Deceptive fructose ads.

Fructose is found in everything from soda to cereal. It?s literally in thousands of products. The ?fat carb? has been in our food supply for more 35 years. We?ve been led to believe that fructose from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is akin to naturally occurring sugar,

Recently ads hyping high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for its similarities to sugar are hitting the airwaves. This is part of a major marketing campaign from the Corn Refiners Association meant to combat the bad rap that HFCS has gotten in the past years.

To get that message out, the campaign relies on nutritional research. But CBS News has learned that funding for many of the major studies came from companies with a financial stake in the outcome.

Of the six studies CBS News looked at on the association?s Web site that ?Confirm High Fructose Corn Syrup is No Different From Sugar,? three were sponsored by groups that stand to profit from research that promotes HFCS. Two were never published so their funding sources are unclear. And one was sponsored by a Dutch foundation that represents the interests of the sugar industry.

Pepsi funded one study, so did a D.C. based lobbying group that gets their money from food, chemical and drug companies. And the American Beverage Association gave a grant for another.

One researcher who was involved in three of the studies, Dr. James M. Rippe, a cardiologist and founder of the Rippe Lifestyle Institute says there is no link between HFCS and obesity and calls contrary evidence ?accusations? and ?speculation.? Rippe?s ties with industry are no secret.

Russ Bianchi, a pharmacologist and toxicologist, explains: ?There is no safe form of fructose available from any source, unless already existing in an unprocessed apple or other piece of fruit. The science is known and epidemiologically proven.? For more HFCS facts Click HERE.

Baking soda not chemo.

“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and never-the-less doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levine, MD, The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, 1990)

Many people would be surprised to learn that treating cancer with chemo only has a 5- year survival success rate of just two percent for all cancers. If not Chemo, then what should one use to fight cancer? Author Dr. Mark Sircus, “Winning the War on Cancer”, Believes sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) is a natural form of chemo that effectively kills cancer cells without the side effects. Dr Simoncini’s experience has shown that 99% of breast and bladder cancer can heal in just six days, entirely without surgery, chemo or radiation. He’s done this using a local infiltration device, like a catheter, to deliver the sodium bicarbonate directly to the infected site.

Many chemo treatments include sodium bicarbonate to help patients? kidneys, heart and nervous system. It’s been said that administering chemo without bicarbonate could possibly kill a patient on the spot. Could it be that any benefits seen administering chemo with baking soda, are the result of baking soda not the chemo?

HIT: The Principle of Intensity

“It has been well documented for more than eight decades within the world of exercise physiology that high-intensity muscular contraction is the most important requirement for the stimulation of rapid increases in muscular size and strength, whereas the duration of the exercise is not important in this regard. High-intensity muscular contraction prevents even the possibility of a large number of such contractions within a given unit of time.

Intensity and duration, in otherwords, exist in an inverse ratio to one another; you can either train hard or train long, but you can’t do both.”

High Intensity Training: The Mike Mentzer way.

Diet and Tesosterone Levels

A recent study performed in Finland included men ages 49 to 73 who underwent 21 weeks of supervised training and dieting. Half the subjects ate a high-fiber, low-fat diet including grains, fruits, vegetables, lean meat, fish and dairy. This diet led to a decline in men?s testosterone. The study also found that subjects who ate more protein and had a fat intake of at least 30 percent had higher levels of testosterone and improved muscular gains. Eating less than 30 percent fat seemed to adversely affect hormone levels. The amount of fiber did not have an adverse effect on building muscle or hormone levels. (Intl J Sports Med. 28(12):1070-1076)
(Did you know… 10-30-08)

Related Posts