Fructose

Sources: This garbage is found in everything from soda to cereal. It’s literally in thousands of products. Read your labels.

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, the same that’s found in fruit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fructose from HFCS is not the same as the molecule from sucrose (table sugar), or fruit leveulose. [1] Is it any wonder they have worked so hard to link HFCS to something natural and healthy like fruit?

The problem is our bodies metabolize HFCS differently than sucrose or fruit leveulose. When we consume sucrose, our bodies convert it into glucose, which raises our blood glucose levels. We then get an insulin spike to shuttle the glucose where it’s needed. When we consume HFCS, unlike natural sugar, it is metabolized in the liver and produces high triglyceride levels which are linked to heart disease. In addition, HFCS does not induce insulin secretion, nor does it boost leptin production, both of which are key signals for decreasing hunger. Hence, the name “fat carb.” Eat it, get fat. Eat more, get fatter.

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.” [2]

If you follow the obesity epidemic in the U.S., you’ll find that Americans are eating less fat. In 1965, men ate an average of 139 grams and women 83 grams of fat per day. In 1995, men ate 101 grams and women ate 65 grams of fat per day. [3] With the way fat has been demonized over the last four decades, you’d expect an increase in fat consumption to be the main cause of the obesity epidemic, yet it’s not.

What does mirror the increase in fat Americans is the consumption pattern of HFCS. Between the years of 1970 and 1990, HFCS consumption increased 1000% and today represents 40% of the sweeteners added to foods and beverages. In fact, HFCS is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Is it any wonder that obesity is an epidemic? One of the main ingredients in our food supply not only converts to fat when we consume it, it facilitates fat storage. And Americans as a whole are eating more and more and more.

Trans Fat

Sources: Any foods containing “shortening,” “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil” or “hydrogenated vegetable oil” in the ingredients list.

These manmade fats, like fructose, are in thousands of products. I cannot stress enough the importance of reading food labels. However, do not be fooled by products that claim “zero trans fat”. Showing the power the edible oil and processed food industries have, the FDA agreed to allow food labels to list trans fat as zero if it contains a half a gram or less. And yes, small amounts of trans fat will yield negative consequences over time.

Decades of research show the consumption of trans fats to be detrimental to health. As early as the 1940s, researchers found a strong correlation between cancer, heart disease and the consumption of hydrogenated fats. [4]

What are trans fats? They are poison in our food supply. The latest government study confirms that trans fat is directly related with heart disease and increases LDL cholesterol. Because of that, the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, declared, “There is no safe amount of trans fat in the diet.” [5] “There should be a warning on food made with this stuff like there is on nicotine products. It’s that bad for you.”, says Dr. Jeffery Aron, a University of California at San Francisco professor of medicine and one of the nation’s leading experts on fatty acids and their effect on the body. [6]

Poison is the most appropriate description of trans fat I can think of. These man-made fats are literally toxins in our bodies. Trans fat is produced through the process of hydrogenation. This process turns polyunsaturated oils into fats that are solid at room temperature, which are used to make products like margarine and shortening.

1. Mercola, J. “Debate about the dangers of high fructose corn syrup.” Mercola.com
2. “Is lots of fructose water foolhardy? Apology, too.” Sugarshockblog.com, 13 September 2005.
3. Anand, Rajen S., “Is fat consumption Really Decreasing?” Family Econ and Nut Rev. Summer 1998.
4. USDA Economic Research Service.
5. Severson, Kim. “Trans fat in food: as bad as it gets. Scientists’ warning likely to bring listing on nutrition labels.” San Francisco Chronicle. 11 Jan, 2002. SFGate.com
6. Severson, Kim. “Hidden Killer, It’s trans fat. It’s dangerous. And it’s in food you eat everyday.” San Francisco Chronicle. 30 January, 2002. SFGate.com

Unless you’ve been in a vacuum, you’re aware that the U.S. has a little bit of a weight problem. As a matter of fact, if you’re born in this country your chance of being overweight is greater than 60 percent. One of the many great benefits of coconut oil, specifically the medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) it contains, is its ability to increase energy expenditure. In other words, it increases your metabolism.

Unlike long chain fatty acids (LCFA’s), MCFA’s are processed very easily by the body. When they are consumed, MCFA’s are absorbed directly into the blood stream from the small intestines and go right to the liver. Once in the liver, they are easily burned as fuel. Because of their size and the ease in which they are processed, MCFA’s are not readily stored as fat. On the contrary, because of their size, LCFA’s are not as efficiently processed and the body prefers to store them in fat cells.

MCFA’s metabolism boosting effects have been known for decades and are heavily documented through research:

In a study, researchers compared the thermogenic effect between MCFA’s and LCFA’s after single meals. The meals of 400 calories consisted entirely of either MCFA’s or LCFA’s. The thermogenic effect of MCFA’s over six hours was three times greater than that of LCFA’s. Researchers concluded that as long as the calorie level remained constant, substituting MCFA’s for LCFA’s would result in weight loss. [1]

Farmers found that when they fed their livestock feed that contained polyunsaturated oils like soy and corn oil, animals readily gained weight. However, when they used feed that incorporated coconut oil, the animals got leaner. The main reason for this is that polyunsaturated fats suppress thyroid function, which decreases the animal’s metabolic rate. Soy oils are the worst offenders because of the goitrogens (anti thyroid substances) they contain. [2] This is what happens to us. Is it any wonder the obesity epidemic is so bad when our consumption of vegetable fats has increased more than 400%? [3]

Researchers at Vanderbilt University compared the thermogenic effect of liquid diets containing 40 percent of fat as either MCFA’s or LCFA’s. All subjects were studied for one week on each diet in a double blind, cross-over design. Resting metabolic rate did not change during the week. The thermogenic response to MCFA’s was roughly twice that of the LCFA’s. [4]

A study was published last year conducted by researchers at McGill University to evaluate existing data describing the effects of MCFA’s on energy expenditure and to determine their efficacy as agents in the treatment of obesity. They reported that several different studies have shown weight loss equivalent to 12 to 36 pounds a year simply by changing the types of oils used in everyday cooking and food preparation. Animal and human studies have shown greater energy expenditure, less body weight gain, and decreased size of fatty deposits when using MCFA’s as opposed to LCFA’s. [5]

Sources of Coconut oil:
Only use organic virgin coconut oil. I am currently using Tropical Traditions Virgin Coconut Oil. This oil is truly unrefined and made from organic coconuts. It contains a very high lauric acid content between 50 and 57 percent. I use between two and four tablespoons per day, which is what is recommended.

References
1. Seaton, T.B., et al. “Thermogenic effect of medium chain and long chain triglycerides in man.” Am J of Clin Nutr. 1986;44:630

2. Daniel, Kayla T. The Whole Soy Story. Washington, New Trends Publishing, 2005.

3. Enig, Mary., and Sally Fallon. “Myths and Truths about Beef.”westonaprice.org www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtbeef.html

4. Hill, J., et al. “Thermogenesis in humans during overfeeding with medium chain triglycerides.” Metabolism. 1989 July;38(7)641-8. www.ncbi.nlm.gov

5. Jones, P. “Physiological effects of medium-chain triglycerides: potential agents in the prevention of obesity.” J Nutr. 2002 March;132(3):329-32. www.thyroid.about.com

Does being overweight increase your risk of certain types of cancers? Does a wider grip work your lats better than a narrow grip? Get the answers to these and other questions more in my Did you know… column.

…there is evidence that raw milk prevents the development of allergic disorders? A study published in “The Lancet” (Riedler et al, 2001), indicates that children who drank raw milk, independent of other types of exposure to farming environments, had: a 52 percent lower risk of asthma, a 57 percent lower risk of having a least one wheeze attack in a year, a 76 percent lower risk of hay fever, and a 58 percent lower risk of allergies to cows, dust mites, cat dander and pollen. Wise Traditions, 8(4):71-72,2007

…the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Berlin, Germany, is warning parents and pediatricians that babies should not be give soy formula without strict medical supervision? Germany joins the Israeli Ministry of Health, the French Food Agency and United Kingdom health officials in warning against the dangers of infant soy formula.

Salmon Professor Dr. Andreas Hensel stated that the main concern for infants is the high levels of estrogenic isoflavones in the formula, which act like hormones in the body. Milk allergies are not an acceptable reason for pediatricians to recommend soy formula.

The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment also issued a second warning, this one to adult consumers, stating that isoflavones offer no proven health benefits and pose a health risk. Wise Traditions, 8(4):64,2007

“Behold: the world’s 10 fattest countries” a recent article published on the GlobalPost, discusses the world-wide rise in obesity and ranks the top 10 fattest countries. Although the author mentions processed food and inactivity as the causes of obesity, she fails to go into detail. I do not feel an article on the obesity epidemic is doing justice by not mentioning sugar, in particular high fructose corn syrup, or vegetable oils. These two foods, and I use the term “foods” loosely, Are increasing in use around the world as they have in the US. Vegetable oil consumption in the US, including hydrogenated oils, has increased 437%. (1) Sugar consumption went from 5 pounds per year in 1900 to 163 pounds per year today. From 1970 to the present, fructose and vegetable oil consumption have increased over four fold.(2) During this same time saturated fat has decreased over 20%.

Because we’ve decreased saturated fat consumption and increasing vegetable oil and carbohydrate consumption like the “experts” at the AMA and the ADA (American Dietetics Association) have advised for decades, you’s think we’d be getting healthier. However, we in the US are getting fatter and more unhealthy and are taking the world with us.

1. America Samoa 93.5% – percent of population that is overweight
2. Kiribati 81.5%
3. U.S. 66.7%
4. Germany 66.5%
5. Egypt 66%
6. Bosnia-Herzegovina 62.9%
7. New Zealand 62.7%
8. Isreal 61.9%
9. Croatia 61.4%
10. United Kingdom 61%

A new ad campaign try’s to tell viewers fructose is not different from other sugars. Well this couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, We’ve known for decades fructose is metabolized completely differently from other sugars and has a whole host of side effects. And the studies keep coming.

Overweight study participants showed more evidence of insulin resistance and other risk factors for heart disease and diabetes when 25 percent of their calories came from fructose-sweetened beverages instead of glucose-sweetened beverages.

A study looked at 32 overweight or obese men and women. Over a 10-week period, they drank either glucose or fructose sweetened beverages totaling 25 percent of their daily calorie intake.

Both the groups gained weight during the trial, but imaging studies revealed that the fructose-consuming group gained more of the dangerous belly fat that has been linked to a higher risk for heart attack and stroke. The fructose group also had higher total cholesterol and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, and greater insulin resistance. Mercola.com

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”.

If you follow the obesity epidemic in the U.S., you’ll find that Americans are eating less fat. In 1965 men ate an average of 139 grams and women 83 grams of fat per day. In 1995 men ate 101 grams and women ate 65 grams of fat per day. With the way fat has been demonized over the last four decades, you’d expect an increase in fat consumption to be the main cause of the obesity epidemic, yet it’s not.

What does mirror the increase in fat Americans is the consumption pattern of HFCS. Between the years of 1970 and 1990, HFCS consumption increased 1,000 percent, and today represents 40 percent of the sweeteners added to foods and beverages. It is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Is it any wonder why obesity is an epidemic? One of the main ingredients in our food supply not only converts to fat when we consume it, it facilitates fat storage. And Americans as a whole are eating more and more and more.

It’s been estimated that healthcare, or more accurately insurance, costs each American $8000.00 per year. The health-care we receive in the US is the best in the world by a long shot. It’s our insurance industry that our government has helped create through worthless regulation that needs reform. A majority of Americans agree in poll after poll, insurance reform is needed, but they do not want government run “healthcare”. They are smart enough to understand what a disaster that would be. Every “social program” from Medicare to social security is literally bankrupt. There are other answers.

Why don’t we hear anyone talking about is lifestyle and disease prevention as the key to affordable insurance? Because, it’s not PC to talk about the financial burden the unhealthy lifestyles many Americans put on the rest of the population. Although Americans have free will and choose their lifestyles, 100% of the blame is not theirs. A large portion of it belongs to the American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association, the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, the edible oil industry and our government. The recommendations, treatments and products these organizations have bombarded society with using billions of dollars over the years wreak havoc even on the healthy. The end result, 100’s of billions of dollars wasted annually on treating highly preventable diseases.

The CDC reports that obesity related diseases have reached almost $150 billion. The cost of treating obesity has doubled over a decade due to increasing prevalence. According to the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)t he cost of cardiovascular diseases and stroke in the United States in 2009 is estimated to be $475.3 billion. This figure includes both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include the cost of physicians and other professionals, hospital and nursing home services, the cost of medications, home health care and other medical durables. Indirect costs include lost productivity that results from illness and death. The American Cancer Society estimates total costs of cancer to be $228.1 billion. Those with diabetes in 2002 had more than double the healthcare costs than those without. This includes both direct and indirect costs.

It’s glaringly obvious that the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries need to move from being treatment oriented to disease prevention. Unfortunately moving from allopathic medicine to holistic medicine is about as likely as winning the lottery; these industries make a fraction of the money in disease prevention as they do in treating disease. There is just not a lot of money to be made in healthy lifestyles.

Its not just a matter of calories in versus calories out to lose weight. This theory is simplistic and archaic with no basis in science. Fortunately, I sort through the evidence and break it down to an understandable no-nonsense approach in this final installment of a three part series.

Part I
Part II

All calories are not created equal, as discussed in Part II of this series. Most dieticians, nutritionists and doctors will disagree. If a calorie is a calorie, why doesn’t the percent of increased caloric intake match the percent of increase in overweight or obese individuals? The calorie consumption in men and women has increased 7 percent and 9 percent respectively, since the ‘70s. The increase in the percentage of individuals who are overweight or obese has increased almost 20 percent in each category. And remember, this increase literally occurred in less than 30 years, which is less than a generation. Why such a discrepancy between calories consumed and weight gained? Because there’s more to this epidemic than the amount of calories people are consuming.

The problem we Americans face is that most of the foods we eat are not only lacking any nutritional value, they are made with ingredients that can have serious health consequences. So let’s get right down to business. You want to get healthier and leaner? The following are some of the worst foods and ingredients we consume, and we need to stay away from them (listed in no particular order). When it comes to the following, there is no moderation. If these foods are eaten regularly — you will pay the price.

How did our country get so unhealthy? In this second part of a series, “Our Deteriorating Diet”, I explain what caused our weight gain and its inherent health risks. Many experts claim we, Americans, just eat too much. Is it just a matter of calories in versus calories out? Are we really eating too much or is it what we eat? Do man-made substances in our food supply really make a difference in our ability to maintain a healthy weight? Find the answers to these questions, and other interesting facts you wont see anywhere else.

Humans are carnivorous animals and the Stone Age diet, Dr Voegtlin challenges, was primarily one of a meat and fat eater. Like the carnivorous dog, our jaw moves in a vertical motion. A herbivores’ jaw moves in a rotary fashion. We have canine teeth, ridged molars and incisors designed for crushing and tearing. Unlike herbivores that lack canines and have flat molars, mastication is unnecessary and we do not ruminate or chew cud. Our stomachs hold two quarts, empty in about three hours, secrete hydrochloric acid, lack bacteria and cannot digest cellulose. A herbivorous sheep’s stomach holds eight and a half gallons, never empties, digests cellulose, and bacteria are vital to its function. A herbivore’s stomach doesn’t secrete hydrochloric acid, which is primarily for the digestion of protein. Carnivores like man feed intermittently while herbivores continuously feed (graze). A herbivore’s digestive tract is five times the size of man’s relative to our body size. Unlike herbivores, man’s colons are short and our rectums are small and do not contribute to digestion. Man’s gall bladder has a vital function and is well developed. The function of a herbivore’s gall bladder is weak or nonexistent because of the lack of fat in their diet. The volume of feces from man is small because our digestive efficiency borders on 100 percent. A herbivore’s feces are voluminous because their digestive efficiency is less than or equal to 50 percent, and they must eat large quantities of food.

The state of New York is considering imposing an “obesity tax” on its citizens or anyone who visits. The obesity tax would place an 18% sales tax on non-diet soda and other sweetened beverages with less than 70% fruit juice. Of course Governor Patterson is for it because it will generate an estimated 400 million dollars. State Health Commissioner Richard Daines made a You Tube video explaining why he thinks it’s a good idea. He points out obesity rates and shows a comparison of milk and soda consumption.

I personally think this is BS. It’s another example of big brother coming down on Joe Citizen and imposing their will. The state of New York is tying to take away a freedom of choice under the disguise they are concerned about our health. What’s next: The type of car you drive; the type of meat you eat; what kind of clothes you can buy? Government has no business making everyday decisions for us by taxation. These are legal products and this is a free nation. Don’t Tread on Me!

For decades we have been taught that fat is bad for us, carbohydrates are good, and that the key to a healthy weight is eating less and exercising more. Yet with more and more people acting on this advice, we have seen unprecedented epidemics of obesity and diabetes. With seven years of research, Taubes argues persuasively that the problem lies in refined carbohydrates (white flour, sugar, easily digested starches) ”via their dramatic effect on insulin, the hormone that regulates fat accumulation”and that the key to good health is the kind of calories we take in, not the numbers. There are good calories, and bad ones. Taubes traces how the common assumption that carbohydrates are fattening was abandoned in the 1960’s when fat and cholesterol were blamed for heart disease and then”wrongly”were seen as the causes of a host of other maladies, including cancer. He shows us how these unproven hypotheses were emphatically embraced by authorities in nutrition, public health, and clinical medicine, in spite of how well-conceived clinical trials have consistently refuted them. He also documents the dietary trials of carbohydrate-restriction, which consistently show that the fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.

Good Calories Bad Calories is the end of the debate about the foods we consume and their effects on us.