The Real Threat to Americans

Sometimes it's really good to see things in perspective.

Especially for those of you who tend to internalize information you see on the news. The media does not give a balanced perspective of what is going on in the world. If it did aim for perspective, it would perhaps show the following chart, night after night.

The fact is, information in this chart is not very entertaining and it certainly isn't what most people want to think about. It's much more exciting to talk about rare or unrealistic events because then we don't have to hold ourselves accountable for events that affect us daily. Well, here's to not passing the buck. Here's to facing reality and holding ourselves accountable:

Sugar Versus Corn Syrup

It's funny to read an article about how sugar is making a major comeback into our food products. And how that is a good thing. People are excited about this. Really? Things of this nature truly depend on which way the wind blows. Today it's blowing in favor of sugar. Almost 30 years ago corn syrup was the more favorable of the sugary choices. To researchers and doctors, there is not much difference between the two when it comes to how it affects the body.

(Though there are many health-related problems arising from our consumption of sugars, I am going to focus on obesity for this article because it is a particularly alarming national epidemic.) 

Obviously, sugar has been studied longer than high fructose corn syrup, but so far, the research shows that both have a lot to do with obesity. Obesity has a lot to do with diabetes and heart disease. And we are supposed to be excited about our old friend sugar? 

Thank you to a reader who forwarded me this article from the New York Times. "Sugar, the nutritional pariah that dentists and dietitians have long reviled, is enjoying a second act, dressed up as a natural, healthful ingredient."

It made me giggle and cringe at the same time. I feel like the point is lost on people. There are those who have a vendetta against corn syrup, and those who have a vendetta against sugar. I started my blog because I had a vendetta against sugar. But, as I wrote about earlier, I realized that sugar is not evil. Read more about that here. Corn syrup is not evil. It is the food corporations and media and advertisers and people who push for sugar in our food products who are screwing with our minds and best intentions. Best case scenario is that no matter what is in our foods, we would eat in moderation. 

The problem is Americans have a very hard time with moderation. Moderation is not a motto we live by. (I just deleted an entire paragraph about restaurant buffets...)

Sugars are found in more food products today, I will speculate, than 50 years ago. I'm guessing because it is now so cheap to add to our food, why wouldn't a company add this simple, cheap sweetness, which will make a product stand apart from another. We like things that are sweet. We love a perfect balance between sweetness and saltiness. They know this and are preying upon our senses. The sugar industry folks and corn syrup folks have something in common. Neither of them care about our health individually, or the health of our nation as a whole. Rates of obesity are at an alarming, all time high. Not only are more people considered obese, but those once considered obese are now being considered morbidly obese. The money the United States spends on obesity and overweight issues is estimated to be about $90 billion annually. Billion.

The sugar industries: cane, beet and corn continue to market and sell their products because somehow we have been convinced that "in moderation" is okay. Really? I am an expert on one thing. Going without sugar for one year. It was one of the most challenging things I have ever done. Sugar/Corn syrup was in practically everything. How do those industries propose that we eat it in moderation, when they serve a disproportionate amount of sugar in their "suggested serving size?" 

Though the pendulum swings back towards an increase in sugar consumption instead of corn syrup, I believe that we still have the same problem on our hands. That is, our addiction to sweet things and our "need" for sweets in greater and greater amounts. Since going without sugar, I've come to realize that eating too much sugar and corn syrup is a problem, but so is eating too much honey and agave and brown rice syrup and dried fruit. They are all carbohydrates which our bodies turn into glucose and if we eat more calories than we burn in a day, our glucose is stored as fat. Our bodies don't care what the source of the carbohydrate is. If it's a carb, it turns into glucose (with the exception of some fiber). Obviously, if a type of natural sweetener is less likely to spike our blood sugar, it is probably better for us for that reason, but when it comes to carbs, calories and weight, we are pretty much comparing apples to apples. 

I don't typically make generalizations like this. However, I have to make the distinction between choosing something based on morals versus choosing something based on health. When it comes to white sugar and corn syrup, I don't eat either one because of health and moral reasons. Morally, I won't eat corn syrup because most corn is grown using GMO's and pesticides. I just don't support that kind of farming. Morally, I don't eat white refined sugar because I don't support the organizations selling it. It has no place in our food supply. It is empty calories, which means that it offers no essential nutrients but is extra calories in our diet that most of us don't need. I can't support the sugar and corn industries that are fattening us to death. 

Morally and for health reasons I don't eat artificial sweeteners or the new stevia products (I eat pure stevia, but not the new products of processed stevia.) Most of these products have not been around long enough to have long-term research studies done to determine their safety. I feel good about eating natural sweeteners, but I have to be careful not to overindulge. Yes, honey is natural, but to be completely grass roots and organic about it, if I were living out in nature, the fact is that I would probably only be able to swipe a finger full of honey from a bee hive before getting chased out of the area by a swarm of territorial bees. It would not be possible to eat a large amount of honey at one time. Yet, because of the industrialization of food, I can go buy a jar of honey and sit with a spoon and eat to my heart's content. But I have not evolved to eat honey in those kinds of proportions. 

I would not have the facilities to make agave or brown rice syrup or molasses in nature. I am currently questioning my consumption of these products, as well, in an effort to be eating how I was meant to be eating, not what the media or latest fad would have me believe. In my perfect world, I would dry my own fruit, squeeze my own juice by hand and collect honey in moderate amounts before the bees got to me. These sweet items would satisfy my sweet tooth, and because of all the whole foods I would be eating, only, I wouldn't have insane cravings. In my perfect world. I am working on making this a reality, but to participate in society, I am faced with difficult food choices--eating with friends, family and going out to eat. So, in my perfect world, everyone else figures out that eating healthy is the secret to happiness and longevity and we all thrive happily. One must dream...

"Genes Remember Sugar"-an interesting study

Here is another undeniably good reason to give up the white stuff: Your genes may remember the sugar it had and alter your DNA.

Not in a good way. It will not alter your DNA to look like a Sugar Disneyland. Rather, the Australian research study found that, "cells showed the effects of a one-off sugar hit for a fortnight, by switching off genetic controls designed to protect the body against diabetes and heart disease." Read more, here.

Granted, this is one study. It was done by the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute. In my opinion, it's worth taking note of until further studies confirm these findings. Trust me, I wish research studies found that white sugar was good for us. I could go back on the white stuff and never look at another food label again--it would save me several minutes at the grocery store. I could go back to eating my favorite cereals. I could stop writing to companies--or keep writing them and instead ask for more sugar in their products. I could buy a package of Oreos, confident that the sugar rush I would experience is actually good for me! This is what I would like to be the truth.

The fact is, sugar has been a problem for generations, and because it has found its way into more and more products (black beans and toothpaste...), we are ingesting more and more of it and our national health issues (especially diabetes, obesity and heart disease) have grotesquely increased.

I have no idea what researchers will find in the next several years as the effects of sugar will continue to be studied. My guess is that what they find will not be good. My body (and yours, too) can attest to the fact that refined sugar is not good for it. To get even more ridiculous, I will use the Garden of Eden arguement: if we were meant to eat something, it was readily available in that garden. Sugar cane, yes. White refined sugar, no. Honey, yes. Corn syrup, no. (Using this reasoning I can't help but wonder if I'm being duped by the "health food" industry in buying products like brown rice syrup, agave nectar, molasses....)

Next on my list of things to do is research universities. There is only so much I can say at my current level of education. There is only so much I can say about sugar with a Psychology degree and massage therapy license. I am willing to pay a hefty price for a Public Health degree combined with a Registered Dietitian license to earn the right to make certain statements. Especially to doctors that continue serving green Jell-O to their patients (sorry, I can't let that go.)

press release: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090116/hl_afp/healthaustraliageneticssugar;_ylt=At8juaZrV2AoHEmOvom1Hj4PLBIF
Journal of Experimental Medicine: http://jem.rupress.org/
*Full article is not published yet at the time of this post.

Coca-Cola's New Stevia Product: "Truvia"

You won't believe this. The Coca-Cola Company has come out with a "healthy" sweetener that is now available to consumers. It is a stevia-derived sweetener that has no calories, and is now being marketed as "Truvia: A healthy alternative to artificial sweeteners." "Rebiana" is the trade name for this sweetener, probably named after the compound Rebaudioside A, which they isolated from the stevia plant. The reason they have isolated this compound is because it is apparently the sweet part of the plant separated from its usual bitter aftertaste. I do not know how much processing is involved in turning the stevia leaf into "Truvia", but I am guessing from the tiny, pure white granules that there is quite a bit of processing involved. Could we be looking at the same sort of processing that goes on with sugar cane and sugar beets? These are healthy plants--until they have been processed to death!

What I find highly amusing is that stevia has been used as a sweetener for years (for centuries in some countries) and has health benefits including: treating obesity, high-blood pressure, glucose intolerance and diabetes, to name a few. The amusing part is that despite stevia's health benefits and ability to be used as an alternative sweetener, in 1991 it was ousted by the FDA. The FDA labeled stevia "unsafe" and banned it until 1994 when the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act got the FDA to revise their stance. Even then, however, it was only considered safe to be used as a dietary supplement, not a food additive!

Here is what has happened over the years: Coca-Cola comes out with soda in the late 1800's. It is loaded with sugar and two main ingredients: cocaine and caffeine. They reconfigure the ingredients after 1904. The company is under the constant watch of nutritionists because of the links between its soda and diabetes, obesity, caffeine addiction and other health issues. In 1985 Coca-Cola switches its formula again. They now no longer use white refined sugar. It is now cheaper to use high fructose corn syrup. They are still under careful watch because corn syrup has its own list of negative side effects. The company is still under careful watch for using other controversial ingredients like sodium benzoate. In 2005 they come out with a soda containing Splenda and aspartame. Artificial sweeteners. Coca-Cola is currently working on phasing out the ingredient sodium benzoate, which has been linked directly to DNA damage and hyperactivity in children. They say they will phase it out as soon as they find an alternative ingredient to use in its place. Now, it's 2008 and they have produced Truvia, which sounds like a nice, natural sweetener to get the health nuts out there to lay off. But, not so fast! How is this processed? What are the effects of consuming this product, short term and long term? Is it still capable of being a health tool and treating obesity and diabetes? Or have those constiuents been left out because of the mildly bitter aftertaste?

What has happened is that Coca-Cola can not last without revamping their product model. It is common knowledge that their ingredients are less than desirable, have been studied to show health risks, and they don't want to be sued! They are going to jump on the "natural sweetener" gravy train, if you will, and offer a product to people who will believe they now have unprecedented rights to consume all they want without any risk. Imagine the FDA banning stevia now. It's never going to happen now that the giant, multi-billion dollar Coke company has begun using it. How they have been using it is still in question.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia -http://truvia.com/

Sugar-Free Cookie Recipes, and Whipped Cream Too

I have had a lot of people tell me recently that they are going to give up eating sugar. Each person seems to have a different reason for doing it, too, which is interesting. One person was recently diagnosed with diabetes, someone else wants her child to be sugar-free so she wants to be a good example, and another person has already lost weight giving up sugar so he will continue to be sugar-free because of the benefits.

Here are some recipes that I hope will help in making the transition for those of you just getting started:

Brown Rice Cookies

1 cup brown rice flour

2 tablespoons butter (use coconut oil for dairy-free)

¼ cup maple syrup

½ teaspoon salt

1 teaspoon vanilla

1 egg, beaten

1 cup nuts

1 cup raisins

Mix all ingredients together thoroughly and then chill overnight. Next day, roll into one inch balls and arrange on greased baking sheet then press flat with bottom of glass. Bake at 350 for 10 minutes, or until golden brown.


Light & Crunchy Oatmeal Cookies

3 cups quick oats

3 cups flour

2 teaspoons baking powder

1 teaspoon salt

1 cup coconut oil or butter (use coconut oil for dairy-free)

¾ cup honey

¼ cup maple syrup

1 cup warm water

2 teaspoons vanilla extract

½ teaspoon almond extract

1 ½ cup unsweetened coconut

• Preheat oven to 350. Mix oats, flour, baking powder and salt in a medium bowl. In a smaller bowl, whisk together butter, honey, syrup, water, vanilla and almond extract until well combined.
• Combine wet ingredients into dry until well blended, then fold in coconuts and any additional ingredients that would be yummy! (nuts, raisins, etc.) Drop by spoonfuls onto greased baking sheet, leaving about an inch between cookies. Flatten with a floured fork.
  
• Bake for 15-20 minutes. Cool on rack and enjoy!

Sugar-Free Whipped Cream
Whip desired amount of cream. Add honey, syrup, cinnamon and vanilla extract to suit your taste. The cream will become creamier after adding the sweetener, so I usually whip it up a little stiff to begin. You can even add softened cream cheese as a yummy frosting alternative.

American Diabetes Association Accepts Money from Soft Drink Company

Check out this article about the American Diabetes Association accepting a multi-million dollar alliance with Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages. This beverage company "is still the third-largest soft drink manufacturer in the world and a major producer of sugary candy."
"In exchange for that sum of money, Cadbury-Schweppes can put the ADA's [American Diabetes Assocation] label on all of its diet soda products."
The American Diabetes Association chief medical and scientific officer, "Khan", denied that there is a link between sugar and diabetes. "Khan's statements denying that sugar can cause diabetes came in the same week that the Journal of Pediatrics published a study blaming much of childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes on over-consumption of sugary sodas."

The article mentions the tobacco industry and it's denial of nicotine causing certain diseases. It makes you wonder where people stop caring about health, and begin caring about money.

Keep in mind, this article is from 2005, but still very interesting.
http://www.naturalnews.com/008164.html

To validate this article, I went to the Cadbury Schweppes website and searched for the American Diabetes Assocation alliance. True enough, they have this agreement through 2008. Here is the link to see for yourself: http://www.cadburyschweppes.com/NR/rdonlyres/941D94D0-73F0-4F6B-A519-2AB92A6CC22D/0/Programmes_and_Partnerships.pdf

UPDATE! I just found this video (April 21, 2008).
"Control Your Diabetes By Simply Limiting Your Carbohydrates"
by, askyourholisticdoctor.com

Glycemic Index, Oh My!

I may be going about this all wrong. Not that I shouldn't have given up sugar. That was a good thing. But it has been brought to my attention lately that one of the key factors why sugar is so bad for our health is its "glycemic index". Here is the definition:

"The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the extent to which they raise blood sugar levels after eating. Foods with a high GI are those which are rapidly digested and absorbed and result in marked fluctuations in blood sugar levels. Low-GI foods, by virtue of their slow digestion and absorption, produce gradual rises in blood sugar and insulin levels, and have proven benefits for health."

Here's more:

"Recent studies from Harvard School of Public Health indicate that the risks of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease are strongly related to the GI of the overall diet. In 1999, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recommended that people in industrialised countries base their diets on low-GI foods in order to prevent the most common diseases of affluence, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes and obesity." (http://www.glycemicindex.com/)

The irony is that if you research causes of diabetes on a diabetes website, they are always defending sugar for some reason, as not a cause for diabetes. Like this: "Myth #3: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes. No. Diabetes is caused by a combination of genetic and lifestyle factors." (http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-myths.jsp)

While I agree that one thing is probably not responsible for causing diabetes, including sugar, it seems inherently linked. But that is not my area of expertise.

I write about glycemic index because I think it is closely related to why I chose to go without sugar in the first place. I don't want to ingest foods that ..."with a high GI are those which are rapidly digested and absorbed and result in marked fluctuations in blood sugar levels." This means I should be aware of other foods that have a high glycemic index. These include refined foods like white flour, various forms of sugar, and other grains that are not "whole" grains. Not that I would venture to go without all refined foods, but I am most curious about the glycemic index of foods, now. It seems inherently important to my overall goal which is to make wise food choices based on nutritional value.

Ridiculous (But True!) Reasons to Buy Sugar!

Here is a list of the most outrageous reasons to have sugar. I copied this off of the Sugar Association's web site.
"A teaspoon of sugar has just 15 calories. Sweet by Nature^® and perfected in sugar beets and sugar cane, sugar is called the "gold standard of sweeteners." Often imitated, never duplicated!
Sugar is brain food. Sugar-and carbohydrates in general-are converted to blood glucose, the fundamental fuel needed by the brain.
Sugar makes nutritious foods tasty enough to eat. Just imagine what healthy foods like oatmeal, grapefruit and bran muffins would taste like without a sprinkle of sugar.
Sugar helps heal wounds. Sugar has been used for centuries to successfully aid in the healing of wounds. Sugar dries the wound thus preventing the growth of bacteria.
Sugar has been an important food ingredient for centuries. Experts place the origin of sugar in the South Pacific about 8000 years ago.
Sugar caramelizes under heat. Caramelization gives cooked vegetables a pleasing taste, color and aroma. Sugar in glazes and sauces provides caramelized flavors for cooked meats.
Sugar softens acidity in foods. Sugar improves the taste of salad dressings, tomato sauces and many other acidic foods by balancing their tartness.
Sugar inhibits mold and yeast growth. Sugar increases the useful life of jams and jellies by binding the water needed by mold and yeast for growth.
Sugar helps foods brown. When bread is toasted or cookies are baked, sugar combines with proteins to produce the appetizing brown color and pleasing aromas."
(source: www.sugar.org/consumers/15_calories.asp?id=47)

Please go to this website and click on: "healthy living" and then "sugar myths". These pages are so absurd to me and downright wrong. I almost fell off my chair laughing. Let me make clear that I am not an expert in biology or chemistry or the science of food. It is interesting when people throw in true statements around their false statement to hide it or legitimize it.

Here is the first thing they say under the "healthy living" tab: "The simple, irrefutable fact is this: Sugar is a healthy part of a diet." Can you believe this? They also say that, "Experts continue to conclude that sugar does not cause diabetes, obesity, hyperactivity or nutrient deficiencies."
I could be wrong, but I thought sugar was closely related these problems, and probably the cause of some. Perhaps these problems come about from eating vegetables, fruits and whole grains.

I think part of the problem is that the word "sugar" is misused. Obviously our bodies need glucose. Sugar turns into glucose. So do other natural sugars. The biggest difference between white refined sugar and natural sugars is this: Natural sugars also have fiber or vitamins or minerals. Because of this, natural sugars take longer to digest, which is a good thing, because it doesn't spike our blood sugar level and our pancreas doesn't have to work overtime to produce insulin.

"Diabetes mellitus refers to the group of diseases that lead to high blood glucose levels due to defects in either insulin secretion or insulin action."
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes)

What white refined sugar (corn syrups, etc.) does to our system is to provide ZERO nutrition, and it has no "buffer" like other vitamins or minerals or fibers to help it digest slowly, so it is digested quickly and prompts the pancreas to work overtime to quickly produce the insulin our body needs for blood sugar levels to be balanced.

Please research this yourself!

I am just getting started on my researching of sugar. I have a long way to go. There is a lot of interesting information out there: web, books, organizations, professionals, etc. Be very careful where you get your information! I have found a lot of websites spouting the evils of sugar, but there are also websites that advocate its use. Those who advocate for it are involved in its production, trade and wholesale.