Prophetic warning about sugar in 1972 was suppressed.

reply to post by Libertygal


my problem with Atkins bars: they contain maltitol. Might as well have sugar for all the good it does.

Aleister
reply to post by stevcolx

 

Well that is really interesting, the history of plagues following the introduction of sugar into the society. Does this hold up under more research and analysis?

Well, the truth is, British did introduce refined sugars. That was what I was saying about the first heart attacks in the US. Did not happen until we got refined sugars, and then they started pushing white flours, but the sugar was the catalyst.

The plague, itself, comes from rats. Where you have sugar, you will have rats. Sugar was considered a luxury, and for a time, only the rich could afford it. The more widespread it's use became, so did the illness.

Eventually, the settlers began trading sugar to the Indians, along with flour. In the beginning, it was obviously real, ground grains, but eventually, the refined processed flours replaced that, due to economics.

As more and more land was seized in what is the Great Plains, where the Buffalo roamed, we came in and chased out the Indians, not only taking the land, but poisoning them with sugar and eventually refined flour.

Even before WWI, when farmers were threatening to quit, the government would offer subsidies, but during and after the war, these subsidies increased dramatically, oftentimes with the government seizing land with the sole intend of "farming", and then subsidize the farmer who, at that time, may only return 80.00 a year in grain, but cost thousands a year from the government to keep in business.

This was the Great Dust Bowl, when the government came in and subsidized agriculture even more with irrigation. Even now, with severe drought, farmers are guaranteed a return if the crops fail due to drought.

And from there you have Bread Maker's Unions and so forth, and it grew, into what it is today.

So, in answer to your question, yes. It isn't the sugar itself, it's the rats, but with the sugar, and the wealth, came the rats and came the plague. The same is to be said of flour, the two nearly happening at the same times.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Libertygal

 

my problem with Atkins bars: they contain maltitol. Might as well have sugar for all the good it does.

Yep, the Atkins products tend to appeal to those who just cannot give up sweetness and sugar cravings.

They also make me feel very ill, and they do not taste very good anyway!

reply to post by Aleister

Interestingly, only a small portion of people who drink alcohol become addicts. I think the rate is something like 8 to 16%, depending on what the criteria is. Some people just plain have addictive personalities. Apparently science says it has to do with genes and/or brain chemistry. The other interesting thing is how a person can get addicted to one thing and not so much another. Yet another thing is not all things are equally addictive. Tobacco smoking I think is #1 in its addictiveness. If sugar is addictive, it's probably only mildly. Keep in mind caffeine is about as addictive as Marijuana, no kidding!

IN my case, I got teeth problems, so I voluntary cut out most refined sugars a few years ago. Like many others, I had no choice when I was younger. I had it put in my food and I was trained to put it on my food and ate it up. I do like the taste of it occasionally, but I immediately rinse my mouth out with water so it doesn't sit. Another thing is even carbs like potatoes will hurt your teeth after several hours of "digesting" in your mouth. They literally turn to sugar. So it's important to brush your teeth about twice a day to prevent that, but I rarely do that.

Lately I got a bottle of blackstrap molasses and been putting it in my oatmeal. However, I've been wondering if maybe I shouldn't do this even. I've read the blackstrap molasses has more calcium and potassium and B6 and less sugar, but it's also acidic and I bet it's fructose sugar, not glucose. I better alternative is just to put more berries in my oatmeal. I know fruit has fructose, but it's also loaded with phytonutrients and even a cup of berries is maybe only 10g of sugar.

I think - all in all - it's probably safe to eat some refined sugars. HOwever, balance is so important. And eating diverse foods. In fact, my current theory on diet is approach it like a shotgun - eat lots of different things.

reply to post by Libertygal


We also know that sugar can suppress your immune system. If your immune system isn't working well, you will not be able to fight off illnesses.

reply to post by boncho


F&S& ...I think Adele Davis might have picked up on Yudkin's work - I know her work is what got me off sugar. [Except for the occasional binge.]

kaylaluv
reply to post by Libertygal

 

We also know that sugar can suppress your immune system. If your immune system isn't working well, you will not be able to fight off illnesses.

and cancer.

when checking for the growth aggressiveness of tumors, it is common to use a PET scan. This detects the metabolism of sugar in the body. The brain and bladder will always detect as "high", but that is normal.

My mom had "incurable" lymphoma diagnosed 6 years ago. 18 months ago, she was pronounced "cured". We cut out her sugar intake entirely and put her on a high protein, moderate fat, high fiber diet.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I recall reading even if you cut out all sugar the affect on tumors is minimal. And it's not practical for the human body which needs glucose to fuel itself. I can't remember the full explanation.

BUT you wouldn't catch me filling my face with sugary treats - only in my dreams. Induling on sugar has lots of bad health consequences which probably doesn't help stop cancer in its early stages. And I think usualy when a person consumes a lot of sugar they're also getting a lot of empty calories coinciding with it.

Realistically, I think they'll kill cancer with either new 3d chemotherapy which can specifically target the cancers and/or it'll combine that with something that you inject in the blood and can highlight the cancerous tissue.

bigfatfurrytexan

kaylaluv
reply to post by Libertygal

 

We also know that sugar can suppress your immune system. If your immune system isn't working well, you will not be able to fight off illnesses.

and cancer.

when checking for the growth aggressiveness of tumors, it is common to use a PET scan. This detects the metabolism of sugar in the body. The brain and bladder will always detect as "high", but that is normal.

My mom had "incurable" lymphoma diagnosed 6 years ago. 18 months ago, she was pronounced "cured". We cut out her sugar intake entirely and put her on a high protein, moderate fat, high fiber diet.

Yes, I had heard this, as well. Since I am currently facing a possible cancer diagnosis, it is just an added benefit. It is not something I have had the opportunity to do much research on, but I have read anecdotal posts that cancer can literally be starved by not eating sugar. Not sure if this simply retards the advancement, or kills the cancer.

I took it both ways, depending on how I read it that day, so I am interested in doing more research into this, even if I come up negative. This has come too close to home for me, and it's taken many months now to get a diagnosis.

I am having exploratory surgery Feb 26, or 27, and that will only be a partial diagnosis. I still have one other aspect to explore with relation to my kidneys an adrenals, loaded with nodules.

Everything got really bad for me when a PA at my doctors office literally forced Onglyza on me, making notations on my chart that I was non-compliant, among other things. When you have insurance, that's a threat.

Onglyza is one of the diabetes meds that was removed from the market for knowingly causing pancreatic cancer. They changed a molecule or two, an have been able to remarket the same deadly drug under a new name. After 3 months on it, I developed severe pancreatic issues, back pain, and even after stopping it, dramatic weight loss, kidney pain, and now possible cancer.

Finding out about the sugar aspect with relation to cancer was intrigueing, because the Onglyza was allegeldly increasing my insulin production. What I discovered was, instead, it caused the pancreas to create new, immature, islet cells. In roughly 10 years, the cells, that incidentally never produce insulin, may turn cancerous. All I do know is, it caused me sever pain to take the drug, and I refused to ever take it again. My new PA has put it on my allergy list.

Since I quit taking it, and ALL diabetes drugs, my Hemoglobin A1c has dropped in a short time from 9.8 to 7.1, and I am certain it is still dropping. I refuse to take any more diabetes meds. I can, and do, control it by simply not eating sugar and bread.

Now, if the same can be said of cancer? Wouldn't that simply be amazing? With a little willpower, you too can avoid cancer!

I really want to look more into this. Thanks for the reminder!

jonnywhite
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I recall reading even if you cut out all sugar the affect on tumors is minimal. And it's not practical for the human body which needs glucose to fuel itself. I can't remember the full explanation.

BUT you wouldn't catch me filling my face with sugary treats - only in my dreams. Induling on sugar has lots of bad health consequences which probably doesn't help stop cancer in its early stages. And I think usualy when a person consumes a lot of sugar they're also getting a lot of empty calories coinciding with it.

Realistically, I think they'll kill cancer with either new 3d chemotherapy which can specifically target the cancers and/or it'll combine that with something that you inject in the blood and can highlight the cancerous tissue.

edit on 14-2-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

of course you read that. chemo drugs are 20k per dose. cutting out sugar is free. can't hurt to try it.

reply to post by Libertygal

Hate to hear someone talk about cancer. I don't want to talk lightly. But what I've read tells me fruits and vegetables and exercise are some of the best ways to combat cancer, but there's no surefire way to prevent it. Some of hte most healthy and responsible people STILL get cancer. That's this botched world we live in - WTF was God thinking. I wish you the best and your test result is negative.

Surgeries nowadays to remove cancerous lesions is so much better tha nit used to be. Don't be afraid to get surgery to remove. Steve Jobs refused surgery in favor of alternative approaches and later said he wished he hadn't. If you don't already know, he died from his cancer after it starved his body for several years.

The future looks bright with 3d chemotherapy and ways to highlight the cancer.

Btw, here's a link about Steve Jobs - he had pancreatic cancer:
healthland.time.com - The Pancreatic Cancer That Killed Steve Jobs...

reply to post by jonnywhite

The human body can fuel itself perfectly well, even prefers, ketones. Many doctors even use ketogenic diets for seizure patients, as it helps in some types of epilepsy. Ketones are actually the preferred brain food.

The reason the body will use sugar and carbs over ketones is, because it's easier. Ketones are actually better fuel. So, that is a misnomer. The body, if starved of sugar and protein, will attack vulnerable muscles, and use the muscle tissue to make sugar. This is especially true of the heart muscle.

That is why it is impertative that anyone on low carb MUST take in an adequate amount of protein, as well.

The other misnomer is that the Atkins diet is high protein. This is actually false. The amount of protein recommeneded by the US RDA is far lower than most adults take in on a daily basis.

Because of the metabolics behind the Atkins diet, the heart muscle, and all body muscles, must be protected. To assure this, adequate protein intake is high importance.

Therefor, the diet is mistakenly called "high fat and high protein", when in reality, it is "high fat and adequate protein".

The fat becomes the fuel replacement, along with body fat that you wish to burn, and the protein is to be viewed as armor of protection from your own bodys' laziness. It must work to get the ketones, and in forcing it to do so, you force it to use dietary fat as fuel. This is why high fat is a requirement.

Understanding the metabolics behind the Atkins diet, or any low carb diet which functionally goes by the same rules goes a long way in dispelling the myths associated with said diets.

The starting place for anyone should be to assure that their protein intake is adequate, regardless of the diet they choose, to be assured of sparing the heart muscle, the most important one of all.

Here is just one of many calculators to determine what is adequate, according to the individual, and their needs. Men, women, and age, are all variables.


www.goodhempnutrition.com...

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I'd agree if you mean cut out the twinkies and cookies and chips and so on. How many people survive on soda and chips and ice cream and all the other s***? My estimate is a lot of people. They don't want to change.

But cut out fruits or even grains (glucose) or sweet potatoe or etc? No, my opinion. Lots and lots of foods are handily converted to glucose, some moreso than others. As I already stated in my other post, the research I saw suggested even drastic cuts don't do much good, at least once the cancer is considerable. And one has to consider the other calories in these foods. Typically, for example, fruit is filled with complex nutrients which can strengthen the body to better survive a cancer that remits. If one cuts these things it's a big
gamble, imho.

For example, in my last post I recommmended fruits and vegetables and exercise to combat cancer. Howeve,r this doesn't mean the person should not eat meat or nuts or drink milk or so on. The body can still benefit from those things. Just in general a few extra servings of vegetables is probably helpful, according to research. Cutting out meat or other things would probably be harmful.

(and btw exercise is shown to have a large affect on limiting cancer rates)

I don't think there's a certain way to stop cancer. If there's, what's it? Don't want to mislead someone. They need to listen to the doctor too.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Thank you for the well wishes.

Right now, I do low carb because of diabetes. If it helps with cancer, that's an added benefit.

However, if the doctor recommends chemo, I will likely do it. I have been thinking long and hard on this, and decided that the best treatment would likely be mainstream coupled with acceptable alternatives, in particular, diet.

It was, afterall, my Primary doctor, that recommended Atkins to me some 8 years or so ago. It was my silliness that I went off of it, along with one of his PA's, that said he should never have told me to do it.

Ultimately, following HER instructions and meds, I got almost critically ill.

The doctors' office just called. How ironic. Surgery is confirmed Feb 26, 9am.

reply to post by Libertygal


Prayers and envisioning good things for you. Thanks for sharing, and now you have to keep us informed.

Couldn't care less. I like sugar. I am going to continue to enjoy sugar in moderation. Point blank, I would rather die at 65 after a meal of carcinogen-laden BBQ and a slice of pecan pie than live to be 100 without a little sugar here and there. We're all dying, every day. Enjoy the ride.

reply to post by Libertygal

Thank you so much for all of your input. I will be following the low-carb forum.
I am sorry to hear of your possible cancer & I wish you well. Have you considered
the high doses of Vit C whether IV or Liposomal? I do liposomal & mid March will
be a year. It has helped me in so many ways.

Your post are so informative & educational. I have enjoyed all of them.
Do you know off hand the main differences in Atkins, Ketogenic & Paleo?
I was so excited before going to rehab & saw the quick low carb sheet
& I was starving after the pool work out & I bought almonds & ate on the way home
not knowing there was a limit & strawberries to curve any sweet cravings. Guess I better
eat them up before Monday. I will still avoid the other carbs this weekend...
will eat the strawberries, watch almond intake & enjoy my spirits. That shouldn't
be too many carbs?

Guess I now won't be able to start until Monday. Also just had some Gin...thought it
would be fine as I only have it on the weekends & it comes from a tree not fruit or
potatoes. I have alot to learn. One thing I was very surprised to see was the use of
Splenda & saccrine aren't they chemicals that trigger a sugar response to the body?
No mention of Stevia or the Monk Fruit (less than 1 carb) sweetener. I had been using
honey in me tea but just switched to Stevia last week for calorie reasons. I only drink
water, lots of tea & flavored carb water with zero calories, zero sweeteners & no carbs (i think)
unless it's the weekend I enjoy martinis.

Even switching to this most of my meat will come from the grill, oven & stove here
do not work, so it's grilled as well as most veggies, I do have a toaster oven & a microwave.
I eat 5 to 8 lbs of steamed broccoli with minced garlic, sea salt, lemon juice & cheese a week.
Thought it was healthy & I bloody love it & crave it after a few days if it's missing.

Being a meat & cheese lover especially sheep & goat cheese I hope I like this diet.

Cheers
Ektar

no booze of any type. It processes directly to sugar once it gets to the liver.

Almonds...a single pack is a dandy snack. Strawberrys...i save all "sweets" for a small after dinner treat. You can eat a couple of them daily, but I would abstain for the first week or two, so you get into ketosis.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Aye but you have the wine...is this for just the 2 wks absolutely nothing
spirit wise?

Cheers
Ektar

Ektar
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Aye but you have the wine...is this for just the 2 wks absolutely nothing
spirit wise?

Cheers
Ektar

I drink wine for about 3 days every 5-6 weeks. But wine is horrible....better off with gin or Mich Ultra (if you want a piss flavored beer, LOL).