A year ago next month, Dr. LC Cantley, whose CV reads like a veritable Who's Who in the field of cellular biology and cancer research, was part of a team that published a study in Cell (The PI3K Pathway in Human Disease) in which he said of the PI3K enzyme (phosphoinositide 3-kinase), "PI3K activity is stimulated by diverse oncogenes and growth factor receptors, and elevated PI3K signaling is considered a hallmark of cancer."  Translation; EPIGENETICALLY STIMULATING any of a wide range of genes that perform an array of tasks, along with stimulation of various growth factors (although there are many, insulin is arguably the body's most powerful growth factor) can elevate levels of an enzyme that's considered to be a chief biomarker in CANCER.

For those of you who are up on DR. OTTO WARBURG'S Nobel Prize winning work, the news that SUGAR FEEDS CANCER is old hat.  For the rest of you, hold on tight and enjoy today's short ride.  Two days ago Mike Wehner wrote an article called Ketogenic Diet Could Give New Cancer-Fighting Drugs a Big Boost, in which he stated....

"The drugs in question work by targeting the PI3K enzyme which has been linked to cancer mutations. The drugs showed promise early on but have fallen short of lofty expectations, and now scientists think that combining the drugs with a ketogenic diet might be the real answer.  'Any drug that targets PI3K may not be effective unless patients can maintain low blood sugar levels through diet or medication,' Lewis C. Cantley, Ph.D, lead author of the study, said in a statement. 'We demonstrated that if we keep insulin down with the ketogenic diet, it dramatically improves the effectiveness of these cancer drugs.'"

What does this really mean?  Firstly, it means that in all reality, the PI3K inhibitors that a decade ago were touted as the latest in a long line of failed "miracle drugs," are little more than STONE SOUP.  If they don't work in the absence of a KETOGENIC DIET, let's be honest with each other --- they don't work.  It's the diet that's doing the heavy lifting here.  When you stop LIVING THE HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE, you dramatically reduce insulin production, one of the most anabolic hormones (makes you bigger) on the planet, thus reducing your body's ability to grow tumors or cancer (or for that matter, ADIPOSE TISSUE). 

The thing, however, that should leave you questioning everything you are being fed regarding EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, is that even though everything in this post is common knowledge, not only among the scientific medical community, but among a significant percentage of the lay population as well, the heaviest of the heavy hitters in cancer treatment (Mayo, MD Anderson, Johns Hopkins, etc) still maintain via church-like 'statements of faith' on their collective websites that sugar does not feed cancer --- so eat up (HERE)!

It's one of the myriad of reasons that I have been recommending various forms of LOW CARB DIETS (particularly PALEO and KETOGENIC) for nearly two and a half decades.  And cancer is just the tip of the iceberg as far as what eating clean and watching junk carbs and SUGAR can do for you.  It also happens to be why this way of eating anchors my popular SOLVE YOUR OWN HEALTH PROBLEMS post.  Since most of you reading this know someone who could benefit from this information, why not pass it along to them.  The best way to reach those you love and care about most?  Try liking, sharing, or following on FACEBOOK.

​"Big Tobacco sowed doubt that cigarettes were harmful, confused the public, persistently denied their effects, bought the loyalty of scientists and gave ammunition to political allies.  As late as 1994, chief executives of every major tobacco firm swore under oath before US Congress that they did not believe that nicotine was addictive or that smoking caused lung cancer.  the science demonstrating sugar’s role in diet-related disease is incontrovertible, but science alone cannot curb the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics. Opposition from vested interests that profit from diminishing society’s health must be overcome."   From this month's issue of the Journal of Insulin Resistance (The Science Against Sugar Alone is Insufficient in Tackling the Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Crises – We Must Also Overcome Opposition from Vested Interests)
​

The quote above comes from renowned medical doctor, researcher, and professor, DR. ROBERT LUSTIG --- a vocal opponent of the sugar industry and the lies they've been propagating for over half a century.  While Lustig is an amazing person whom I've been following for years (his work on HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP is second to none), he is not the most interesting man in the world.  That title belongs to.......

For some reason beer companies tend to have great ("BRILLIANT") commercials, with none funnier (and more irrelevant to the product they are selling) than Dos Equis' most-interesting-man-in-the-world campaign (HERE).  It seems, however, that there just may be a real life most-interesting-man-in-the-world.  According to his Curriculum Vitae, during the 80's, 90's, and 2000's, this MIMW was running a company that built houses in NY, playing professional polo in the US, France, Australia and Argentina, running a lifestyle consulting company, running a company that developed performance-enhancing devices for horses, and finally, working as an editorial and research assistant at Wiley & Sons Publishers (they publish scientific journals and books).  After going back to school a decade and a half ago and earning his Ph.D in Exercise Science from the University of South Carolina, he now works as a researcher in UAB's Nutrition Obesity Research Center.  On top of all this his CV lists his interests as competitive martial artist, natural bodybuilding, yoga, private pilot, classical figurative sculptor and painter.  His name is Edward Archer and he is the most interesting man in the world.

Truth is, I'm rather amazed at what Dr. Archer has accomplished at a time in life when most people are starting to think about winding things down, packing it in, playing out the string, retiring, and living the rest of their lives on a golf course or in a bass boat.   Best guess is that I would thoroughly enjoy hanging out with Archer for a couple hours and picking his brain on some things.  Today however, I want to discuss a study he authored that was published in this month's issue of Progress in Cardiovascular Disease called In Defense of Sugar: A Critique of Diet-Centrism.  The study's abstract states....

Sugars are foundational to biological life and played essential roles in human evolution and dietary patterns for most of recorded history. The simple sugar glucose is so central to human health that it is one of the World Health Organization's Essential Medicines. Given these facts, it defies both logic and a large body of scientific evidence to claim that sugars and other nutrients that played fundamental roles in the substantial improvements in life- and health-spans over the past century are now suddenly responsible for increments in the prevalence of obesity and chronic non-communicable diseases.

Interestingly enough, while people certainly need fats and proteins to survive, your body can make glucose (BLOOD SUGAR) out of either.  In other words, you can not only live by thrive without eating sugar (or for that matter, carbs in general) ---- it's called a KETOGENIC DIET and has been used to treat people with neurological problems for the better part of the past century.  And referring to sugar "medicine" is going way outside the scope of this study --- a study on "dietary" sugar.  Touting a lack of physical activity as the primary cause of the OBESITY EPIDEMIC, Archer goes on to say...

Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide a rigorous, evidence-based challenge to 'diet-centrism' and the disease-mongering of dietary sugar. The term 'diet-centrism' describes the naïve tendency of both researchers and the public to attribute a wide-range of negative health outcomes exclusively to dietary factors while neglecting the essential and well-established role of individual differences in nutrient-metabolism.  My position is that dietary sugars are not responsible for obesity or metabolic diseases and that the consumption of simple sugars and sugar-polymers (e.g., starches) up to 75% of total daily caloric intake is innocuous in healthy individuals.

I was sent a copy of this study by a friend who is not only a research guru, but one of the nation's premiere FUNCTIONAL MEDICINE specialists (he's a renowned professor at one of the larges universities in the nation, as well as an MD with a world-wide practice specializing in treating people with problems that no one else can figure out).  Considering that just a few days ago we discussed what separates good research from bad research (HERE); and considering I've shown you over and over again what excess sugar does to your system, Dr. Archer's position is untenable.  Why would I say that?

Nobel Prize winner, Otto Warburg, was talking about the SUGAR / CANCER link nearly a century ago, and Alzheimer's is now being referred to within a growing segment of the scientific community as TYPE III DIABETES.  And on top of that we're only just beginning to scratch the surface of the fact that sugar continues to be shown to arguably be THE MOST ADDICTIVE DRUG on the planet.  So, when someone comes along saying that as long as we're 'healthy,' 3/4 of our diet could be made up of sugar without adversely affecting us, I have to take exception.

Today, however, I'm not really interested in the time and effort it would take to debate Archer's study point by point by point --- you can find that info all over my site.  What I am interested in is showing you why at the very least you need to be wary of his message by showing you who he hangs out with (remember when your parents told you that you'll be known by your friends?).  At the very least this makes his research suspect (especially true when you consider "Big Sugar's" 50 year track record of fraudulent research, which, thanks to sunshine laws, is only recently coming to light --- HERE, HERE or HERE).  According to Archer's CV, he has spoken at conferences sponsored by.......


THE WORLD SUGAR RESEARCH ORGANIZATION 
The WSRO says on their website that, "Through our Science Program we provide evidence-based information on the nutrition and health science around sugar, to our members, stakeholders and the wider community....   WSRO acts as a knowledge hub for the science of sugar.  We do this by monitoring the global scientific evidence, identifying where scientific consensus is and where the gaps in scientific knowledge are. The WSRO provides a balanced and evidence based view of the current scientific landscape."  In other words, the WRSO holds themselves up as the epitome of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE ---- a term that far too often is more like 1984's Ministry of Truth than the supposed pinnacle of fact and principle it is usually portrayed as. 

If you want to see a few of the organizations who actively support and fund the WSRO, HERE is a partial list.  That bastion of truth and knowledge (Wikipedia) says of the WSRO (who until March of 1978 was known as the International Sugar Research Foundation or ISRF), "In 1996 and 1997 it ran a campaign to manipulate science and to fix the results of WHO/FAO expert reports. This was done in conjunction with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). With members from literally hundreds of food industry transnational corporations, this is a key food industry lobby group. It was set up by and is funded by Coca Cola amongst others and pursues their interests on a global stage."  Although you could read for hours about the ways the deep-pocketed WSRO has tried to steer the science on dietary sugar (frequently very effectively); let's at least mention another of the organizations Archer is affiliated with --- one that was mentioned in the quote above; the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).....


THE INTERNATIONAL LIFE SCIENCES INSTITUTE
Because I covered the ILSI in my "SUPER POST" on diet soda (four plus decades of research have shown that people gain more weight --- in many cases double the weight --- with diet soda than regular soda), I am not going to spend much time on it today, other than to say that the only people saying good things about them are themselves or groups funded by them / through them.


THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS, FOOD & NUTRITION CONFERENCE & EXPO
With a name like this, surely "The Academy" is a conflict-free organization that is truly interested in and dedicated to promoting healthy living through healthy eating?  Writing for Time back in 2016 (Soda and Snack Food Companies Welcomed at Nutrition Conference), Alexandra Sifferlin called the Academy, "the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, with more than 100,000 nutrition practitioners," going on to say that "not everyone appreciates the attendee list. Every year, companies that sell junk food attend the event, and as of Friday, the Expo’s floor plan shows companies like PepsiCo and Nestle (which makes candy like KitKat and Butterfinger) have booths near the main entrance. Other trade organizations like the American Beverage Association, the National Confectioners Association and the Sugar Association will also be on the expo floor."  So; the biggest professional organization for dietitians --- the people who create GUIDELINES and DIET PLANS for our schools, hospitals, nursing homes, etc, etc, etc --- is playing a huge part in "FOOD POLITICS".

Listen to what Sheila Kaplan wrote for the medical daily, STAT, about the same expo (Nutritionists Built Close Ties with the Food Industry. Now They’re Seeking Some Distance).   After talking about industry providing coloring books for little kids to teach them that sugar is "all natural" and can be sprinkled on fruits and vegetables, she revealed the dirty little secret --- that the food research industry is essentially in the back pocket of "Big Food" (CHERRY-PICKED).....

"The event is also made possible by vast sums of money from companies and trade groups, in some cases reinforcing the perception that 'Big Food' brands are corrupting the guidance provided to millions of Americans every year.  Among the academy’s missteps: the paid endorsement of Kraft singles; the acceptance of soda company money to underwrite meetings; and a high-profile role as safe haven for corporate-sponsored food research.  Balancing the need to polish the group’s image with an equally strong need for money is not easy.  'There’s been so much criticism of the relationship between industry and the societies,' said Katherine Tucker, a nutrition professor at University of Massachusetts, Lowell, who also taught for many years at Tufts University. 'I think everybody is really taking a careful look at it and trying to reduce the appearance of conflict of interest.' Tucker is editor in chief of the journal Advances in Nutrition, which is published by the academy’s academic counterpart, the American Society for Nutrition. She said the reality is that nutrition research relies on the food industry’s payments — more so than scientists in other fields rely on private companies.  'The people who are interested in funding us are the food companies,' said Tucker, who has accepted money from Kraft and other agribusinesses. 'We have to be careful not to let them lead where the research is going. Industry funding is helpful, but it’s also important for our society to be seen as independent scientists.'"

Here's where these doctors are missing the mark.  Conflict of interest (COI) does not necessarily mean that there is something dirty, underhanded, and / or unethical going on, but the mere appearance that it could be.  But they want to have their cake and eat it to (pun intended).  Research has shown that studies funded by the food industry ("food" is used loosely here) are anywhere from 500% to almost 800% more likely to provide findings beneficial to themselves.  In other words, the criticism that these folks and their journals have gotten is totally and 100% warranted.  And it's not like any of this criticism is new.  Three years prior to this, Michelle Simon wrote a 51 page paper called And Now a Word From Our Sponsors: Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?  Again, there are literally hundreds of articles on this topic that can easily be accessed by searching the internet.


THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION (INDUSTRY NUTRITION ADVISORY PANEL)
I get it; some of you feel I've crossed the line and am entering territory that could only be described as scientifically sacrilegious.  After all, the AHA is one of those trusted organizations that's so far above reproach that many would consider its leaders to be more pure than Dove soap (99.44%).  Right?  Wrong.  I've not only written about their financial conflicts within the context of STATIN DRUGS (GUIDELINES and more GUIDELINES), a quick search of the world wide web reveals just how deeply these conflicts run.  

Unite Here, with over a quarter million members, published a paper three years ago this summer asking Is the American Heart Association for Sale?  Then there was Dr. Barbara Roberts' 2014 piece for the Daily Beast called The Heart Association's Junk Science Diet, discussing the AHA's ongoing "WAR" against RED MEAT and SATURATED FAT --- despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. 

"A recent Cambridge University analysis of 76 studies involving more than 650,000 people concluded, 'The current evidence does not clearly support guidelines that recommend… low consumption of total saturated fats.'  Yet the American Heart Association (AHA), in its most recent dietary guidelines, held fast to the idea that we must all eat low-fat diets for optimal heart health. It’s a stance that—at the very best—is controversial, and at worst is dead wrong. As a practicing cardiologist for more than three decades, I agree with the latter—it’s dead wrong.  Why does the AHA cling to recommendations that fly in the face of scientific evidence?  What I discovered was both eye-opening and disturbing. The AHA not only ignored all the other risk factors for heart disease, but it appointed someone with ties to Big Food and bizarre scientific beliefs to lead the guideline-writing panel—just the type of thing that undermines the public’s confidence in the medical community."

There was also the appropriately-named article for Medium (Listening to The American Heart Association About As Unhealthy as Listening to Tobacco Ads in the 50's), discussing the AHA's recent proclamation that coconut oil is as unhealthy as beef fat ---- something I wrote about HERE (BTW, being asked whether coconut oil is as unhealthy as beef fat is similar to being asked whether you still beat your wife).  Again, it's easy to find articles touting the numerous financial conflicts within the AHA's leadership, not to mention their researchers (HERE).


INTERNATIONAL FORUM PONTE AL 100 ENERGY BALANCE
This was a conference held in Cancun (Archer was the keynote speaker) that was largely about promoting sedentary lifestyle as the chief reason for the industrialized world's burgeoning waistlines and health woes.   How do I know this? Two reasons; firstly it was chiefly funded by COCA COLA --- nuff said.  Secondly; almost anytime you see the term "ENERGY BALANCE," in this context, it's secret code used by the groups promoting this point of view (I have seen it promoted in the past by both the ILSI and WRSO) indicating that lack of exercise is a far bigger health risk than what you eat.


What's the point of this post?  You need to realize that there is an entire industry (research and acedemia) built around "proving" the benefits of sugar, just like there has always been the same for Big Tobacco and BIG PHARMA.  In fact, when you start following the money, there's no end to the "interesting" tid bits you might dig up (HERE is a recent example with Flu Shots).  It's why you had better be careful who you listen to (self included) and do your own research.  Part of the beauty of my site is that I have tried to wade through the junk science and sales pitches in order to bring you simple and inexpensive ideas you can use to dramatically affect your health; even if you are struggling with chronic pain or chronic conditions (HERE is an example).  How can you trust my site? 

Truthfully, you can't other than to realize that I have nothing up my sleeves and am not trying to sell you anything.  The one thing you can do for me is to make sure to get our site in front of those who need it most (your friends and loved ones).  The best and easiest way to accomplish this?  By liking, sharing, or following on FACEBOOK, of course!

"Dietary Guidelines for Americans advise for 10% or less of calories from added sugar, and the American Heart Association advocates less than 150 calories from added sugar per day for men and less than 100 calories for women and children. Over-consumption may have important health implications given associations with greater risks for obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.  Evidence is also emerging that sugar consumption may negatively impact children’s cognitive development. Added sugars, especially high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), may adversely influence hippocampal [brain] function during critical periods of development."


One of my ETHIOPIAN DAUGHTERS turned in an excellent research paper this week on the many ways that added sugars adversely affect people's physical and mental health.  Among other things, she discussed several ways that people are being fooled by industry. What are the consequences of ignoring this sort of information?  Just days ago, the American Journal of Preventative Medicine published a study titled Associations of Prenatal and Child Sugar Intake With Child Cognition from which the quote at the top of the page came from.  While none of this is really new or shocking, my opinion is that the SUGAR ADDICTED PUBLIC needs to be constantly reminded of sugar's numerous ill effects.  

In this study, researchers took 1,234 randomized mother-child pairs that were born between 1999 and 2002, and along the way assessed their diets (both mother and child) as well as the child's cognitive abilities, comparing the amount of sugar consumed by both mother and child to the child's level of intelligence / cognition.  What did this team of Harvard researchers conclude?

• The more table sugar (sucrose) that mom consumed while pregnant, the worse her child scored.
  
• The more sugar-sweetened beverages or diet soda mom consumed while pregnant (HFCS), the worse her child's scores.
  
• The more sugar-sweetened beverages little Susie consumed as a toddler, the worse her cognitive scores became by the time she was 3 and 7.

While some of you may be new to my site, most of you are not shocked by these findings  In fact, I have written several articles on what sugar does to brains as they get older (HERE and HERE).  We already know how bad SUGAR is for one's health.  We also know that BLOOD SUGAR is at the root of the vast majority of modern disease processes via inflammation (SUGAR CAUSES INFLAMMATION).  And on top of everything else, numerous studies have shown us that sugar is at least as addictive as hard drugs, with many showing it to be more addictive (HERE). 

Oh; and don't forget that not only does zero calorie DIET SODA mess with metabolism in ways that are only just beginning to be understood (it frequently increases blood sugar via SCREWING UP ONE'S MICROBIOME), researchers have shown for at least a decade that people who drink diet sodas gain nearly double the weight as if they were drinking regular soda (HERE).  What does all this mean?

It reveals two things that most of us already knew; processed foods and added sugars are bad, and Americans are consuming way too much of them.  Fortunately, I have something that will help people break their sugar / carb addiction and start taking their lives back --- even if they are severely addicted, SEVERELY OBESE, or STRUGGLING WITH T2D.  Take a look at what you can do to not only help yourself, but your family as well (HERE).  And don't forget to like, share, or follow on FACEBOOK if you feel the free info on our site is valuable.

"Cancer cells rewire their metabolism to promote growth, survival, proliferation, and long-term maintenance. The common feature of this altered metabolism is increased glucose uptake and fermentation of glucose to lactate. This phenomenon is observed even in the presence of completely functioning mitochondria and together is known as the Warburg Effect. The Warburg Effect has been documented for over 90 years with thousands of papers reporting to have established either its causes or its functions."  From the March 2016 of Trends in Biochemical Sciences (The Warburg Effect: How Does it Benefit Cancer Cells?)

"The Warburg effect states that the main source of energy for cancer cells is not aerobic respiration [oxygen], but glycolysis-even in normoxia [normal levels of oxygen]. Anaerobic metabolism of cancer cells [without oxygen] promotes cell proliferation, local tissue immunosuppression, resistance to hypoxic conditions, and metastatic processes."  From last March's issue of Nutrition and Cancer (Glucose Metabolism in Cancer and Ischemia: Possible Therapeutic Consequences of the Warburg Effect)

A few weeks ago Dr. Chandler Marrs wrote an awesome GUEST POST on mitochondrial function.  Part of what she discussed was the fact that scientists are chasing their proverbial tails on the 'genetic' side of the research equation, spending inordinate amounts of time, effort, and resources searching out and mapping the almost limitless number of "RANDOM" GENETIC MUTATIONS, instead of focusing on what's causing said mutations.  Her point was well taken; particularly considering these mutations are not nearly as random as the scientific community has led the public to believe (see link).  This, friends, is the field of EPIGENETICS (the way that bad environments / habits can turn on "mutant" genes so that they start expressing bad traits) and is critical to understand if you want to stay healthy, let alone stay free of CANCER.

Why do I mention Mitochondria?  Listen to what a popular online encyclopedia says about the relationship of Mitochondria to O2.  "A dominant role for the mitochondria is the production of ATP, by oxidizing the major products of glucose.  This type of cellular respiration known as aerobic respiration, is dependent on the presence of oxygen. When oxygen is limited, the glycolytic products will be metabolized by anaerobic fermentation, a process that is independent of the mitochondria."  Cancer lives and eats in a completely different fashion than normal tissues.  Instead of using oxygen to create energy via the mitochondria (aerobic metabolism), cancer hijacks the cell's metabolic machinery, forcing it to make energy in an extremely inefficient manner --- without oxygen (anaerobic metabolism).   This is called the 'Warburg Effect,' named after Nobel Prize winner (1931), DR. OTTO WARBURG, who back in the early 1920's, figured out that cancer feeds itself by fermenting sugar (anaerobically), even in the presence of adequate amounts of oxygen and properly functioning mitochondria.

In the same way that all diseases share common bonds (HERE), all cancers share a common bond as well --- the ability to commandeer metabolism and ferment sugar.  French and American authors, writing in one of last year's issues of Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry (The Warburg Effect and the Hallmarks of Cancer) stated "It is a longstanding debate whether cancer is one disease or a set of very diverse diseases. The goal of this paper is to suggest strongly that most of (if not all) the hallmarks of cancer could be the consequence of the Warburg's effect."  In other words, the debate around cancer cannot diverge from the fact that the primary trait that makes cancer, cancer, is the 'Warburg Effect.'

Today we are going to revisit the Warburg Effect ("SUGAR FEEDS CANCER") for many different reasons.  One of those has to do with the lies being propagated by the medical profession. Although "lies" sounds rather harsh, the average cancer doctor (let alone GP) never mentions the Warburg Effect to their patients, either by name or description.  In fact, the link shows that the biggest of the big of the heavy-hitters in cancer treatment (Johns Hopkins, MD Anderson, Mayo, etc) all have official statements on their clinic's websites denouncing the relationship between sugar and cancer.  It's essentially like waving a scared, trusting, and often gullible public right on through a red light and into heavy traffic --- OR THE DONUT SHOP.  Follow along as I make my case, showing you a few of the specific types of cancer that have been associated with increased sugar.

• DIABETES AND CANCER:  As we could write a book on this topic, I am only going to give you one study --- an Italian study that was published just days ago in the journal Metabolism (Adverse Glycemic Effects of Cancer Therapy: Indications for a Rational Approach to Cancer Patients with Diabetes).  "Diabetes and cancer are common, chronic, and potentially fatal diseases that frequently co-exist. Observational studies have reported an increased risk of cancer in patients with diabetes. Furthermore... coexisting diabetes confers a greater risk of mortality for many malignancies."  In July of last year the CDC revealed a shocking statistic via an article title on their website (New CDC Report: More than 100 Million Americans Have Diabetes or Prediabetes).  That's about 1/3 of our total population, and for the record, prediabetes, also known as CARDIOMETABOLIC SYNDROME, is almost the equivalent of having diabetes.  According to Diabetes dot org, the disease kills over 250,000 people a year and currently sits just outside the "Top 5" causes of death, looking to move up.  And as reported by the American Cancer Society, Cancer is now number one in mortality (recently surpassing heart disease), responsible for over 600,000 annual deaths in the U.S.

 

• SUGAR IGNITES CANCER STEM CELLS:  November's issue of the British Journal of Cancer (Glucose Insult Elicits Hyperactivation of Cancer Stem Cells....) showed that sugar does exactly what the study's title says it does --- it hyper-activates cells that are already primed to become cancerous.  "Meta-analysis shows that women with diabetes have a 20% increased risk of breast cancer and also an increased risk for distant metastasis and mortality.  Hyperglycemia leads to hyperactivation of cancer stem cell pool and enhances invasive ability of breast cancer cells."  The great bastion of truth and knowledge (gulp, Wikipedia) says of CSC's, "Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are cancer cells that possess characteristics associated with normal stem cells, specifically the ability to give rise to all cell types found in a particular cancer sample. CSCs are therefore tumor-forming."  These are the creatures that chemo often fails to completely kill off.  "The population of CSCs, which gave rise to the tumor, could remain untouched and cause relapse."

 

• COLON CANCER AND SUGAR:  This is probably the type of cancer that has the greatest number of studies attesting to this unholy relationship.  Less than two months ago, BMC Cancer (High Blood Glucose Levels are Associated with Higher Risk of Colon Cancer in Men: A Cohort Study) stated what we already know.  "High levels of blood glucose are thought to be associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) and hyperinsulinemia, an interstage in the development of CRC."  Did their study show this to be true as many others have?  After looking at the records of 6,000 patients, 145 of whom developed CRC, the authors (from Sweeden's Lund University) concluded that "High levels of blood glucose in men are associated with risk of colon cancer."  According to the American Cancer Society, over 50,000 Americans are expected to die of colon cancer in 2018.

 

• BREAST CANCER AND SUGAR:  In October of last year, Cancer Prevention Research (Early Exposure to a High Fat/High Sugar Diet Increases the Mammary Stem Cell Compartment and Mammary Tumor Risk in Female Mice) showed that there are certain times in developing mouse pups that increased sugar intake dramatically increased their chances of developing BREAST CANCER.  My opinion is that this study needs to be repeated with sugar alone, as the crappy dietary fats used in many scientific studies are confounders.  Just days ago, Matrix Biology published a study called UDP-Sugar Accumulation Drives Hyaluronan Synthesis in Breast Cancer.  Listen to how this phenomenon affects an important component of connective tissues, including FASCIA, HYALURONIC ACID (Hyaluronan). "Increased uptake of glucose, a general hallmark of malignant tumors, leads to an accumulation of intermediate metabolites of glycolysis.  The results reveal for the first time a dramatic increase of UDP-sugars in breast cancer, and suggest that their high supply drives the accumulation of hyaluronan, a known promoter of breast cancer and other malignancies. In general, the study shows how the disturbed glucose metabolism typical for malignant tumors can influence cancer microenvironment through UDP-sugars and hyaluronan."  For more on this relationship, check out my post called FASCIA & CANCER.  It also helps explain why sugar is one of the major risk factors in the thickening of fascia known as "DENSIFICATION".  For the record, Breast Cancer dot org says that there will be 266,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer this year, with 41,000 individuals expected to die of the disease.

 

• LIVER CANCER AND SUGAR:  Primary Liver Cancer (PLC) --- cancer that starts in the liver, as opposed to cancer that ends up there due to metastasis from somewhere else --- carries a poor prognosis.  Last October's issue of the British Journal of Cancer (The Association Between Fasting Blood Glucose and the Risk of Primary Liver Cancer in Chinese Males...) carried a study by 17 Chinese researchers that followed almost 110,000 Chinese men for over a decade, determining that, "Compared to the males with normal fasting blood glucose, the males with impaired fasting glucose and diabetes had a 60% and a 58% higher risk of incident PLC, respectively.  Increased fasting blood glucose may be an important and potentially modifiable exposure that could have key scientific and clinical importance for preventing PLC development."  According to Cancer dot org, about 42,000 Americans are diagnosed with PLC each year, with about 75% of those dying.  Just last month the journal Cancer published a study on survival rates that concluded "Some progress has occurred in survival for patients with liver cancer, but 5-year survival remains low, even for those diagnosed at the localized stage."  BTW, the number one cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is obesity, both of which are heavily linked to liver cancer (primary and metastatic).

 

• SUGAR AND BLADDER CANCER:  This past November, the British Journal of Nutrition published an Italian / Canadian collaboration (Associations of Dietary Carbohydrates, Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load with Risk of Bladder Cancer) by a team of a dozen researchers showing that high glycemic index carbs (carbs that convert rapidly to blood sugar) are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer --- a disease that kills over 17,000 annually here in America, most of them men.  "This case-control study showed that bladder cancer risk was directly associated with high dietary glycemic load and with consumption of high quantity of refined carbohydrate foods, particularly bread. These associations were apparently stronger in subjects with low vegetable consumption."  BTW, pasta was listed just under bread.

 

• SUGAR AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL CANCERS:  A study from November's issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology (Dietary Sugar/Starches Intake and Barrett's Esophagus: A Pooled Analysis) showed that developing the pre-cancerous condition known as Barrett's Esophagus (BE) could be slowed down by controlling blood sugar.  "Adjusting for age, sex, race, total energy intake, study indicator, body mass index, frequency of gastro-esophageal reflux, and fruit/vegetable intake, both studies showed intake of sucrose [table sugar] and added sugar were higher in cases than controls. BE risk was increased 79% and 71%, respectively.  Intake of sweetened desserts/beverages was associated with 71% increase in BE risk. Limiting dietary intake of foods and beverages that are high in added sugar, especially refined table sugar, may reduce the risk of developing BE."  December's issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology (A Pooled Analysis of Dietary Sugar/Carbohydrate Intake and Esophageal and Gastric Cardia Adenocarcinoma Incidence and Survival in the USA) concluded that sugar is the reason that, "During the past 40 years, esophageal/gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (EA/GCA) incidence increased in Westernized countries, but survival remained low.  Limiting intake of sucrose, sweetened desserts / beverages, and foods that contribute to a high glycemic index, may be plausible EA risk reduction strategies."  Cancer dot net estimates that almost 16,000 Americans will die of Esophageal Cancer in 2018.

 

• SUGAR, STOMACH CANCER, AND THE WARBURG EFFECT:  The February 2016 issue of the World Journal of Gastroenterology (Glucose Metabolism in Gastric Cancer: The Cutting-Edge) revealed that, "Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and ranks second in cancer-related deaths.  Glucose metabolism in gastric cancer cells differs from that of normal epithelial cells. Upregulated gycolosis (Warburg Effect) in gastric cancer meeting the demands of cell proliferation is associated with genetic mutations, epigenetic modification and proteomic alteration."  We know what GENETIC MUTATIONS are, and we've already discussed epigenetics --- but what are "proteomic alterations"?  This term indicates that cancer is deranging the stomach's protein structure, which often means that it will be trying to hijack the stomach's PROTON PUMP MECHANISM as well (in similar fashion to heartburn drugs), CREATING A LOW-ACID ENVIRONMENT in the stomach where H. Pylori (a bacteria associated with both gastritis and gastric cancers) can grow and thrive.  "Compared with normal cells that mainly generate energy via mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, cancer cells predominantly obtain energy via increased glycolysis even under aerobic conditions. Converting glucose into lactate via glycolysis is inefficient in generating ATP, but it produces a large number of intermediate products driving cell proliferation.  The accumulation of lactic acid causes acidic microenvironment, and has a protective effect on tumor cells.  The prognosis of advanced gastric cancer is still poor."  In the last link I show you the normal / healthy relationship (inverse relationship) between stomach pH and the pH of the body in general.

 

• OTHERS:  If you notice, these studies are all rather new (most no older than 3-4 months).  Had I spent the time or gone far enough back, I could have come up with any number of others.   Bottom line: find me a disease --- any disease, including cancer --- and in some form or fashion it can usually be linked back to BLOOD SUGAR.
  

The last study specifically mentioned above (WJG) contains one tidbit of information that everyone and his brother (and maybe even your pets -- no pun intended) should be familiar with.  Pay attention, because if you ever have a doctor trying to brush aside the assertion that sugar has nothing to do with cancer, bringing up this paragraph will cause copious amounts of stuttering, stammering, blushing, frowning, growling, and hopefully, backpedaling.

"Altered glucose metabolism is a hallmark of gastric cancer.  About 80 years after Warburg presented his hypothesis on aberrant glucose metabolism in cancer cells, his viewpoint has been confirmed using positron emission tomography (PET) with the glucose analog tracer in clinical oncology.  Based on the increased glucose uptake in cancer cells, PET/CT scan can reflect cancer cell glucose metabolism using 18F-FDG as a tracer and has been widely used in the diagnosis and monitoring of human cancers. 18F-FDG is the most commonly used radio-labeled glucose analog in clinical practice."

When I plugged the term "18F-FDG" into PubMed, I saw that there were over 28,000 studies on this specific subject.  Read that again and let it sink in.  It's why no one knows better than cancer doctors that sugar feeds cancer.  PET Scans (a type of CT SCAN which are actually themselves a significant cause of cancer) use glucose laced with a radioactive dye ("tracer") to make it 'glow' on the CT Scan.  Because tumors or areas of metastasis metabolically require mass quantities of sugar (anaerobic metabolism is 1,300% less efficient than aerobic metabolism), they appear as "hot spots" on the scan (HERE) as the cancer sucks up glucose the way that Joey Chestnut sucks up hotdogs (HERE).   Thus, when a cancer doctor or website of a cancer treatment facility says that dietary sugar doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, it can't be chalked up to 'Aw shucks, I wasn't aware of that'.  It can only be classified as lying.

How is your metabolism being hijacked by sugar?  In May of 2016, Oncotarget (Role of Multifaceted Regulators in Cancer Glucose Metabolism and their Clinical Significance) provided a number of the different metabolites / pathways that are affected by as well as affecting the process.  "Aberrant glucose metabolism or 'Warburg effect' is a hallmark of human cancers. There is a cluster of 'multifaceted regulators, which plays a pivotal role in the regulation of glucose metabolism."  Although I found numerous studies listing more of these regulators and intermediates than you can shake a stick at, I'll only bother to talk about one; AGES.  AGES (Advance Glycation Endproducts) are a significant factor in tumorgenesis as confirmed by a study from November's issue of Seminars in Cancer Biology (Do All Roads Lead to Rome? The Glycation Perspective).  Just remember that glycation is the process that causes the tissue damage done by sugar. After kicking things off by saying "...glycative stress has gained substantial attention recently for... alleged influence on cancer progression," the authors talk about many of the complex pathways that get taken hostage by the process.  The bottom line is that it can all be tied back to INFLAMMATION due to over-consumption of sugar and processed carbohydrates.

Few things tick me off more than big fraud in big industry.  And as I have shown you in OVER FIFTY POSTS, the problem is rampant and getting worse instead of better.  You can cut off one of Hydra's heads, but with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake annually, two rapidly grow back to take it's place.  In other words, in far too many industries the potential rewards are worth the risks.  I twice wrote about this phenomenon concerning the sugar industry (they paid scientists from Ivy League and other big time universities to fake research, which  was then published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals --- HERE and HERE).  Below are a few sentences concerning "Project 259" from the November issue of PLoS Biology (Sugar Industry Sponsorship of Germ-Free Rodent Studies Linking Sucrose to Hyperlipidemia and Cancer: An Historical Analysis of Internal Documents).

"In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) secretly funded a review in the New England Journal of Medicine that discounted evidence linking sucrose consumption to blood lipid levels [CHOLESTEROL & TRIGLYCERIDES] and hence coronary heart disease (CHD).  A study comparing conventional rats fed a high-sugar diet to those fed a high-starch diet suggested that sucrose consumption might be associated with... bladder cancer in humans. SRF terminated Project 259 without publishing the results."

They got away with it folks.  Unfortunately, not publishing study results you don't like is so common in industry that it has its own moniker --- INVISIBLE & ABANDONED.  It also happens to be why I am the current world record holder for consecutively made free throws (HERE).  But seriously, aren't you curious about what else you might not be aware of concerning the sugar / cancer relationship?  Don't you wonder why the medical profession is not talking about Dr. Warburg?   Why not take ten minutes to read The Warburg Effect: 80 Years On from the journal Biochemical Society Transactions?  Or maybe you would like The Warburg Effect as an Adaptation of Cancer Cells to Rapid Fluctuations in Energy Demand from September's issue of PLoS One?  As the quote from the top of the page said, "The Warburg Effect has been documented for over 90 years with thousands of papers reporting to have established either its causes or its functions."  In other words folks, the jig is up.  There are no more excuses for doctors not sharing this information with their patients!

How detrimental are the effects of sugar on cancer treatment?  A study from the Polish journal, Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig (Glycemic Load and Carbohydrates Content in the Diets of Cancer Patients) revealed that after following the diets of "100 cancer patients aged 19-83 years, high glycemic load was observed in 76% of analyzed diets. The diets of men had higher glycemic load, energy and sucrose content than the diets of women. Men, in comparison to women, consumed more refined grain products, beverages, honey and sugar, and sweets  Analyzed diets were characterized by high glycemic load and simple sugars content. Men consumed more refined and sweetened products than women. The improvement of knowledge about proper nutrition is needed in... cancer patients."  Now ask yourself this.  Do you really believe that diets are better in the US than in Europe?   Not one chance in a million!

How can anyone, whether mainstream or ALTERNATIVE, successfully treat cancer, while consuming this much sugar?  That's just it; they can't.  This can be seen in several studies showing that drugs don't work well when one is consuming this mass quantities of sugar.  A study from the British Journal of Pharmacology (The Warburg Effect and Drug Resistance) showed shows why.  It also showed that the mainstream medical community knew of this almost a century ago!

"In 1924, Otto Warburg reported the observation that cancer cells used glycolysis more than mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation for their energy requirements.  More recently, data have emerged indicating that the Warburg effect could also influence drug efficacy.  Attrition rates for anticancer drugs are high compared with other therapeutic areas.  The fact that the effectiveness of drugs is tested in models that poorly simulate the tumour microenvironment should be considered as it is also likely to have a role in the attrition."

This is especially true of chemotherapy.  A study from the October issue of Anticancer Research (Effect of Hyperglycemia on Antitumor Activity and Survival in Tumor-bearing Mice Receiving Oxaliplatin and Fluorouracil) showed that, "Cancer chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and fluorouracil was less effective and survival was shorter in hyperglycemia."  Likewise, research from the November issue of the same journal (A Simple Method to Optimize the Effectiveness of Chemotherapy: Modulation of Glucose Intake During Chemotherapy) revealed that "the modulation of glucose intake during chemotherapy" could make said therapy far more effective. "The proposed scheme is simple, surely easier to follow than a strict chronic diet, and should avoid weight loss."

I guess the bottom line is that when it comes to cancer; whether talking prevention or treatment, you need to modify your immediate risk factors.  Everyone knows that things like SMOKING, OBESITY, CHEMICAL EXPOSURE, etc, are risk factors for cancer, but what about modifying intake of sugar and high glycemic (processed) carbohydrates?  The September issue of the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (Prevalence of Modifiable Cancer Risk Factors Among U.S. Adults Aged 18-44 Years) stated that "Carcinogen exposure and unhealthy habits acquired in young adulthood can set the stage for the development of cancer at older ages."  Among the 'preventative factors' listed included not consuming "sugar-sweetened beverages daily."  A starting point I guess, but rather wimpy in light of today's post.  Let me to show you something that's not wimpy.

Although I would never in a million years claim that I have the cure for cancer, I have a good generic protocol that's helpful for restoring health and preventing the loss of HOMEOSTASIS that can lead to so many chronic conditions (HERE).  I would also suggest that you start exploring the KETOGENIC DIET as well since it forces the body to burn fat instead of sugar (and be sure to watch the incredible anti-cancer video at the end of THIS POST).  As always, the research quoted in this post is cherry-picked, and nothing I write is meant to diagnose, treat, or cure anything, cancer included.  The FDA says.....

Most things in life are better when they're "homegrown" --- tomatoes being a prime example.  I mean; have you ever had a good store-bought tomato in your life?  There is, however, one thing that's not better when it's homegrown.  Scientific studies. But "homegrown" is exactly what's happening in our nation's universities and research centers.  In my myriad of posts on that oxymoronic wonder we proudly refer to as EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, I've shown you how "science" has been hijacked and sold to the highest bidder(s).  In other words, peer-review frequently says exactly what the corporations with the deepest pockets want it to say.  Although my all time favorite example of this disgusting phenomenon is the national fraud known as the ANNUAL FLU SHOT, a recent (and even uglier) example can be found in recent revelations about the sugar industry.

I remember hearing about a study from 1980's or 1990's that the sugar industry did to prove that sugar does not contribute to HYPERACTIVITY (we now call this ADHD) in children.  As I recall, there were two groups; the experimental group and the control group.  Eventually, it came to light that the 'control' group was given a huge amount of sugar --- far more sugar than the average person would be likely to consume.  The experimental group was given even more ---- way more.  Thus, when compared to each other, both groups of children showed the same amount of hyperactivity.  The sugar industry could 'honestly' tout their study as proving no link between sugar and hyperactivity. 

The truth is, if you set studies up just right, you can use them to 'prove' almost anything (HERE) --- which is exactly what the sugar industry has been doing for nearly six decades.  Just a few days ago, writing for the AP, Candice Choi (Study Details Sugar Industry Attempt to Shape Science) wrote that, "In 1964, the group now known as the Sugar Association internally discussed a campaign to address "negative attitudes toward sugar" after studies began emerging linking sugar with heart disease, according to documents dug up from public archives. The following year the group approved "Project 226," which entailed paying Harvard researchers today's equivalent of $48,900 for an article reviewing the scientific literature, supplying materials they wanted reviewed, and receiving drafts of the article. The resulting article published in 1967 concluded there was "no doubt" that reducing cholesterol and saturated fat was the only dietary intervention needed to prevent heart disease. The researchers overstated the consistency of the literature on fat and cholesterol, while downplaying studies on sugar, according to the analysis."  The study was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

Why is this such a big deal?  Because if you grew up like me in the late 60's, 70's, and 80's, all you heard was how bad dietary fat was.  It was dietary fat that caused people to become OBESE and wind up with HIGH CHOLESTEROL, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, and a host of other increasingly common health problems.  What did this thinking do?  For those of you old enough to remember, it brought about a revolution --- the Fat Free / Low Fat age.  Fat was shunned as though it were Satan himself.  Everything, and I do mean everything, carried labels exhorting the fact that it was "Fat Free" or "Low Fat".  In fact, I recall in the late 1980's that Vess Soda (a St. Louis product) actually touted itself as such (Fat Free / Cholesterol Free).  The unspoken implication was that common health problems were essentially caused by consuming too much fat and cholesterol.   Want to see how far behind the times our scientific medical profession still is?  Listen to Choi.

"A committee that advised the federal government on dietary guidelines said the available evidence shows "no appreciable relationship" between the dietary cholesterol and heart disease, although it still recommended limiting saturated fats."

I want you to re-read that if you did not get it the first time.  Although we certainly didn't heed this advice growing up in the FLINT HILLS of rural Kansas, the government was telling people not to eat red meat / saturated fat (HERE), to eat margarine (TRANS FATS) instead of real butter, and not to eat more than one egg per week as the yolks contain cholesterol (HERE).  Thanks in large part to our government, the American people have gotten fatter and fatter and fatter, suffering with an array of the health problems driven by the resulting INFLAMMATION from consuming too much sugar and high glycemic junk carbs.

Choi's article is based on a study published earlier this week in one of the many journals of the American Medical Association (JAMA Internal Medicine).  The study, Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents, is a huge expose that reminds me of reading the history of MSG (HERE).  Below is a great overview from this THIRTY PAGE STUDY.

"In the 1950s, disproportionately high rates of coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in American men led to studies of the role of dietary factors, including cholesterol, phytosterols, excessive calories, amino acids, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals in influencing CHD risk. By the 1960s, two prominent physiologists were championing divergent causal hypotheses of CHD. John Yudkin identified added sugars as the primary agent, while Ancel Keys identified total fat, saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol. However, by the 1980s, few scientists believed that added sugars played a significant role in CHD, and the first 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans focused on reducing total fat, saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol for CHD prevention."

When I was five years old, Dr. Yurdkin gained a measure of international recognition for his 1972 book Pure, White and Deadly: The Problem of Sugar.  Remember that the brilliant cardiologist Robert Atkins had written his Atkins New Diet Revolution only one year earlier.  Unfortunately, it was ANCEL KEYS who won the day with his famous (and fraudulent) "Seven Nations" study.  Although things are slowly changing, the government and scientific community have been browbeating the public about dietary fat ever since.

Because it seemed logical, most of us (particularly the most gullible and brain-dead among us as I used to be --- HERE) fell for this garbage hook, line, and sinker. BTW, the sugar industry and government are still engaged in the same sort of dietary subterfuge.  Despite what we saw in YESTERDAY'S POST where we addressed some of these same issues, the sugar industry continues to say that cane sugar and HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP are identical as far as your body is concerned.  And as for the government; when they bailed on the food pyramid, they jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire by touting the DASH DIET.  If you want to get a handle on what sort of diet you need (along with a number of other helpful tidbits) to get both your weight and chronic health issues under control, HERE is the place to look.

"One thing to keep in mind is that the FDA is NOT watching out for you. They are NOT protecting you. It's NOT about your health. It's about profit. That's what's being protected. Remember that when you go to the supermarket.  The FDA is a bunch of guys that use to work for Monsanto, DOW, and DuPont...  You know... the folks that produce chemicals and food additives, among other things. Coincidence? Sure...  and I've got a bridge to sell you..."  Comment from an astute reader regarding Choi's article

"Can you name another substance of abuse for which the effect of the substance is more dangerous than the calories it harbors? Alcohol. Its calories are dangerous not because they're calories; they're dangerous because they're part of alcohol. Sugar is the same. Sugar is the alcohol of a child. You would never let a child drink a can of Budweiser, but you would never think twice about a can of Coke. Yet what it does to the liver, what it does to the arteries, what it does to the heart is all the same. And that's why we have adolescents with type 2 diabetes."  Dr. Robert Lustig from the article being discussed today

I recently read a statistic showing that in 1900 the average American consumed less than five pounds of sugar annually.  Today we are approaching 160 lbs ---- a 3,200% increase.  A couple days ago the publication Vox (no, I'm not a regular reader) published an an interview with the venerable Dr. Robert Lustig called The Case for Treating Sugar Like a Dangerous Drug (the interviewer was one German Lopez).  Dr. Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist and Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California in San Francisco.  Besides publishing over 100 peer-reviewed papers, he holds a law degree.  He's probably most known for his viral video on sugar that came from a lecture at UCSF back in 2009 (HERE).

He started the ball rolling by comparing sugar to alcohol.   It's not that alcohol is bad in small amounts, but as humans we have a limited ability to metabolize it.  In other words, when people consume too much alcohol (which is different for everyone) they become drunk.   Once drunk, the more alcohol they consume, the drunker they get.  He says the same thing about sugar.  While alcohol can be addictive, there are certain drugs (namely METH, cocaine, heroin, etc) that are far more addictive than alcohol.  It's important to remember that current research (HERE & HERE) has shown that sugar and high-glycemic extremely processed carbs are at least as addictive than these hard drugs, with some studies actually saying they are more addictive.  And just like hard drugs, their consumption has some severe consequences.  I'll talk about a few he mentions by name.  

But before I do, I want you to understand that the major mechanism of destruction-by-sugar is not its CALORIES --- something Dr. Lustig has made a point to bring out in the past.  It's INFLAMMATION. You'll notice that every disease he mentions is on the list in this link, along with many others.  Unfortunately, when it comes to battling inflammation, I would contend that 99 out of 100 doctors think only in terms of drugs despite the fact that we've known for years that while drugs might temporarily modify symptoms; as far as actually CHANGING PHYSIOLOGY.... It's not happening.  But then again, this scenario ---- really sick people that live for a very long time --- is BIG PHARMA'S fantasy-come-true, with you being their number one commodity (HERE). 

• HIGH CHOLESTEROL:  Study after study (HERE, HERE, and HERE are a few) have proven that neither dietary cholesterol nor dietary fat (providing it's not TRANS FAT) have much affect on one's CHOLESTEROL LEVELS.  What does?  Easy.  Sugar and junk carbs.  This was known in the 1960's but suppressed by BIG SUGAR.
  

• TYPE II DIABETES:  At its root, diabetes isn't so much a sugar problem as it is an inflammation problem.  It's important to remember that inflammation (the group of important immune system chemicals that get driven to excessively high levels due to any number of factors, with sugar consumption probably being the most common --- HERE) is what causes Diabetes.   One of the dirty little secrets of "EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE" is that the medical community is frequently ignoring their own evidence when it comes to any number of health problems.  Nowhere can this be seen in clearer fashion than with diabetes (HERE).
  

• OBESITY:  Fortunately, Lustig, along with TAUBES and numerous others, doesn't over-simplify the problem like 99% of the scientific community does by touting OBESITY as merely a problem of calories --- too many calories consumed -vs- not enough calories expended ("ENERGY BALANCE"). Never forget that there are certain foods which, due to their inflammatory nature, engage your ENDOCRINE SYSTEM in abnormal / pathological ways (HERE).  Chief among these?  Yep.  Sugar and simple carbs --- especially HFCS, which is far worse than others.  The most visible example is BELLY FAT.  You never used to see women with large bellies.  Now even many "skinny" women (and men) have pot bellies (HERE).
  

• LIVER DISEASE:  The number one cause of Fatty Liver and third leading cause of Cirrhosis are not related to alcohol consumption, but to over-consuming sugar and junk carbs.  It's the liver that metabolizes not only most drugs (MEDICATIONS as well as illicit drugs), but sugar as well.  Overload it and you have real problems on your hands --- problems that drugs are not going to solve for you.  In fact, drugs cause the problem because it's your liver that must detox them via a process known medically as "BIOTRANSFORMATION".
  

• DEMENTIA:  Did you know that along with FLU SHOTS, the leading cause of Alzheimer's Disease happens to be sugar consumption (HERE).  The Tau Plaques that foul the brain in this debilitating disease are widely believed to be caused by over-consuming sugar and the simple carbs that metabolized in the body just like.  BTW; HERE'S the best way to stimulate your brain before you get dementia.
  

• CANCER:  Cancer is not only the holy grail of this list, but I have asked myself repeatedly why the medical community isn't doing more about this issue --- particularly with the recent studies on KETOGENIC DIETS and the known relationship to sugar?  Chew on this for a moment.  The German medical doctor / Ph.D, Dr. Otto Warburg, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for discovering that sugar is the food of choice for Cancer (HERE).   This happened before any of you reading this were probably born --- back in 1931.  Another prime example of the medical profession ignoring their own research for gain.  Never let anyone try and convince you that CANCER is not fed by sugar or carbs that break down into sugar rapidly, or that by ignoring this information the medical community stands to make billions of dollars a year.  Make sure to check out Dr. Thomas Seyfried's astounding video at the end of this post on FASCIA & CANCER pertaining to using a ketogenic diet to successfully address cancer.
  

Dr. Lustig could have continued.  For instance, we know that DYSBIOSIS is fed by sugar.  We also know that most AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES are fed by sugar as well (need proof?  Not only do you find links throughout the peer-reviewed literature, but HERE is an incredible example that will resonate with everyone).  Infertility, Sexual Dysfunction, and Depression are frequently driven by sugar as well --- the topic of YESTERDAY'S POST.  Because of the inflammatory nature of sugar, coupled with the fact that most diseases (EVEN MANY OF THE "GENETIC" ONES) are fed by sugar, we are physically crippling ourselves as a nation, not to mention "OUTSTRIPPING" OUR ABILITY TO PAY FOR OUR HEALTHCARE.  The problem, as I touched on earlier, is that sugar is extremely difficult to get off of for many people due to its addictive nature (HERE).

After making a valid case that sugar fits the many criteria required to regulate it as a "controlled substance" in similar fashion to alcohol or drugs, Dr. Lustig reveals what he believe the solution to this conundrum is --- taxing the stuff.  The problem is, as he himself admits, "Now, I will tell you that America doesn't trust its politicians. And we have a good reason for that: they suck. If you don't quote me, I will be upset. The reason they suck is because, number one, they're interested in power, not doing the right thing, and, number two, they take money. So everyone assumes that any tax that you would place on any given substance is either a money grab for coffers for other things or going into politicians' pockets. Based on previous behavior of our elected officials, that's a damn good guesstimate. We've seen this movie before."  Not sure I could have said it better myself.

He believes, however, that taxation could work if done properly.  Although I'm highly doubtful, he does talk at length about the way that corn, soy, and sugar are all subsidized through our federal government.  His belief is that we should start subsidizing things like broccoli instead.  Not that I really like the thought of any government subsidies, but subsidizing broccoli would merely mean we end up with lots of excess "taxpayer funded" broccoli that would either have to be thrown away, plowed under, exported, or fed to livestock.  Unless parents actually start being parents again, paying farmers from government coffers to grow more broccoli would be no more effective than MICHELE OBAMA'S MOVE CAMPAIGN. 

The interview ends with Dr. Lustig being asked about the effects of sugar on the body.  "There are three.  One, fructose, the sweet molecule in sugar, is not metabolized like glucose. It's metabolized in the mitochondria, and it is metabolized in the liver to liver fat. That liver fat mucks up the workings of the liver and leads to a process called insulin resistance. That raises your insulin levels because your pancreas has to make more insulin. That drives all the chronic metabolic diseases we know about, plus it burns out the pancreas, leading to diabetes.  Two, cellular aging. When bananas ripen, they brown. The sugar in the bananas binds to proteins in the bananas nonenzymatically, even in dead tissue. That's called the cellular aging or Maillard reaction. That happens to everyone all the time, so we brown inside. You don't want to brown very fast, but we're all browning because that's how we age. But sugar makes us brown seven times faster; it basically kills our organs quicker.  Three, sugar is addictive. So a little makes you want more, because of the effect of the reward center of the brain."

If you are looking for a way to get off the MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND and get your life back, but have found yourself trapped in a world of obeisty, addiction, and increasing numbers of serious health issues, the links on this page are here to help you.  For a (free) comprehensive protocol that will at least dramatically change, if not solve, most of the chronic health issues that Lustig mentioned by name, CLICK HERE.  And if you found this post to be helpful, get it in front of those you love and care about most via FACEBOOK.

"Almost one in six couples face infertility."  The headline of a January, 2013 article for Reuters, by Genevra Pittman.  The article was discussing a study called Prevalence of Infertility in the United States as Estimated by the Current Duration Approach and a Traditional Constructed Approach.

"A digestive disorder caused by sensitivity to gluten, celiac disease can cause male infertility.  Fertility may improve after adopting a gluten-free diet."  From an article on the Mayo Clinic's site called Male Infertility.  Be aware that NCGS is a far bigger deal than Celiac.

"The average American consumes between 150 and 170 pounds of sugar per year --- and this does not even begin to deal with high glycemic index, heavily processed carbs that are converted to sugar as soon as they enter the body."  Dr. Schierling from a recent post.

According to the CDC, Infertility is a major problem here in America.  Of women between the ages of 15 and 44, nearly 7 million (12%) are unable to conceive, with seven and a half million having used some sort of medical FERTILITY SERVICES in the past.  My LAST POST contained peer-reviewed research that agreed, saying that 12% of women worldwide are infertile.  Global infertility stats by the U.N.'s WHO are worse, doubling this to almost 25% for couples.  And although there are any number of reasons for infertility throughout the rest of the world, here in America, I would argue that the biggest reason couples have trouble in this area is due to the consumption of mass quantities of SUGAR AND HIGH GLYCEMIC INDEX CARBOHYDRATES.  Let me briefly show you why.

Sugar causes INFERTILITY in women because it is so intimately associated with both Inflammation (HERE) and PCOS (POLYCYSTIC OVARIAN SYNDROME) --- the number one cause of infertility nationally.  There are those who want to tell us that PCOS and infertility are mostly genetic.  While I would never deny that there is a genetic component in a portion of the population, the more we learn about genetics, the more we realize that "bad genes" are turned on or 'activated' by poor lifestyle choices (SMOKING, CRAPPY DIETS, TOO MANY DRUGS, CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY ILLNESSES or AUTOIMMUNITY, exposure to TOXIC CHEMICALS AND XENOHORMONES (or HERE) as well as any number of others).  This phenomenon is known as EPIGENETICS, and is where the research in this area is headed. 

And as for you men, let's not try and pin this problem solely on your wives.  Look in the mirror.  See that gut?  That OVER-SIZED BELLY of yours is slowly (or maybe rapidly) lowering your sperm count and making you impotent to boot.  This means that you are severely dampening your ability to get your wife pregnant via two completely different mechanisms.  If you read the link in the next paragraph, you'll notice that blood sugar, belly fat, and low T (women actually get high T -- a hallmark of PCOS), are intimately related to each other in the peer-reviewed literature.  In fact, it should not come as a surprise that sugar consumption has the potential to foul up virtually any aspect of your endocrine system (HERE).  

How big is this problem of male infertility?   All you have to do is open the sports page of any major metro newspaper and see how many adds there are for men to attend a "Free Seminar" put on by some doctor who wants to test and fix your LOW LEVELS OF TESTOSTERONE (Low T).  According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (Quick Facts About Infertility), "Infertility affects men and women equally.  Twenty-five percent of infertile couples have more than one factor that contributes to their infertility.  In approximately 40 percent of infertile couples, the male partner is either the sole cause or a contributing cause of infertility."  While mechanical problems such as varicocele (an enlarged testicular vein) are certainly not an uncommon cause of infertility, I would argue that beer guts are a far more common cause.

The cool thing is, many of you --- probably the majority of you, whether male or female --- can fix this problem yourself.  How do you do it? Firstly, you need to realize that sugar is turning men into women and women into men (NO EXAGGERATION!).  Secondly, if you are looking for a generic protocol designed to address the underlying causes of your chronic health issues, HERE IT IS.  For information that is specifically geared towards reversing infertility and getting pregnant, CLICK HERE.

"If the members of the American medical establishment were to have a collective find-yourself-standing-naked-in-Times-Square-type nightmare, this might be it. They spend 30 years ridiculing Dr. Robert Atkins, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was right all along. Or maybe it's this: they find that their very own dietary recommendations -- eat less fat and more carbohydrates -- are the cause of the rampaging epidemic of obesity in America. Or, just possibly this: they find out both of the above are true."     GARY TAUBES from the July 7, 2002 issue of The New York Times Magazine (What if it's All Been a Big Fat Lie?)

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."   French author, Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Kar (1808-1890)

Back in the day, Halloween was a big deal.  Sure it was fun dressing up; but the best thing --- the thing we most looked forward to --- was the candy.  That's because, unlike today, candy was a special treat.  Now it seems like every day is special.  In case you had not seen the statistics, American's per-capita use of SUGAR is through the roof, not only because it is almost ubiquitous in our society, but because studies have shown that it is several times MORE ADDICTIVE than hard drugs like heroin, crack, or METHAMPHETAMINE.

In August of 2012. Forbes (How Much Sugar Are Americans Eating?) said we are consuming 130 lbs per person per year --- or 500 calories per day.  In fact, I have seen STATISTICS saying that SODA is the number one source of calories for the adolescent / early adult demographic.  And because much --- maybe most --- of the sugar consumed today is in the form of HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, it is that much worse for you.  WebMD's article (Do You Know how much Sugar You're Eating?) is even worse.  "One hundred and fifty-six pounds. That's how much added sugar Americans consume each year on a per capita basis, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Imagine it: 31 five-pound bags for each of us." 

Jennifer M. Regan, MovNat MCT, C.H.E.K HLC, NASM-CPT, writes on her blog that, "The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that the average American consumes anywhere between 150 to 170 pounds of refined sugars in one year!  For every American who eats only 5 pounds of sugar each year, there is one who eats about 295 pounds per year.  That is A LOT of sugar – especially when you compare it to how much we used to consume in the past. Less than 100 years ago, the average intake of sugar was only about 4 pounds per person per year."  The bottom line is that as a nation we are consuming way too much sugar --- not to mention quantum amounts of JUNK FOOD and junk carbs that are largely based on refined flour; a food (the word used figuratively here) that converts to blood sugar (glucose) almost as fast as you ingest it.

Not only is this level of sugar / refined carbohydrate consumption a national disaster that is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars annually, it is costing tens of millions of people their health --- not to mention their lives.  Much of this has to do with the fact that LIVING THE HIGH CARB lifestyle is associated with virtually every health problem you can name.  The mechanism for this is not only metabolic, but via GUT HEALTH as well.  Never forget that sugar and processed carbs are bad enough by themselves, but if you have been on ANTIBIOTICS, the resultant DYSBIOSIS will destroy your health in ways that science is just starting to figure out (HERE).

The word "toxic" is defined by Webster's (1913) as, "Of or pertaining to poison; poisonous."  I don't need to tell you that we shouldn't be consuming poison if we want to be healthy.  I mention all this because this week, both SUGAR and MEAT have been called toxic (with meat actually being referred to as "carcinogenic" on the same scale as CIGARETTES).  Let's take a look.

In this week's issue of Time, Alice Park wrote an article called Sugar Is Definitely Toxic, a New Study Says, concerning research published in the brand new issue of Obesity.  In this study led by DR. ROBERT LUSTIG (Isocaloric Fructose Restriction and Metabolic Improvement in Children with Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome), most of the sugar in the diets of 43 black and Hispanic children with PRE-DIABETES and OBESITY was replaced with starch for 9 days.  According to Lustig.....

"We took chicken teriyaki out, and put turkey hot dogs in. We took sweetened yogurt out, and put baked potato chips in. We took pastries out and put bagels in.   So there was no change in [the children’s] weight and no change in calories."

The results were as follows.  "Fructose restriction improved surrogate metabolic parameters in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome irrespective of weight change."  Firstly, in English this meant that their fasting blood sugar levels dropped to half of what they were previously, which naturally led to a drop in Insulin levels as well.  CHOLESTEROL and blood fat levels decreased right along with the amount of fat in their livers --- and none of this was due to weight loss, which did not occur.  Secondly, notice that this study concerned Fructose --- namely the sort of sugar that comes from corn (HFCS), as opposed to sucrose --- table sugar --- the white stuff depicted in the picture at the top of the page.  Regardless of what you are told, there is a difference.

This tells me that when Cardiologist and Dean of Nutrition Science at Tufts University, Dr Dariush Mozaffarain said that, "A bagel is no different than a bag of Skittles to your body," in a DIFFERENT ARTICLE written for Time last year, that statement may not have been 100% accurate.  However, I believe he was correct enough that trying to follow the the methods highlighted in the paragraph above, while an improvement, is a train wreck in the making.  It all has to do with living the HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE.  Sure; starch is better than HFCS.  But is replacing sugar with starch really the solution to chronic health issues, including obesity?  Of course not.  And replacing anything with hot dogs (whether turkey, beef, or SOY) provides an excellent lead-in to my next topic.

In the most recent issue of The Lancet, the World Health Orgainization (WHO) --- the health-related arm of the United Nations --- issued a position-paper on the relationship between meat and CANCER (Carcinogenecity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat).   In this study, the authors stated not only that processed meats such as bacon, HOT DOGS / CHICKEN NUGGETS, ham, etc, are linked to certain types of cancer (namely Colon Cancer), but that red meat 'probably' is as well ("red meat is probably carcinogenic to humans").  Although this study is not completely wrong, there's definitely problems with taking it at face value.

Unfortunately, most of the meat that is commercially grown by the world's huge producers (the United States, Brazil, China, etc) do whatever it takes to put on as many pounds as quickly as possible; consequences be damned.  The result is that often times --- maybe even the majority of the time --- commercially-raised meat is not much different than processed meat as far as health is concerned.  Commercially-raised animals are, for the most part, raised and grown in unnatural settings (feedlots or chemically-saturated pastures) on a steady diet of ANTIBIOTICS, Growth Hormones and ESTROGENS, and INFLAMMATORY GRAINS (grains alter their fatty acid profile from anti-inflammatory Omega-3 to pro-inflammatory Omega-6).  And this is just for starters (we have not even touched on GRILLED MEATS yet). 

When it comes to dealing with chronically ill people (people struggling with CHRONIC PAIN, INFLAMMATORY DISEASES, AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, etc, etc), I almost always recommend a PALEO DIET.  Why is this?  Two chief reasons; it cuts out the most commonly reactive foods, and it controls BLOOD SUGAR better than anything I have seen; all while maintaining adequate levels of protein for healing and repair (remember that the vast majority of the dry mass of your body is from protein). It is important to remember that the Paleo Diet is not the "Meat Diet".  It is a diet based on copious amounts of vegetation, with ample protein coming from modest to moderate amounts of natural meats and EGGS.

Stay tuned as I bring you more on this topic in the near future.  If you are needing a good source of good meat (and are not interested in HUNTING), HERE is the place to look.