(Truth Theory) From using Jesus in their marketing campaigns to heavily contributing to the obesity epidemic Coca Cola certainly have not been short of controversy.
These attempts to mask the truth about their products have not gone unnoticed and many have taken to the internet to expose the real effects of Coca Cola. This photo from journalist Jess Murray was quickly turned into a powerful anti Coca Cola message highlighting the environmental damage that Coca Cola has caused.
In October 2017 Greenpeace shared a report calling out Coca-Cola’s on its single-use plastic bottles.
Plastic bottles are one of the most commonly found items on beach cleans and on the ocean’s surface. Once they are in the environment, they become a hazard for wildlife. Larger pieces of plastic can become an entanglement or choking hazard for animals. These larger plastics break down over time into microplastics which have been found in everything from seafood, sea salt and even our drinking water.
The report is especially critical of the companies failing to reach the goals it set to source 25% of its bottles from recycled or renewable sources, and the non-existence of targets to reduce its use of single-use bottles since then. Greenpeace also claims that Coca-Cola has actively lobbied against recycling and deposit return schemes in several European countries, while at the same time maintaining a green marketing facade with vague promises and false-solutions such as sizable donations to schemes that put the emphasis of anti-littering on the consumer, instead of the producer of the litter itself. Source Wikipedia
Coca Cola often uses slick marketing ploys in an attempt to mask the detriment their products have to our health and the planet. Another example of this is diet and low calorie alternatives which contain chemicals such as aspartame.
In 2013 Coca Cola released a video saying they are helping to fight against the obesity epidemic. The video below is a response to the original Coca Cola video with the words changed to give a more accurate and honest representation of the role Coke have played in the obesity crisis.
Coca Cola are the world’s leading manufacturer of soft drinks, and have an obligation to not destroy our health and planet just so they can heighten their profits. Please share if you agree.
A new study mirrors earlier research showing that suicidal thoughts and major depressive episodes have a strong correlation to brain inflammation, New Atlas reports. The findings also agree with post-mortems of suicidal patients, which showed inflammation in their brains. Researchers said this may be a new use for anti-inflammatory drugs.
Although multiple factors are likely to blame, with cases of suicide rising in the U.S. every year, these new findings certainly deserve attention, as inflammation is a known cause of numerous physical and mental conditions. Gut inflammation, for example, is known to be a cause of symptoms of depression.
Dietary keys include limiting sugars and gluten, and increasing healthy fats, omega-3, fiber and fermented foods rich in natural probiotics. Sugar, especially, is a known inflammatory that has already been linked to depression. Unfortunately, many are under the mistaken belief they can protect their health by swapping refined sugar for artificial sweeteners – something you just don’t want to do.
One simple way to dramatically reduce your sugar intake is to replace processed foods with real whole foods. Eating plenty of fruits and vegetables is associated with lower odds of depression and anxiety, an effect ascribed to antioxidants that help combat inflammation in your body. Certain nutrients are also known to cause symptoms of depression when lacking, so it’s important to eat a varied whole food diet.
If you are feeling desperate or have any thoughts of suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, a toll-free number 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or call 911, or simply go to your nearest hospital emergency department.
Comment: For more on the dietary links between diet and depression see:
“Sweet food has been found to induce positive feelings in the short-term. People experiencing low mood may eat sugary foods in the hope of alleviating negative feelings. Our study suggests a high intake of sugary foods is more likely to have the opposite effect on mental health in the long-term.” ~ Anika Knüppel, Ph.D. student at the Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London
Knuppel’s research supplements many other scientific studies on the link between sugar and mental health. In the end, they all seem to reach the same conclusion: In addition to the physical damage sugar does to our body, an effect on mental health definitely exists. What we presently don’t know is the magnitude or the exact scope of these negative effects.
Sugar Linked to Depression in Multiple Studies
The team at University College London examined the amount of sugar in the diet and common mental health problems in a large sample of 5000 men and 2000 women who were part of the 1980’s Whitehall II study. They compared groups of participants based on their sugar intake and their sex.
The researchers concluded that men with the highest sugar intake had a 23 percent higher chance of suffering a mental disorder. They based this estimated risk on a comparison with other men who consumed the lowest levels of sugar. Interestingly, the analysis did not identify the same link in women.
Knuppel’s isn’t the first researcher to link high-sugar diet to a higher risk of depression. Here are the findings of several other studies conducted over the last couple of decades.
A study out of Baylor College, published in 2002, analyzed sugar consumption in six countries. The researchers found that higher rates of refined sugar were associated with higher rates of depression.
In Spain, researchers assessed the relationship between consumption of fast food and commercial baked goods (muffins, doughnuts, croissants) and the incidence of depression. They discovered that participants belonging to the group with higher consumption quantities showed an increased risk of depression compared with those belonging to the lowest level of consumption.
Another study exposed the link between sugar and depression in 2014. This one evaluated the consumption of various types of beverages in over 260,000 participants with self-reported depression diagnosis. The researchers concluded that frequent consumption of sweetened beverages, especially diet drinks, may increase depression risk.
Finally, in 2015, yet another US-based study evaluated the effects of added-sugar and naturally occurring sugar intake in 70,000 women. In conclusion, researchers associated progressively higher consumption of dietary added sugars with increasing odds of depression.
Sugar in the Modern Diet
Research continues to confirm the adverse effects of sugar intake. Consequently, if you seek better long-term psychological health, lowering your intake of sugar may be a beneficial preventative measure.
Unfortunately, people typically eat excessive amounts of sugar. Here are some statistics:
The World Health Organization recommends that people reduce their daily intake of added sugars (that is, all sugar, excluding the sugar that is naturally found in fruit, vegetables and milk) to less than 5% of their total energy intake. However, people in the UK consume double – in the US, triple – that amount of sugar. Three-quarters of these added sugars come from sweet food and beverages, such as cakes and soft drinks. The rest come from other processed foods, such as ketchup. (source)
There are many factors that contribute to mental illness such as depression. Scientific proof continues to point the finger at diet as an important and significant culprit. Therefore, radically reducing or even eliminating sugar altogether may a crucial step to not only treating but curing symptoms of depression and anxiety.
Anna Hunt is the founder of AwarenessJunkie.com, an online community paving the way to better health, a balanced life, and personal transformation. She is also the co-editor and staff writer for WakingTimes.com. Anna is a certified Hatha yoga instructor and founder of Atenas Yoga Center. She enjoys raising her three children and being a voice for optimal human health and wellness. Visit her essential oils store here.
Brain damage is often a result of unnecessary stress and exposure to air pollutants.
You might reconsider the consequence of these seemingly innocuous habits when you learn how they can inhibit neurological function and cause the brain to age.
Remember, for the most part, your comfort zone isn’t doing you any favours. Break away from your normal routine and explore, write, create and travel. Try new things that stimulate the senses. Learning new skills keeps your brain young, and should be a priority at every age.
2. Skipping Breakfast
Not eating breakfast can lead to lower blood sugar levels, which ultimately deprives your brain of nutrients. If your brain isn’t given sufficient nutrition, it begins to degenerate. Eat a healthy, filling breakfast high in protein.
Smoking cigarettes can cause obstruction of blood flow to the brain, and also can lead to escape of blood into brain tissue. Smoking can cause brain cells to shrink, and has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease, strokes,
4. Eating Sugar
Eating sugar triggers inflammatory responses throughout the body, which ultimately stresses and ages cells. This can effect “from cognitive function to psychological wellbeing”. Sugar also has been linked to depression and anxiety.
5. Sleep Deprivation
When you’ve chronically been deprived of sleep, the brain is forced to emit stress responses which inflame and incite brain degeneration. Not sleeping naturally induces bad moods, lethargy and leads to depression and weight gain due to cortisol production. If you are in this habit currently, you may not realize it, but once you have a little sleep, you will soon notice the positive effect it has on your brain.
6. Covering Head While Sleeping
If you’re dependent on sleeping with a blanket covering your head then you might want to reconsider. The more ventilation, the better, because you want to be exposed to oxygen. Allow the body and mind to breathe in fresh air— the fresher the better. Open the windows, use fans, light incense, herbs, or aromatherapy.
When you overindulge on food, the body can become overloaded by the refined sugars and fats, and release stress responses as a result. These types of foods also clog arteries, which can lead to blockages in the brain.
8. Avoiding Change/ Not Speaking
The brain craves intellectual stimulation. Spend time with people who challenge your traditional patterns of thinking. The brain can get into ruts of small-minded thinking, which ultimately inhibit growth. This is how evolution is able to take place, by developing adaptation to our respective environments. Humans need to express themselves verbally and spend time with people who are different from themselves.
Some citifies (sic)experience more air pollution because they use wood-burning stoves or burn carbon in electricity production. You can look up the air quality index in your area, here.
10. Not resting the brain.
The brain functions like a muscle, and therefore it needs to be rested in order for exercise to be integrated. When the brain experiences the type of relaxation induced by meditation, it clears passages and triggers change on a deep level. This improves cognitive functions. Most daily actions are taking place on a superficial level, which produces a natural anxiety in most people, which is an unhealthy habit. Meditation helps inhibit this type of hyperactivity, stressful mode of the brain.
A recent scientific study just proved something that viewers of CNN have probably suspected for years: Journalists’ brains function at a lower level than the rest of the population.
A study conducted by neuroscientist Tara Swift and the London Press Club determined that “the highest functions of journalists brains were operating at a lower level than the average population, due to dehydration, self-medicating, and fueling their brains with caffeine and high-sugar foods”
Journalists’ brains show a lower level of executive function – that is, the ability of the brain to regulate emotions, suppress biases, switch between tasks, solve complex problems and think flexibly and creatively – than the average person because to their heavy drinking, and caffeine consumption. They also eat too many high-sugar foods, and don’t devote enough time to mindfulness.
Dr Swart recruited 31 journalists from across the industry to participate in the study. Participants were required to record their eating and drinking habits, answer a brain profile questionnaire, take blood tests, and wear heart-rate variability monitors.
The study was initially launched to examine how journalists manage to “survive and thrive” while managing such high levels of occupational stress. “Journalism,” the press release notes, “is one of many industries under an increasing amount of pressure in the digital age. Low pay, frequent deadlines, and high levels of accountability all contribute to high reported stress levels.”
The U.S. spends more than $1 trillion each year fighting the damaging health effects of sugar, which includes obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer
Obesity is responsible for an estimated 500,000 cancer cases worldwide each year
Both sugar and overeating in general cause mitochondrial dysfunction, which can lead to DNA damage and result in cancer
According to the Credit Suisse Research Institute’s 2013 study1 “Sugar: Consumption at a Crossroads,” as much as 40 percent of US healthcare expenditures are for diseases directly related to the overconsumption of sugar.
Incredibly, we spend more than $1 trillion each year fighting the damaging health effects of sugar, which runs the gamut from obesity and diabetes, to heart disease and cancer.
The fact that sugar and obesity are linked to an increased risk of cancer is now becoming well-recognized. According to a report2 on the global cancer burden, published in 2014, obesity is responsible for an estimated 500,000 cancer cases worldwide each year.
Nearly two-thirds of obesity-related cancers — which include colon, rectum, ovary, and womb cancers — occur in North America and Europe.3 A more recent British report estimates obesity may result in an additional 670,000 cancer cases in the UK alone over the next 20 years.
According to BBC News,4 the Cancer Research UK and the UK Health Forum report are calling for a ban on junk food ads aired before 9pm to address out of control rise in obesity and obesity-related diseases.
Meanwhile, a German investigation into diet-induced diseases and related treatment costs reveal that sugar-induced oral disease represents the greatest chunk of that nation’s health care costs.
“… [T]he substantial impact of sugar consumption found in the study was mainly due to the costs of treating caries and other diseases of the hard tissue of teeth, hypertensive and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, rectal and colon cancer, as well as chronic kidney disease.”
Since sugar is not our ideal fuel, it burns dirty with far more reactive oxygen species than fat, which generates far more free radicals which in turn causes mitochondrial and nuclear DNA damage along with cell membrane and protein impairment.
Research6 has also shown that chronic overeating in general has a similar effect. Most people who overeat also tend to eat a lot of sugar-laden foods — a double-whammy in terms of cancer risk.
Chronic overeating places stress on the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), the membranous network found inside the mitochondria of your cells. When the ER receives more nutrients than it can process, it signals the cell to dampen the sensitivity of the insulin receptors on the surface of the cell.
Thus continuously eating more than your body really needs promotes insulin resistance by the mere fact that your cells are stressed by the work placed on them by the excess nutrients. Insulin resistance in turn is at the heart of most chronic disease, including cancer.
High-Fructose Corn Syrup Primary Culprit in Cancer
This also helps explain why intermittent fasting (as well as other forms of calorie restriction) is so effective for reversing insulin resistance, reducing your risk of cancer, and increasing longevity.
Obesity, caused by a combination of eating too much refined fructose/sugar and rarely if ever fasting, may also promote cancer via other mechanisms, including chronic inflammation and elevated production of certain hormones, such as estrogen, which is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer.
According to recent research,7,8 from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, refined sugar not only significantly increases your risk of breast cancer, it also raises your risk of tumors spreading to other organs.
Moreover, this study found that it was primarily the refined fructose in high-fructose corn syrup, found in most processed foods and beverages that was responsible for the breast tumors and the metastasis.
Without Sugar, Cancer Cannot Thrive
One of the most powerful strategies I know of to avoid and/or treat cancer is to starve the cancer cells by depriving them of their food source, which is primarily sugar and excessive protein.
Unlike all the other cells in your body, which can burn carbs or fat for fuel, cancer cells have lost that metabolic flexibility and can only thrive if there enough sugar present.
German cancer researcher Dr. Otto Warburg was actually given a Nobel Prize in 1931 for discovering this. Sadly very few experts have embraced his metabolic theory of cancer, but have embraced the nuclear genetic theory that is a downstream side effect of mitochondrial dysfunction.
Make no mistake about it, the FIRST thing you want to do if you want to avoid or treat cancer if you have insulin or leptin resistance (which 85 percent of people do) is to cut out all forms of sugar/fructose and grain carbs from your diet, in order to optimize the signaling pathways that contribute to malignant transformation.
Reduce Your Fructose and Non-Fiber Carb Intake
I recommend reducing your total fructose intake to a maximum of 25 grams/day, from all sources, including fruit. If you are insulin resistant, you’d do well to make your upper limit 15 grams/day.
Cancer patients would likely be best served by even stricter limits. For a more detailed discussion please review my interview with Professor Thomas Seyfried, who is one of the leading cancer pioneer researchers in promoting how to treat cancer nutritionally. I personally believe that most would benefit from reducing all non-fiber carbs (total carbs minus fiber), not just fructose, to less than 100 grams per day.
I typically keep mine around 50 to 60 grams every day.
The easiest way to dramatically cut down on your sugar and fructose consumption is to switch to REAL foods, as most of the added sugar you end up with comes from processed fare, not from adding a teaspoon of sugar to your tea or coffee. But there are other ways to cut down well. This includes:
Cutting back on the amount of sugar you personally add to your food and drink
Using fresh fruit in lieu of canned fruit or sugar for meals or recipes calling for a bit of sweetness
Using spices instead of sugar to add flavor to your meal
Signs of Progress, But Dietary Guidelines Are Still Flawed
The excess consumption of sugar in the U.S. can be directly traced to flawed dietary guidelines and misplaced agricultural subsidies. Progress is being made however, with the 2015 to 2020 U.S. dietary guidelines9 now recommending limiting your sugar intake to a maximum of 10 percent of your daily calories.10Google Trends11 also reveal that more people are now concerned with low-sugar diets than low-fat diets.
Unfortunately, the dietary guidelines still suggest limiting saturated fat to 10 percent of calories, which is likely far too low for most people. Tragically, it also makes no distinction between healthy saturated fats and decidedly unhealthy trans fats. Saturated fats are actually very important for optimal health, and those with insulin/leptin resistance may need upwards of 50 to 80 percent of their daily calories from healthy fat.
Trans fats, on the other hand, have no redeeming health value, and the evidence suggests there’s no safe limit for trans fats. Besides that glaring flaw, the conundrum with the new guidelines is that both sugar and fat should be limited to 10 percent each of daily calories.
This completely ignores the fact that as you cut out sugar (carbs), you need to replace that lost energy with something else, and that something else is healthy fat, such as that found in avocado, organic seeds and nuts, raw organic butter, cheese, and coconut oil, just to name a few.
They do get a number of things right though. In addition to the recommendation to limit sugar, the limits for dietary cholesterol have been removed, giving the thumbs up for eggs and other cholesterol-rich foods. They also note that most Americans need to reduce the amount of red meat consumed.
As I’ve discussed before, the risks of eating too much protein include an increased risk for cancer, as it can have a stimulating effect on the mTOR pathway, which plays an important role in many diseases, including cancer.
When you reduce protein to just what your body needs, mTOR remains inhibited, which helps minimize your chances of cancer growth. As a general rule, I recommend limiting your protein to one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body mass, which for most people amounts to 40 to 70 grams of protein a day.
U.S. Government Has Long Encouraged Sugar Consumption
With one food — sugar — causing such pervasive health problems and so much national expense (again, about $1 trillion per year!), U.S. regulators would do well by encouraging lower sugar consumption. Yet they don’t. The new dietary guidelines are one step in the right direction, but to really get to the root of the obesity problem, they also need to rethink sugar and corn subsidies.12
Current farm subsidies bring you high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), fast food, junk food, corn-fed beef from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), monoculture, and a host of other contributors to our unhealthy contemporary diet. Both the sugar and corn industry (from which you get high fructose corn syrup) are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Moreover, as noted by The Washington Post last year:13
“The [sugar] industry used to boast that its government protection does not cost taxpayers anything directly, but that claim has been exploded due to recent market developments that forced the federal government to, in effect, buy up tons and tons of sugar and sell it to ethanol refiners at a loss — so as to prop up prices. Taxpayers took a hit of some $258 million in fiscal 2014.”
Billions of dollars go to corn farmers who have driven down the price of corn so deeply that HFCS is now the number one source of calories in the standard American diet, simply because it’s so cheap. Meanwhile, very few farm subsidies are being doled out to the farmers who grow your produce.
Between 1995 and 2012, the amount gifted to corn growers was $84,427,099,356. Compare this with the amount that went to apple growers: $242,064,005.14 In a 2012 report entitled “Apples to Twinkies,” it was determined that each year your tax dollars (in the form of subsidies) would allow you to buy 19 Twinkies but less than a quarter of one red delicious apple.
There can be little doubt that the U.S. government’s decision to subsidize junk food ingredients rather than real food, such as fresh produce, plays a major role in American’s eating habits, since people will typically eat that which is available and that which they can afford.
At present, most Americans spend upwards of 90 percent of their food budgets on processed foods, which are typically loaded with added sugars/fructose, and offer little in terms of nutritional value. Obesity is a result of such eating habits, and making real food more readily available at lower prices could go a long way toward reversing this trend.
Study: Reducing Sugar Content and Taxing Soda May Greatly Reduce Obesity
The suggestion of a soda tax has been flouted for a number of years now, both in the U.S. and Great Britain,15 and elsewhere. The vast majority have failed due to intensive lobbying and local anti-tax campaigns by the sugar industry. It did succeed in one place however. In Mexico, where a 10 percent tax on sugary beverages was enacted as of January 1, 2014, sales of such beverages shrunk by 12 percent in one year.16 As reported by Newsweek,17
“The decline in consumption was greatest amongst those who earned the least, and appears to be going up over time as people’s habits change … Frank Chaloupka, an economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who wasn’t involved in the study, says that the tax ought to be applied elsewhere, and would improve health by encouraging a lower consumption of sugar.
‘I think sugary beverage taxes should be an important part of a comprehensive approach to promoting healthier diets and reducing obesity,’ he says. ‘The experiences in Mexico are demonstrating their effectiveness in altering consumer behavior, which will almost certainly eventually show up” as a decline in obesity, he adds.'”
Other investigations suggest simply lowering the sugar content of sodas may do the trick. A British study,18 which assessed the potential health benefits of gradually lowering sugar content in beverages over a 5-year period, suggests such a strategy might prevent 1 million cases of obesity over 20 years.
While the impact on any given individual would be quite small, reducing the average person’s calorie consumption by a mere 38 calories a day by the end of the 5th year (equating to a weight loss of just 1.2 pounds), the grand societal effect could still be pronounced.
By reducing people’s weight even slightly, an estimated 274,000 to 309,000 cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented over the following two decades. Still, when you consider that the sugar and corn industries are fighting to receive the largest subsidies and market share to give you cancer, it would make sense to stop subsidizing sugar and corn before you start taxing sugary products.
Cancer Screening Does Not Save Lives
Cancer screening is conventionally touted as being an important part of “cancer prevention,” even though it does no such thing. Now, researchers question the validity of public service announcements claiming that “cancer screening saves lives.” According to a recent analysis,19 it’s “unclear” whether screening actually saves lives, and the researchers warn that claiming it does is “misleading.”
“The problem, they say, is that the ubiquitous adage is based on the fact that deaths from the target disease may decline but fails to take into account deaths linked to factors related to the screening itself. Sure, screening for prostate cancer might reduce the incidence of death from that specific disease, but does it reduce overall mortality for the person who got the screening? Maybe not.
For example, prostate cancer screening is known to return ‘numerous’ false positives … and contributes to over 1 million prostate biopsies a year. The procedure is ‘associated with serious harms, including admission to hospital and death.’ What’s more, men diagnosed with prostate cancer are ‘more likely to have a heart attack or commit suicide in the year after diagnosis’ … In both cases, the deaths aren’t due to the cancer itself but rather are linked to the screening.”
The same goes for breast cancer screening and colorectal cancer screening:
• 60 percent of women who undergo regular mammography screening for 10 years receive a false positive at some point, leading to unnecessary distress and treatment, which can have serious side effects. Studies have also shown that routine mammograms have no effect on death rates.
“[T]hese tests avert just 1 breast cancer death for every 1,000 women screened. ‘There used to be ads saying if a woman hadn’t had a mammogram, she needed more than her breasts examined,’ Prasad said. ‘The fact that the medical profession promoted screening so strongly, when it was always a balancing act, when it was always a personal choice, is really shameful.'”
• A study22 looking at colorectal cancer screening found 128 cancer deaths among every 10,000 people who received screening, compared to 192 cancer deaths among every 10,000 individuals who didn’t get screened.
While there were fewer cancer deaths among those screened, this link completely disappeared when they looked at all-cause mortality. When death from all causes was included, there was no meaningful difference between the two groups.
It’s Time to Change the Discussion About Cancer Screening
According to the authors, in order to determine whether cancer screening truly saves lives, “statistically robust studies based on millions of people are needed.” This would be a costly venture, they admit, “but no more so than supporting mass population screening programs with unproven benefits.”
In an accompanying editorial,23 Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development notes that:
“Rather than pouring resources into ‘megatrials’ with a small chance of detecting a minimal overall mortality reduction, at the additional cost of harming large numbers of patients, we should invest in transparent information in the first place. It is time to change communication about cancer screening from dodgy persuasion into something straightforward.”
To do so, she suggests patients should be given pamphlets with fact boxes that clearly present the available data, such as the Risk Literacy fact sheet for mammography below,24 which shows that while mammograms reduce cancer specific mortality in 1 out of 1,000 women, this difference is not reflected in overall mortality.
And, that as many as 10 women out of 1,000 women screened will undergo unnecessary breast removal as a result of a false positive.
Presented with such data, patients would be better able to make a personal decision about whether or not screening in their particular instance might be worth the risk. She also notes that while some may benefit from screening, doctors should not overstate the value of the tests. In an email to Reuters, Gigerenzer says:
“The take-home message is after decades of research we have not found clear evidence that screening saves lives, but clear evidence that screening harms many.”
Cancer Prevention Begins with Your Lifestyle Choices
Cancer screening is portrayed as the best form of “prevention” you can get against various forms of cancer. But early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. And cancer screening that does more harm than good can hardly qualify as the best you can hope for … I believe the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strictly applying basic, common-sense healthy lifestyle strategies, which includes the following:
Eat REAL food; avoid processed foods and sugars, especially processed fructose
All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
Reduce non-fiber carbs but have large volumes of fresh organic veggies along with loads of fat from high quality sources such as avocados, raw butter, seeds, nuts, and raw cacao nibs.
Stop eating AT LEAST three hours before going to bed
There is quite compelling evidence showing that when you supply fuel to the mitochondria in your cells at a time when they don’t need it, they will leak a large number of electrons that will liberate reactive oxygen species (free radicals), which damage mitochondrial and eventually nuclear DNA.
There is also evidence to indicate that cancer cells uniformly have damaged mitochondria, so the last thing you want to do is eat before you go to bed. Personally I strive for 6 hours of fasting before bedtime.
Optimize your vitamin D
Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death).
If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 to 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I’m aware of, with no adverse effects.
Limit your protein
Newer research has emphasized the importance of the mTOR pathways. When these are active, cancer growth is accelerated.
To quiet this pathway, I believe it may be wise to limit your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or roughly a bit less than half a gram of protein per every pound of lean body weight.
That is roughly 40 to 70 grams per day for most. It would be unusual for most to need more than this.
Avoid unfermented soy products
Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
Improve your insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity
One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down, and controlling your insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.
It’s also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die.
Studies have also found that the number of tumors decrease along with body fat, which may be an additional factor.
This is because exercise helps lower your estrogen levels, which explains why exercise appears to be particularly potent against breast cancer.
Finally, exercise increases mitochondrial biogenesis, which is essential to fight cancer.
Maintain a healthy body weight
This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It’s important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
Drink a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily
This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer.
For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.25
It’s important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I’ve provided several absorption tips here.
Avoid drinking alcohol
At minimum, limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible
Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer
Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy.
(There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)
If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens
These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk.
Make sure you’re not iodine deficient
There’s compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,26 author of the book “Iodine: Why You Need it, Why You Can’t Live Without it,” is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer.
It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.
For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein’s book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on.
However, I am not convinced that his dosage recommendations are ideal. I believe they are 5 to 6 times higher than optimal.
Avoid charring your meats
Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide — a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried — has been found to increase cancer risk as well.
Unhealthy food concept – sugar in carbonated drinks. High amount of sugar in beverages
Photo Credit: Evan Lorne/Shutterstock
It’s no news flash that corporations make money selling products that turn out to be harmful to public health, or that these corporations not only oppose government regulation but support biased scientific research that creates confusion about the harm their products are causing. The story is often the same: A company knew its product caused harm; it covered up the truth, and promoted false science in its own defense.
We’re well aware of this pattern when it comes to Phillip Morris and cigarettes. We’re now learning of a similar pattern with Exxon-Mobil, which knew about global warming but promoted and supported the research of climate change deniers in order to ward off attempts to regulate fossil fuel extraction and production.
Greed and narrow self-interest have regularly corrupted science. Why should the food industry be any different?
It’s not. The culprit this time is sugar, and the companies like Nestle, Hershey’s and General Mills that make and sell it. A huge array of common foodstuffs contain either sugar or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), from pretzels and bread to barbecue sauce and cigarettes (yes, cigarettes). Americans eat approximately 130 pounds of sugar per person per year.
Leading the charge against the ideologies pushed by this powerful industry is science writer Gary Taubes, whose new book, The Case Against Sugar is the most comprehensive account to date of the politics and science behind sugar, a substance that, according to Taubes, is “the principal cause of the chronic diseases that are most likely to kill us, or at least accelerate our demise, in the 21st century.” Taubes is a passionate partisan. As he says in his foreword, “If this were a criminal case, The Case Against Sugar would be the argument for the prosecution.”
Taubes is a historian of science, delving into scientific debates that are centuries old. Debates about the health hazards of sugar are simply another example of the ways that science can be politicized, pressed into the service of special interests. Science, after all, once “proved” that African Americans didn’t feel pain as much as whites, that women couldn’t think well with the left sides of their brains, and that intelligence was based primarily in genetics and not social conditions. That we now know better is not only the result of better science, but of social movements that challenged traditional prejudices and orthodoxies in all areas of culture, including science.
Taubes’ book should be required reading for anyone alarmed by the fact that at least one in three adult Americans is obese, two-thirds are overweight and one in seven is diabetic. Brick by brick, Taubes carefully builds his case that sugar consumption is the primary cause of these conditions. And since some of the metabolic dynamics that promote the development of obesity and diabetes are also now linked to gout, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and heart disease, the conclusion that sugar is the great public health hazard of our times is hard to deny.
Not that the sugar industry hasn’t tried hard to deny it. Big Sugar had to fight off attempts to discourage sugar consumption in the 1940s (war-time rationing) and the 1950s (Eisenhower publicly declared sugar to be dangerous to heart health). Its first gambit—one seen even today—was to counter warnings about the role of sugar in obesity by arguing that sugar was merely “empty calories” and that people got fat because they consumed too many calories or burned too few—the “sloth and gluttony” defense. Overweight people were to blame, not the content of their diets.
Then, in the 1960s, when Big Sugar’s market share was threatened by diet drinks, sugar companies and their trade groups and PR consultants spent over $4 million in today’s dollars supporting and publicizing bogus research to get the FDA to rule that sugar substitutes like saccharin and cyclamates caused cancer and should be taken off the market. (Cyclamates were “found” to cause bladder cancer in some male rats. Unfortunately, the amounts needed to do so were equivalent to a human drinking 550 cans of Fresca daily!)
More recently, Big Sugar has funded and publicized the ill-founded conclusion of some scientists that saturated fats, not sugar or carbohydrates, are the primary culprit behind the growing incidence of obesity and heart disease in America, as well as other societies that have been westernized over time. An either/or thinking has been encouraged. If it’s fat, it can’t be sugar, and vice-versa.
Taubes reviews the many ways these scientific controversies were fought in academic journals and conferences, before government agencies and congressional committees, and in slick advertising campaigns. Each challenge to sugar consumption was met with swift counterpunches by Big Sugar. Millions of dollars have been spent co-opting university professors and researchers with generous grants and by funding political campaigns opposing attempts to regulate the size of soft drinks or tax the profits of their manufacturers (Coca-Cola and Pepsi, who else?).
Taubes systematically dismantles the scientific claims of pro-sugar advocates, displaying an impressive understanding of nutrition and biochemistry. Two examples will suffice: First, the false but seemingly commonsensical claim by the sugar industry that obesity is caused by ingesting more calories than what is spent in physical activity. The axiom, “whatever you eat you have to burn off” misses the crucial point that all calories are not alike. The specific biochemical and physiological effects of the fructose that comprises half of both white sugar and high-fructose corn syrup guarantees fat accumulation and retention by complicated reactions in the liver, pancreas and brain that are specific to fructose. Among these reactions is the stimulation of high levels of insulin in our bodies leading to type-II diabetes, obesity and hypertension. The insulin triggered by dietary sugars directs fat cells to store fat, increases the production of LDL—the so-called “bad cholesterol”—and causes the brain to ignore signals of satiety.
Further, as Taubes and others such as pediatric endocrinologist Robert Luskin at UCSF, point out, it is almost impossible to burn enough calories through exercise to work off any significant number of calories, and research has shown that exercise is a poor means to lose weight anyway (it’s good for our brains and muscles, but not for significant weight loss). But by blaming people who are fat for their sloth and gluttony, the sugar industry lets itself off the hook. One wonders if the industry uses this blame-the-victim approach to explain away the rise in obesity of 6-month-old babies. The answer is likely to be found in the sugar content of many brands of baby formula.
Taubes further takes down the sugar industry’s focus on the dangers of saturated fats. He critically examines the low-fat, high-carb recommendations that exploded on the American diet scene in the early 1980s (think “carbo loading” before strenuous exercise or Nabisco’s low-fat, high-carbohydrate Snackwells cookies). The leading expert on nutrition in post-WWII America—and leading proponent of the fats-are-bad-but-sugar-is-harmless paradigm—was University of Minnesota epidemiologist Ancel Keys. His “Seven Countries Study” went a long way to convincing nutritionists and the public that saturated fat, not sugars, caused heart disease.
Keys compared heart-disease rates with diet in 16 populations in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Finland, the Netherlands, Japan and the United States, and sure enough, found a significant correlation between the fat content of the typical diet in these populations and the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Japan and Italy had the lowest rates of heart disease, yet their citizens consumed a large amount of complex carbohydrates—starch—in the form of rice and pasta noodles, and thus, Keys and others argued, carbohydrates couldn’t be the problem. The problem, as Taubes points out, is that people in Japan and Italy also consumed extremely low levels of fructose as well as fat, but Keys neglected to study that particular factor.
There is abundant evidence that fructose is fattening and that diets restricting it have produced the highest average weight loss. But as long as the sugar industry and its scientific and political allies keep shouting “saturated fats!” attention is pulled away from the powerful pathogenic effects of sugars. And that’s no accident. When proof is lacking, the aim is to sow confusion.
Fructose is the toxic culprit in Taubes’ book. Fructose is metabolized in the liver and creates numerous pathways to disease, including obesity, diabetes and hypertension. In his concluding chapters, Taubes also includes cancer and Alzheimer’s disease as possible long-term outcomes of chronic fructose use. He cites and analyzes multiple studies showing the appearance of these illnesses in cultures that become westernized—a process that invariably involves dramatic and sudden increases in sugar consumption.
The chronicity of the diseases and the various long-term effects of what partisans like Taubes or Robert Luskin believe is a poison makes simple cause-and-effect relationships difficult to establish with 100 percent validity. What most lay people know is that sugar can be addictive (it appears to activate the same pleasure centers in the brain as cocaine) and it’s in almost everything we eat, from sugary drinks like Coca-Cola and Pepsi to infant formula. And like cigarettes, these products are marketed heavily to young people and in poor communities.
If Taubes likens his book to a legal brief against sugar, it’s hard for readers not to return a guilty verdict. He presents enough evidence to persuade readers that major government-funded longitudinal research is needed. But in the meantime, the documented risks of sugar are great enough and the potential dangers dire enough, to support making sugar a public health issue, much like alcohol and cigarettes. And that means pressuring government to regulate its use.
Michael Bader is a psychologist and psychoanalyst in San Francisco. He is the author of “More Than Bread and Butter: A Psychologist Speaks to Progressives About What People Really Need in Order to Win and Change the World” (Blurb, 2015).