Fructose. What happens when you remove it from your diet?

Is Sugar Really that Bad?

Fructose: What happens when you remove it from your diet?

 

By now most of you know to avoid and minimize your sugar intake. But do you really know why it is so important and what type of sugar should you be removing from your diet?

Fructose: Reasons why you should Avoid Processed Sugar

• There is a link between a processed food diet and disease-most processed foods are high in refined carbs, void of nutrients, and these carbs convert rapidly into sugar in your blood stream


• Sugar is the underlying factor in diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and obesity, not saturated fats like you led to believe


• Healthy weight-some people think that because they are not overweight it is okay to eat as much sugar as they want.  Even if you don’t gain weight, sugar will raise triglyceride levels, total cholesterol, and increase blood pressure


• Fructose-this is the worst kind of sugar because it has to be metabolized in your liver instead of in your intestines like glucose.

o   Your liver turns fructose into liver fat which causes metabolic problems.

o   Excess fructose shuts down the part of your brain that tells you when you are full; thus making overeating likely. Your Liver can only handle small quantities of fructose at any given time so excess fructose is stored as body fat instead of being burned as energy.

o   When you consume fructose in liquid form such as a soda, the effects not only speed up but are also magnified.

o   Fructose is not the preferred energy source for muscles or the brain

• It is more fat producing than glucose: basically fructose will pack on the pounds!


• Elevated insulin levels (caused by consuming too much processed sugar) give cancer tumors a boost by directing cancer cells to consume glucose.


• Some cancers actually contain insulin receptors, harnessing glucose to grow and spread.  For these cancers, eating sugar is like putting fuel on the fire.


• If you have cancer it is wise to remove all excess sugar from your diet: do your homework on this subject as hospitals will still give cancer patients foods loaded with sugar.  Yes, Ensure ( a common product given to cancer patients)  is filled with “crap” ingredients including sugar.  Read labels!


• Sugar is related to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease

o   There is still some debate however among neurologists and other medical professionals but research shows that sugar and other high refined carb type foods in excess age the brain and can increase the risk of dementia.

o   When you consume sugar in excess, it forms toxic compounds called advanced glycations end products (AGES)   Yes, sugar ages you!

o   Too much of the fast releasing glucose (which happens when you eat the refined carbs and sugary processed foods) overloads the brain cells which are less capable of handling this overload than the muscle cells.  (A high sugar, processed food diet can cause or contribute to depression)

o   So the more sugar and refined carbs you eat, the higher your insulin levels will be and then more peaks in your blood sugar levels.

o   These swings from high to low in your blood sugar will leave you tired, unable to concentrate and eventually over time it can lead to fading memory.

• Over time your body will become less responsive to its own insulin and will develop insulin resistant which is the precursor to diabetes


• And many are calling Alzheimer’s “type 3” diabetes.

Natural Alternatives

• If trying to eliminate sugar from your diet rather try to reduce your processed sugar intake. If you eliminate sugar completely from your diet you will also be eliminating very healthy choices such as some vegetables and fruits.  These are the foods that you do want in your diet!  You do need some sugar in your diet to fuel your muscles and keep your brain active.  So choose whole foods for your sugar source!  Beets, carrots, sweet potatoes, berries, apples and bananas are a few examples.

 

• Fruit is still the better option than processed food because it contains fiber and other vital nutrients needed for our health. Because of the fiber and additional nutrients, it does not cause the immediate spike in blood sugar that say a donut would that is void of additional nutrients.  However it is easy to go overboard on the fruit-2 servings per day only unless you are a very active person!

• Stevia Leaf to use as a sweetener. Not Truvia or PureVia which are processed products and not stevia in its pure form.

• Small amounts of raw honey and pure grade B Maple syrup.  Again, small amounts.  But these do contain some nutrients.  Use these in meals and snacks that are not cooked or cooked below 115 degrees as the heat will destroy the beneficial nutrients in these products.

Benefits of a Sugar Free Lifestyle

• Just read the “effects of sugar” to know the benefits of a processed sugar free lifestyle


• decreased cancer risk


• improved triglyceride levels


• manage weight/lose weight


• reduce diabetes risk


• healthy brain function


• reduce heart disease risk


• have more energy


• clearer more vibrant skin

Want to know more about how to stop those sugar cravings? Stay tuned for an article on  herbs and supplements to help when those cravings hit.

Sources

Bauman, E. & Friedlander, J. (2014) Therapeutic Nutrition.  Pengrove, CA: Bauman College

Ellison, S. (Set/Oct. 2015) Sugar.  Why it sabotages our health.  Onfitnessmagazine.com, vol. 16, no. 2.

Sboros, M.  (10/1/15)Love Sugar? You May Hate What It does to your Brain!

http://www.bznews.com/health/2015/10/01/love-sugar-remember-it-is-ageing-your-brain/

 

Karen Brennan, MSW, CNC, owner of Tru Foods Nutrition LLC and author of the Tru Foods Depression Free Nutrition Guide E book believes in getting to the root of your health issues instead of symptom management. For more information, visit her site at www.trufoodsnutrition.com

Fructose. What happens when you remove it from your diet?

Fructose Feeds Cancer Much more Than Other Sugars

Fructose might in fact do much more to market and proliferate the growth of cancer cells than any other kind of sugar.  Fructose is the type of sugar typically recognized to be in fruit, but it is most heavily consumed in the type of different higher fructose corn syrups utilised in several processed meals and most sodas.  Glucose, on the other hand, derives from carbohydrates in pasta, rice, and other grains.

A study performed at UCLA identified that cancer cells utilised fructose to multiply more quickly than they did with glucose.

In accordance to the examine writer, Anthony Heaney of UCLA’s Jonsson Complete Cancer Center, “These findings demonstrate that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to boost proliferation.”

Based mostly in this investigation, anyone with or predisposed to cancer need to be mindful keep away from any products containing fructose, and opt instead for alternatives like organic sugar cane, stevia, or xylitol.

Sources:

http://naturalsociety.com/fructose-fuels-cancer-far more-than-other-varieties-of-sugar/

Fructose Feeds Cancer Much more Than Other Sugars

Sweet And Sour: The Media Made the decision Fructose Was Negative For America But Science Had Second Thoughts

For the past decade, a specter has haunted the foods chain—the specter of large fructose corn syrup (HFCS). HFCS began daily life as a technological response to a industry problem—volatile rates for sugar in the 1970s and early 1980s driven by protectionism and dumping, along with substantial production charges and all the challenge of matching a multi-yr crop to shifting demand. HFCS aimed to stabilize the value of sweetness. It did and in performing so, it conquered the US industry.

But HFCS had, like Achilles, a weakness—actually, two. 1st, as numerous scientists have mentioned, higher fructose corn syrup wasn’t genuinely large in fructose—and it is other primary element was glucose. The sweet spot in balancing fructose with glucose was approximately a ratio of fifty five percent to 45 percent—the very same as honey—and not dissimilar to ordinary table sugar, which has a ratio of 50:50.

The 2nd weakness was timing.  The spread of HFCS coincided with the beginnings of the obesity crisis—or far more specifically a point the place individuals had been beginning to tip in excess of the BMI boundary lines from typical to overweight and overweight to obese. This, as we now know from the function of John Komlos, was a prolonged time in the creating: BMI values began to rise—and rise dramatically—in the 1950s, but the sudden appearance of enormous excess weight obtain in the population led some scientists to wonder regardless of whether it may well be connected with this new fangled ingredient.

The consequence was a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) 2004— “Consumption of higher-fructose corn syrup in drinks might perform a role in the epidemic of obesity”—which noted that “The increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened drinks may possibly perform a function in the epidemic of weight problems.”

Just as people glom onto miracle diet plans and miracle food items, they also seem for the Darth Vader ingredients—those which use the force of taste to take over our bodies. HFCS was new, it was from corn, it was large in fructose. And it provided a easy remedy to a hugely complicated dilemma of why America was abruptly in the grip of weight problems.

But was this, “important potential hypothesis,” for the obesity epidemic (as the authors of the review wrote) accurate? The level of science is to advance hypotheses, check them, and arrive at some degree of causal validity. Were weight problems and metabolic syndrome a outcome of Americans typically eating also much foods and becoming inactive, or was there some thing to fructose that was distinctly bad—and therefore a key lead to of excess weight gain—as opposed to it currently being one issue amid many? So began a single of the major controversies of the obesity crisis.

In 2008, the American Healthcare Association passed a resolution at its yearly conference saying that there was inadequate scientific evidence to indict HFCS as a exclusive contributor to obesity. At the same time, it also stated that the scientific literature on the problem was quite restricted. In 2012, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association) concluded that the research—now far more expansive— provided “little evidence that HFCS differs uniquely from sucrose and other nutritive sweeteners in metabolic results.”

The authors of the unique AJCN review continued to maintain that fructose may well be much more of a issue than sugar simply because of the ongoing study on metabolic variations amongst the two. And they have been joined by pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, who took fears about the effects of fructose and sugar on the population to a total new level. Fructose, he contended in a a lot-watched YouTube lecture, and later a guide, is poisonous—the toxic element of sugar.

It is not unfair to say that this was a place that won Lustig numerous critics and really number of converts between scientists. As Scientific American pointed out, 1 crucial problem with Lustig’s argument is that “concern about fructose is based mostly on research in which rodents and individuals consumed massive amounts of the molecule—up to 300 grams of fructose every single day, which is nearly equivalent to the total sugar in eight cans of Coke—or a diet regime in which the huge vast majority of sugars have been pure fructose.”

Mike Gibney, Director of University University Dublin’s Institute of Foods and Overall health, concurred, “The majority of animal scientific studies used as a lot as 55% of calories from fructose, a predicament, which is impossible to envisage in the human diet plan except perhaps in the make-believe land of milk and honey.”

Lustig also ignored the double whammy of increases in consumption of other food items besides sugar and a decrease in bodily exercise above the past forty years, wrote fitness and nutrition specialist Alan Aragorn.

In a report on the controversy more than Lustig and fructose, David Klerfeld, a nationwide plan leader in Human Nutrition for the USDA, told ABC News, “So a lot of issues have occurred in our environment in the previous fifty many years, from a complete increase in calories to a decrease in activity—it’s absurd to pin the entire weight problems dilemma on a single food this kind of as fructose or even sugar consumption as a whole. Why aren’t we focusing on ginormous portions rather than wasting time looking at single elements?”

And Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Well being (and no fan of soda or the meals market) told The Washington Publish, “Telling people the dilemma is all fructose is entirely wrong.”

But who exactly was telling people this? Why are we wasting time hunting at single components alternatively of all round diet regime and exercise? The direction of the research, the consensus statements by professional associations, the remarks by frustrated nutritionists—all converged on a easy message. Why did that message appear to be muffled, unheard, untaken?

In accordance to a new research, blame the information media.

Now, obviously not every single information story, for the ones cited in this post from ABC News, The Washington Submit and Scientific American are all hugely informative, and ascend (in my view) in orders of excellence. But when you appear at the news media coverage ecologically, do these kinds of stories drive both journalistic and public comprehending more than time?

Sweet And Sour: The Media Made the decision Fructose Was Negative For America But Science Had Second Thoughts