obesity - Page 2

Sweet Death by Sugar

Published on
6127 views
Angela A Stanton,Ph.D.

We all know that sugar is bad for us but we cannot resist it. Why not? Expert Robert Lustig MD, reasoned on 60-Minutes that for humans in nature all sweet tasting things are edible and not poisonous. There are no toxins in nature that taste sweet, and thus, evolutionarily speaking, favoring sweet things is predetermined in our genes; we are born liking sweets. All of this is true with one major exception: sugar, the natural substance, can become poisonous when modified.

Sugar and Ethanol

Consider the simple modification of squeezing a fruit for its juice. The modification is not chemical: we merely separated the sugary liquid from the insoluble fiber in the fruit–some soluble fibers may remain. This little change makes no difference for most fruits or our taste buds, but it modifies how our body metabolizes sugar in it. According to Lustig’s book Fat Chance (a must read!), when we eat the fruit with insoluble fiber attached (typically the skin), the fructose in the fruit (most sugar in fruit is fructose) bypasses our metabolic digestive process (insoluble fibers are not digestible) and heads straight to the gut where the good bacteria digest the fructose as their food from the fibers, thereby producing more nutrients for us. But if we drink the juice alone without any insoluble fiber, the same amount of fructose now gets into the metabolic cycle and by a complicated process turns into ethanol and gets stuck in the liver. Ethanol is a toxin. Ethanol is an alcohol we also use to improve car mileage. Ethanol causes non-alcoholic “alcoholic” liver disease. In fact, ethanol is alcohol and those drinking apple juice (thinking of kids now) are in fact drinking alcohol in terms of the likely outcome of the metabolic process, as per Dr. Lustig.

So we all thought that feeding our kids fresh fruit juices is a good thing but we also knew that they should not be getting too much sugar because their behavior changes from it. Now it is clear why their behavior changes: the part of sugar that turns into ethanol is alcohol. The other parts of the fruit juice that do turn into digestible sugars (glucose and sucrose) do something else to the body.

What is Glucose?

Glucose is “blood sugar” meaning the sugar our body can use. Sucrose converts to glucose as well. What happens to the glucose?

Some stores sell glucose in a liquid gooey form—thicker than honey—that I recommend you taste. Take a small teaspoon, fill it with glucose and swallow. The first thing you will notice (yes, I did the tasting test) is that it is not that sweet. The second thing you will notice is that the moment you swallow it, you cannot count till 5 and you are hot. So you take your sweater off. Then you have the urge to do something—paint the house? Mow the grass? If you are a kid: bounce off the walls and drive the people around you nuts. This is normal. This is what glucose feels like.

Note, however, that when you eat a teaspoon of table sugar, you will neither feel so hot, nor will you have so much energy. What is the difference? What happens when you drink a diet drink or eat sugar substitutes? You will neither be hot nor have any energy. The difference in feeling hot and having energy versus not feeling hot and not having energy represents the difference in the metabolism of glucose versus fructose and the fake sugar stuff.

The Metabolism of Glucose versus Fructose

I will not get into deep chemical equations or models; for that please watch the video below by Dr. Lustig. Rather, I will reduce all complexity and simply tell you the end of the story with as minimal of the underlying process as possible.

When food arrives into the body, insulin is released to convert the food into fat and deposit it for later use as glucose. Glucose is used by our brain and muscles for energy. After insulin has done its conversion, all insulin is used up. When the brain is hungry, it fetches the hormone leptin to get some energy. Thus, leptin grabs a hold of the available glucose and serves it to the brain (this is highly simplified!). The brain is happy and full of energy.

Now consider the situation when the only food we eat is glucose. Insulin is released but it has nothing to convert. It is already in the final form (glucose for the brain) and so the glucose goes straight to the brain, the kids are popping off the wall, and you suddenly find yourself painting the house. Note, however, that the insulin is in the blood and it is waiting for the food to arrive so it can work and convert it to fat. But there is no food; we only ate glucose and it is already being used by the brain! So what is insulin in the blood to do? Insulin stays in the blood, circles around looking for food. It finds none. By staying in the blood, over time this is a “cry wolf” scenario and the body starts ignoring insulin announcing the arrival of food that isn’t there. This is how insulin resistance starts.

Now consider that instead of glucose, you drink a glass of apple juice. It has natural sugar in it, some vitamins (very little), no fiber, no protein. The sugar of fruit is mostly fructose but a small part of it is also sucrose. So insulin releases again to match the size of the apple juice drink we just had, but again, it faces a problem. While sucrose becomes glucose in our body and can be converted and stored as fat, fructose is not seen as sugar. So once again, insulin is looking for food but finds none; it keeps on circling in our blood looking for food. It is ignored and insulin resistance begins.

The Metabolism of Glucose versus Sugar Substitutes & “Natural” Sugars like Stevia

Now consider you eat a diet something—by diet I mean sugar substitutes with reduced or zero calories. It certainly tastes sweet (very sweet indeed) but again, there is no glucose or sucrose in it and while it does not become alcohol in the liver, it certainly makes insulin run around in circles looking for food to convert to fat and deposit. Cry wolf again and the insulin is ignored. Insulin resistance begins. Why is this important? Because insulin resistance is type II diabetes!

The Famine

Now let’s continue about the peril of our non-toxic sweets. The fact that insulin is out looking for glucose also signals leptin that energy is incoming! Leptin is a hormone that is in charge of messaging the brain that glucose is available. In the case when insulin is running around in our blood in search of food it can convert to fat for later use as glucose but there is no food to be found, leptin finds no glucose. Thus, leptin tells the brain that famine is here.

Famine for the Brain is Obesity for Your Body!

The famine message to the brain means one thing: conserve energy. It reduces all non-essential activities, and literally, will not let you get up from that couch! This is highly simplified of course, but pay attention to the outcome. You are actually eating and drinking and at the same time your brain is getting the message of famine. What will that lead to? When the brain thinks it is famine time, it is famine time. The fact that you are eating and drinking sugar or sugar substitutes with lots of calories is not noticed by the brain. As far as it is concerned, there is no glucose available so it must slow your metabolism. A slow metabolism leads to obesity.

Sugar Anyone?

So, while there are many people who think nothing of having sweets or a soda, consider what it does to your body! Consider that it slows down your activity and forces you into famine state even though you are well fed! Consider that it makes you obese and sets you up for type 2 diabetes.

Now tell me if you still think that sweets are not toxic poisons for us! They are. And there is one more thing to add to the story that no one talks about. I mention this because I deal with a group of migraineurs—I was one of them until I figured things out and wrote a book about it and several articles about it on Hormones Matter.

Consider this quote from the Harrison’s Manual of Medicine:

…serum Na+ falls by 1.4 mM for every 100-mg/dL increase in glucose, due to glucose-induced H2O efflux from cells. (page 4)

Na+ is sodium ion. Sodium is part of sodium-chloride, which is salt. Glucose-induced H2O efflux from cells represents water exiting the cells as a result of an increase of glucose. Why is that, you may ask? The answer is very simple: sugar is an amazing water soak-up device. It pulls water from everywhere it can. It holds onto water like its life depended upon it. Unfortunately for the body, sugar pulls the water from the cells leaving the cells empty on the inside and a lot of fluid tied to sugar on the outside. As long as that sugar is there, the cells are not able to hydrate in any fashion until the level of Na+ is increased beyond a threshold level where Na+ can take water away from the glucose. Na+ also attracts water. In fact, all saline electrolyte liquids provided by IV or for drinking in hospitals are Na+ heavy to rehydrate the cells.

Thus, sugar not only starts and enhances diabetes II and obesity; it also shuts down cell hydration. This may cause headaches or migraines depending on your propensity.

In conclusion, if someone asks you if you would prefer to eat a teaspoon of sugar or a teaspoon of salt, while your taste buds will undoubtedly scream for sugar, you should know better!

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

References

  1. Sugar: The Bitter Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
  2. Longo et al., Harrison’s Manual of Medicine. 18th edition. McGraw Hill. 2013.
  3. Artificial sweeteners could cause spikes in blood sugar by By Brady Dennis September 17, 2014
  4. Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-suggests-sweeteners-could-contribute-to-obesity-and-diabetes/2014/09/17/c3c04ea6-3dc2-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html
  5. Artificial sweeteners could lead to obesity, diabetes. By Michelle Castillo CBS NEWS July 10, 2013, 4:28 PM
  6. CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/artificial-sweeteners-could-lead-to-obesity-diabetes/
  7. Artificial sweeteners may promote diabetes, claim scientists
  8. The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/17/artificial-sweeteners-diabetes-saccharin-blood-sugar
  9. Do Artificial Sweeteners Really Cause Diabetes? By Published: June 7, 2013 By Jessica Chia
  10. Women’s Health Magazine: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/artificial-sweeteners-cause-diabetes
  11. Could artificial sweetener CAUSE diabetes? Splenda ‘modifies way the body handles sugar’, increasing insulin production by 20% by Rachel Reilly Published: 12:27 Est, 30 May 2013 | Updated: 12:27 Est, 30 May 2013
  12. The Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2333336/Could-artificial-sweetener-CAUSE-diabetes-Splenda-modifies-way-body-handles-sugar-increasing-insulin-production-20.html
  13. How To Starve Cancer To Death By Removing This One Thing From Your Diet
  14. Organic Health: http://organichealth.co/starve-cancer-to-death-by-removing-this/
  15. Is sugar a toxin? Experts debate the role of fructose in our obesity epidemic By Tamar Haspel, September 2, 2013
  16. Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-sugar-a-toxin-experts-debate-the-role-of-fructose-in-our-obesity-epidemic/2013/08/30/58a906d6-f952-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_story.html
  17. Scientific team sounds the alarm on sugar as a source of disease. By Barbara Sadick Chicago Tribune
  18. The Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sc-health-1210-sugar-metabolic-syndrome-20141205-story.html#page=1

Related posts:

saltWhy Are We So Scared of Salt? pregnancy toesPregnancy Toes – What Sugar Does to Feet drinking water, hydrationHydration, Thirst, and Drinking Water

You might be interested in

A Global Contamination: Persistent Organic Pollutants

Published on
2033 views

For personal reasons, I have been investigating environmental toxins and their effects on hormonal, neurological and reproductive health. The bioaccumulation of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) within our bodies and the proliferation of POPs across the entire planet is frightening, but like most, I was not aware of the dangers. Despite the abundance of research linking POPs to many of the health epidemics we face here in the United States, such as Type II Diabetes and obesity, the public’s attention has not been directed to this man-made creation. Here is some of the research I found on persistent organic pollutants and what is being done to control our exposure to them.

What are Persistent Organic Pollutants?

Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPs, are a number of organic (mostly man-made) compounds resistant to degradation by natural environmental processes. A number of POPs became widely utilized during the increase in industrial production post-World War II, a time when thousands of chemicals were introduced into commercial use. Many of these chemicals were proven effective in pest and disease control, crop production, manufacturing and industrial processes. Also in existence are a number of POPs which are “unintentionally produced chemicals” as the result of combustion (e.g., trash burning or municipal/medical waste incineration).

Why are Persistent Organic Pollutants So Bad?

Since they cannot be broken down via natural degradation in the environment, they are transported by wind and water. POPs are known for bioaccumulation in human and animal tissue and have become a part of the food chain, affecting all life on earth. Isolated communities, such as indigenous populations in the Arctic Circle, have a particularly high exposure risk to POPs.  POPs have been linked to disruption of our endocrine, reproductive and immune systems, neurological problems, diabetes, obesity and cancer. According to The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the international community has been calling for “urgent global actions to reduce and eliminate releases of these chemicals.” A number of POPs are compounds the reader may be familiar with, such as DDT, PCBs, and HCH.

“The Dirty Dozen” and the Stockholm Convention

Coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Stockholm Convention serves as “a global legally-binding instrument for targeting persistent organic pollutants.” The purpose of the Convention is to direct us toward a future free of POPs and re-shape the global economy in order to eliminate reliance on such dangerous pollutants.

The Convention initially identified twelve POPs (“The Dirty Dozen”) considered to be the most detrimental to the well-being of humans, animals and the environment. This measure created a system that allows for a greater number of chemicals to be identified as “unacceptably hazardous.” In accordance with the Convention, governments are obliged to eliminate or reduce the introduction of POPs into the environment. Such is done by channeling resources into “cleaning up existing stockpiles and dumps of POPs that litter the world’s landscapes.” The Convention was ratified May 17, 2004, with 150 signatory countries. As of February 20, 2013, Afghanistan acceded to the Convention as its 179th party. According to Kyoto Energy, the Convention aims to prohibit the production of POPs, with the exception of equipment currently in use; they have set a deadline for the elimination of the remaining usage for 2025.

Destroying and Transforming POPs in the Environment

The UNIDO website suggests that POPs stockpiles “must be destroyed in a manner which does not further degrade the environment by generating or releasing POPs.” The Convention calls for community participation, safety of the community, full disclosure of information, monitoring and release of data.

Details regarding the destruction process on the UNIDO website are vague; they suggest that traditional methods use “landfilling, ground storage, deepwell injection and combustion by open burning, incineration or in cement kilns or metal furnaces.” UNIDO stresses that there are “serious limitations” to the “normal incineration process,” considering that incineration can lead to the creation of dioxins, PCBs and HCBs. The quantities of POPs are rather difficult to estimate; almost no inventory exists. Kyoto Energy estimates that one million tons of PCBs and 100,000 tons of obsolete pesticides exist within countries that are not member to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Are We Burying POPs for Future Generations?

Many of these methods do not entirely eliminate the problem. Rather, we are, quite literally, burying them for future generations to deal with – if we don’t burn this stuff and release it into the atmosphere first.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests that high temperature incinerators, incineration in cement kilns and chemical treatment are proven methods of destruction. There is no evidence of this being true, and most research indicates that POPs are created as a result of incineration.  

A number of countries have continued to produce POPs such as DDT, with a staggering 3,314 tons (7,306,119 pounds) produced globally in 2009. On the bright side, this signifies a 43% reduction in DDT production from 2007. Considering the stability of POPs (i.e., resistant to degradation), it’s difficult to imagine any concerted effort can “undo” the damage that has already been dealt to the planet, especially since a number of POPs like DDT continue to be produced and exported in such exorbitant quantities.

It’s time to rethink our reliance on dangerous chemicals and the industries that use them. Though, many of these chemicals were developed before we understood their dangers, now that we know, it is difficult to support their continued use. With all of the advances in science, one would think we could design better, safer tools for industry, than the non-degradable, persistent organic pollutants we have now.

Related posts:

wrack line plastic pollutionWalking the Wrack Line: Thoughts on Plastic Pollution Environmental pollutants microbiomeEnvironmental Pollutants and the Microbiome ethics of it allThe Ethics Of It All

You might be interested in

Are We Really that Fat and Does it Matter?

Published on
3569 views

Body mass index (BMI), the dreaded math calculation used for decades to tell us whether we are merely fat or morbidly obese, suggests that over 41 million or 35% of us are in the latter category. As bad as that may seem, it’s about to get a whole lot worse. Researchers from New York University found that BMI underestimates the obesity numbers, especially for women.

In a study published on PLoS ONE, a peer reviewed open access journal, researchers suggest that when more accurate measures of adiposity (fat) are used, at least 74 million Americans (64%) should be deemed obese. Whoa.

BMI and Women’s Health

It appears that BMI (weight in pounds/(height in inches)2×703) while a quick and easy indicator of obesity, ignores several important factors that tend to underestimate obesity levels in the female population. Most importantly, BMI doesn’t account for the relationship between lean body mass and fat mass. Sarcopenic obesity, the loss of lean mass or muscle combined with the increase of fat mass, plagues women more frequently than men, especially as we age. As we age and lose more lean mass, BMI measures of obesity become less and less accurate. According to the research, BMI underestimates the obesity levels in women by 40% across all age groups, but for the older age groups, >60 years, the number approaches 60-70% error. This is striking, not only because of the high mis-classification rate in women (remember medical decisions are made based upon BMI assumptions) but also, because BMI potentially underestimates the number of women who should be considered obese. Or does it?

While I agree that many of us are not as slim as we should be, I wonder if we might not need new measures of health and fitness. I am thinking of the female athletes in the Olympics – not the gymnasts or divers (although even as petite as those athletes are, their weight, because of muscle mass, to height ratio could be skewed by BMI standards), but the female weight lifters, boxers, wrestlers, judokos, and even the water polo players. Many of these women would be considered overweight  by current BMI standards, and yet, they are at the pinnacle of health and fitness. What does that say of the BMI standards when those at the height of health and fitness can be considered fat while those at edge of illness, who are noticeably overweight are considered normal weight because of skewed lean to fat mass ratios?

The Paradox of Obesity: Why BMI Doesn’t Predict Health

And here we have the paradox of obesity (and the problem with BMI); obesity doesn’t correlate with mortality. Indeed, with many conditions and under many circumstances-stroke, cardiovascular disease, hemodialysis, cancer and others, being overweight increases survival. Maybe it’s not the fat, or even the lean muscle to fat ratio, but the fitness level that should be measured. Research shows that individuals who are metabolically healthy regardless of weight, have no increased risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease than their normal weight counterparts.

Resting Heart Rate Better than BMI

It is well known that athletes, no matter their BMI, have lower resting heart rates than couch potatoes. Perhaps resting heart rate might be a better indicator of overall health. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that a low resting heart rate may be a better indicator of cardiovascular and metabolic health in women than BMI. So, before we go starving ourselves to reach some physical notion of health (and beauty) based upon a faulty metric, embrace your inner athlete and exercise.

To the researchers who bemoan the growing obesity epidemic and associated health costs, it’s time to move beyond what we look like as a matter of predicting health and move toward how our bodies function. Resting heart rate may be one solution, biomarkers may be another, but BMI is not an effective metric for evaluating women’s health.

Related posts:

diet and responsibilityA Rant About Diet and Responsibility

You might be interested in

Sugar and our Hormones

Published on
3567 views

It’s Easter season, which outside of religious practices, means candy, candy and more candy for a lot of Americans. Peeps, Cadbury Eggs, jelly beans are just a few of the hallmarks of this spring holiday. But, along with our growing waistline, scientists and Americans are both scrutinizing our diet and a common culprit seems to repeatedly point back to the white stuff. Even CBS News, 60 Minutes is looking at the toxicity of sugar. Is candy and sugar in our diet really the cause of America’s obesity and health problems? It’s now estimated that the average American consumes up to 180 lbs of added sugar per year. Here’s another statistic that demonstrates the increase of sugar in our diets over the years:

  • In 1700, the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per year.
  • In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year.
  • In 1900, individual consumption had risen to 90 pounds of sugar per year.
  • In 2009, more than 50 percent of all Americans consume one-half pound of sugar per person
  • DAY—translating to a whopping 180 pounds of sugar per year!

“Walk away from the Peeps, Ma’am!” might be what you’re telling yourself, but this sugar epidemic is out of control thanks to the highly processed foods and soft drinks where sugar hides under a variety of names. Here are some fancier names for sugar:

Sucrose, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn syrup, maltodextrin, maltose, syrup, mannitol, molasses, ethyl maltol, fruit juice, fruit juice concentrate, diatase, cane sugar, caramel, carob syrup, barley malt, beet sugar, C12H22O11,

But, that’s not all. There are as many names for sugar as Eskimos have for snow. As the public becomes more aware of the many dangers of sugar, the food industry has to try to hide it under different names.

Is it ironic or coincidental that this heavenly, legal substance that give us so much pleasure looks identical to illegal drugs such as cocaine, meth, heroine? In my opinion the only difference is that sugar is a legal drug. Am I exaggerating? No, actually I’m not. In a recent study where rats were given the choice between water, sugar and cocaine the rats choose … SUGAR! This is vital information for you and your family’s health because when you start cutting sugar out of your diet you will likely go through withdrawal symptoms as you would with any addictive substance. As an adult you can cope with the headaches, irritability and fatigue; but if you are cutting sugar out of a child’s diet they won’t understand what is happening to their body. Something to be aware of as a parent when you start cutting processed foods and sugary treats out of your children’s diet.

I’m sure some of you are reading this thinking, I’m not diabetic, this doesn’t apply to me. What if I told you that your high cholesterol and muffin top is more likely linked to the sugar than bacon? Interested now? To break it down barney-style, sugar (whether it be white rice, processed bread, soda, lemonade, plain ol’ sugar in your coffee) turns into glucose in your body. Your body releases insulin, a hormone, to cleanse the blood. What your body can’t use immediately as energy is stored in the liver and fat tissue of the body for later use. When you overload your system with sugar, your whole body has to work overtime to clean it out of your system and this means putting its everyday tasks aside to deal with this toxic overload. So, instead of processing healthy fats, proteins, good carbs, etc., your system is processing junk. Then, it has to do its normal jobs after that. No wonder you’re so tired and lethargic all the time – you’re forcing your whole body to work double shifts everytime you reach for that candy bar or soda!

SUGAR = FAT = HEART DISEASE/CANCER/DIABETES/OBESITY/LIVER DAMAGE/INFERTILITY/ACNE/AND MORE.

Can it get worst? Actually, yes. In 2007, Child and Family Resource Institute released findings that sugar disrupts the sex hormones as well.

“Glucose and fructose are metabolized in the liver. When there’s too much sugar in the diet, the liver converts it to lipid. Using a mouse model and human liver cell cultures, the scientists discovered that the increased production of lipid shut down a gene called SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin), reducing the amount of SHBG protein in the blood. SHBG protein plays a key role in controlling the amount of testosterone and estrogen that’s available throughout the body. If there’s less SHBG protein, then more testosterone and estrogen will be released throughout the body, which is associated with an increased risk of acne, infertility, polycystic ovaries, and uterine cancer in overweight women. Abnormal amounts of SHBG also disturb the delicate balance between estrogen and testosterone, which is associated with the development of cardiovascular disease, especially in women.”

So, what can you do? How do you beat the cravings? The first step is to remove table sugar and processed foods out of your house. If it’s not there, you can’t be tempted. The second step is educating yourself on the hidden ingredients that are actually sugar. (Here’s a scary tip – did you know that juice is depleted of all nutrients, flavor and color, stored for a year, and then artificially flavored and colored?!)   Thirdly, check out my post, Sweet Alternatives, for some healthy alternatives that will help you and your family beat that sweet tooth for good.

 

Photos Jdurham, jasoncangialosi Creative Common 2.0

Related posts:

pregnancy toesPregnancy Toes – What Sugar Does to Feet drinking water, hydrationHydration, Thirst, and Drinking Water

You might be interested in

1 2