Apr
05
2014

Yes, There Are Healthy Sugar Substitutes

It is true that sweets are not good for you because they lead to fat accumulation and to diabetes. I explain how this works later in this blog. But who says you cannot sweeten your life with healthy ingredients? Not all sugar substitutes are the same; some are awful, some are in between and one is good (see below).

General information why sweets and starches are bad for you:

There is a triple whammy from sweets that you don’t really want:

a) First, sugar gets absorbed really fast through the gut wall and arrives in your blood stream within 15 to 20 minutes. Starches can be just as powerful in terms of blood sugar surges, but it takes perhaps 30 to 40 minutes for the peak of blood sugar to occur. The end result is the same: whether you load up with a pizza, a doughnut or drink a large, sugar-loaded soda drink, your pancreas reacts the same way. It produces a lot of extra insulin to bring the blood sugar level down. When you do this day after day your pancreas gets used to overproducing insulin and you develop insulin resistance meaning that your insulin receptors that are on every cell surface get tired and become less sensitive to insulin. Due to insulin resistance the muscle cells and the liver cells do not take up sugar (in the form of glucose) as easily as before.

b) Second, because excess sugar cannot be stored as glycogen (the storage form of glucose in the liver and the muscles), the liver converts excess glucose into triglycerides and oxidized fatty acids get taken up by white blood cells called macrophages. These attach to the inner lining of the arteries and lead to atheromatous plaques, the first stage of hardening of the arteries.

c) Third, glucose is an oxidizing agent that will oxidize LDL cholesterol. This makes the LDL particles much denser and forms the so-called very dense LDL lipoprotein fraction (VDLDL) that can be detected in special blood tests (Ref.1).

Not surprisingly people who consume sugar, sweets, soft drinks and starches on a regular basis will have very dense LDL particles (=VDLDL, also called “pattern B-LDL”). The treatment for this is to quit sugar and starchy foods.

I have explained in more detail what sugar does in this blog.

Yes, There Are Healthy Sugar Substitutes

Yes, There Are Healthy Sugar Substitutes

The food industry’s answer to low carb diet drinks and low sugar foods:

Many years back the food industry decided to offer alternative diet drinks that would not contain sugar, but instead have aspartame in it.

Dr. Blaylock has researched excitotoxins like MSG and aspartame (NutraSweet) and urges you in this link to abandon both. I agree with him. But while we are at it, don’t take other artificial sweeteners like sodium cyclamate in Canada (Sweet’N Low). Are you thinking of taking sucralose (Splenda) instead? Think again. What the industry seems to have forgotten is that it was originally developed as an insecticide. This website states that sucralose was actually discovered while trying to create a new insecticide. A researcher tasted it and found it exceedingly sweet. I have done the experiment myself in Hawaii where small ants are ubiquitous. I thought I take a package of Splenda from a coffee shop and do the experiment: In the beginning the ants were reluctant to eat it, but after a few hours they came and took it in. One day later there were only shrivelled up dead ants left in the area where Splenda had been sprinkled. Proof enough for me that Splenda was developed as an insecticide!

In the Splenda marketing scheme they decided to first introduce Splenda gradually into diabetic foods as a sweetener, then later sell it to the public at large. Don’t fall for it. It was a side product of insecticide research, and insecticides have the undesirable quality of being xenoestrogens, which block estrogen receptors in women. As a result of that estrogen can no longer access the body cells, including the heart. The final consequence for a woman is a higher risk for cardio-vascular disease. This can cause heart attacks, strokes and cancer. In men estrogen-blocking xenoestrogens can cause breast growth and cause erectile dysfunction.

The natural sweeteners:

One wonders why the food industry did not choose healthy sweeteners like stevia that has been used for decades in Japan and South America.

Other sweeteners like xylitol, sorbitol, maltitol, mannitol, glycerol, and lactitol are sugar alcohols. Contrary to what many believe they have calories, but much less than sugar, so they are perceived as “safe” as a dietary supplement for weight loss. These alcoholic sugar compounds still produce partial LDL oxidization; interfere with weight loss and still lead to a certain insulin response.  Stevia, a natural sweetener from a leaf of South America is safer and without any calories.

The key is that stevia will not oxidize your LDL cholesterol and will not cause a hyperinsulinism response following a meal. It is metabolically neutral. It is the ideal sweetener for people who desire to lose some weight. It is also safe as it is no excitotoxin. The FDA has recognized stevia as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS).

What about fructose, agave syrup, honey, brown rice malt syrup, fruit juice concentrates, refined fructose, maple syrup?

The problem is that they are all sugars, which cause a full insulin response leading to obesity, diabetes and hardening of the arteries. This causes heart attacks and strokes. These natural sugar products also oxidize LDL cholesterol, which initiates plaque formation as discussed above; this is the first step leading to hardening of the arteries. It took the medical profession 30 years of observing that a low fat/high carb diet makes us fat and causes heart attacks, leads to strokes and causes diabetes. Let’s not make the mistake of trusting the food industry and mindlessly swallow so-called natural other sugars and sugar substitutes like xylitol, sorbitol, maltitol, mannitol, glycerol, and lactitol. You may want to chew the odd gum with xylitol, as this will prevent cavities in your teeth. But otherwise it is much safer to just stick to Stevia to sweeten your tea, coffee or food. There are brands that are less bitter than regular stevia products, like stevia from New Roots in Canada and stevia from KAL in the US (no, this is not a commercial, it is based on my own observations).

Conclusion:

Sugar is an emotional topic that can get people caught up in heated discussions. The sugar industry and the sugar substitute industry have also powerful lobby groups that provide the Internet and the popular press with conflicting stories to convince you to buy their product. This blog was meant as a no-nonsense guide to get you removed from the high-risk group of candidates for heart attacks, strokes or diabetes. Let’s not forget the metabolism behind the various sugars and starchy foods described above, which I have explained in more detail in my recently published book (Ref.2). Forget the emotions of severing yourself from your favorite fix and stick to a tiny amount of stevia that can replace the familiar sweet taste that you have become accustomed to from childhood onward. At least this is what I do. The only alternative would be to take the plunge and cut out any sweet substance altogether, which I am not prepared to do. If you can do it, by all means go ahead.

More information on carbohydrates: http://nethealthbook.com/health-nutrition-and-fitness/nutrition/carbohydrates/

 

Reference:

1. Life Extension: Disease Prevention and Treatment, Fifth edition. 130 Evidence-Based Protocols to Combat the Diseases of Aging. © 2013

2. Dr. Ray Schilling: “A Survivor’s Guide to Successful Aging“, Amazon.com, 2014

Last edited Nov. 7, 2014

Incoming search terms:

Dec
14
2013

Pollution And Soaring Lung Cancer Rates

In early 1900 lung cancer was unheard of. This was before the cigarette industry started to mass-produce and market cigarettes.

However, ever since the arrival of the industrial revolution air quality has suffered. In China poor air quality has now reached such enormous values that the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has labeled poor air quality as one of the causes of lung cancer.

When you rank countries by average air pollution measurements, one sees that Europe, the US and South America overall have good ratings, whereas the Middle Eastern countries, China and India have poorer ratings.

However, when the pollution index of cities where the population is much denser than in the countries at large, are tabulated a much different picture emerges: Cities in Iran, India and Pakistan stand out as particularly bad followed by cities in China, Eastern Europe, Paris, London, Berlin, cities in California (the populous State), Chicago and New York.

Pollution does not stay local, but travels through the stratosphere around the globe. The result is that now 10 to 15% of lung cancer in the US occurs in patients who never smoked. This translates into 16,000 to 24,000 deaths annually of never-smokers in the US.

In certain cities such as Beijing the lung cancer rates have doubled in 9 years between 2002 and 2011. As this article shows lung cancer in never smokers can be caused from exposure to radon, to second-hand tobacco smoke, and other indoor air pollutants can also cause such cancers. But the outdoor air quality has been a problem ever since the industrial revolution, which started around Europe in the 1800’s and first part of the1900’s. In the latter half of the 1900’s much of the industrial wave has migrated to the Middle East, to India and China. But the air quality of the whole world has suffered as the jet stream and other air currents carry pollution in the stratosphere all around the globe.

Pollution And Soaring Lung Cancer Rates

Pollution And Soaring Lung Cancer Rates

History of pollution in various regions

1. In Germany’s  Ruhr district (“Ruhrgebiet”) in North Rhine-Westphalia, a highly populated industrial area, pollution reached a peak in the late 1950’s. From 1963 onward many of the coal mines, iron ore mines and other mineral mines closed down. 50 years ago the German Chancellor, Willy Brand was concerned about the environment and promised that blue skies would return to the Ruhr district again.  A special task force was initiated and maximally allowable limits were established for industries’ pollution emissions and enforced by the German government. Government and industry were co-operating in developing anti-pollution measures, which have cleared up a lot of the pollution since. With regard to car emissions lead free gasoline was introduced and carburetors ensured more complete burning of exhaust gases. This is now common and accepted anywhere except for diesel fume exhaust, which nobody wants to address despite proven carcinogenicity.

Now Germany is one of the leaders in green technology, which is also important for tourism.

2. England has its own legacy of pollution in soil and air from the industrial revolution. The soil of moorland, which soaked up acid rain for decades, is more acidy than lemon juice and it will take a long time despite industrial complexes having closed long time ago, before the soil quality will be returned to normal.

3. Hamilton in Ontario/Canada has had a longstanding pollution problem, which I witnessed from 1976 until my departure in 1978. It is well known that Stelco, the local steel plant downtown Hamilton is sending polluting emissions into the air. In 1976 a vising professor from Australia gave an interesting talk about a study that was done at that time regarding the risk of developing bronchogenic carcinoma (a synonym for lung cancer) in the immediate surroundings of the Stelco plant. He said that this was one of the first studies to show that the distance of people’s houses from the source of pollution mattered as that determined how concentrated the air pollution was (the closer the more polluted the air). This  affected cancer rates: they were much higher in the immediate surrounding of Stelco when compared to the average rate in the rest of Hamilton. This difference was very significant within a radius of 1 kilometer (= 0.62 miles) from the Stelco plant.

Just in May of 2013 the local cancer agency of Hamilton announced that the lung cancer rate in Hamilton was higher than elsewhere in Ontario because of a combination of poor air quality and of a higher percentage of people smoking. Then in August 2013 the city of Hamilton announced a new air pollution bylaw for stricter pollution measures to improve the air quality in the downtown area. It is just a pity that Hamiltonians had to wait until 2013 before the city approved an anti-pollution bylaw that could have been passed 50 years earlier like in Germany’s Ruhr district!

4. In 2008 Pittsburg, a former steel manufacturer town like Hamilton, Ont. outdid Los Angeles with regard to small particle air pollution.

Lung cancer prevention by the authorities

As mentioned before up o15% of lung cancer is caused by environmental exposure. So, we ourselves can only prevent 85% of lung cancer by not smoking and not exposing ourselves to industrial emissions or to smoke from incense. However, in many cities around the world you will get exposed to air pollutants that are well above the safe limits, so the risk of getting lung cancer from just breathing the air there can be much higher than in rural areas where there is no industry.

Technologies to control air pollution are widely available. We need to exert pressure on politicians to show leadership around the world. Government regulations to lower emission rates need to be put into place and inspectors need to ensure the rules and regulations are adhered to. Without reducing emissions of cancer producing gases and chemicals right at the source (open burning of cuttings in orchards or burning cut trees), cutting emissions of cars, planes, ships, diesel cars, locomotives, electric generator plants etc. the air quality will not improve. Despite some costs involved industry, governments and individuals have to work together to make clean air happen.

The residents of those countries that have low pollution values will not benefit, if pollution continues to occur in other parts of the world as it just travels in the stratosphere around the globe until it arrives right here at home! We need an international pollution police. Satellites can be used to monitor where pollution occurs and this can be followed up through the local regulatory bodies with penalties and remedial actions.

What can I do personally to prevent lung cancer?

1.The most obvious step is to quit smoking and ask smokers who come to your place to smoke outside (not in your home).

2.Consider moving away from the city, if the air quality is unacceptable to a place where there is low air pollution.

3.Vitamin D3 has been shown to prevent colorectal cancer, but as there are vitamin D receptors found on the surface of various cells in tissue around the body including the lungs, many researchers feel that this vitamin in higher doses (2000 IU to 5000 IU) has probably a wider applicability in preventing cancers, even lung cancer.

4.Cutting out sugar and adopting a Mediterranean type diet is a prudent thing to do; also cutting down your calories to the maintenance you need (mildly ketogenic diet). If you bought body composition scales, it would display what your daily calorie consumption is and you should not exceed this, or else you’ll gain weight. An aging man who is overweight will experience hormone changes as fat is being metabolized and the enzyme aromatase contained in fatty tissue will turn male hormones (testosterone, DHT, androstenedione) into estrogen. Estrogen (particularly estradiol) is a known carcinogen that has been proven to cause breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men. However lung cancer is also being promoted in women by estrogen as discussed in this link. In men one needs to remember that lung cells have estrogen receptors and there is concern in aging men with higher estradiol levels that this can promote cell divisions in existing lung cancer. So, it is important to maintain a normal body mass index between 21 and 24 (well below 25.0 and well above 18.5, which are the official accepted limits). This way there is no problem with insulin resistance (too high an insulin level), and other metabolic substances (cytokines, growth hormone like factors and tumor necrosis factor-alpha from body fat) that are cancer promoting.

5. If testosterone deficiency is present, which is common in older men, testosterone will have to be replaced with bioidentical hormones. It is a myth that testosterone would cause prostate cancer. Testosterone in males is necessary to maintain a normal metabolism including the immune system, which then can fight lung cancer and any other cancers.

6. Exercise and reducing beef consumption are also often mentioned in terms of preventing lung cancer.

7. Here are several recommendations from the LifeExtension Foundation that I found very useful in terms of lung cancer prevention. This link shows that antioxidant vitamins such as vitamin C, alpha tocopherol, the minerals selenium and zinc are also helping to reduce the lung cancer rate. Drinking green tea has also been shown to be effective in a dose-response curve manner (more tea protecting more from lung cancer). Vitamin B12 and folate have been shown to reduce abnormal bronchial cell growth in smokers as shown by repeat bronchoscopy studies.

8. Those who have been smokers in the past and those who have been around heavy smokers for more than 10 years in the past should consider having a preventative bronchoscopy done by a lung specialist (also called respirologist or pulmonologists). This way any suspicious areas with precancerous lesions can be biopsied during the procedure and attended to.

Hopeful research for new lung cancer treatments

Lung cancer is a disease that is best prevented. Once a person gets lung cancer, the prognosis is still very poor. However, cancer researchers are getting close to newer treatments involving genetically modified T-cells (killer cells) as was recently achieved for leukemia. Similar research is going on regarding ovarian cancer, melanoma, lung cancer and pancreatic cancer.

More information about lung cancer: http://nethealthbook.com/cancer-overview/lung-cancer/

Conclusion

It is not acceptable to let pollution take its course , the way politicians around the globe have handled this in the past 6 decades with a few notable exceptions mentioned. We all suffer a higher risk of getting lung cancer, even if we have been life-long non-smokers. Right now up to 15% of lung cancer in most populations are of this type. However, in Beijing this number is already much higher. The technology is available; Germany has led the way in the Ruhr district in the 1960’s and beyond. In my opinion the G8 meetings should have this high on their agendas and send technological aid to all the regions that have higher than the average world pollution index under the mandate of a special UN commission. This should be supported by the major industrial players with the knowledge that they will prevent the death of millions of potential consumers down the road, which will on the long-term pay off the relatively minor investment of installing pollution controls, before lung cancer levels rise even more.

Last edited Nov. 7, 2014