds used to glaze the outside of dried fruits in muesli and other breakfast cereals to prevent dehydration. Other films and glazing agents reside in the range between E1204 (pullulan) and E1209 (polyvinyl alcohol-polyethylene glycol-graft-co-polymer).

The next range between E1404 (oxidised starch) and E1452 (starch aluminium octenyl succinate) are all wheat or corn starch-based additives – they are mainly used as bulking agents, thickeners, stabilisers and anti-caking agents. The last mentioned additive, E1452, is also subject to European Union regulations for contamination by heavy metals.

The final pair of additives to be discussed are E1520 (propan-1,2-diol or propylene glycol) and E1521 (polyethylene glycol). Although both are used in anti-freeze solutions, the similarities end there. E1520 is a major component of the liquids used in e-cigarettes, used to promote the smoothness of ice creams and various dairy foods, and is also a solvent for medications which are insoluble in water.

On the other hand, E1521 is more used as a surfactant (anti-foaming agent) in foods – it is also used as a laxative and in suppositories. Another common use of E1521 is in cosmetics, where it is a flexible thickener, humectant, solvent and moisturiser – it is often labelled as “PEG” followed by a number, which indicates the molecular weight. One cautionary note is that E1521 should not be left to oxidise, as it can react with air to form radicals like peroxides and other unstable compounds. Also there is some tangible risk of contamination by highly carcinogenic impurities such as dioxane or ethylene oxide during the production of E1521 – hence if you really do need to use beauty creams, please get them from responsible cosmetic companies, and keep them well-sealed after use.

Once again, please note that over-ingestion of many additives may lead to possible health hazards and side-effects – and it is simply not possible to cover all potential reactions due to the numbers and combinations of additives. Most food additives are regulated in their use, and therefore should not cause problems when processed foods are consumed in reasonable amounts by healthy humans.

So we have come to the end of the reviews about a few interesting E-number additives – the ones mentioned are just those that caught my eye and there are many more probably just as noteworthy but we just do not have the space to review them all. One thing to note is that although additives are required in the EU to be shown as part of the ingredients list, some additives are still never listed. This is usually because the quantities fall below the thresholds which require listing or they are listed under some generic group name such as “liquid smoke”, even though liquid smoke can contain hundreds of different polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. And as mentioned, not all additives have E-numbers – often these are then presented as just their common names or chemical names.

Sometimes there is also some duplicity in the listing of ingredients – quite often sugars are reported separately as various different compounds such as sucrose, glucose, fructose, dextrose, corn syrup, HFCS, et cetera. This is possibly a somewhat vain attempt to hide the unhealthy over-sugary nature of the food item.

What could be in your daily loaf

It is quite interesting what a closer examination of something as mundane as a sandwich loaf can reveal – especially about a range of additives which legally need not be mentioned.

Industrially-made enzymes are often used in commercial breads, to promote fermentation or extend shelf life, etc. Photo: VisualHunt.com/McCun934

Almost all commercial white bread is made from artificially bleached white flour – in the past, bleaching agents used were chlorine gas and chlorine dioxide, but the use of these chemicals is no longer permitted in the EU – although they are still commonly used in other countries, including in the United States. As the residual chlorine is so small, it would not normally be listed as an ingredient – even though the EU still considers it a potential carcinogenic risk.

What is also not listed are the industrially-produced enzymes used in baking commercial breads. A selection of enzymes used include amylase, maltogenic alpha-amylases, glucose oxidase, lipase, lipoxygenase, xylanase, protease and asparginase – the range of enzymes used can vary considerably between different baking factories and is usually a closely-guarded secret. Amylase is used to promote fermentation, maltogenic alpha-amylases help to extend the shelf life of bread, asparginase limits the browning of bread – and most of the other enzymes are used to strengthen the gluten in flours, so that bread loaves rise better and more consistently in the oven.

The hidden ingredients

The reason enzymes are not listed as ingredients is because they are considered “processing aids” which are broken down during food processing, and therefore should not be present in the final food product. As such, additives which need to be listed are only those items which are still detectable in the final processed food products – and as enzymes are destroyed by heat, there is no requirement to list them as part of the ingredients.

However, there are concerns that not all enzymes are always destroyed during food processing and there have been calls for enzymes to be included on the ingredients list – because residual unprocessed enzymes can set off allergic reactions. Another reason for concern is that the food industry is creating increasingly complex enzymes and not all of them are tested for potential toxicity issues – and as they do not need to be listed, food regulators may not know what consumers are potentially ingesting. It appears that the only guideline is that enzymes need to be “safe” for human consumption (as they should be destroyed during food processing).

Many industrial enzymes are produced using secretive, specialised, genetically modified (GM) micro-organisms – and they are widely used in many types of foods. For example, cheese is often curdled using enzymes derived from GM organisms – though this is not permitted with organic cheeses, as no artificial enzymes are allowed with produce labelled as organic.

The production of gelatin is often helped by enzymes dissolving proteins on the bones and fruit juices are pressed from softened fruits, their structure weakened by enzymes – then other enzymes are used to clarify the juices before heat treatment is applied to destroy the enzymes.

An interesting use of enzymes is as a food adhesive – for example, transglutaminase is used to cross-link proteins between different types of source proteins, creating smooth homogeneous blends of different animal and plant proteins. This is how those seemingly perfect meat rolls, chicken rolls, low-fat meat proteins, etc can be produced – if you check the ingredients, you will find that many of the low-cost “meat products” have soy and other animal proteins included, and they would not bind together without enzymes like transglutaminase.

A shopper peruses the labels in a supermarket – many processed foods contain additives, which the average shopper may or may not be able to decipher. Photo: Reuters

GM enzymes are also used to produce the infamous High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), a very cheap sugary substance derived from corn (or maize) and alleged to be one of the root causes of the current worldwide obesity epidemic – this is due to the use of HFCS in so many processed foods and drinks. Cadbury-Schweppes was advertising HFCS as an “all natural” ingredient until legal action in 2006 established that HFCS is an artificial ingredient which does not exist in the natural world. There will be more on this a little later – meanwhile, just as an aside, most of the industrially-produced HFCS is derived from GM corn from the US.

A rather weird use of enzymes is in the peeling of fruits, such as those found in the plastic snack cartons of ready-to-eat fruits you see in supermarkets or on airline food trays. As an example of what happens, the thick skin of oranges are scored and the fruits immersed in a pressurised bath of an enzyme called pectinase – after a couple of hours, the enzyme softens the orange skins so much that they can be peeled off easily and the segments can be separated without damage.

As additives, there appears to be only two enzymes which need to be disclosed, presumably because they are not wholly destroyed during food processing: E1103 (invertase) and E1105 (lysozyme) – both have been discussed earlier.

HFCS Revisited (Again)

Some of you may have heard that the immoderate consumption of HFCS can lead to obesity in humans – a common explanation is that a diet high in fructose has been seemingly linked to leptin resistance, and the end effect is that this causes people to eat more, as the hormone leptin is used as a primary signal to the brain to terminate eating.

The available research findings are actually rather more ambiguous, and somewhat complicated. For one, leptin resistance due to fructose was originally observed in laboratory rodents fed with high doses of HFCS and these rodents ate more, and gained more weight compared to control animals – and developed leptin resistance.

Further studies in humans consuming more reasonable amounts of HFCS produced rather less startling results – and the oft-mentioned notorious link between HFCS and obesity appears to be mainly derived from epidemiological studies which found a strong correlation between the widespread use of HFCS and obesity trends, particularly in the US. But as I often caution, correlation is not always proof of causation – and it may well be that the trend of including huge amounts of all types of sugars and modified starches in modern foods is just as plausible as an explanation.

Regarding leptin resistance, studies have shown that glucose is the sugar that induces the production of leptin – fructose does not induce leptin secretion. Additionally, the hormone ghrelin acts as an appetite stimulant and fructose also appears not to suppress ghrelin as much as glucose either. This can mean that a diet high in fructose can possibly mess around with the normal food signaling mechanisms and induce people to eat more – simply because the hunger hormone (ghrelin) is not turned off and the satiety hormone (leptin) is not turned on.

It may sound odd but HFCS is seldom labelled correctly on the ingredients list – for there are several grades of HFCS. In fact, the term High-Fructose Corn Syrup itself can be sometimes a misnomer as some grades of HFCS actually have less fructose than sugar – normal sugar is called sucrose, which is made up of 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is normally 24% water and the grades of HFCS are expressed as the percentage of fructose observed after the removal of water – the remainder sugar in HFCS is glucose. So HFCS 42 is 42% fructose and HFCS 90 is 90% fructose after the removal of the water content – the most common grades used are HFCS 42 (food, cereals, baked goods, et cetera) HFCS 55 (soft drinks) and HFCS 65 (other soft drinks). As fructose is about 1.73 times sweeter than sugar (and very much cheaper), food producers tend to load processed foods and drinks with HFCS, both to improve taste, and to mask the taste of other additives.

The next – and final – part discusses some “free” additives that you very probably do not want, an interesting flexible ingredient found in many foods – plus finally, a simple guide to reading the nutrition labels on packaged foods.


Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5   Part 6

http://www.star2.com/food/food-news/2017/07/09/how-count-food-part-5/

Controlling Liver Disease

Cigarette Smoking, Fructose Consumption Exacerbates Liver Disease

Modifying Risk Factors Essential in Controlling Liver Disease Progression 

By Wiley
Apr 27, 2010 - 7:30:42 AM

(HealthNewsDigest.com) - Recent studies suggest that modifiable risk factors such as cigarette smoking and fructose consumption can worsen nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). With NAFLD, fat accumulates in the liver of overweight individuals despite drinking little alcohol, causing in some cases liver scarring that can lead to liver failure. Identifying modifiable factors that contribute to disease severity and progression is essential in improving patient outcomes. Details of these studies are published in the May issue of Hepatology, a journal of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

NAFLD is the most common cause of liver disease worldwide and research suggests the number of cases will climb given an increasing trend toward higher fat diets, obesity, decreased physical activity, and a rise in diabetes. Past studies indicate that more than 30 million Americans have NAFLD and approximately 8 million may have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

In the first study, Ramón Bataller, M.D., and colleagues from the Hospital Clínic in Barcelona, Spain investigated the effects of cigarette smoking (CS) in obese rats. Rats were divided into 4 groups (n=12 per group): obese smokers, obese non-smokers, control smokers and control non-smokers. Smoker rats were exposed to 2 cigarettes/day, 5 days/week for 4 weeks. Researchers found that obese rats exposed to CS showed a significant increase in ALT serum levels (indicating liver disease), while this effect was not observed in control rats.

“Our results show that CS causes oxidative stress and worsens the severity of NAFLD in obese rats,” said Dr. Bataller. “Further studies should investigate longer exposures to CS, and assess whether this finding also occurs in patients with obesity and NAFLD.”

In her editorial, also published in Hepatology this month, Claudia Zein, M.D., from the Cleveland Clinic, noted that “the importance of these results is that taken together with other experimental and clinical data, they support that cigarette smoking appears to aggravate liver injury in patients with liver disease”. Dr. Zein added, “Studies characterizing the effects of cigarette smoking in human NAFLD will be crucial because of the vast number of patients that may benefit from modification of this risk factor.”

Additionally, prior studies suggest an over consumption of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), primarily in the form of soft-drinks, have contributed to weight gain and the rise in obesity, particularly in children and adolescents. Table sugar (sucrose) and HFCS are the two major dietary sources of fructose. Over the past 40 years, consumption of dietary fructose has increased 1,000% according to Bray et al, and doctors believe it to be a major cause of NAFLD.

Researchers from Duke University studied 341 adults enrolled in the NASH Clinical Research Network who responded to a Block food questionnaire within 3 months of a liver biopsy. Fructose consumption was estimated conservatively by including that found in beverages, which accounts for 50% of dietary fructose intake. Results showed that 27.9% of participants consumed at least 1 fructose-containing beverage per day, 52.5% had 1 to 6 beverages with fructose per week, and 19.7% drank no beverages with fructose.

“In patients with NAFLD, daily fructose ingestion was associated with reduced fatty liver (steatosis), but we found increased fibrosis,” noted Manal Abdelmalek, M.D., M.P.H, and lead author of the study. “Further dietary intervention studies are needed to evaluate whether a low-fructose diet improves metabolic disturbances associated with NAFLD and improves patient outcomes for those at risk of disease progression,” concluded Dr. Abdelmalek.

A second fructose study led by Ling-Dong Kong, M.D., from Nanjing University in China investigated the effects of curcumin on fructose-induced hypertriglyceridemia and fatty liver in rats. Curcumin, a compound derived from turmeric (curcuma root), is sold as an herbal supplement and is believed to have anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor, and anti-viral properties. Researchers observed a hyperactivity of hepatic protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B), which is associated with defective insulin and leptin signaling, in fructose-fed rats.

For the first time this study demonstrated that curcumin inhibited hepatic PTP1B expression and activity in fructose-fed rats. “Our results provide novel insights into the potential therapeutic mechanisms of curcumin on fructose-induced hepatic steatosis associated with insulin and leptin resistance,” said Dr. Kong.

These studies indicate modifying risks such as smoking and fructose consumption offer potential benefits for those with liver diseases. Further studies are needed to explore these benefits in preventing the progression of liver disease.

Article: “Cigarette Smoking Exacerbates Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Obese Rats.” Lorenzo Azzalini, Elisabet Ferrer, Leandra N. Ramalho, Montserrat Moreno, Marlene Domínguez, Jordi Colmenero, Víctor I. Peinado, Joan A. Barberà, Vicente Arroyo, Pere Ginès, Joan Caballería, Ramón Bataller. Hepatology; Published Online: February 22, 2010 (DOI: 10.1002/hep.23516); Print Issue Date: May 2010.

Editorial: “Clearing the Smoke in Chronic Liver Diseases.” Claudia Zein. Hepatology; Published Online: March 26, 2010 (DOI: 10.1002/hep.23694); Print Issue Date: May 2010.

Article: “Increased Fructose Consumption is Associated with Fibrosis Severity in Patients with NAFLD.” Manal F. Abdelmalek, Ayako Suzuki, Cynthia Guy, Aynur Unalp-Arida, Ryan Colvin, Richard J. Johnson, Anna Mae Diehl. Hepatology; Published Online: March 17, 2010 (DOI: 10.1002/hep.23535); Print Issue Date: May 2010.

Article: “Curcumin inhibits hepatic protein-tyrosine phosphatase 1B and prevents hypertriglyceridemia and hepatic steatosis in fructose-fed rats.” Jian-Mei Li, Yu-Cheng Li, Ling-Dong Kong, Qing-Hua Hu. Hepatology; Published Online: March 10, 2010 (DOI: 10.1002/hep.23524); Print Issue Date: May 2010. 

http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Disease_420/Cigarette_Smoking_Fructose_Consumption_Exacerbates_Liver_Disease.shtml

Inflammation Causes Heart Disease, Experts Say

Today the number of Americans dying of heart disease, the number one cause of death, is higher than health experts predicted it would be.  4 out of 10 Americans suffer from a heart-related health problem, and that number is expected to get even worse.  In addition to the lives lost, the cost of treating heart disease is expected to reach one trillion dollars a year within the next 15 years. 

02-23-2017

Lorie Johnson

A growing number of doctors believe the root cause of heart disease is inflammation in our bodies, brought on by eating too much sugar and bread.  Cardiologist Stephen Sinatra is on of those physicians who blame an inflammatory diet on the skyrocketing rates of deadly heart disease.  

Sinatra says to reduce inflammation, stay away from sugar and processed grains such as enriched flour, corn and rice found in bread, bagels, pasta, pizza dough, tortillas, muffins and cereal.  He says as far as our health is concerned, these refined grains are very similar to sugar because our body responds to them in the same way.

"Sugar is your foe. It's the villan. Sugar is the enemy," he says.

There are many types of sugar.  Many of them end with "-ose." Sinatra says one of the worst is high fructose corn syrup, which food manufacturers began adding to soda and thousands of other foods and drinks in the past few decades, corresponding with the dramatic rise in heart disease, as well as obesity and diabetes. 

Nutritionist J.J. Virgin points out that was also the same time the low-fat craze kicked-in.  That caused millions of Americans to replace fat with bread and sugar. 

"When we started to pull the fat out of products, we either add, or are left with, sugar," she explained, "If you look at a lot of the dairy products, especially like cream cheese, we'll go to the light cream cheeses, and they actually added sugar in."

In fact, some fat-free salad dressings are one-third sugar!  Doctors advise checking nutrition facts labels on products, and only choose foods with no more than 2 grams of sugar per serving. 

When Dallas resident John Speanburg started following his doctor's recommendation to cut-back on sugar, Speanburg was surprised to discover many of the foods he thought were healthy actually containd too much sugar.

"I love yogurt," he said, "But when you start realizing there's 9 grams of sugar in yogurt, I cut out yogurt."

When it comes to fruit, health experts say stick to the ones that are unprocessed, fresh or frozen, preferably berries, because they are lowest in sugar.  However, stay away from processed fruit products like juices, jellies and snacks.  They often contain super-concentrated natural sugar, fructose, accompanied by the misleading, "no sugar added" claim on the package.

"There are easy ways to say 'no sugar added' and still put it in there.," she explained, "Apple juice concentrate's the worst thing you can possibly have. Apple juice concentrate's got more fructose than high fructose corn syrup does."

So to prevent heart disease, America's number one killer that's still on the rise, doctors say reduce inflammation by avoiding processed foods and drinks, and instead, embracing foods in their natural state, also known as "whole" foods.  Especially load-up on a wide variety of colorful vegetables.  Also choose healthy fats like olive oil, coconut oil, avocados and raw nuts.  When it comes to beverages, health experts say just drink plain water, unsweetened coffee or unsweetened tea. 

Watch the video on:

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/health/2017/february/death-rate-among-rural-women-skyrockets

MUST READ: Fructose: This Addictive Commonly Used Food Feeds Cancer Cells, Triggers Weight Gain, and Promotes Premature Aging

Death by sugar may not be an overstatement—evidence is mounting that sugar is THE MAJOR FACTOR causing obesity and chronic disease.

Story at-a-glance

• One of the primary sources of calories for Americans is sugar—specifically high fructose corn syrup in soda and processed foods. Because of advances in food processing technology in the 1970s, fructose derived from corn has become very cheap and is widely used in the majority of processed foods for increased sales.
• Sugar takes a devastating toll on your health. In fact, excessive sugar consumption may be the largest factor underlying obesity and chronic disease in America
• Your body metabolizes fructose much differently from glucose; the entire burden of metabolizing fructose falls on your liver, where excess fructose is quickly converted into fat, which explains the weight gain and abdominal obesity experienced by so many Westerners
• Fructose is the primary cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver and elevates uric acid, which raises your blood pressure, stresses your kidneys, and leads to the chronic, low-level inflammation that is at the core of most chronic diseases; metabolically speaking, fructose is alcohol “without the buzz”
• It would be wise for most people to limit their daily fructose consumption to less than 25 grams per day; a table showing the fructose content of many foods is provided, especially if you show signs of insulin resistance such as being overweight, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or diabetes

April 20, 2010

Is sugar a sweet old friend that is secretly plotting your demise?

There is a vast sea of research suggesting that it is. Science has now shown us, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that sugar in your food, in all its myriad of forms, is taking a devastating toll on your health.

The single largest source of calories for Americans comes from sugar—specifically high fructose corn syrup. Just take a look at the sugar consumption trends of the past 300 years:1

• In 1700, the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 1900, individual consumption had risen to 90 pounds of sugar per year.
• In 2009, more than 50 percent of all Americans consume one-half pound of sugar PER DAY—translating to a whopping 180 pounds of sugar per year!

Sugar is loaded into your soft drinks, fruit juices, sports drinks, and hidden in almost all processed foods—from bologna to pretzels to Worcestershire sauce to cheese spread. And now most infant formula has the sugar equivalent of one can of Coca-Cola, so babies are being metabolically poisoned from day one of taking formula.

No wonder there is an obesity epidemic in this country.

Today, 32 percent of Americans are obese and an additional one-third is overweight. Compare that to 1890, when a survey of white males in their fifties revealed an obesity rate of just 3.4 percent. In 1975, the obesity rate in America had reached 15 percent, and since then it has doubled.

Carrying excess weight increases your risk for deadly conditions such as heart disease, kidney disease, and diabetes.

In 1893, there were fewer than three cases of diabetes per 100,000 people in the United States. Today, diabetes strikes almost 8,000 out of every 100,000 people.1

You don't have to be a physician or a scientist to notice America's expanding waistline. All you have to do is stroll through a shopping mall or a schoolyard, or perhaps glance in the mirror.

Sugars 101 -- Basics of How to Avoid Confusion on This Important Topic

It is easy to become confused by the various sugars and sweeteners. So here is a basic overview:

• Dextrose, fructose, and glucose are all monosaccharides, known as simple sugars. The primary difference between them is how your body metabolizes them. Glucose and dextrose are essentially the same sugar. However, food manufacturers usually use the term "dextrose" in their ingredient list.
• The simple sugars can combine to form more complex sugars, like the disaccharide sucrose (table sugar), which is half glucose and half fructose.
• High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose.
• Ethanol (drinking alcohol) is not a sugar, although beer and wine contain residual sugars and starches, in addition to alcohol.
• Sugar alcohols like xylitol, glycerol, sorbitol, maltitol, mannitol, and erythritol are neither sugars nor alcohols but are becoming increasingly popular as sweeteners. They are incompletely absorbed from your small intestine, for the most part, so they provide fewer calories than sugar but often cause problems with bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.
• Sucralose (Splenda) is NOT a sugar, despite its sugar-like name and deceptive marketing slogan, "made from sugar." It's a chlorinated artificial sweetener in line with aspartame and saccharin, with detrimental health effects to match.
• Agave syrup, falsely advertised as "natural," is typically HIGHLY processed and is usually 80 percent fructose. The end product does not even remotely resemble the original agave plant.
• Honey is about 53 percent fructose2, but is completely natural in its raw form and has many health benefits when used in moderation, including as many antioxidants as spinach.
• Stevia is a highly sweet herb derived from the leaf of the South American stevia plant, which is completely safe (in its natural form). Lo han (or luohanguo) is another natural sweetener, but derived from a fruit.

All Sugars Are Not Equal

Glucose is the form of energy you were designed to run on. Every cell in your body, every bacterium—and in fact, every living thing on the Earth—uses glucose for energy.

But in this country, sucrose is no longer the sugar of choice. It's now fructose.

If your diet was like that of people a century ago, you'd consume about 15 grams per day—a far cry from the 73 grams per day the typical person gets from sweetened drinks. In vegetables and fruits, it's mixed in with vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and beneficial phytonutrients, all which moderate the negative metabolic effects. Amazingly, 25 percent of people actually consume more than 130 grams of fructose per day.

Making matters worse, all of the fiber has been removed from processed foods, so there is essentially no nutritive value at all. And the very products most people rely on to lose weight—the low-fat diet foods—are often the ones highest in fructose.

It isn't that fructose itself is bad—it is the MASSIVE DOSES you're exposed to that make it dangerous.

There are two overall reasons fructose is so damaging:

1. Your body metabolizes fructose in a much different way from glucose. The entire burden of metabolizing fructose falls on your liver.
2. People are consuming fructose in enormous quantities, which has made the negative effects much more profound.

The explosion of soda consumption is the major cause of this.

Today, 55 percent of sweeteners used in food and beverage manufacturing are made from corn, and the number one source of calories in America is soda, in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

Food and beverage manufacturers began switching their sweeteners from sucrose to corn syrup in the 1970s when they discovered that HFCS was not only far cheaper to make, but is also about 20 percent sweeter than conventional table sugar that has sucrose.

HFCS contains the same two sugars as sucrose but is more metabolically risky to you, due to its chemical form.

The fructose and the glucose are not bound together in HFCS, as they are in table sugar, so your body doesn't have to break it down. Therefore, the fructose is absorbed immediately, going straight to your liver.

Too Much Fructose Creates a Metabolic Disaster in Your Body

Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, has been a pioneer in decoding sugar metabolism. His work has highlighted some major differences in how different sugars are broken down and used by the human body.

I highly recommend watching Lustig's lecture in its entirety if you want to learn how fructose is ruining your health biochemically.

As I mentioned earlier, after eating fructose, most of the metabolic burden rests on your liver. This is NOT the case with glucose, of which your liver breaks down only 20 percent. Nearly every cell in your body utilizes glucose, so it's normally "burned up" immediately after consumption.

So where does all of this fructose go, once you consume it?

Onto your thighs. It is turned into FAT (VLDL and triglycerides), which means more fat deposits throughout your body.

Eating Fructose Is Far Worse Than Eating Fat

However, the physiological problems of fructose metabolism extend well beyond a couple of pant sizes:

• Fructose elevates uric acid, which decreases nitric oxide, raises angiotensin, and causes your smooth muscle cells to contract, thereby raising your blood pressure and potentially damaging your kidneys.1
  
  Increased uric acid also leads to chronic, low-level inflammation, which has far-reaching consequences for your health. For example, chronically inflamed blood vessels lead to heart attacks and strokes; also, a good deal of evidence exists that some cancers are caused by chronic inflammation. (See the next section for more about uric acid.)
• Fructose tricks your body into gaining weight by fooling your metabolism—it turns off your body's appetite-control system. Fructose does not appropriately stimulate insulin, which in turn does not suppress ghrelin (the "hunger hormone") and doesn't stimulate leptin (the "satiety hormone"), which together result in you eating more and developing insulin resistance.2
• Fructose rapidly leads to weight gain and abdominal obesity ("beer belly"), decreased HDL, increased LDL, elevated triglycerides, elevated blood sugar, and high blood pressure—i.e., classic metabolic syndrome.
• Fructose metabolism is very similar to ethanol metabolism, which has a multitude of toxic effects, including NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease). It's alcohol without the buzz.

These changes are not seen when humans or animals eat starch (or glucose), suggesting that fructose is a "bad carbohydrate" when consumed in excess of 25 grams per day. It is probably the one factor responsible for the partial success of many "low-carb" diets.

One of the more recent findings that surprised researchers is that glucose actually accelerates fructose absorption, making the potential health risks from HFCS even more profound.1

You can now see why fructose is the number one contributing factor to the current obesity epidemic.

Is Uric Acid the New Cholesterol?

By now you are probably aware of the childhood obesity epidemic in America—but did you know about childhood hypertension?

Until recently, children were rarely diagnosed with high blood pressure, and when they were, it was usually due to a tumor or a vascular kidney disease.

In 2004, a study showed hypertension among children is four times higher than predicted: 4.5 percent of American children have high blood pressure. Among overweight children, the rate is 10 percent. It is thought that obesity is to blame for about 50 percent of hypertension cases in adolescents today.

Even more startling is that 90 percent of adolescents who have high blood pressure have elevated uric acid levels.

This has led researchers to ask: what does uric acid have to do with obesity and high blood pressure?

In his book, The Sugar Fix: The High-Fructose Fallout That is Making You Fat and Sick, Dr. Robert J. Johnson makes a compelling argument for a previously unrecognized connection between excess sugar consumption and high uric acid levels. However, he promotes artificial sweeteners as an alternative to sugar and makes other recommendations that I don't agree with.

Dr. Johnson is a conventional physician who has not accepted large parts of natural medicine. However, he is one of the leading researchers defining the extent of fructose toxicity. He has spent many years of his life dedicating himself to uncover this mystery.

There are more than 3,500 articles to date showing a strong relationship between uric acid and obesity, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, kidney disease, and other conditions. In fact, a number of studies have confirmed that people with elevated serum uric acid are at risk for high blood pressure, even if they otherwise appear to be perfectly healthy.

Uric acid levels among Americans have risen significantly since the early half of the 20th century. In the 1920s, average uric acid levels were about 3.5 ml/dl. By 1980, average uric acid levels had climbed into the range of 6.0 to 6.5 ml/dl and are probably much higher now.

How Does Your Body Produce Uric Acid?

It's a byproduct of cellular breakdown. As cells die off, DNA and RNA degrade into chemicals called purines. Purines are further broken down into uric acid.

Fructose increases uric acid through a complex process that causes cells to burn up their ATP rapidly, leading to "cell shock" and increased cell death. After eating excessive amounts of fructose, cells become starved of energy and enter a state of shock, just as if they have lost their blood supply. Massive cellular die-off leads to increased uric acid levels.

And cells that are depleted of energy become inflamed and more susceptible to damage from oxidative stress. Fat cells actually become "sickly," bloating up with excessive amounts of fat.

There is a simple, inexpensive blood test for determining your uric acid level, which I recommend you have done as part of your routine health checkups. Your level should be between 3.0 and 5.5 mg/dl, optimally.

There is little doubt in my mind that your uric acid level is a more potent predictor of cardiovascular and overall health than your total cholesterol level is. Yet virtually no one is screening for this.

Now that you know the truth, you don't have to be left out in the cold, as this is a simple and relatively inexpensive test that you can get at any doctor's office. Odds are very good your doctor is clueless about the significance of elevated uric acid levels, so it will not likely be productive to engage in a discussion with him unless he is truly an open-minded truth seeker.

Merely get your uric acid level, and if it is over 5 then eliminate as much fructose as you can (also eliminate all beer), and retest your level in a few weeks.

Sugar Sensitization Makes the Problem Even WORSE!

There is yet another problem with sugar—a self-perpetuating one.

According to Dr. Johnson, sugar activates its own pathways in your body—those metabolic pathways become "upregulated." In other words, the more sugar you eat, the more effective your body is in absorbing it; and the more you absorb, the more damage you'll do.

You become "sensitized" to sugar as time goes by, and more sensitive to its toxic effects as well.

The flip side is, when people are given even a brief sugar holiday, sugar sensitization rapidly decreases and those metabolic pathways become "downregulated." Research tells us that even two weeks without consuming sugar will cause your body to be less reactive to it.

Try it for yourself! Take a two-week sugar sabbatical and see how different you feel.

Are Fruits Good or Bad for You?

Keep in mind that fruits also contain fructose, although an ameliorating factor is that whole fruits also contain vitamins and other antioxidants that reduce the hazardous effects of fructose.

Juices, on the other hand, are nearly as detrimental as soda, because a glass of juice is loaded with fructose, and a lot of the antioxidants are lost.

It is important to remember that fructose alone isn't evil, as fruits are certainly beneficial. But when you consume high levels of fructose, it will absolutely devastate your biochemistry and physiology. Remember the AVERAGE fructose dose is 70 grams per day, exceeding the recommend limit by 300 percent.

So please BE CAREFUL with your fruit consumption. You simply MUST understand that because HFCS is so darn cheap, it is added to virtually every processed food. Even if you consumed no soda or fruit, it is very easy to exceed 25 grams of hidden fructose in your diet.

If you are a raw food advocate, have a pristine diet, and exercise very well, then you could be the exception that could exceed this limit and stay healthy.

Dr. Johnson has a handy chart shown below, which you can use to estimate how much fructose you're getting in your diet. Remember, you are also likely getting additional fructose if you consume any packaged foods at all, since it is hidden in nearly all of them.

Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose Limes 1 medium 0 Lemons 1 medium 0.6 Cranberries 1 cup 0.7 Passion fruit 1 medium 0.9 Prune 1 medium 1.2 Apricot 1 medium 1.3 Guava 2 medium 2.2 Date (Deglet Noor style) 1 medium 2.6 Cantaloupe 1/8 of med. melon 2.8 Raspberries 1 cup 3.0 Clementine 1 medium 3.4 Kiwifruit 1 medium 3.4 Blackberries 1 cup 3.5 Star fruit 1 medium 3.6 Cherries, sweet 10 3.8 Strawberries 1 cup 3.8 Cherries, sour 1 cup 4.0 Pineapple 1 slice (3.5" x .75") 4.0 Grapefruit, pink or red 1/2 medium 4.3

Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose Boysenberries 1 cup 4.6 Tangerine/mandarin orange 1 medium 4.8 Nectarine 1 medium 5.4 Peach 1 medium 5.9 Orange (navel) 1 medium 6.1 Papaya 1/2 medium 6.3 Honeydew 1/8 of med. melon 6.7 Banana 1 medium 7.1 Blueberries 1 cup 7.4 Date (Medjool) 1 medium 7.7 Apple (composite) 1 medium 9.5 Persimmon 1 medium 10.6 Watermelon 1/16 med. melon 11.3 Pear 1 medium 11.8 Raisins 1/4 cup 12.3

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/20/sugar-dangers.aspx