- By Baxter Dmitry, yournewswire.com
High fructose corn syrup is a killer. Since humans started consuming it, obesity rates have more than tripled and diabetes incidence has increased more than seven fold since. Even when used in moderation it is a major cause of heart disease, obesity, cancer, dementia, liver failure, tooth decay, and more.
So what does the FDA do about this silent killer? It allows food producers to change the name of the infamous sweeter in order to trick consumers into thinking they are not eating high fructose corn syrup.
That’s right, high fructose corn syrup now goes by a new, deceitful name – “Natural Sweetener” – designed to trick customers into making ill-informed choices that will impact on their health.
Consumers are finally catching on to the fact that what we put in our mouths effects our waistline as well as our health. Since consumers have become much smarter and finally waking up to these realities, they are demanding healthier food choices. Every food company is smearing 100% natural on every box of anything regardless of whats inside the box.
Now we have to know the new sneaky name to know whether or not we are consuming High Fructose Corn Syrup or not. Obviously the best way to avoid this mess is to buy from companies you really trust.
Big food companies are hiding ingredients they know we really don’t want to consume in their products. This time it’s the presence of a new version of high fructose corn syrup. But this is not the innocuous fructose that has sweetened the fruits humans have eaten since time began. This is a questionable ingredient with many names that could be causing all sorts of health problems.
The product is General Mills’ Vanilla Chex, an updated version of the Chex cereal sold in most conventional grocery and discount stores for many years. The front of the box clearly states that the product contains “no high fructose corn syrup” (HFCS), but turn it over to read the ingredient list and there it is – the new isolated fructose.
Why is that a problem? According to the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), there’s been a sneaky name change. The term ‘fructose’ is now being used to denote a product that was previously known as HFCS-90, meaning it is 90 percent pure fructose. Compare this to what is termed ‘regular’ HFCS, which contains either 42 or 55 percent fructose, and you will know why General Mills is so eager to keep you in the dark.
“A third product, HFCS-90, is sometimes used in natural and ‘light’ foods, where very little is needed to provide sweetness. Syrups with 90% fructose will not state high fructose corn syrup on the label [anymore], they will state ‘fructose’ or ‘fructose syrup’.”
And the way that they get away with this is fairly simple:
“Simply eliminating the high fructose corn syrup designation for the laboratory sweetener that’s nine-tenths fructose and calling it what it really is: fructose. And that’s how a processed-food product like Vanilla Chex that contains “fructose”, a substance that, according to the corn refiners, used to be called HFCS-90, can now declare itself to be high fructose corn syrup-free.”
NO ONE should eat the chemical mess that store bought mayo has become. It is made with soy oil (it’s cheap!) You should make your own. Just replace half of the oil in your homemade mayo with avocado.
Mayo is one of those love it or hate it condiments. Some folks put it on everything; others can’t be within arm’s length of the stuff. But what about avocado mayo?
Made with avocados and olive oil, this earthy green spread is honest-to-goodness good for you.
The recipe, created by Lauren Gallucci of Sweet Laurel, is super easy. Furthermore, it’s slim on ingredients, and on steps. Additionally, it’s lower on calories than regular mayo. And, because of the addition of lemon juice, a jar of this creamy heaven will last for up to a week in your fridge.
Furthermore, it’s egg-free, but still a great source of healthy fats. You can check out the full recipe over at Sweet Laurel.
Put it on your sandwiches, in your deviled egg mix, on bruschetta, in tuna salad, chicken salad… anywhere you’d usually use mayo, use this instead. Gallucci also recommends using it as a veggie dip, salad dressing, or burger spread. She writes:
“This mayo doubles as salad dressing, veggie dip, toast topper, you name! Enjoy this avo mayo as a condiment any day of week! I love it on a lettuce wrapped bison burger. Delish!”
So give it a try. Your taste buds will probably thank you.
Michigan State University researchers have shown that sunflower seeds are frequently contaminated with a toxin produced by molds and pose an increased health risk in many low-income countries worldwide.
In the current issue of PLoS ONE, the team of scientists documented frequent occurrence of aflatoxin — a toxin produced by Aspergillus molds that commonly infect corn, peanuts, pistachios and almonds — in sunflower seeds and their products. This is one of the first studies to associate aflatoxin contamination with sunflower seeds.
The study was conducted in Tanzania, but the problem is by no means isolated there. Chronic exposure to aflatoxin causes an estimated 25,000-155,000 deaths worldwide each year, from corn and peanuts alone. Since it is one of the most potent liver carcinogens known, the research to detect and limit its presence in sunflower seeds and their products could help save lives and reduce liver disease in areas where sunflowers and their byproducts are consumed, said Gale Strasburg, MSU food science and human nutrition professor and one of the study’s co-authors.
“These high aflatoxin levels, in a commodity frequently consumed by the Tanzanian population, indicate that local authorities must implement interventions to prevent and control aflatoxin contamination along the sunflower commodity value chain, to enhance food and feed safety in Tanzania,” he said. “Follow-up research is needed to determine intake rates of sunflower seed products in humans and animals, to inform exposure assessments and to better understand the role of sunflower seeds and cakes as a dietary aflatoxin source.”
Smallholder farmers in Tanzania grow sunflowers for the seeds, which are sold to local millers who press the seeds for oil and sell it to local consumers for cooking. The remaining cakes are used as animal feed.
The seeds become infected by Aspergillus flavus or Aspergillus parasiticus, molds that produce aflatoxin. This contamination has been well studied in other crops, but there is little research published on sunflower seed contamination.
Juma Mmongoyo, a former MSU food science doctoral student and lead author of the study, analyzed aflatoxin levels of seeds and cakes in seven regions of Tanzania in 2014 and 2015. Nearly 60 percent of seed samples and 80 percent of cake samples were contaminated with aflatoxins.
In addition, 14 percent of seeds and 17 percent of cakes were contaminated above 20 parts per billion, the level considered safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Some samples had levels of several hundred parts per billion.
“Billions of people worldwide are exposed to aflatoxin in their diets, particularly in places where food is not monitored regularly for contaminants,” said Felicia Wu, the Hannah Distinguished Professor of Food Science and Human Nutrition and Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics at MSU and study co-author. “Our previous work with the World Health Organization on the global burden of foodborne disease showed that aflatoxin is one of the chemical contaminants that causes the greatest disease burden worldwide.”
To help solve that problem, Wu founded the Center for the Health Impacts of Agriculture. The center tackles global issues, such as antibiotics given to livestock and poultry that seep into soil and nearby bodies of water, and the association between malaria incidence and irrigation patterns in sub-Saharan Africa.
MSU scientists John Linz, Muraleedharan Nair and Robert Tempelman contributed to this study. Jovin Mugula of the Sokoine University of Agriculture (Tanzania) also contributed to this research.
Note from Millie- It is better to address the causes of the heartburn, rather than putting a Band-Aid on the symptom. Causes can be leaky gut, food intolerances, too much processed food, poor nutrition.
(Reuters Health) – People who take popular heartburn pills known as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be more likely to develop intestinal infections than people who don’t take these medications, a Scottish study suggests.
The pills work by stopping cells in the stomach lining from producing too much of the acid that can cause ulcers and reflux symptoms such as heartburn.
Researchers examined data on about 188,000 people who used these drugs and about 377,000 similar individuals who didn’t take PPIs. Compared to people who didn’t use the drugs, those who did were at higher risk for a severe form of diarrhea caused by the Clostridium difficile bacteria. Their odds of this infection were 1.4 times higher when they were hospitalized and 1.7 times higher when they weren’t in the hospital.
In addition, PPI users had a 4.5 times greater risk of getting Campylobacter infections, a common form of food poisoning, if they were hospitalized and a 3.7 times higher risk when they weren’t hospitalized.
“Reducing stomach acid, which acts as a barrier to infection, increases the chance of getting a GI infection,” said senior study author Dr. Thomas MacDonald, a pharmacology researcher at the University of Dundee in Scotland.
“The main risk of PPIs are gastrointestinal infections,” MacDonald added by email.
MacDonald and colleagues analyzed data on stool samples collected from patients in Scotland between 1999 and 2013.
Overall, there were 22,705 positive test results for bacterial infections. This included 15,273 people with C. difficile and 6,590 cases of Campylobacter, the authors reported in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
Researchers also tested for Salmonella, Shigella and Escherichia coli, or E. coli, but didn’t find an association between PPIs and these infections.
One limitation of the study is that it only included data on people who took PPIs with a prescription, even though these drugs have been available in Scotland since 2004 without a prescription, the authors note. Researchers also lacked data on other factors that can influence the risk of bacterial infections such as obesity, smoking and alcohol use.
Previous research on PPIs and infections has produced mixed results, with some studies suggesting an association and others failing to establish a connection, noted Dr. Wojciech Marlicz, a gastroenterology researcher at Pomeranian Medical University in Poland who wasn’t involved in the study.
Millions of people worldwide take PPIs, which are available without a prescription in Europe and the U.S., which means even a slight increase in the odds of bacterial infections can still impact a lot of patients.
“The main problem with PPI use is their general overuse,” Marlicz said by email. “These drugs are very potent and safe when used according to indication.”
“Some patients will gain clear benefits from PPIs as they have stomach problems, such as ulcers which will heal better with less acid,” said Dr. Claire Steves, a researcher at King’s College London who wasn’t involved in the study.
“However other patients may take these as preventatives, or for mild symptoms,” Steves added by email. “This study would prompt us to reassess the risk and benefit for each individual, and in some cases alternatives – such as changing diet or lifestyle – may be better options.”
SOURCE: bit.ly/2ifBGbp British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, online January 5, 2017.
99.9% of Americans do not meet their caloric or nutrient levels daily. When you do not take in the proper amount of nutritious food, you WILL crave sugar…your poor brain needs energy! Sugar does an amazing amount of damage, helps grow cancers, leads to all sort of health problems. Let thos year be the year you wean off of sugar and get healthy!
Mark Hyman, MD Practicing physician
It’s over. The debate is settled.
It’s sugar, not fat, that causes heart attacks.
Oops. Fifty years of doctors’ advice and government eating guidelines have been wrong. We’ve been told to swap eggs for cereal. But that recommendation is dead wrong. In fact, it’s very likely that this bad advice has killed millions of Americans.
A rigorously done new study shows that those with the highest sugar intake had a four-fold increase in their risk of heart attacks compared to those with the lowest intakes. That’s 400 percent! Just one 20-ounce soda increases your risk of a heart attack by about 30 percent.
This study of more than 40,000 people, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, accounted for all other potential risk factors including total calories, overall diet quality, smoking, cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity and alcohol.
This follows on the heels of decades of research that has been mostly ignored by the medical establishment and policy makers. In fact, the Institute of Medicine recommends getting no more than 25 percent of your total calories from added sugar. Really? This study showed that your risk of heart attacks doubles if sugar makes up 20 percent of your calories.
Yet more than 70 percent of Americans consume 10 percent of their daily calories from sugar. And about 10 percent of Americans consume one in every four of their calories from sugar.
Failed Dietary Guidelines
U.S. Dietary Guidelines provide no limit for added sugar, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still lists sugar as a “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS) substance. That classification lets the food industry add unlimited amounts of sugar to our food. At least the American Heart Association recommends that our daily diet contain no more than 5 percent to 7.5 percent added sugar. Yet most of us are eating a lot more. Most of us don’t know that a serving of tomato sauce has more sugar than a serving of Oreo cookies, or that fruit yogurt has more sugar than a Coke, or that most breakfast cereals — even those made with whole grain — are 75 percent sugar. That’s not breakfast, it’s dessert!
This is a major paradigm shift. For years, we’ve been brainwashed into thinking that fat causes heart attacks and raises cholesterol, and that sugar is harmless except as a source of empty calories. They are not empty calories. As it turns out, sugar calories are deadly calories. Sugar causes heart attacks, obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cancer and dementia, and is the leading cause of liver failure in America.
The biggest culprit is sugar-sweetened beverages, including sodas, juices, sports drinks, teas and coffees. They are by far the single biggest source of sugar calories in our diet. In fact, more than 37 percent of our sugar calories come from soda. The average teenage boy consumes 34 teaspoons of sugar a day, or about 544 calories from sugar. Even more troubling, this isn’t just putting kids at risk for heart attacks at some remote later date in their lives. It’s killing them before their 20th birthday.
This new research syncs with decades of data on how sugar causes insulin resistance, high triglycerides, lower HDL (good) cholesterol and dangerous small LDL (bad) cholesterol. It also triggers the inflammation we now know is at the root of heart disease.
And fats, including saturated fats, have been unfairly blamed. With the exception of trans fats, fats are actually protective. This includes omega-3 fats, nuts and olive oil, which was proven to reduce heart attack risk by more than 30 percent in a recent large randomized controlled study.
Here’s the simple fact: Sugar calories are worse than other calories. All calories are not created equal. A recent study of more than 175 countries found that increasing overall calories didn’t increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes, but increasing sugar calories did — dramatically.
How to Cure Our Sugar Addiction
America lags far behind the rest of the world in addressing this problem. Mexico, for example, responded after learning that when soda consumption increased to 20 percent of calories for the average citizen, their rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes skyrocketed. Public health officials there researched effective solutions to combat obesity and diabetes from around the world.
The key interventions they implemented included taxing soda, banning junk food television advertising, and eliminating processed foods, junk food and sugar-sweetened beverages from schools. More than 15 countries have targeted sugar-sweetened beverages by taxing them — a strategy that’s proven successful.
Another effective strategy is revamping food labeling to make it clear if a food is good, should be consumed with caution, or is bad for you. In the United States, even someone with a Ph.D. in nutrition has trouble deciphering food labels. How can the average person be expected to know?
Recent and mounting scientific evidence clearly proves that sugar — and flour, which raises blood sugar even more than table sugar — is biologically addictive. In fact, it’s as much as eight times more addictive than cocaine.
The average American consumes about 152 pounds of sugar and 146 pounds of flour a year. It’s imperative that we revamp our outdated and dangerous national dietary guidelines. And we need clear strategies and medical programs to help people understand and address the health risks and addictive nature of sugar and refined carbohydrates.
That’s how we can reverse this tsunami of obesity and chronic disease that is robbing us of our health and crippling our economy.
Wishing you health and happiness,
Mark Hyman, MD
In my new book, The Blood Sugar Solution 10-Day Detox Diet, which will be released on February 25, I provide an easy, step-by-step plan to rid yourself of sugar addiction and reverse your risk of heart attacks. To download a sneak preview of this book, go to www.10daydetox.com and pre-order the book on Amazon
Mark Hyman, MD is a practicing physician, founder of The UltraWellness Center, a six-time New York Times bestselling author, and an international leader in the field of Functional Medicine. You can follow him on Twitter, connect with him on LinkedIn, watch his videos on YouTube, become a fan on Facebook, and subscribe to his newsletter.
Follow Mark Hyman, MD on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markhymanmd
Anyone who’s sucked down a scoop of protein powder knows that the quest for the perfect body can have some pretty smelly consequences. “Protein poo,” a particularly dank-smelling excretion, has long been considered a necessary — and expensive — evil among body builders wanting to enrich their diets with the raw material needed to build muscle. But some nutritional experts suggest that all those agonizing hours spent on the toilet may have been for naught.
As dietitians report in the Guardian, most people have diets rich enough in protein that supplements are unnecessary — and therefore, so are the terrible poops (and weird protein-filled urine) they elicit. The reason that protein powders continue to be so popular, they suggest, is because clever marketing has sold consumers an easily digestible half-truth: muscles are made of protein, so eating more protein will lead to more muscle.
The high cost of protein supplementation really stinks.
It is true that the body needs protein to maintain and grow the muscles in the body. Our muscle fibers are made of long chains of amino acids, which can be derived from the protein we eat but are also produced naturally by the body. But, as with all of the various fuels that the body requires in order to run, there is only so much protein the body can hold. To maintain homeostasis with the levels of other substances in the body, any excess protein has to be dumped. And, according to the dietitian’s calculation, most of the protein we consume is excess.
“The majority of people are consuming much more than the recommended daily allowance of protein through their everyday diet,” Dr. Alison Tedstone, the chief nutritionist of Public Health England, told the Guardian. Spending money on protein supplements, she explained further, is “unlikely to bring any additional benefit.”
Harvard Medical School’s health blog notes that the recommended daily allowance — the bare minimum you’re supposed to eat so you don’t get sick — of protein is a scant 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram (or 0.013 ounces per pound). Nutritionists suggest aiming for twice that amount — that is, obtaining 10 to 35 percent of your recommended caloric intake from protein — to be safe.
Most people won’t need protein supplements to hit that target, but if they take them anyway, they’d better be willing to accept that they’re literally flushing their money down the toilet. The price they pay is as much as a financial burden as an olfactory one: Proteins in supplements are often derived from dairy products (take heed, lactose-intolerant folks) and contain much more rotten egg-scented sulfurthan carbs and fat. Taking them in and breaking them down isn’t just expensive — it downright stinks.