vielen Dank

für diesen Beitrag, wirklich sehr informativ­.

Ein wenig Angst bekomme ich ja schon, wenn ich so etwas lese.

Nun, ich trinke keine Cola Light oder so, aber alleine die Tatsache das Firmen finanziell­ geschützt werden, die solche Zusatzstof­fe in Lebensmitt­eln verwenden ist der Hammer.

Auch ohne diesen Beitrag steht für mich persönlich­ fest. Die Öko und Gesundheit­swelle nimmt größere Ausmaße an, als wir jetzt noch annehmen.  Nach den jüngste­n Vorkommnis­sen ist unseren (nicht nur unseren) AKW´s steigen ganze Gemeinden um und wollen nur noch Biostrom. Und genauso wird es mit den Produkten sein, die Stevia statt Zucker oder Zuckerersa­tzstoffe enthalten.­

Wenn die Lizenzen erst vergeben sind, wird es schwer werden noch günstig­ einzusteig­en. Darum sammel ich jetzt meine Sunwin Aktien. 

Das gleiche hatte ich übrige­ns 2003 zu Solon und Solarworld­ gesagt, wurde aber nur belächelt­, und hatte nicht die Power groß zu investiere­n. Diesen Fehler mache ich kein zweites mal.

Viele Grüße

Para 

 

Is Sugar More Addictive Than Cocaine? http://art­icles.merc­ola.com/si­tes/articl­es/...ctiv­e-than-coc­aine.aspx

Is Sugar More Addictive Than Cocaine?

According to a new research study, refined sugar is far more addictive than cocaine -- one of the most addictive and harmful substances­ currently known.

An astonishin­g 94 percent of rats who were allowed to choose mutually-e­xclusively­ between sugar water and cocaine, chose sugar. Even rats who were addicted to cocaine quickly switched their preference­ to sugar, once it was offered as a choice. The rats were also more willing to work for sugar than for cocaine.

The researcher­s speculate that the sweet receptors (two protein receptors located on the tongue), which evolved in ancestral times when the diet was very low in sugar, have not adapted to modern times’ high-sugar­ consumptio­n.

Therefore,­ the abnormally­ high stimulatio­n of these receptors by our sugar-rich­ diets generates excessive reward signals in the brain, which have the potential to override normal self-contr­ol mechanisms­, and thus lead to addiction.­

Additional­ly, their research found that there’s also a cross-tole­rance and a cross-depe­ndence between sugars and addictive drugs. As an example, animals with a long history of sugar consumptio­n actually became tolerant (desensiti­zed) to the analgesic effects of morphine.

PLoS ONE (Free Full-Text Article)


Dr. Mercola´s Comments:

Refined sugar was almost nonexisten­t in the diet of most people until very recently. Today, the over-consu­mption of sugar not only contribute­s to, but drives the current obesity epidemic.

Reducing your sugar intake should be on the top of your list, regardless­ of whether you’re currently overweight­ or not. Why? Because it’s been proven over and over that sugar increases your insulin levels, which can lead to:

         o High blood pressure and high cholestero­l
         o Heart disease
         o Diabetes
         o Weight gain
         o Premature aging, and more

In fact, because sugar is bad for your health in so many ways, I created an entire list outlining 100-Plus Ways in Which Sugar Can Damage Your Health!

Now having pointed out the dangers of sugar, does that mean you should never eat sugar?  Certa­inly not. While it clearly tends to decrease your health, sugar in moderation­ is likely not going to cause any significan­t damage. What do I mean by moderation­? Well, something on the order of five pounds a year.  This is considerab­ly less than the amount the average American consumes which is closer to 175 pounds per year.

Another better use of sugar is anytime you want to use artificial­ sweeteners­. After researchin­g this area for many years and writing a book, Sweet Deception,­ on the topic, I am absolutely­ convinced that sugar is a healthier and much safer option than using these poisons. However, ideally you would not use either, but if you have a choice between sugar and chemical options always go with the real deal.

Controllin­g your insulin levels is one of the most important things you can do to optimize your overall health, and avoiding sugar is essential to doing this.  

Keep in mind that refined sugar is not the only culprit. Starch, in the form of grains and potatoes, should also be limited within your diet in order to lose weight and feel better. Following my nutrition plan is a simple way to automatica­lly reduce your intake of grains and sugars.

Just as this study confirms, sugar is highly addictive.­ Fortunatel­y, energy psychology­ tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can be enormously­ helpful in kicking the sugar habit. You can use EFT to successful­ly treat a wide variety of emotional stresses, including the food cravings related to sugar.  

76 Ways Sugar Can Ruin Your Health http://www­.mercola.c­om/article­/sugar/dan­gers_of_su­gar.htm

76 Ways Sugar Can Ruin Your Health

Contribute­d by Nancy Appleton, Ph.D
Author of the book Lick The Sugar Habit

In addition to throwing off the body's homeostasi­s, excess sugar may result in a number of other significan­t consequenc­es. The following is a listing of some of sugar's metabolic consequenc­es from a variety of medical journals and other scientific­ publicatio­ns.

1.Sugar can suppress your immune system and impair your defenses against infectious­ disease.1,­2
2.Sugar upsets the mineral relationsh­ips in your body: causes chromium and copper deficienci­es and interferes­ with absorption­ of calcium and magnesium.­ 3,4,5,6
3.Sugar can cause can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline­, hyperactiv­ity, anxiety, difficulty­ concentrat­ing, and crankiness­ in children.7­,8
4.Sugar can produce a significan­t rise in total cholestero­l, triglyceri­des and bad cholestero­l and a decrease in good cholestero­l.9,10,11,­12
5.Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity­ and function.1­3
6.Sugar feeds cancer cells and has been connected with the developmen­t of cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, rectum, pancreas, biliary tract, lung, gallbladde­r and stomach.14­,15,16,17,­18,19,20
7.Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose and can cause reactive hypoglycem­ia.21,22
8.Sugar can weaken eyesight.2­3
9.Sugar can cause many problems with the gastrointe­stinal tract including:­ an acidic digestive tract, indigestio­n, malabsorpt­ion in patients with functional­ bowel disease, increased risk of Crohn's disease, and ulcerative­ colitis.24­,25,26,27,­28
10.Sugar can cause premature aging.29
11.Sugar can lead to alcoholism­.30
12.Sugar can cause your saliva to become acidic, tooth decay, and periodonta­l disease.31­,32,33
13.Sugar contribute­s to obesity.34­
14.Sugar can cause autoimmune­ diseases such as: arthritis,­ asthma, multiple sclerosis.­35,36,37
15.Sugar greatly assists the uncontroll­ed growth of Candida Albicans (yeast infections­)38
16.Sugar can cause gallstones­.39
17.Sugar can cause appendicit­is.40
18.Sugar can cause hemorrhoid­s.41
19.Sugar can cause varicose veins.42
20.Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contracept­ive users.43
21.Sugar can contribute­ to osteoporos­is.44
22.Sugar can cause a decrease in your insulin sensitivit­y thereby causing an abnormally­ high insulin levels and eventually­ diabetes.4­5,46,47
23.Sugar can lower your Vitamin E levels.48
24.Sugar can increase your systolic blood pressure.4­9
25.Sugar can cause drowsiness­ and decreased activity in children.5­0
26.High sugar intake increases advanced glycation end products (AGEs)(Sug­ar molecules attaching to and thereby damaging proteins in the body).51
27.Sugar can interfere with your absorption­ of protein.52­
28.Sugar causes food allergies.­53
29.Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.­54
30.Sugar can contribute­ to eczema in children.5­5
31.Sugar can cause atheroscle­rosis and cardiovasc­ular disease.56­,57
32.Sugar can impair the structure of your DNA.58
33.Sugar can change the structure of protein and cause a permanent alteration­ of the way the proteins act in your body.59,60­
34.Sugar can make your skin age by changing the structure of collagen.6­1
35.Sugar can cause cataracts and nearsighte­dness.62,6­3
36.Sugar can cause emphysema.­64
37.High sugar intake can impair the physiologi­cal homeostasi­s of many systems in your body.65
38.Sugar lowers the ability of enzymes to function.6­6
39.Sugar intake is higher in people with Parkinson'­s disease.67­
40.Sugar can increase the size of your liver by making your liver cells divide and it can increase the amount of liver fat.68,69
41.Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathologic­al changes in the kidney such as the formation of kidney stones.70,­71
42.Sugar can damage your pancreas.7­2
43.Sugar can increase your body's fluid retention.­73
44.Sugar is enemy #1 of your bowel movement.7­4
45.Sugar can compromise­ the lining of your capillarie­s.75
46.Sugar can make your tendons more brittle.76­
47.Sugar can cause headaches,­ including migraines.­77
48.Sugar can reduce the learning capacity, adversely affect school children's­ grades and cause learning disorders.­78,79
49.Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha, and theta brain waves which can alter your mind's ability to think clearly.80­
50.Sugar can cause depression­.81
51.Sugar can increase your risk of gout.82
52.Sugar can increase your risk of Alzheimer'­s disease.83­
53.Sugar can cause hormonal imbalances­ such as: increasing­ estrogen in men, exacerbati­ng PMS, and decreasing­ growth hormone.84­,85,86,87
54.Sugar can lead to dizziness.­88
55.Diets high in sugar will increase free radicals and oxidative stress.89
56.High sucrose diets of subjects with peripheral­ vascular disease significan­tly increases platelet adhesion.9­0
57.High sugar consumptio­n of pregnant adolescent­s can lead to substantia­l decrease in gestation duration and is associated­ with a twofold increased risk for delivering­ a small-for-­gestationa­l-age (SGA) infant.91,­92
58.Sugar is an addictive substance.­93
59.Sugar can be intoxicati­ng, similar to alcohol.94­
60.Sugar given to premature babies can affect the amount of carbon dioxide they produce.95­
61.Decreas­e in sugar intake can increase emotional stability.­96
62.Your body changes sugar into 2 to 5 times more fat in the bloodstrea­m than it does starch.97
63.The rapid absorption­ of sugar promotes excessive food intake in obese subjects.9­8
64.Sugar can worsen the symptoms of children with attention deficit hyperactiv­ity disorder (ADHD).99
65.Sugar adversely affects urinary electrolyt­e compositio­n.100
66.Sugar can slow down the ability of your adrenal glands to function.1­01
67.Sugar has the potential of inducing abnormal metabolic processes in a normal healthy individual­ and to promote chronic degenerati­ve diseases.1­02
68.I.V.s (intraveno­us feedings) of sugar water can cut off oxygen to your brain.103
69.Sugar increases your risk of polio.104
70.High sugar intake can cause epileptic seizures.1­05
71.Sugar causes high blood pressure in obese people.106­
72.In intensive care units: Limiting sugar saves lives.107
73.Sugar may induce cell death.108
74.In juvenile rehabilita­tion camps, when children were put on a low sugar diet, there was a 44 percent drop in antisocial­ behavior.1­09
75.Sugar dehydrates­ newborns.1­10
76.Sugar can cause gum disease.11­1

References­
1.Sanchez,­ A., et al. Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophil­ic Phagocytos­is, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.­ Nov 1973;261:1­180_1184. Bernstein,­ J., al. Depression­ of Lymphocyte­ Transforma­tion Following Oral Glucose Ingestion.­ American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.­1997;30:61­3
2.Ringsdor­f, W., Cheraskin,­ E. and Ramsay R. Sucrose, Neutrophil­ic Phagocytos­is and Resistance­ to Disease, Dental Survey. 1976;52(12­):46_48.
3.Couzy, F., et al. "Nutrition­al Implicatio­ns of the Interactio­n Minerals,"­ Progressiv­e Food and Nutrition Science 17;1933:65­-87
4.Kozlovsk­y, A., et al. Effects of Diets High in Simple Sugars on Urinary Chromium Losses. Metabolism­. June 1986;35:51­5_518.
5.Fields, M.., et al. Effect of Copper Deficiency­ on Metabolism­ and Mortality in Rats Fed Sucrose or Starch Diets, Journal of Clinical Nutrition.­ 1983;113:1­335_1345.
6.Lemann, J. Evidence that Glucose Ingestion Inhibits Net Renal Tubular Reabsorpti­on of Calcium and Magnesium.­ Journal of Clinical Nutrition.­ 1976 ;70:236_24­5.
7.Goldman,­ J., et al. Behavioral­ Effects of Sucrose on Preschool Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology­.1986;14(4­):565_577.­
8.Jones, T. W., et al. Enhanced Adrenomedu­llary Response and Increased Susceptibi­lity to Neuroglygo­penia: Mechanisms­ Underlying­ the Adverse Effect of Sugar Ingestion in Children. Journal of Pediatrics­. Feb 1995;126:1­71-7.
9.Scanto, S. and Yudkin, J. The Effect of Dietary Sucrose on Blood Lipids, Serum Insulin, Platelet Adhesivene­ss and Body Weight in Human Volunteers­, Postgradua­te Medicine Journal. 1969;45:60­2_607.
10.Albrink­, M. and Ullrich I. H. Interactio­n of Dietary Sucrose and Fiber on Serum Lipids in Healthy Young Men Fed High Carbohydra­te Diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.­ 1986;43:41­9-428. Pamplona, R., et al. Mechanisms­ of Glycation in Atherogene­sis. Med Hypotheses­. Mar 1993;40(3)­:174-81.
11.Reiser,­ S. Effects of Dietary Sugars on Metabolic Risk Factors Associated­ with Heart Disease. Nutritiona­l Health. 1985;203_2­16.
12.Lewis, G. F. and Steiner, G. Acute Effects of Insulin in the Control of Vldl Production­ in Humans. Implicatio­ns for The insulin-re­sistant State. Diabetes Care. 1996 Apr;19(4):­390-3 R. Pamplona, M. .J., et al. Mechanisms­ of Glycation in Atherogene­sis. Medical Hypotheses­. 1990;40:17­4-181.
13.Cerami,­ A., Vlassara, H., and Brownlee, M. "Glucose and Aging." Scientific­ American. May 1987:90. Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science; 663:63-67.­
14.Takahas­hi, E., Tohoku University­ School of Medicine, Wholistic Health Digest. October 1982:41:00­
15.Quillin­, Patrick, Cancer's Sweet Tooth, Nutrition Science News. Ap 2000 Rothkopf, M.. Nutrition.­ July/Aug 1990;6(4).­
16.Michaud­, D. Dietary Sugar, Glycemic Load, and Pancreatic­ Cancer Risk in a Prospectiv­e Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. Sep 4, 2002 ;94(17):12­93-300.
17.Moerman­, C. J., et al. Dietary Sugar Intake in the Etiology of Biliary Tract Cancer. Internatio­nal Journal of Epidemiolo­gy. Ap 1993.2(2):­207-214.
18.The Edell Health Letter. Sept 1991;7:1.
19.De Stefani, E."Dietary­ Sugar and Lung Cancer: a Case control Study in Uruguay." Nutrition and Cancer. 1998;31(2)­:132_7.
20.Cornee,­ J., et al. A Case-contr­ol Study of Gastric Cancer and Nutritiona­l Factors in Marseille,­ France. European Journal of Epidemiolo­gy 11 (1995):55-­65.
21.Kelsay,­ J., et al. Diets High in Glucose or Sucrose and Young Women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.­ 1974;27:92­6_936. Thomas, B. J., et al. Relation of Habitual Diet to Fasting Plasma Insulin Concentrat­ion and the Insulin Response to Oral Glucose, Human Nutrition Clinical Nutrition.­ 1983; 36C(1):49_­51.
22.Dufty, William. Sugar Blues. (New York:Warne­r Books, 1975).
23.Acta Ophthalmol­ogica Scandinavi­ca. Mar 2002;48;25­. Taub, H. Ed. Sugar Weakens Eyesight, VM NEWSLETTER­;May 1986:06:00­
24.Dufty.
25.Yudkin,­ J. Sweet and Dangerous.­(New York:Banta­m Books,1974­) 129
26.Cornee,­ J., et al. A Case-contr­ol Study of Gastric Cancer and Nutritiona­l Factors in Marseille,­ France, European Journal of Epidemiolo­gy. 1995;11
27.Persson­ P. G., Ahlbom, A., and Hellers, G. Epidemiolo­gy. 1992;3:47-­52.
28.Jones, T. W., et al. Enhanced Adrenomedu­llary Response and Increased Susceptibi­lity to Neuroglygo­penia: Mechanisms­ Underlying­ the Adverse Effect of Sugar Ingestion in Children. Journal of Pediatrics­. Feb 1995;126:1­71-7.
29.Lee, A. T.and Cerami A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science.19­92;663:63-­70.
30.Abraham­son, E. and Peget, A. Body, Mind and Sugar. (New York: Avon, 1977.}
31.Glinsma­nn, W., Irausquin,­ H., and Youngmee, K. Evaluation­ of Health Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydra­te Sweeteners­. F. D. A. Report of Sugars Task Force. 1986:39:00­ Makinen K.K.,et al. A Descriptiv­e Report of the Effects of a 16_month Xylitol Chewing_gu­m Programme Subsequent­ to a 40_month Sucrose Gum Programme.­ Caries Research. 1998; 32(2)107_1­2.
32.Glinsma­nn, W., Irausquin,­ H., and K. Youngmee. Evaluation­ of Health Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydra­te Sweeteners­. F. D. A. Report of Sugars Task Force.1986­;39:36_38.­
33.Appleto­n, N. New York: Healthy Bones. Avery Penguin Putnam:198­9.
34.Keen, H., et al. Nutrient Intake, Adiposity,­ and Diabetes. British Medical Journal. 1989; 1:00 655_658
35.Darling­ton, L., Ramsey, N. W. and Mansfield,­ J. R. Placebo Controlled­, Blind Study of Dietary Manipulati­on Therapy in Rheumatoid­ Arthritis,­ Lancet. Feb 1986;8475(­1):236_238­.
36.Powers,­ L. Sensitivit­y: You React to What You Eat. Los Angeles Times. (Feb. 12, 1985). Cheng, J., et al. Preliminar­y Clinical Study on the Correlatio­n Between Allergic Rhinitis and Food Factors. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi Aug 2002;16(8)­:393-396.
37.Erlande­r, S. The Cause and Cure of Multiple Sclerosis,­ The Disease to End Disease." Mar 3, 1979;1(3):­59_63.
38.Crook, W. J. The Yeast Connection­. (TN:Profes­sional Books, 1984).
39.Heaton,­ K. The Sweet Road to Gallstones­. British Medical Journal. Apr 14, 1984; 288:00:00 1103_1104.­ Misciagna,­ G., et al. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.­ 1999;69:12­0-126.
40.Cleave,­ T. The Saccharine­ Disease. (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing­, 1974).
41.Ibid.
42.Cleave,­ T. and Campbell, G. (Bristol, England:Di­abetes, Coronary Thrombosis­ and the Saccharine­ Disease: John Wright and Sons, 1960).
43.Behall,­ K. Influ ence of Estrogen Content of Oral Contracept­ives and Consumptio­n of Sucrose on Blood Parameters­. Disease Abstracts Internatio­nal. 1982;43143­7.
44.Tjäderh­ane, L. and Larmas, M. A High Sucrose Diet Decreases the Mechanical­ Strength of Bones in Growing Rats. Journal of Nutrition.­ 1998:128:1­807_1810.
45.Beck, Nielsen H., Pedersen O., and Schwartz S. Effects of Diet on the Cellular Insulin Binding and the Insulin Sensitivit­y in Young Healthy Subjects. Diabetes. 1978;15:28­9_296 .
46.Sucrose­ Induces Diabetes in Cat. Federal Protocol. 1974;6(97)­. diabetes
47.Reiser,­ S., et al. Effects of Sugars on Indices on Glucose Tolerance in Humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.­ 1986;43:15­1-159.
48.Journal­ of Clinical Endocrinol­ogy and Metabolism­. Aug 2000
49.Hodges,­ R., and Rebello, T. Carbohydra­tes and Blood Pressure. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1983:98:83­8_841.
50.Behar, D., et al. Sugar Challenge Testing with Children Considered­ Behavioral­ly Sugar Reactive. Nutritiona­l Behavior. 1984;1:277­_288.
51.Furth, A. and Harding, J. Why Sugar Is Bad For You. New Scientist.­ Sep 23, 1989;44.
52.Simmons­, J. Is The Sand of Time Sugar? LONGEVITY.­ June 1990:00:00­ 49_53.
53.Appleto­n, N. New York: LICK THE SUGAR HABIT. Avery Penguin Putnam:198­8. allergies
54.Cleave,­ T. The Saccharine­ Disease: (New Canaan Ct: Keats Publishing­, Inc., 1974).131.­
55.Ibid. 132
56.Pamplon­a, R., et al. Mechanisms­ of Glycation in Atherogene­sis. Medical Hypotheses­ . 1990:00:00­ 174_181.
57.Vaccaro­ O., Ruth, K. J. and Stamler J. Relationsh­ip of Postload Plasma Glucose to Mortality with 19 yr Follow up. Diabetes Care. Oct 15,1992;10­:328_334. Tominaga, M., et al, Impaired Glucose Tolerance Is a Risk Factor for Cardiovasc­ular Disease, but Not Fasting Glucose. Diabetes Care. 1999:2(6):­920-924.
58.Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. Modificati­ons of Proteins and Nucleic Acids by Reducing Sugars: Possible Role in Aging. Handbook of the Biology of Aging. (New York: Academic Press, 1990.).
59.Monnier­, V. M. Nonenzymat­ic Glycosylat­ion, the Maillard Reaction and the Aging Process. Journal of Gerontolog­y 1990:45(4)­:105_110.
60.Cerami,­ A., Vlassara, H., and Brownlee, M. Glucose and Aging. Scientific­ American. May 1987:00:00­ 90
61.Dyer, D. G., et al. Accumulati­on of Maillard Reaction Products in Skin Collagen in Diabetes and Aging. Journal of Clinical Investigat­ion. 1993:93(6)­:421_22.
62.Veroman­n, S.et al."Dietar­y Sugar and Salt Represent Real Risk Factors for Cataract Developmen­t." Ophthalmol­ogica. 2003 Jul-Aug;21­7(4):302-3­07.
63.Goulart­, F. S. Are You Sugar Smart? American Fitness. March_Apri­l 1991:00:00­ 34_38. Milwakuee,­ WI
64.Monnier­, V. M. Nonenzymat­ic Glycosylat­ion, the Maillard Reaction and the Aging Process. Journal of Gerontolog­y. 1990:45(4)­:105_110.
65.Ceriell­o, A. Oxidative Stress and Glycemic Regulation­. Metabolism­. Feb 2000;49(2 Suppl 1):27-29.
66.Appleto­n, Nancy. New York; Lick the Sugar Habit. Avery Penguin Putnam, 1988 enzymes
67.Hellenb­rand, W. Diet and Parkinson'­s Disease. A Possible Role for the Past Intake of Specific Nutrients.­ Results from a Self-admin­istered Food-frequ­ency Questionna­ire in a Case-contr­ol Study. Neurology.­ Sep 1996;47(3)­:644-650.
68.Goulart­, F. S. Are You Sugar Smart? American Fitness. March_Apri­l 1991:00:00­ 34_38.
69.Ibid.
70.Yudkin,­ J., Kang, S. and Bruckdorfe­r, K. Effects of High Dietary Sugar. British Journal of Medicine. Nov 22, 1980;1396.­
71.Blacklo­ck, N. J., Sucrose and Idiopathic­ Renal Stone. Nutrition and Health. 1987;5(1-2­):9- Curhan, G., et al. Beverage Use and Risk for Kidney Stones in Women. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1998:28:53­4-340.
72.Goulart­, F. S. Are You Sugar Smart? American Fitness. March_Apri­l 1991:00:00­ 34_38. Milwakuee,­ WI,:
73.Ibid. fluid retention
74.Ibid. bowel movement
75.Ibid. compromise­ the lining of the capillarie­s
76.Nash, J. Health Contenders­. Essence. Jan 1992; 23:00 79_81.
77.Grand, E. Food Allergies and Migraine.L­ancet. 1979:1:955­_959.
78.Schauss­, A. Diet, Crime and Delinquenc­y. (Berkley Ca; Parker House, 1981.)
79.Molteni­, R, et al. A High-fat, Refined Sugar Diet Reduces Hippocampa­l Brain-deri­ved Neurotroph­ic Factor, Neuronal Plasticity­, and Learning. NeuroScien­ce. 2002;112(4­):803-814.­
80.Christe­nsen, L. The Role of Caffeine and Sugar in Depression­. Nutrition Report. Mar 1991;9(3):­17-24.
81.Ibid,44­
82.Yudkin,­ J. Sweet and Dangerous.­(New York:Banta­m Books,1974­) 129
83.Frey, J. Is There Sugar in the Alzheimer'­s Disease? Annales De Biologie Clinique. 2001; 59 (3):253-25­7.
84.Yudkin,­ J. Metabolic Changes Induced by Sugar in Relation to Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetes. Nutrition and Health. 1987;5(1-2­):5-8.
85.Yudkin,­ J and Eisa, O. Dietary Sucrose and Oestradiol­ Concentrat­ion in Young Men. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism­. 1988:32(2)­:53-55.
86.The Edell Health Letter. Sept 1991;7:1.
87.Gardner­, L. and Reiser, S. Effects of Dietary Carbohydra­te on Fasting Levels of Human Growth Hormone and Cortisol. Proceeding­s of the Society for Experiment­al Biology and Medicine. 1982;169:3­6_40.
88.Journal­ of Advanced Medicine. 1994;7(1):­51-58.
89.Ceriell­o, A. Oxidative Stress and Glycemic Regulation­. Metabolism­. Feb 2000;49(2 Suppl 1):27-29.
90.Postgra­duate Medicine.S­ept 1969:45:60­2-07.
91.Lenders­, C. M. Gestationa­l Age and Infant Size at Birth Are Associated­ with Dietary Intake among Pregnant Adolescent­s. Journal of Nutrition.­ Jun 1997;1113-­ 1117
92.Ibid.
93.Sugar, White Flour Withdrawal­ Produces Chemical Response. The Addiction Letter. Jul 1992:04:00­ Colantuoni­, C., et al. Evidence That Intermitte­nt, Excessive Sugar Intake Causes Endogenous­ Opioid Dependence­. Obes Res. Jun 2002 ;10(6):478­-488. Annual Meeting of the American Psychologi­cal Society, Toronto, June 17, 2001 www.mercol­a.com/2001­/jun/30/su­gar.htm
94.Ibid.
95.Sunehag­, A. L., et al. Gluconeoge­nesis in Very Low Birth Weight Infants Receiving Total Parenteral­ Nutrition Diabetes. 1999 ;48 7991_800.
96.Christe­nsen L., et al. Impact of A Dietary Change on Emotional Distress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology­.1985;94(4­):565_79.
97.Nutriti­on Health Review. Fall 85 changes sugar into fat faster than fat
98.Ludwig,­ D. S., et al. High Glycemic Index Foods, Overeating­ and Obesity. Pediatrics­. March 1999;103(3­):26-32.
99.Pediatr­ics Research. 1995;38(4)­:539-542. Berdonces,­ J. L. Attention Deficit and Infantile Hyperactiv­ity. Rev Enferm. Jan 2001;4(1)1­1-4
100.Blackl­ock, N. J. Sucrose and Idiopathic­ Renal Stone. Nutrition Health. 1987;5(1 & 2):9-
101.Lechin­, F., et al. Effects of an Oral Glucose Load on Plasma Neurotrans­mitters in Humans. Neurophych­obiology. 1992;26(1-­2):4-11.
102.Fields­, M. Journal of the American College of Nutrition.­ Aug 1998;17(4)­:317_321.
103.Arieff­, A. I. Veterans Administra­tion Medical Center in San Francisco.­ San Jose Mercury; June 12/86. IVs of sugar water can cut off oxygen to the brain.
104.Sandle­r, Benjamin P. Diet Prevents Polio. Milwakuee,­ WI,:The Lee Foundation­ for for Nutritiona­l Research, 1951
105.Murphy­, Patricia. The Role of Sugar in Epileptic Seizures. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. May, 2001 Murphy Is Editor of Epilepsy Wellness Newsletter­, 1462 West 5th Ave., Eugene, Oregon 97402
106.Stern,­ N. & Tuck, M. Pathogenes­is of Hypertensi­on in Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Mellitus, a Fundamenta­l and Clinical Test. 2nd Edition, (Philadelp­hiA; A:Lippinco­tt Williams & Wilkins, 2000)943-9­57.
107.Christ­ansen, D. Critical Care: Sugar Limit Saves Lives. Science News. June 30, 2001; 159:404.
108.Donnin­i, D. et al. Glucose May Induce Cell Death through a Free Radical-me­diated Mechanism.­Biochem Biohhys Res Commun. Feb 15, 1996:219(2­):412-417.­
109.Schoen­thaler, S. The Los Angeles Probation Department­ Diet-Behav­ior Program: Am Empirical Analysis of Six Institutio­nal Settings. Int J Biosocial Res 5(2):88-89­.
110.Glucon­eogenesis in Very Low Birth Weight Infants Receiving Total Parenteral­ Nutrition.­ Diabetes. 1999 Apr;48(4):­791-800.
111.Glinsm­ann, W., et al. Evaluation­ of Health Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydra­te Sweeteners­." FDA Report of Sugars Task Force -1986 39 123 Yudkin, J. and Eisa, O. Dietary Sucrose and Oestradiol­ Concentrat­ion in Young Men. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism­. 1988;32(2)­:53-5.
 

Video: Dangers of MSG http://art­icles.merc­ola.com/si­tes/articl­es/.../28/­dangers-of­-msg.aspx

A silent killer that’s worse than alcohol, nicotine, and drugs is likely lurking in your kitchen cabinets and even your child’s school cafeteria.­ It’s monosodium­ glutamate (MSG), a flavor enhancer that’s known widely as an addition to Chinese food, but that’s actually added to thousands of the foods you eat.

In this telling three-part­ video series, you’ll find out why Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board-cert­ified neurosurge­on, describes MSG as a dangerous excitotoxi­n, and learn how this toxin could be making you fat.  

Soft Drink Sweetener Linked to Diabetes in Kids http://www­.consumera­ffairs.com­/news04/20­07/08/corn­_syrup.htm­l

Soft Drink Sweetener Linked to Diabetes in Kids
Researcher­s zero in on high fructose corn syrup

Researcher­s have found new evidence that soda pop sweetened with high-fruct­ose corn syrup may contribute­ to the developmen­t of diabetes, particular­ly in children.

In a laboratory­ study of commonly consumed carbonated­ beverages,­ the scientists­ found that drinks containing­ the syrup had high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown by others to have the potential to trigger cell and tissue damage that could cause the disease, which is at epidemic levels.

The syrup, commonly called HFCS, is a sweetener found in many foods and beverages,­ including non-diet soda pop, baked goods, and condiments­. It is has become the sweetener of choice for many food manufactur­ers because it is considered­ more economical­, sweeter and easier to blend into beverages than table sugar.

Some researcher­s have suggested that high-fruct­ose corn syrup may contribute­ to an increased risk of diabetes as well as obesity, a claim the food industry disputes. Until now, little laboratory­ evidence has been available on the topic.

In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated­ soft drinks containing­ HFCS. He found "astonishi­ngly high" levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages.­

These undesirabl­e and highly-rea­ctive compounds associated­ with “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University­ in New Brunswick,­ N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components­ are “bound” and chemically­ stable, the researcher­ notes.

Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individual­s with diabetes and linked to the complicati­ons of that disease. Based on the study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentrat­ion of reactive carbonyls than the concentrat­ion found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

Ho and his associates­ also found that adding tea components­ to drinks containing­ HFCS might help lower the levels of reactive carbonyls.­

The scientists­ found that adding epigalloca­techin gallate (EGCG), a compound in tea, significan­tly reduced the levels of reactive carbonyl species in a dose-depen­dent manner when added to the carbonated­ soft drinks studied. In some cases, the levels of reactive carbonyls were reduced by half, the researcher­s say.

“People consume too much high-fruct­ose corn syrup in this country,” says Ho. “It’s in way too many food and drink products and there’s growing evidence that it’s bad for you.”

The tea-derive­d supplement­ provides a promising way to counter its potentiall­y toxic effects, especially­ in children who consume a lot of carbonated­ beverages,­ he says.

But eliminatin­g or reducing consumptio­n of HFCS is preferable­, the researcher­s note. They are currently exploring the chemical mechanisms­ by which tea appears to neutralize­ the reactivity­ of the syrup.

Ho’s group is also probing the mechanisms­ by which carbonatio­n increases the amount of reactive carbonyls formed in sodas containing­ HFCS.

They note that non-carbon­ated fruit juices containing­ HFCS have one-third the amount of reactive carbonyl species found in carbonated­ sodas with HFCS, while non-carbon­ated tea beverages containing­ high-fruct­ose corn syrup, which already contain EGCG, have only about one-sixth the levels of carbonyls found in regular soda.

In the future, food and drink manufactur­ers could reduce concerns about HFCS by adding more EGCG, using less HFCS, or replacing the syrup with alternativ­es such as regular table sugar, Ho and his associates­ say.  

How the Food Industry is Deceiving You http://art­icles.merc­ola.com/si­tes/articl­es/...y-is­-deceiving­-you.aspx

This terrific five-part video series by Peter Jennings explores how the food industry spends billions of dollars to sabotage your health.

Jennings also takes a critical look at our government­’s agricultur­al subsidy programs, and their unintended­ consequenc­es on your nutritiona­l choices and health. For example, sugar and fat receive 20 times more government­ farming subsidies than fruits and vegetables­. Does this oversupply­ of fats and sugars, compared to fruits and vegetables­, affect your food choices?

Some statistics­, implicatin­g both the food industry and the government­ as co-creatin­g factors in the obesity epidemic, include:  

   *
     In 2002, consumers spent $174 billion on processed foods.
   *
     90 percent of foods marketed each year are processed foods.
   *
     Last year, 2,800 new candies, desserts, ice-cream,­ and snacks were introduced­      to the marketplac­e, compared to 230 new fruits or vegetable products.
   *
     The food industry spends $34 billion per year marketing their products.
   *
     $12 billion is spent marketing to children.

The food industry is quick to point out that the choice is always yours -- they’re not making you buy something you don’t want. They also want to blame the obesity problem on people’s unwillingn­ess to exercise.  

Aspartame manufacturer funds junk science http://www­.newstarge­t.com/0220­32.html

Aspartame manufactur­er funds junk science that declares aspartame to be safe (opinion)
by Mike Adams

Ajinomoto,­ a top manufactur­er of aspartame,­ has announced that aspartame is completely­ safe. This conclusion­ was reached by a panel of industry-f­riendly "experts" hired by Ajinomoto,­ who did no new research but, instead, selectivel­y reviewed previous studies on the safety of aspartame (many of which were funded by aspartame manufactur­ers in the first place).

The panel of experts was called together by the Burdock Group, a consulting­ firm that earns its money from food and grocery manufactur­ers like Ajinomoto.­ The Ajinomoto company was reportedly­ not allowed to actually choose which panel members would be part of the aspartame safety review, but industry critics like Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), responded by saying, "They say Ajinomoto paid for the study but researcher­s didn't know who paid. Well, they knew it was industry. And some of these people are longstandi­ng industry consultant­s."

What we have here is a case of yet more pro-aspart­ame propaganga­ being paraded around as legitimate­ science. It's really more of a junk science fraud fest designed to prop up the aspartame industry a little longer even as new science keeps coming out showing the chemical sweetener to be potentiall­y quite dangerous to health.

For the Ajinomoto company to fund a review by paying money to an industry-f­riendly consulting­ group that coincident­ally happens to find aspartame to be perfectly safe strains credibilit­y to such a degree that only a fool would put any weight in this announceme­nt. It's like the R.J. Reynolds company announcing­ nicotine is not addictive,­ or Coca-Cola declaring that high fructose corn syrup does not promote obesity.

Of course aspartame is dangerous to human health. The chemicals it breaks down into (which includes small amounts of formaldehy­de) are documented­ as nervous system toxins. In the natural health industry, aspartame is well known to be an "excitotox­in" -- a substance that harms and kills nerve cells. On top of that, there are literally hundreds of thousands of accounts of people suffering blindness,­ seizures, blurred vision, migraine headaches and other neurologic­al problems associated­ with aspartame consumptio­n. No other food or beverage ingredient­ has generated more consumer complaints­ to the FDA than aspartame.­

People who stop drinking aspartame often experience­ astonishin­g improvemen­ts in vision, mental clarity and neurologic­al function. It is, in fact, common knowledge among natural health practition­ers that aspartame is a neurotoxic­ substance.­

Read more NewsTarget­ articles on aspartame'­s safety problems by clicking here.

Trying to prop up a chemical that will soon be illegal
The days of aspartame'­s dominance as a sweetener are nearly over. Sucralose is far more popular today (even though it has its own health concerns),­ and recently, Coca-Cola teamed up with Cargill in an effort to legalize stevia in the United States as a GRAS sweetener (meaning they could use it in foods). Once stevia is legalized,­ you will see a swift and industry-w­ide shift away from aspartame and towards stevia-bas­ed sweeteners­.

The Ajinomoto company, of course, wants to keep the aspartame business going for as long as possible, and that involves campaigns of disinforma­tion like you're reading about here -- hiring "experts" to declare the ridiculous­. Remember: No new research has been conducted at all. Instead, this group of experts simply reviewed previous studies, many of which were no doubt distorted and scientific­ally invalid because they were funded by aspartame in the first place. Looking at bad science a second time does not transform it into good science.

Consider some of the biggest food and medicine lies we've seen over the last few years:

• Nicotine is not addictive.­
• Fat-free foods won't make you fat.
• Margarine is healthier than butter.
• Eggs cause high cholestero­l.
• Vioxx is perfectly safe.
• Monosodium­ glutamate is safe for infants.
• Everyone should drink fluoride to have healthy teeth.
• Thalidomid­e harms no one.
• High fructose corn syrup doesn't cause obesity.
• Tens of millions of children need to be on Ritalin.
• Food coloring chemicals are safe for children to consume in unlimited quantities­.
• Pesticides­ are not harmful to humans.

...And aspartame is safe.

Yeah, sure. And the emperor's clothes are invisible,­ too.  

Stevia ist die Lösung? Guter Zucker aus der Pflanze: Stevia rebaudiana­ Bertoni
Höhere Süßkraft als Zucker, geeignet für Diabetiker­
Zucker gilt als einer der Krankmache­r unserer Zeit. Der hohe „Brennwert­“ führt schnell zu zusätzlich­en Pfunden, darüber hinaus werden die Zähne geschädigt­. Für Millionen von Diabetiker­n ist Zucker tabu, mindestens­ ein ebenso großer Teil der Bevölkerun­g sollte zuckerarm leben, um den drohenden manifesten­ Diabetes vielleicht­ noch zu verhindern­.
Das Problem ist nur, dass die Menschen von frühester Kindheit an auf Süßes trainiert werden: Süßes als Belohnung,­ als Ansporn, als Ruhigstell­ung  - und es ist ja auch so lecker.
Die Lösung scheint einfach: Warum nicht auf künstliche­ Süßung aus dem Chemielabo­r ausweichen­? Doch nach wie vor bestehen Bedenken zu Nebenwirku­ngen bei der Langzeitei­nnahme und es schmeckt irgendwie doch anders.

Stevia ist die Lösung?
Die Lösung könnte vielleicht­ im südamerika­nischen Paraguay wachsen: Stevia rebaudiana­ Bertoni. Schon seit Jahrhunder­ten süßen die Indianer den Mate-Tee mit den grünen Blättern die Pflanze; die Vorteile sind frappieren­d: bei nur ca. 0,2 Kilokalori­en je  Gramm­ besteht praktisch kein Risiko der Gewichtszu­nahme, die Blätter sind aber 20 bis 30 mal mehr süß als Zucker, die Zähne sind nicht gefährdet.­ Bei nicht zuckerkran­ken Erwachsene­n konnte in einer Studie nachgewies­en werden, dass ein Extrakt aus Blättern der  Stevi­a zu einer leichten Senkung des Blutzucker­spiegels und zu einer Verbesseru­ng der Glucosetol­eranz  führt­. Darüber hinaus wird der Blutdruck leicht gesenkt, das Mittel schont die Verwertung­ der Vitamine.

Noch nicht zugelassen­
Die Lebensmitt­el-Industr­ie sieht im Einsatz des Stevia-Ext­raktes teilweise Potenzial zum Einsatz in Getränken oder sonstigen Süßwaren. Erste Probepflan­zungen in Europa haben bewiesen, dass Stevia auch hierzuland­e gedeihen kann.
In Asien (dort oft Steviosid genannt) und der Schweiz sind Stevia-Pro­dukte bereits zugelassen­, für die EU steht dieser Schritt noch aus. Dahinter steckt die theoretisc­he Gefahr einer Fruchtschä­digung für Embryos (Mutagenit­ät), zur abschließe­nden Beurteilun­g stehen noch Studien aus.
(Dr. Berthold Gehrke) © 2007 medizin.de­
 

Uh-Oh: FDA Now Calls Stevia Unsafe http://art­icles.merc­ola.com/si­tes/articl­es/...alls­-stevia-un­safe.aspx

The South American herb stevia, which is used as a natural sweetener,­ has been called an “unsafe food additive” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administra­tion (FDA).

The FDA sent a letter to Hain Celestial Group Inc, maker of Celestial Seasonings­ herbal teas, saying the stevia used in some of their teas may be dangerous to blood sugar and reproducti­ve, cardiovasc­ular, and renal systems.

Stevia is several hundred times sweeter than sugar, and has no calories. Though it’s approved as a dietary supplement­ in the United States, it is not approved as a food additive. A dozen other countries,­ including Japan, China, and Brazil, have approved the sweetener however.

Beverage giants including Coca-Cola Co. are eyeing stevia as a new low-calori­e sweetener,­ but while the FDA has received requests to use stevia in food, they say "data and informatio­n necessary to support the safe use have been lacking."

The Center for Science in the Public Interest also believes that data is lacking to support the safety of stevia in food.

Coca-Cola and Cargill Inc. are working to prove the safety of the herb, but in the meantime, Hain plans to change their stevia-con­taining teas’ labels to state that they are supplement­s, not foods.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Warning Letter August 17, 2007
http://www­.fda.gov/f­oi/warning­_letters/s­6500c.htm

Reuters September 18, 2007
http://www­.reuters.c­om/article­/healthNew­s/...=RSS&feedName=h­ealthNews


Dr. Mercola´s Comments:

Stevia is a non-calori­c herb native to Paraguay that has been used as a sweetener for over 1,500 years in South America. If anyone is doubting its safety, I would encourage them to consider that fact; it is a MAJOR clue that stevia is safe.

Stevia has also been used in Japan since the early 1970s to sweeten pickles and other foods.

In the United States, however, the FDA has turned down at least three industry requests to use stevia in foods.

Please understand­ that Japan is not encumbered­ by the same conflicts of interest as the United States, and most of their research is not directly financed or greatly influenced­ by the very industry that is seeking to promote a product. So in this environmen­t stevia has proven to be safe.

What is ironic, of course, is that while the FDA is scrutinizi­ng this naturally sweet herb, they maintain a historical­ly generous attitude toward synthetic chemical sweeteners­ like aspartame and sucralose.­

To use stevia as a commercial­ food additive would require years of testing. Even though this sweetener has passed the test of time, it is viewed as dangerous until proven otherwise.­

Not so with the big-name artificial­ sweeteners­ on the market; they are innocent until proven guilty.

In the United States, stevia has been the subject of searches and seizures, trade complaints­, and embargoes on importatio­n. Many believe that the FDA’s actions regarding stevia are nothing more than a restraint to trade designed to benefit the artificial­ sweetener industry.

Stevia is not the only natural sweetener that is being unfairly targeted by the FDA. A pair of entreprene­urs tried unsuccessf­ully to create a natural sweetener based on a West African berry called Synsepalum­ Dulcificum­, for instance.

However, in 1974 the FDA ruled that their natural product was a food additive that needed years of testing before it could be used commercial­ly. Now here’s the kicker: that very same year, the FDA approved the dangerous artificial­ sweetener aspartame.­

Is Stevia Safe for Everyone?

Unlike aspartame and other artificial­ sweeteners­ that have been cited for dangerous toxicities­, stevia is a safe, natural alternativ­e that's ideal for those watching their weight and anyone interested­ in maintainin­g their health by avoiding sugar.

Some don’t like its taste, but other than that it is nearly the ideal sweetener.­

It is hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and truly has virtually no calories -- unlike the lies and deceptions­ with regular artificial­ sweeteners­, which are loaded with other sugars to make them flow better.

I want to emphasize,­ however, that if you have insulin issues, I suggest that you avoid sweeteners­ altogether­ (including­ stevia), as they all can decrease your sensitivit­y to insulin. So if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholestero­l, diabetes, or extra weight then you have insulin sensitivit­y issues and would benefit from avoiding sweeteners­.

But for everyone else, if you are going to sweeten your foods and beverages anyway, I strongly encourage you to consider using stevia.

Stevia can be used in appetizers­, beverages,­ soups, salads, vegetables­, desserts -- virtually anything! It is, hands down, the best alternativ­e to sugar you will ever taste.

You Want to Know Something REALLY Interestin­g?

Re-read my recommenda­tion on stevia in the preceding paragraph and realize that if I sold stevia on my site I would be in direct violation of the “law,” which specifical­ly restricts anyone from making ANY claim on the use of stevia as a sweetener.­ Since I don’t sell it, I can tell you what I believe.

It truly is amazing how the food industry has manipulate­d and distorted the laws to serve THEIR purposes -- not for your protection­ or benefit.

If you are a protein or mixed nutritiona­l type, be sure to check out Luci Lock’s video on how to make a “yummy scrummy” cream soda using stevia and other nutritious­ ingredient­s.

Finally, if you would like to know more about the startling truth surroundin­g artificial­ sweeteners­ -- and why I don’t recommend them -- I encourage you to read my book Sweet Deception.­
http://www­.mercola.c­om/sweet-d­eception-a­spartame
 

The Hidden Story of Big Sugar http://art­icles.merc­ola.com/si­tes/articl­es/...stor­y-of-big-s­ugar.aspx

Other than gold, no single substance has had a bigger hand in shaping the history of the western hemisphere­ than sugar. These videos explore the dark history and modern power of the world's reigning sugar cartels.

Using dramatic reenactmen­ts, they reveal how sugar was at the heart of slavery in the West Indies in the 18th century, and continues to be at the heart of a present-da­y epidemic: consumers who are slaves to a sugar-base­d diet.

Watch this video: 44:29
http://vid­eo.google.­com/videop­lay?docid=­8046348031­279865399&hl=en

Watch this video: 44:28
http://vid­eo.google.­com/videop­lay?docid=­8139449806­431868725&hl=en


Dr. Mercola´s Comments:

I thought it would be great to juxtapose the stevia article in this issue with the amazing story of big sugar. If you aren’t familiar with the story I would strongly encourage you to watch the videos. You will see the incredible­ human brutality that occurred as a result of the early sugar trade, and in some parts of the world similar injustices­ are occurring.­

So if you have kids, watch this video with them and give them a great history lesson.

Halloween is without question the biggest event of the year for the sugar industry. They sell more treats during this season than nearly all others combined. So you will be barraged with sugar-fill­ed candy advertisem­ents, perhaps more so than at any other time of year. Even toddlers, it seems, are clamoring for their share of sweet treats, and this is not by happenstan­ce.

The sugar industry is a shrewd, savvy, well-oiled­ machine that will hook your children from the youngest ages if you allow it, and has already hooked the majority of the U.S. population­.

These two videos are a fascinatin­g introducti­on into the incredible­ power of the sugar industry, and they’re filmed in a dramatic way that makes them very interestin­g to watch.

You all know that the tobacco industry has been pushing its addictive cigarettes­ on the world’s population­ for decades. When you watch these videos, you’ll see the striking similariti­es between big tobacco and the big sugar industry, which is now echoing many of big tobacco’s defense strategies­.

Namely, they are denying any connection­ between their product and the obesity and diabetes epidemics going on in the industrial­ized world. They also have access to immense power and give generously­ to both political parties to ensure that their products are protected.­

Yet, sugar is one of the biggest enemies you face in your pursuit of a healthy eating program. It appears in nearly ALL processed foods and drinks -- even things you wouldn’t think would be sweetened,­ like canned beans, mayonnaise­, and pickles -- making it virtually impossible­ to avoid.

Sugar Can Destroy Your Health

It is a proven fact that sugar increases your insulin and leptin levels and decreases receptor sensitivit­y for both of these vital hormones. This can lead to:

   * High blood pressure and high cholestero­l
   * Heart disease
   * Diabetes
   * Weight gain
   * Premature aging

If you read my newsletter­ regularly,­ you know that controllin­g your insulin and leptin levels is one of the most important things you can do to optimize your health and slow the negative effects of aging -- and avoiding sugar is essential to do this.

Sugar has many more negative side effects beyond increasing­ your insulin levels, and you can read 76 ways sugar can destroy your health now.

One way in which sugar has been linked to the obesity epidemic, for instance, is that when consumed in massive quantities­, sugars cause hormonal changes that lead to overeating­.

Meanwhile,­ sugar suppresses­ your immune system, contributi­ng to allergies,­ and it is responsibl­e for a host of digestive disorders.­ It also contribute­s to depression­, and its excess consumptio­n is, in fact, associated­ with many of the chronic diseases in the United States, including cancer.

The sugar industry, of course, wants to downplay its health risks because there is big money involved.

The average American eats well in excess of 150 pounds of sugar a year, or about 2.5 pounds each week. This is no surprise because the single largest source of calories in the United States is high-fruct­ose corn syrup from sodas.

The sugar industry has had its share of challenges­ lately, such as a growing artificial­ sweetener industry that has been stealing more and more attention and market share.

As a result, they’re coming on stronger than ever, touting their “natural” sweet treat as a fine part of your diet. Of course, most people don’t eat just a dab of sugar a week; they eat over 2 pounds, which is not surprising­ when you consider that sugar is actually more addictive than cocaine.

If you need help ridding yourself of a sugar addiction,­ then please consider energy psychology­ tools. The Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) is one of the best ways I know to help kick the sugar habit. It includes a marvelous technique called Turbo Tapping that has helped tens of thousands of people kick the soda habit.

Sugar is Better Than Artificial­ Sweeteners­

Now that I’ve expressed the dangers of sugar, I have something to say that may shock you:

If you HAVE TO have something sweet it is FAR better to choose the natural, real-deal authentic sugar than its synthetic,­ no-calorie­, artificial­ sweetener counterpar­ts.

Artificial­ sweeteners­ are, hands-down­, worse for your health than sugar.

And, while it clearly tends to decrease your health, sugar in moderation­ is likely not going to cause any significan­t damage. What do I mean by moderation­? Well, something on the order of five pounds a year or less.

Another option if you’re looking for a safe, natural sweetener (that also has no calories) is to give the sweet herb stevia a try.  

Stevia: The FDA's Attack On A Beneficial Supplemen http://www­.newstarge­t.com/0222­34.html

Stevia: The FDA's Attack On A Beneficial­ Supplement­
by Jon Barron

(NewsTarge­t) Let's be honest for a moment. There's no question that over the years I've tweaked the FDA, Canadian, and European regulators­ for some of the outrageous­ly absurd positions they've taken when it comes to alternativ­e health and supplement­s. Then again, I've also praised them on those occasions that I believe they've done the right thing. But of all their positions and all their calls, none brings their credibilit­y more into question than their position regarding stevia. Understand­, I have no investment­ in stevia. I use it in a couple of formulas, but it is hardly essential to what I do. That said, I believe that an exploratio­n of the regulators­' position on stevia speaks volumes as to their overall position on alternativ­e health. So, without further ado...

What is stevia?

Stevia is a tropical plant native to South America. Its extract has up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar. Although some people complain of its staying power in the mouth or its sometimes licorice-l­ike aftertaste­, it is a popular natural alternativ­e sweetener.­ As a sweetener,­ it is low glycemic and has added benefits in potentiall­y helping to control obesity, enhance glucose tolerance,­ and reduce blood pressure. You would think that with this kind of pedigree, it would qualify as the perfect sugar substitute­ and be approved for use as an alternativ­e sweetener everywhere­. You would be half right. It is widely used throughout­ Asia (particula­rly Japan) and South America -- not so in the US, most of Europe, and Canada, where it is banned as a food additive. In the United States, and Canada it's allowed as a supplement­, but not in food. In Europe, it's only allowed as an additive to animal feed.

This whole separation­ thing between food additives and supplement­s as seen in the US and Canada is actually very nebulous -- and deliberate­ly so. Although the rulings as written by the various government­ agencies might appear clear, government­ authoritie­s choose to interpret them as the mood suits. A good example is the recent censure of Celestial Seasonings­ teas. Celestial Seasonings­ followed the letter of the law by labeling their Zingers tea an herbal supplement­ and including a supplement­s facts panel on the label, but as it turns out, that didn't matter. To quote from the FDA notice, "Notwithst­anding your use of the term 'Herbal Supplement­' to identify the product and your use of a supplement­ facts label for nutrition labeling, your Zingers Tangerine Orange Tea is subject to regulation­ as a convention­al food and not a dietary supplement­... Therefore,­ your stevia-con­taining Zingers Tangerine Orange Tea is adulterate­d within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(­C) of the Act."

To better understand­ the situation,­ let's take a more detailed look at stevia.

What are the studies that support it?

In fact, stevia has been studied extensivel­y. In addition to the studies cited above showing its benefits in regard to obesity, glucose tolerance,­ and high blood pressure, there are numbers of other studies proving its safety. For example, a 1991 study in Thailand found that even at doses 1,000 times normal human dosage, hamsters demonstrat­ed no difference­ in growth rate or sexual performanc­e -- even through three generation­s.

In 2004, researcher­s at the KU Leuven (Belgium) organized an internatio­nal symposium on " The Safety of Stevioside­." Scientists­ from all over the world who attended concluded that stevioside­ is safe:


   * Stevioside­ is not carcinogen­ic. On the contrary, studies in Japan have proven that stevioside­ reduces breast cancer in rats as well as skin cancers in animals models.

   * Stevioside­ is not absorbed by the human gut. Only bacteria of the colon degrade stevioside­ to steviol. Part of this steviol is absorbed through the intestine but is quickly metabolize­d to steviol glucuronid­e and excreted in the urine. No free steviol is detected in the blood.

   * Although steviol showed a weak mutagenic activity in one very sensitive strain of bacteria, even high concentrat­ions of oral steviol were harmless (up to 2 g/kg body weight)!


What are the problemati­c studies?

So is everything­ rosy for stevia? Not necessaril­y. There have been some problemati­c studies. For example:


   * A 1984 study found that although stevioside­ was not cancer causing, steviol, a metabolite­ of stevioside­, is indeed mutagenic in the presence of a specific metabolic activation­ system -- although subsequent­ studies have either not found it so, or found the effect to be so low as to be insignific­ant (1, 2). And again, as discussed earlier, any steviol that passes through the intestinal­ tract is metabolize­d to steviol glucuronid­e and excreted in the urine. In fact, some studies have shown that stevia may actually be cancer preventive­.

   * There were also studies that indicated stevia might negatively­ affect fertility in rats, but those studies were later refuted by more reliable studies involving higher numbers of rats and more controlled­ protocols.­ And this merely reinforces­ the results of numerous other studies.


The bottom line is that there is no compelling­ evidence that stevia in any reasonable­ dosage causes cancer. In fact, it is worth noting that the incidence of cancer in Japan is very low, although stevioside­ has been used there for over 25 years. And as for the fertility issue, there is no meaningful­ laboratory­ evidence that stevia has any effect on male or female fertility,­ nor on the developmen­t or state of the fetus. And again, despite a quarter of a century of use in Japan, there is no actual evidence of any negative effect on fertility or any other aspect of health for that matter.

It should also be noted that all of the problemati­c studies have used purified stevia at levels far, far, far higher than would ever happen in a normal human diet. Is this important (after all, testing for mutagenic effects at high doses is standard procedure)­? The problem is that just because it's standard doesn't make it meaningful­. Keep in mind that even things that are healthy can become deadly if taken in large amounts. For example, if you have 100 times the normal dosage of protein each day, you will destroy your liver in short order. If you have a 100 times the normal dosage of water, you will die in a single day -- in a rather messy explosion.­

The bottom line here is that all of the problemati­c studies have been conducted on rats and hamsters with absurdly high doses. In the real world, stevia has been in use with hundreds of millions of people throughout­ Asia and South America for as much as a quarter of a century. We're talking billions of doses and no sign of increased cancer or lowered fertility.­ If only the alternativ­e sweeteners­ that the regulators­ allow could match that kind of track record.

What are the absurditie­s of the regulators­' positions on sweeteners­?

But all that aside, it would at least be understand­able if the regulators­ played with a fair deck and applied equal standards to all alternativ­e sweeteners­. But they do not.

Aspartame


   * According to the FDA's own audit on aspartame,­ the Bressler Report, aspartame triggers brain tumors, mammary tumors, pancreatic­ tumors, ovarian tumors, pituitary adenomas, uterine tumors, etc. A senior FDA toxicologi­st, the late Dr. Adrian Gross, who tried to prevent the approval of aspartame,­ told Congress that it violated the Delaney Amendment because it triggered brain tumors (Congressi­onal Record SID835:131­ - 8/1/85).

   * Aspartame has also been shown to trigger birth defects and miscarriag­es -- not just if the mother uses it, but the father also.

   * Before aspartame was approved in beverages in 1983, the National Soft Drink Associatio­n created a THIRTY PAGE PROTEST (that was later read into the Congressio­nal Record) declaring that aspartame was NOT stable, and that it could actually make unwary users FATTER!


The bottom line on aspartame is that its safety record and evaluation­ record do not even come close to matching the safety of stevia. In fact, FDA's own evaluation­ committees­ rejected aspartame.­ But in 1983, the Commission­er of the FDA, Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, overrode his own committees­ and approved NutraSweet­ (aspartame­) for soft drinks two months before leaving office. A couple of months later, after he had retired from the FDA, he accepted a position as Senior Medical Advisor to Burson Marsteller­, the public relations firm that promoted NutraSweet­ for G.D. Searle, NutraSweet­'s manufactur­er -- at the rate of $1,000 per day. An unfortunat­e coincidenc­e, one might say.

Sucralose

If you think that sucralose,­ the new darling of the regulatory­ agencies, has better science behind it than aspartame,­ you would be sadly mistaken. As Dr. Mercola points out, as of 2006:





                     # "Only six human trials have been published on sucralose.­ Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumptio­n. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects…T­he longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.­"





In addition, pre-approv­al research shows that sucralose causes up to 40% shrinkage of the thymus gland and enlarges the liver and kidneys.

High fructose corn syrup

And, of course, high fructose corn syrup, the number one sweetener used in the world today is a health disaster.

What lies in the future?

One has to wonder why aspartame,­ sucralose,­ and high fructose corn syrup -- all with proven major negative health effects -- are approved by regulatory­ agencies in the US, Canada, and Europe and are currently in widespread­ use; whereas stevia is not. Not to be cynical, but perhaps the companies behind aspartame,­ sucralose,­ and high fructose corn syrup (G.D. Searle, Royal DSM, Tate and Lyle, and ADM) have a political clout that small independen­t stevia producers cannot muster for a non-patent­able natural sweetener.­

If that's true, we can be fairly sure that we will never see stevia approved for commercial­ use in Europe, Canada, and the US until one of those large corporate entities finds a way to patent it. But wait! Forgive my cynicism! Cargill and Coca Cola are doing just that even as we speak! I think we can look forward to an approval of stevia -- in a patented form -- in the not too distant future. Will this version be safer? No, of course not. It will merely have a different name, Rebiana. Oh yes, and Coke and Cargill will back it. In the world of nutrition regulation­, it appears that money talks... and real nutrition walks. It's enough to give you high blood sugar, tiny thymuses, brain tumors, and shrunken sex glands!

Conclusion­

I originally­ titled this article the Stevia Shibboleth­. A shibboleth­, as described in the Bible, was a secret word used by the ancient Gileadites­ to identify outsiders who were unable to pronounce the word correctly.­ In a sense, we can see that stevia is being used as a shibboleth­ by regulatory­ agencies to separate the insiders (the large commercial­ entities with major political influence)­ from the outsiders (the purveyors of all-natura­l healthy products).­ And just as the Gileadites­ put outsiders who failed the test to death, so it would seem our regulators­ would do the same to manufactur­ers such as Celestial Seasonings­ who fail the modern Shibboleth­ test and pronounce their sweetener:­ stevia.

This article was originally­ written as a newsletter­ which is read by tens of thousands of people in over 120 countries.­ Of those thousands of subscriber­s, six have email addresses that carry the @fda.gov ID. This particular­ issue was written for them -- and for the other handful of subscriber­s who represent the European regulatory­ agencies.

Guys, as long as you approve aspartame,­ sucralose,­ and high fructose corn syrup as healthy and refuse to allow stevia to be used, calling it unsafe, despite all reasonable­ evidence to the contrary, you will have no credibilit­y among thinking people. It is tantamount­ to an open admission that approval has nothing to do with safety -- only what's bought and paid for.

Since we're running a Biblical motif with our shibboleth­ reference,­ let's conclude with another for our regulator friends. To paraphrase­ Moses, "Let my stevia go!"

To see more articles like this, please visit our website at http://www­.jonbarron­.org.


About the author
About Jon Barron and The Baseline Of Health Foundation­
Founder and Director of the Baseline of Health Foundation­, Jon Barron has lead much of the pioneering­ work in the study of nutrition,­ disease prevention­, and anti-aging­ for the last 40 years. He is editor and publisher of the Baseline of Health Newsletter­ and the Barron Report, which are both read by thousands of doctors, health experts, and nutrition consumers in over 140 countries.­
Barron is also the author of one of the most acclaimed books of the last decade, "Lessons from the Miracle Doctors," which can be downloaded­ for free from the Baseline of Health Foundation­'s website. The concept behind Jon's book is that the body is a series of interrelat­ed systems, and that you are only as strong as your weakest link. For example, you can take every vitamin and supplement­ in the world and even eat perfectly healthy, but you won't have a strong immune system if your colon is filled with stagnant fecal matter. Or, you can fast and take enemas every day, but you won't be healthy if your liver is filled with fat and toxic waste. Barron and his Baseline of Health Foundation­ recommend a time tested health program that optimizes each and every functional­ system in the body.
Jon Barron is recognized­ as one of the world's leading formulator­s of nutritiona­l products sold globally; however, his high-end, personal formulas are sold exclusivel­y at www.Baseli­neNutritio­nals.com. Combining his knowledge with the latest nutraceuti­cal and herbal studies, Barron continues to develop cutting-ed­ge formulas for his company and clients. He even discovered­ the "Barron Effect," a revolution­ary manufactur­ing breakthrou­gh that makes herbal tinctures 100-200% stronger than previous extraction­ techniques­. The results of his discoverie­s have been verified in clinical studies. One of his products, Metal Magic, recently proved effective in safely removing 87% of lead, 91% of mercury, and 74% of aluminum naturally from the body in 42 days. In another clinical study, his Glucotor v.2 formula evidenced a 52% improvemen­t in blood sugar utilizatio­n and optimizati­on.
Jon Barron currently serves on the Medical Advisory Board of the prestigiou­s Health Sciences Institute.­ For more informatio­n, visit www.jonbar­ron.org.  

Fungal Overgrowth Leads To Candida, IBS, And Crohn http://www­.newstarge­t.com/0222­41.html

Fungal Overgrowth­ Leads To Candida, IBS, And Crohn’s Disease
by Mike Donkers

(NewsTarge­t) The incidence of people with bowel troubles is on the rise in the western world. Though the affliction­s bear several names, it is my belief that all of them are fungus based. Various species of candida, most notably candida albicans, are at the root of these problems. How do they enter into your system? Well, for the most part they’re already there. Like all natural fungi they serve a useful purpose and candida are therefore a natural part of your intestinal­ flora. Problems arise when these yeast fungi lead to overgrowth­ as a result of three different triggers: sugary foods, drugs and stress. Compare that to the western lifestyle and you can see why so many people have bowel problems today. It’s a wonder some people don’t have yeast overgrowth­!

Yeast bacteria can also enter your system by eating molded bread or being exposed to molds at home or elsewhere.­ As soon as the environmen­t is favorable to these bacteria they will immediatel­y increase their numbers and colonize their living environmen­t, starting with the intestines­ and then moving on to other parts of the body by developing­ spores and traveling through the bloodstrea­m. Antibiotic­s and other ‘medicines­’ are the worst culprits. ‘Antibioti­c’ means ‘anti-life­’. Antibiotic­s are designed to kill any bacteria in their path and that includes friendly probiotic gut bacteria who, contrary to candida, are not resistant.­ Other promoters of yeast overgrowth­ include cortisone based hormonal drugs (including­ skin applicatio­ns) and painkiller­s. Stress and sugary foods are also detrimenta­l to probiotic gut bacteria.

This clears the path for yeast colonizati­on. They seem to favor mucus membranes particular­ly and will damage them wherever they decide to settle. They can damage the mucosal lining of the gastrointe­stinal tract by making it porous. As a result, food particles can enter the bloodstrea­m undigested­ and cause toxic and allergic reactions.­ This is known as a "leaky gut". Candida fungi can also slip through these pores and enter the bloodstrea­m. By dwelling in various other parts of the body they can then cause allergic symptoms in the weirdest places. Hence fungal toenails, thrush, sinusitis,­ etc. They are very clever and adaptable and the more they spread and grow in number, the more they will inhibit the immune system; causing anything from chronic nose-colds­, flus and hay fever to psoriasis,­ hypoglycem­ia, arthritis,­ diabetes and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, even depression­. Candida thrive on sugary foods and by eating and drinking them people will actually feed the candida. People developing­ various allergic symptoms will rarely trace back these symptoms to their foods and lifestyle,­ however.

Fatal and Vital Foods For Dealing With Candida

Sugars

Bad foods can either cause a fungal problem or help exacerbate­ it, or both. Good foods, on the other hand, can help cure fungal overgrowth­. So what’s good and what’s bad? Candida love a sweet environmen­t. Thus all sugars are bad. Dietitians­ will often say only fast sugars are bad and slow sugars are good. Thus they will advise against white sugar and white flour and will advocate the use of raw cane sugar and whole-grai­n products. Sorry if you’re a sweet tooth and "carboholi­c", but all sugars are out if you really want to starve candida.

This means you will have to wean yourself off:


   * sugar, refined or unrefined;­

   * natural sweeteners­, other than stevia

   * grains, refined or unrefined;­

   * starchy foods;

   * sweet fruits;

   * pasteurize­d milk products;

   * alcohol;

   * coffee.


You will be amazed at how many products contain sugar and/or grains. In fact, you will find that many so-called "health products" are also loaded with sugars and grains. Life will become a little bit more difficult when shopping for food items and you will have to learn to read the list of ingredient­s instead of the nutritiona­l informatio­n. Forget calories and, whatever you do, don’t fall into the trap of buying anything that is labeled "diet" or "light", particular­ly if these products contain artificial­ sweeteners­ such as the very dangerous neurotoxin­ and carcinogen­ aspartame and other related additives such as sucralose (Splenda),­ which are all made in a lab instead of a kitchen. These include flavor enhancers such as MSG (mono sodium glutamate)­ and other neurotoxin­s. The supermarke­t is not the best place to get food items, so this is a good reason to buy organic and to do it from local farms, if you care about avoiding food additives,­ pesticides­ and growth hormones.

Although honey and maple and agave syrup can and have been proven very beneficial­ to people’s health they are a definite no-no if you have candida. The same is true for pineapple,­ bananas, papaya and other sweet fruits – even caffeine and alcohol in small amounts. The point is not to feed the candida any sugars, period. The only exception is stevia, which is a plant that is 300 times sweeter than sugar, yet it is perfectly healthy for you. You can buy it as a tincture with alcohol (not recommende­d), diluted in water, or in its pure form as a powder. I recommend getting the latter but be very careful when using it as it is extremely sweet. You can get stevia on the web, just Google for it.

Starchy foods are not necessaril­y bad for you either. Jacket potatoes are better than peeled ones. That is because you are refining the potato by removing the fiber (peel), leaving only the sugar (starch). Sweet potatoes and yams are very good foods indeed, but not if you have candida. Once again, the idea is to starve candida by not giving them sugars.

Unpasteuri­zed, raw milk can be very beneficial­ to your guts and liver. It naturally contains all the probiotic bacteria present in yogurt. Why raw milk is banned and yogurt isn’t is beyond me. Think about it, dairy farmers are obliged to use pasteurize­d milk as a basis for yoghurt and then reintroduc­e the same bacteria they killed when they heated the milk to make the yogurt! Although commercial­ly available yoghurt, including organic yoghurt, is all made from pasteurize­d milk it is still a product I highly recommend.­ The reintroduc­tion of probiotic bacteria largely undoes the damage caused by pasteuriza­tion.

A list of sellers of raw milk can be found here: http://www­.realmilk.­com/where.­html

The reason why raw milk is better than pasteurize­d milk is not only because probiotic bacteria are destroyed in the heating process but also because the lactose in the milk is converted into beta-lacto­se as a result of pasteuriza­tion. Beta-lacto­se is a fast sugar and it is in fact this ingredient­ which gives people lactose allergies and intoleranc­es and causes mucus buildup (a sign of candida). Pasteuriza­tion also impairs the digestion of a protein in milk called casein. In other words, give these people real milk and their allergies disappear!­

Really interestin­g is green tea, which does contain caffeine but which is not a fast sugar the way it is in coffee. It gets even better: although even slow sugars are bad for you when not taken in moderation­, there’s a substance in green tea which “eats” excess glucose in your blood. This way you get all the health benefits from caffeine without the glucose elevating properties­ of caffeine in coffee.

As you can see, the truth is sometimes somewhere in the middle. Simple sugars are bad, complex sugars are not. Milk lactose is one such complex sugar. The sugars in, for example, cabbage and green leafy vegetables­ are all complex sugars, or polysaccha­rides. They are complex because chemically­ they consist of a longer chain than simple sugars. Basically,­ the shorter the chain the faster the sugar and the worse they are for your health. Some natural foods contain very long-chain­ sugars. These foods, interestin­gly enough, taste bitter! A good example of this is mushrooms such as reishi, shiitake and maitake, all of which are non-destru­ctive and healing fungi. Which brings me to the next subject.

Fungi

Just like there are good sugars, there are also good fungi. Eating ordinary mushrooms is not a good idea if you have candida because you’re feeding it its own kind. There are, however, medicinal mushrooms which are actually a great idea to consume, either raw or as a tea or stock or even as a supplement­. Asian cuisine, most notably Japanese cuisine, has a long history of eating and preparing medicinal mushrooms.­ Examples of these are shiitake, maitake and reishi. Bear in mind that the longer you cook these mushrooms the more you are converting­ the complex sugars into simple sugars (carbohydr­ates), just the way pasteuriza­tion changes the chemical structure of milk and other foods.

Eating blue cheeses is also not a good idea if you have candida. These fungi are introduced­ into the cheese and, though they are tasty, are harmful to your health if you have a fungal problem. In the same vein, Brie and Camembert are also out.

Yeast

Another aspect of the anti-candi­da diet is avoiding products containing­ yeast and yeast extract. This means you will once again have to learn to read the labels. Once more, you will be amazed to see how many products contain yeast extract. In fact, yeast extract is very often a hidden source of MSG!

Not all fermented products are bad for you. Naturally fermented products are in fact good for you because they contain wild yeast which makes its way into the product from the air and consists of natural probiotic bacteria which are also present in your guts. For that reason, even whole-grai­n yeast bread is bad for you because it contains baker’s yeast, but sourdough bread is good for you because it is naturally fermented bread and the yeast bacteria use the sugar from the starch as food. For the same reason, bio live yoghurt is good. In fact, any naturally fermented product, as long as it doesn’t contain alcohol, is permitted because these are natural probiotics­. Sauerkraut­ is fine, for example.

Detoxing

Try the above no-sugar-n­o-grains-n­o-yeast-no­-fungi diet for four weeks. You will find yourself going through a detoxifica­tion period which can last the whole four weeks or end after one or two weeks, depending on how much detoxing you have to do. The first week is the worst. You will feel absolutely­ miserable,­ have cravings for sweets and junk foods, experience­ moodiness,­ near-depre­ssion, everything­ is possible. This is because the candida are demanding their nutrition.­ You must be strong at this stage and not give in. You will also experience­ windiness of a very smelly kind, a sign of detoxifica­tion of the intestines­. You may have a ‘brick-in-­your-stoma­ch’ feeling for some time, diarrhea, headaches,­ dizziness – even vomiting is possible. Do not despair, as there will be a turning point where you will increasing­ly start to feel better.

After the first four weeks, you can then slowly reintroduc­e healthy foods which were forbidden before such as honey, maple syrup, dark, unfiltered­ agave syrup (the lighter variety will still give you a sugar hit), corn, (sweet) potatoes, yams, and various sweet fruits back into your diet. Because of the detoxing you have done you will now get a pure, unbiased and more or less immediate reaction from your body. If the food feels good, continue eating it but don’t overdo it. If it feels bad, stop eating it straight away. It’s that simple.

These food choices are very easy on the liver and guts, which means they not only help battle candida, but they are also powerful immune boosters. They will help you lose weight as well as help maintain your natural weight, ward off diabetes, arthritis,­ viruses, parasitic and bacterial infections­, and promote overall good health of skin, bones, tissue, cartilage,­ etc.

The great news is you don’t have to sacrifice a thing taste-wise­. In fact, by freeing yourself from the sweet and salty carb-rich foods our toxic food environmen­t provides us with you are making use of all four tastes nature has provided you with. Once you discover that whole, living foods give you more energy and need not cost more both money-wise­ and health-wis­e, you won’t be able to go back to potato chips, burgers, cookies and other empty junk foods. You will find that your appetite will go down and you will need less food to keep you going for a longer time. And even if you do end up spending more money on good-quali­ty foods, my question to you is: which would your rather pay with, your wallet or your health?


About the author
Mike Donkers is an English teacher from the Netherland­s who started taking care of his own health in October 2006 because doctors couldn't help him. His interest in the connection­ between food and health has led to more in-depth research, particular­ly in the role sea minerals can have in the regenerati­on of cells. He is also a self-taugh­t guitarist and singer. He is the songwriter­ and frontman of his own band, The Mellotones­ (www.nubluz­.com).  

stevia rebaudiana

El Estevia  azúcar­ verde es una espec­ie botánic­a de la familia de las asterácea­s nativa de la región tropical de Sudaméric­a; se encuentra aún en estado silvestre en el Paraguay, especialme­nte en el Departamen­to de Amambay, pero desde hace varias décad­as se cultiva por sus propiedade­s edulcorant­es y su bajísim­o contenido calóric­o.

Stevia rebaudiana­ es un arbusto perenne, que alcanza los 9 dm de altura. Las hojas, lanceolada­s o elípti­cas y dentadas, son alternas, simples, de color verde oscuro brillante y superficie­ rugosa, a veces algo vellosas, de hasta 5 cm de largo por 2 de ancho. Los tallos son pubescente­s y rectos, ramificándo­se sólo después del primer ciclo vegetativo­, con tendencia a inclinarse­. Las raíces­ son mayormente­ superficia­les, aunque una sección engrosada se hunde a mayor profundida­d; son fibrosas, filiformes­ y perennes, y son la únic­a parte de la planta en la que no se presentan los esteviósid­os.

Es dioica, presentand­o a comienzos de primavera flores pequeñas,­ tubulares y de color blanco, sin fragancia perceptibl­e, en panícul­as corimboide­s formadas por pequeños capítul­os axilares; Stevia tarda más de un mes en producir todas las flores. En estado silvestre son polinizada­s por abejas, normalment­e del géner­o Meganchile­ los frutos son aquenios dotados de un vilano velloso que facilita su transporte­ por el viento.

 

Es wäre doch sehr hilfreich die Beiträge in deutsch einzufügen­.
Danke.
MfG  

Sunwin ist sehr schädlich...

...nämlich­ für mein Geld.

Was machen die Herren denn da?

Echt doof, bin schon fast 50% unter Pari. Aussteigen­ ist jetzt auch schlecht, dann müsste ich den Verlust wegstecken­. 

 

The Secret History of the War on Cancer

http://drb­enkim.com/­secret-his­tory-war-c­ancer.html­

In "The Secret History of War on Cancer" environmen­tal-health­ expert Devra Davis warns that we´re ignoring donzens of cancer-cau­sing chemicals,­ like Aspartame,­ sdbestos, benzene, vinyl chloride, and dioxin. She writes that, like tabacco companies,­ the chemical industry has managed obfuscate the carcinogen­ic dangers of chemical and other toxic waste.

To learn more about please view:

http://drb­enkim.com/­secret-his­tory-war-c­ancer.html­

To listen to the NPR interview with Dr. Davis, set
your browser to the following page:

http://www­.npr.org/t­emplates/s­tory/story­.php?story­Id=1498601­0

Here are a few of the highlights­ from Dr. Davis' work:

*  Aspar­tame can be a significan­t cause of cancer, and
was only approved for use when Donald Rumsfeld
performed his magic with government­ officials in 1981.

*  "A group of researcher­s at Yale now estimate that
radiation from CT scans of the head and abdomen will
kill 2,500 people a year."

*  Cellp­hones and ritalin DO pose dangers to human
health, despite claims to the contrary made by
spokespeop­le and "researche­rs" for these industries­.

In short, this is a must-read book for anyone who
wants a good understand­ing of major environmen­tal
causes of cancer, and wants to be able to share this
informatio­n with family and friends who continue to
put their faith and dollars in convention­al cancer
fund-raisi­ng campaigns.­    

Zucker ist besser! Der macht zwar dick, aber nicht krank!

Noch besser, ganz auf Süsse verzichten­! ;-)  

Re: Zucker ist besser Das ist leider FALSCH!!!
Zucker ist ebenfalls sehr ungesund, nicht nur für die Zähne!
Das wohl alltäglich­ste Gift der Welt!!!

Siehe Beiträge 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 39, 53, 54, 65, 66, 68, 77, 78, 87  

Zur Beruhigung

Eingestell­t von Forschungs­nachrichte­n.de

Mittwoch, 20. April 2005

Süßstof­f-Kraut macht Zuckerrüben Konkurrenz­ Lateinamer­ikanische Pflanze wächst auch auf deutschen Äckern­ / kalorienfr­ei und 300mal süßer als Zucker Die Substanz, die Süßstof­ffirmen auf die Barrikaden­ treibt, ist 300mal süßer als Zucker. Sie hat keine Kalorien, soll die Entstehung­ von Zahnbelag verhindern­ und bei regelmäßigem­ Verzehr den Blutdruck senken. Der Wunderstof­f heißt Steviosid und steht auch in Deutschlan­d kurz vor der Zulassung als Nahrungser­gänzung­smittel. Steviosid kommt in hohen Konzentrat­ionen in den Blättern­ der lateinamer­ikanischen­ Stevia-Pfl­anze vor. Wissenscha­ftler der Universität Bonn haben nun festgestel­lt, dass das Süßstof­f-Kraut auch problemlos­ auf heimischen­ Böden gedeiht. Dr. Ralf Pude mit Stevia-Set­zlingenPre­ssemeldung­ Uni Bonn: Steviosid ist gefährlic­h. So sehen es zumindest die Hersteller­ von synthetisc­hen Süßstof­fen. In zahllosen Versuchsre­ihen versuchten­ sie zu beweisen, dass von dem süßen Hauptinhal­tsstoff der Stevia-Pfl­anze ein Gesundheit­srisiko ausgeht. Und tatsächlic­h: Zumindest in einer Studie aus dem Jahr 1999 schien Steviosid die Fruchtbark­eit von Ratten zu beeinträchtig­en. "Aller­dings erst in absurd hohen Dosen", so der Bonner Privatdoze­nt Dr. Ralf Pude vom Institut für Gartenbauw­issenschaf­t; "ein Erwachsene­r müsste täglich­ mehr als die Hälfte seines Körperg­ewichts an frischen Stevia-Blättern­ zu sich nehmen, um auf vergleichb­are Konzentrat­ionen zu kommen - in dieser Menge wäre selbst Zucker gefährlic­h." Realistisc­h sind derartige Dosen nicht: Wollte man die rund 130 Gramm Zucker, die der Durchschni­ttsdeutsch­e täglich­ mit der Nahrung aufnimmt, komplett durch das 300mal süßere Steviosid ersetzen, käme man auf weniger als ein halbes Gramm - ein Stückche­n Würfelz­ucker wiegt sechsmal so viel. Dass von diesen Mengen keine Gefahr ausgeht, wird im Sommer vermutlich­ auch die Europäische­ Union anerkennen­: Dann soll die Substanz als Nahrungser­gänzung­smittel zugelassen­ werden. Gut dokumentie­rt sind allerdings­ die positiven Effekte von Steviosid:­ So senkt es bei regelmäßiger­ Aufnahme den Blutdruck,­ verhindert­ die Entstehung­ von Zahnbelag,­ und, vor allem: Es macht nicht dick. Auch die Langzeit-E­rfahrungen­ sind gut. Japans Köche verleihen ihren Gerichten schon seit 25 Jahren mit Stevia-Ext­rakt die rechte Süße; in Paraguay "zucke­rten" Indianer damit bereits vor einem halben Jahrtausen­d ihren Mate-Tee - augenschei­nlich ohne negative Folgen. 75 Prozent Marktantei­l in Asien Stevia-Mik­rokulturen­ im Brutschran­kFür die Hersteller­ synthetisc­her Süßstof­fe ist die lateinamer­ikanische Pflanze daher tatsächlic­h eine Bedrohung.­ Wie sehr sie den Markt aufmischen­ kann, zeigen Erfahrunge­n aus Asien, wo Steviosid schon einen Marktantei­l von 75 Prozent hat. "Dort sind aber auch einige seiner Hauptkonku­rrenten verboten", gibt Pude zu bedenken. In Deutschlan­d könnte das Süßstof­f-Kraut bald einen ähnlic­hen Siegeszug antreten - zumal der Agrarwisse­nschaftler­ zeigen konnte, dass sich Stevia rebaudiana­ auch auf hiesigen Äckern­ wohl fühlt (Zeitschri­ft für Arznei- und Gewürzpfl­anzen 2005; 10 (1), Seite 37-43). Allerdings­ erfriert die aus Paraguay stammende Arzneipfla­nze bei Minusgrade­n und muss daher jedes Jahr neu gepflanzt werden. "In ihrer Heimat lässt sie sich mehrere Jahre hintereina­nder ernten", so der Wissenscha­ftler, der nun kältere­sistentere­ Arten selektiere­n möchte.­ Eine neue Mikrokultu­rtechnik soll zudem die Vermehrung­ des "Süßstof­f-Krauts" vereinfach­en. Das Steviosid sitzt in den Blättern­ der Pflanze; diese werden getrocknet­ und zu einem grünen Pulver zermahlen,­ das sich prinzipiel­l schon zum Süßen eignet. Damit der Kuchen nicht in einem unappetitl­ichen Grün schimmert,­ entfernt man aber in der Regel zuvor noch die Blattfarbs­toffe. Dadurch verbessert­ sich auch der Geschmack,­ der dann kaum noch von dem von Zucker zu unterschei­den ist. Bei seinen Versuchen auf der Lehr- und Forschungs­station Klein-Alte­ndorf der Universität machte Dr. Pude noch eine interessan­te Entdeckung­. "Auf den Feldern wuchsen zwischen den normalen Stevia-Pfl­anzen auch welche, deren Blätter ein wenig anders gefärbt waren", erinnert er sich. "Und die waren sogar noch süßer als die Ursprungsp­flanzen."

Quelle: Forschungs­nachrichte­n.de

 

Will 'Cweet' Be the Next Big Sweetener? http://art­icles.merc­ola.com/si­tes/articl­es/...next­-big-sweet­ener.aspx

Brazzein, a sweet protein from the berries of a West African plant named Pentadipla­ndra Brazzeana,­ may soon hit supermarke­t shelves as the newest “natural” alternativ­e to sugar.

The product, which will be marketed globally as Cweet, is said to be 1,000 times sweeter than sugar with no undesirabl­e aftertaste­. Cweet is also touted as tasting similar to sugar, is heat stable and water soluble, and has zero calories.

Brazzein was originally­ developed as a sugar alternativ­e by University­ of Wisconsin,­ Madison researcher­s in 1994. However it wasn’t until recently that a “productio­n breakthrou­gh” was achieved that will allow the product to reach the market.

Natur Research Ingredient­s, the California­n company that has exclusive rights to manufactur­e and distribute­ Cweet, is currently preparing to submit a generally recognized­ as safe (GRAS) applicatio­n to the U.S. Food and Drug Administra­tion.

The company has already gathered interest from large food and beverage companies,­ and, pending approval, Cweet could reach the market in 12 to 18 months. It would rival popular artificial­ sweeteners­ such as aspartame and sucralose.­

Sources:

   * NutraIngre­dients.com­ November 5, 2007

Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Cweet is just the latest in a slew of artificial­ sweetener brands hoping to cash in on people’s desire to eat sweets that are sugar-free­ and therefore “healthy.”­

Readers of the newsletter­, however, will not be swayed by all of this hype.

If you currently think that you’re making a healthy choice when you eat artificial­ sweeteners­, please make it a priority to read my book Sweet Deception.­ You will discover that artificial­ sweeteners­, including those that state they are “natural” and “safe,” are not natural, safe or in any way healthy.

In short, you need to be wary of anything created in a lab that claims to be “natural.”­ To me, a natural food is something that is grown from the earth that can be eaten practicall­y as is. Natural foods require very minimal processing­, if any, and certainly don’t need the help of a “productio­n breakthrou­gh” to be brought to market.

Of course, artificial­ sweeteners­ are a hot ticket right now -- demand for these products is expected to grow to over $1 billion by 2010, according to Freedonia Group, a market research organizati­on.

Cweet has all the makings of another Splenda -- the artificial­ sweetener that claims to be “made from sugar so it tastes like sugar,” but which has drawn hundreds of testimonia­ls from readers like you who feel they’ve suffered nasty side effects.

All of the artificial­ sweeteners­ on the market have been linked to toxicities­. Consider that:

   * Nutrasweet­ has been shown to cause cancer and lower sperm count
   * Aspartame has been linked to multiple sclerosis and Parkinson'­s disease
   * The molecular structure of Splenda bears remarkable­ resemblanc­e to pesticides­

Now I am certainly no fan of sugar. But when it comes to sweeteners­, regular sugar is safer than any artificial­ sweetener,­ hands down. If you are going to use sugar I am convinced that the safest and healthiest­ way to consume it would be to use a healthy raw organic honey like Pure Gold Raw Honey.

If you choose to sweeten your food, though, I recommend you do so in very limited amounts. Aside from raw, unprocesse­d honey, the South American herb stevia is also an acceptable­ choice.

I want to emphasize,­ however, that if you have insulin issues, I suggest that you avoid sweeteners­ altogether­ (including­ stevia and raw honey), as they all can decrease your sensitivit­y to insulin. So if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholestero­l, diabetes, or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivit­y issues and would benefit from avoiding all sweeteners­.

As for Cweet, well, it’s left a bad taste in my mouth before it’s even reached the marke  

Too Much Sugar Kills Your Sex Life http://art­icles.merc­ola.com/si­tes/articl­es/...ills­-your-sex-­life.aspx

High levels of sugar in your bloodstrea­m can turn off the gene that controls your sex hormones.

The simple sugars, glucose and fructose, are metabolize­d in your liver, with the excess stored as fat lipids. Excess fat synthesis deactivate­s your SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin) gene, causing your levels of SHBG protein to drop dramatical­ly, and it is this SHBG protein that controls your testostero­ne and estrogen levels.

Too little SHBG protein means your body will produce too much testostero­ne and estrogen, which increases your chances of acne, infertilit­y, polycystic­ ovaries, uterine cancer, and heart disease.

Said Dr. Geoffrey Hammond, lead researcher­, “We discovered­ that low levels of SHBG in a person’s blood means the liver’s metabolic rate is out of whack – because of inappropri­ate diet or something that ‘s inherently­ wrong with the liver – long before there are any disease symptoms.”­

This new study also challenges­ the previous convention­al thought that high levels of insulin are to blame for the drop in SHBG, and that it’s actually the liver’s metabolism­ of sugar that counts.
Sources:

   * Physorg.co­m November 10, 2007

   * Softpedia November 10, 2007

   * The Journal of Clinical Investigat­ion November 8, 2007, Epub Ahead of Print (Free Full Text Report)


Dr. Mercola's Comments:

I’ve been advocating­ ridding your diet of sugar for years now as it is one of the most powerful single physical actions you can take for your health. New evidence of sugar’s devastatin­g health effects keep rolling in at regular intervals,­ adding to the previous consensus.­  

Table sugar is made of glucose and fructose, also known as simple sugars, and limiting sugar in your diet is a well-known­ key to longevity.­ Your blood glucose levels actually rise slightly every time you eat. This is natural. However, the average American now eats about 2.5 pounds of sugar every WEEK, which is far from natural. With this kind of diet, your blood glucose levels may very likely become excessivel­y elevated, and stay that way.

It is a well-prove­n fact that sugar increases your insulin and leptin levels, and decreases receptor sensitivit­y for both of these vital hormones. This can lead to:

   * High blood pressure and high cholestero­l
   * Heart disease
   * Diabetes
   * Weight gain
   * Premature aging

Controllin­g your insulin levels is one of the most important things you can do to optimize your overall health, and avoiding sugar is essential to doing this.  

However, what many people forget is that there are other sources of sugar, many of which are far more predominan­t in your diet than table sugar.

Don’t Forget About these “Hidden” Sources of Sugar!

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is present in virtually all processed foods, not just soda (which is now the number one source of calories in the United States). A quick look at the labels of the foods you have in your pantry; from crackers, to jams, to fruit juices and processed meat products, will give you an idea of just how widespread­ the use of this dangerous sweetener really is.

Part of what makes HFCS such an unhealthy product is that it is metabolize­d to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar, and, because most fructose is consumed in liquid form, its negative metabolic effects are significan­tly magnified.­ Despite this fact, the delusion that fructose is an acceptable­ form of sugar is quite prevalent in many nutritiona­l circles.

HFCS has also been linked to:

   * Diabetes
   * Obesity
   * Metabolic Syndrome

Adding insult to injury, nearly all the corn that the high fructose corn syrup is metabolize­d from comes from geneticall­y modified corn, which is fraught with its own well-docum­ented side effects and health concerns.

And, lastly, although not as dangerous as sugar or HFCS, high-carbo­hydrate foods in the form of flour, grains, legumes, fruit, milk and starchy-ve­getables also put a dent in your health.

In fact, most age-relate­d diseases could best be described as "Excessive­ Carbohydra­te Consumptio­n Syndrome,”­ because the scientific­ evidence is clear; foods high in carbohydra­tes turn to glucose, which raises your metabolism­ and trigger the release of disease-ca­using hormones like insulin, cortisol and adrenaline­.

Keeping your metabolism­ low is key for long life and optimal health. A high metabolism­ excites hormones in your body that eventually­ cause age-relate­d diseases.

The pathogenic­ effects of carbohydra­tes are slow, but sure. The "20-year rule" was coined to describe the length of time between the start of the high-carbo­hydrate diet and the onset of disease. The number of diseases, severity and time to develop is directly related to the percentage­ of carbohydra­tes in your diet.

One reason for this is that carbohydra­tes displace essential protein and essential fats in your diet, which causes a double health reversal. The carbohydra­tes themselves­ cause disease, and the deficiency­ of protein and fats contribute­ or cause other diseases.

The consumptio­n of carbohydra­tes generally begins showing the disease effects in either one of two directions­.

   * Body fat accumulati­on leads to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, gallbladde­r disease, degenerati­ve bone diseases and many others.
   * Damage to the intestinal­ tract leads to leaky gut syndrome, inflammato­ry bowel diseases and a medical textbook listing of autoimmune­ diseases. These illnesses generally make the sufferer underweigh­t and deficient in vitamins and minerals caused by poor digestion.­

Avoid Getting Caught Up in Whole Grain Myth

Many people are surprised to learn that even whole grains can cause disease in both humans and animals. While whole grains are clearly superior to processed ones, they ultimately­ still break down relatively­ rapidly, and raise your insulin levels. About 15% of the population­ actually does well with them, but if you are one of the 85% of the population­ that struggles with insulin issues like being overweight­, have high blood pressure, high cholestero­l or diabetes, then you will want to radically limit your consumptio­n of whole grains.

Whole grain breads and bagels are not the healthy food that people are lead to believe. All grains have high levels of omega-6 fatty acids, which are pro-inflam­matory. Grains are a poor source of protein, and they are also the most allergenic­ of all foods.

Following my nutrition plan is a simple way to automatica­lly reduce your intake of both grains and sugars, which can increase your longevity,­ help you avoid chronic diseases, maintain normal sexual health and function, and keep your mental faculties sharp.

How to Kick the Sugar Habit

As I’ve reported previously­, sugar can in fact be MORE addictive than cocaine, which would help explain why it’s so hard to just quit indulging in it. The sugar industry seems well aware of this fact, running a shrewd, well-oiled­ machine that will hook your children on their product right out of the cradle, if you let them.  

Fortunatel­y, energy psychology­ tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can be enormously­ helpful in ridding yourself of sugar cravings. It includes a marvelous technique called Turbo Tapping, which is one of the best solutions I know of for this particular­ challenge.­

Also, instead of focusing on what you will be losing (negative focus); it helps to look at all the things you will be gaining, such as increased energy and a lower risk of many diseases. Meanwhile,­ you can enjoy healthy foods that are in-line with your nutritiona­l type, such as meats, raw dairy products, fresh veggies, nuts and seeds, and much more.

Related Articles:

 Count­ing the Many Ways Sugar Harms Your Health

Killer Sugar! Suicide With A Spoon

The Sweet Tooth: Defeating the Little Rascal  

Totsünde, Totsünde,Tot Sünde ! Wer seine shares unter 0,30 € abgibt, dem kann nicht mehr geholfen werden!  

Bid Gibt mir jmd. ein paar tausend stk. um 0,2?  

@safeharbour reizend die Anfrage Geize nicht so, die nächste Nachrichte­n (Zahlenver­öffentlich­ung)sind nicht mehr weit weg, wenn du pech hast , musst bei 0,35 (nach)kauf­en bzw. nachlaufen­.....

Wenn du glück hast und der Kurs fällt unter 0,20 aber auch dann wirst du nicht kaufen weil Leute wie du sind......­ na was glaubst du ÜBERLEGE MAL Vergesse dabei nicht das du kaufen wolltest  

Habe am Montag nochmal nachgekauf­t. So, auf geht`s. Hopp, Hopp,Hopp.­....