Artificial Sweeteners

Posted October 29th, 2011 in Artificial Sweeteners by Rebecca Lane

: Un-sulphured Gogi berries are high in antioxidant power and not sweet

I have been getting several questions about artificial sweeteners from my daughter and her teenage friends. So I asked a fellow blogger for permission to reprint her article because it’s excellent! I encourage you to visit her site for more great information: www.insightfulnutrition.ca.

Artificial Sweeteners

by Helen Papaconstantinos

As more and more health-conscious consumers are trying to reduce their refined sugar intake and lose weight, Canadians are turning to artificial sweeteners in hope of a quick fix. Consider this: a 355 ml can of soda pop (which contains 10 teaspoons of sugar and 150 calories), daily can add up to a whopping 55,000 calories yearly. When it comes to losing weight, and maintaining health, however, it is not clear that artificial sugars are helping.

Artificial sweeteners are a mix of laboratory chemicals, combined to create a ‘sweet’ taste. Since artificial sweeteners have been introduced, rather than reducing our sugar intake, they have increased it. In a study published in the summer of 2007, researchers from theUniversityofAlbertafound that young animals became desensitized to diet foods, and tended to over-eat during meals of regular-calorie food. The researchers contended that children who consume low-calorie versions of foods that are normally high in calories, may develop “distorted connections between taste and calorie content, leading them to overeat as they grow up”.

Why should this worry us? Artificial sweeteners were created to trick the body into thinking it is getting something sweet. The body, however, is never really tricked and is always looking for balance. Your body still produces insulin in response to artificial sweeteners. When your blood sugar does not increase upon ingesting artificial sweeteners, hypoglycemia may occur, resulting in cravings which lead to increased food intake and sugars at the next meal.

Links between Artificial Sweeteners and Disease
Independent researchers, particularly inEurope, have found popular sweeteners such as sucralose and aspartame to be harmful to human health. Other research studies have linked artificial sweeteners to weight gain, disruption of sleep patterns, fertility problems, development of multiple sclerosis-like symptoms, increase in metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes, and other pathological conditions. ,

The most widely-used artificial sweetener, ‘Aspartame’ is made up of three chemicals: the amino acids aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol. In this unbound or ‘free’ form, the body breaks aspartame down rapidly into the toxic by-products formic acid (an irritant found in red ant venom), and DKP (aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperine), an agent linked to gene mutations. It may also contain unknown toxins. Until 1999, people were unaware that Monsanto, the GM food giant, used genetically engineered bacteria to make aspartame for theUSmarket.

At temperatures above 95 degrees (the human body is 98 degrees) aspartame converts to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde, an embalming preservative for laboratory specimens, is no longer used because it has been shown to be a powerful carcinogen. According to Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell L Blaylock, damages various cellular proteins, including enzymes, microtubules and other functional proteins. Even in small concentrations formaldehyde can weaken cells and impair DNA function.

To date, there have been no long-term studies done on humans to determine long-term effects for any sweetener. NutraSweet scientists have claimed for years that most commonly ingested fruit juices contain 140 mg of methanol per litre. This is a fallacy. The 140 mg/litre figure was obtained from a very old conference paper presented by Francot and Geoffroy, who state that they did not perform many of the tests and give no original sources for the work except for the grape juice and black current juice. No methodology was given in their 1956 research.

In nature, methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in higher amounts. Ethanol is, in fact, an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans. Aspartame on the other hand, has NO ethanol. Humans are seven times more sensitive to the toxic effects of aspartame or methanol than animals because they lack a couple of key digestive enzymes (such as pectin esterase) to release methanol. Animal testing for methanol or aspartame, therefore, does not adequately reflect the danger for humans.

Why do pop cans have quick expiry dates?
Ever notice how soft-drink companies quickly collect any unsold products from grocery shelves? Soft drinks do not suddenly lose their sweetness when they sit on the shelf — they increase creation of Diketopiperazine (DKP) after being stored more than 6 months. According to FDA toxicologist Dr. Jacqueline Verret, in her testimony before theUS senate, DKP has been implicated as a cause of uterine polyps and changes in blood cholesterol, as well as brain tumour formation. Dr. John Olney, a neuropathologist who worked at the FDA, also noted that DKP, when ‘nitrosated’ in the gut, produced a compound which is similar to N-Nitrosourea, a powerful brain tumour-causing chemical.

How much is too much?
Studies on average daily consumption of artificial sweeteners vary widely. HealthCanada guidelines advise that one can safely consume 40 milligrams of aspartame per kilogram of weight. This means a 68-kilogram person would have to drink about 20 cans a day to get into the aspartame danger zone (a 12-ounce can of diet Coca-Cola contains 120 mgs). One study funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, estimated average daily intake to be quite low – the equivalent of just one 12-ounce can of diet soda per day. The researchers, however, made estimates based solely on consumption of beverages containing aspartame, used senior citizens as subjects, relying on their recall of amounts consumed. The Aspartame Information Centre, however, points out that dry goods contain far more aspartame than beverage products.

The bottom line is that people may be consuming more artificial sweetener than they think. Presently, many estimates are inaccurate because they fail to include common daily-use artificial sugar products like table sweeteners, candies, yoghurts, nutrition bars, and chewing gum. The European Ramazzini Foundation’s estimated daily level of 910 mg/day is said to more accurately reflect average daily use of artificial sweeteners. If that sounds excessive, consider that dieters may be consuming even higher amounts. The popular South Beach Diet heavily endorses the use of sugar substitutes despite reports showing that aspartame functions as an appetite stimulant. And when diet is not sufficiently monitored, many people use artificial sweeteners in addition to sugar products.

Independently funded verses industry-funded studies: Whom do we believe?
Questions have been raised about aspartame’s safety and the appropriateness of industry sponsorship of medical research. An analysis of peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE and other databases was conducted by Ralph G. Walton, MD, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton analyzed 164 studies felt to have relevance to human safety questions. Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored (independent) studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame.

Today, despite controversy and safety issues, artificial sweeteners are used in all types of products – from sports drinks (diet and “regular”), to snack foods, to flu remedies, toothpastes and lozenges. As holistic nutrition professionals, we believe that food should be in its natural, whole state. The best thing to do is avoid all artificial and chemically made sweeteners. They are not real food, trick the body into thinking it is eating something sweet, and carry concerns over safety. Below is a brief overview on a number of artificial sweeteners:

Acesulfame-k or Ace-k (Sunette) – The K is for potassium. Discovered in 1967 this derivative of acetoacetic acid was approved by the FDA in July 1988. Unfortunately, several potential problems associated with the use of this product include lung and other tumours, leukemia, and chronic respiratory disease – even when less than the maximum dose was given. Later it was petitioned for a stay of approval by the FDA due to doubts about its danger.

Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal, Neotame) – Aspartame has remained controversial since its acceptance as a ‘generally recognized as safe’ (GRAS-listed) additive in 1982. Neotame is Aspartame that has been hydrogenated and linked up with another chemical to make it 30 to 60 times sweeter than Aspartame. Although made from amino acids, aspartame is not a natural substance and many people have experienced nervous system and ‘irritant’ effects such as feelings of agitation, and changes in mood. It has effects similar to those MSG (monosodium glutamate), leading some experts to call it an ‘excitotoxin’. Despite its FDA approval, many members of the health-care profession continue to question its use.

Cyclamate (Sugar Twin, Sucryl) – this chemical sweetener was banned in 1969 in theUS because of cancer-producing tendencies. It is still legal in countries that feel cancer study results on rats are not a cause of concern to humans (i.e.,Latin America). This sweetener is approved as a drug but not a food additive. The Sugar Twin package now carries a label stating that it should only be used under your doctor’s advice, and that it is not safe to use during pregnancy.

Saccharine (Sweet ‘N Low) – In the 1970s there were concerns that saccharine could be cancer causing in laboratory rat studies. Saccharine was not permitted by HealthCanada as a food additive however it allowed consumers access to it as a table-top sweetener. As of November 2009, HealthCanada scientists are still considering re-listing this substance in the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations, following their own safety assessments. Saccharine may be present in drug formulations in substantial amounts.

Sugar Alcohols (Polyols and Polydextrose such as Sorbitol) – Alcohol sweeteners may be better tolerated than aspartame, however, problems such as diarrhoea, dehydration and weight loss may occur because they are not fully digested by the small intestine. Additionally, when undigested carbohydrates reach the colon, the normal bacteria present there, ferments with sugar alcohols to produce gas and bloating. Not surprisingly, sorbitol has been linked to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In diabetics, side effects may be more pronounced, because blood glucose is converted into sorbitol at an accelerated rate. Symptoms include damage of the nerves, blood vessels, eyes and kidneys, and formation of cataracts.

Sucralose (Splenda) – was discovered in 1976 by British scientists seeking to create a new pesticide. It is comprised of a sucrose molecule except that three of the hydroxyl groups in the molecule have been replaced by three chlorine atoms. Dr. James Bowden, a physician and chemist explains that once chlorinated, sucralose becomes a chlorocarbon (pesticide) in the family of Chlorodane, Lindane and DDT. He warns that chlorocarbons are wholly incompatible with normal human metabolic functioning, and that they damage the liver’s metabolic cells and destroy them” The manufacturer’s own short-term rodent studies showed that very high doses caused shrunken thymus glands, enlarged livers, and kidney disorders. Adverse reactions in humans collected by the Sucralose Toxicity Information Centre include skin rashes, migraine headaches, panic-agitation, dizziness, numbness, diarrhoea, swelling, muscle aches, intestinal cramping and bladder issues.

ALTERNATIVES TO ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS
As holistic practitioners, we believe it is always preferable to eat ‘naturally sweet’ foods such as whole grains, vegetables, and fruits, rather than look for natural sugar substitutes. ‘Natural’ or not, too much sweetener, in any form, can have a negative effect on health. Fundamental holistic nutrition views fructose ingestion as being at the core of obesity, insulin resistance, vascular disease, fatty liver, diabetes and other diseases. Pasteurized fruit juices, agave and even raw honey should be limited since ‘natural sugars’ often contain a much higher percentage of fructose than high-fructose-corn-syrup (HFCS). Going sugar-free will also ensure you have a better chance at obtaining an adequate level of fibre, vitamins, and minerals. Fructose levels should be kept to below 25 grams a day. If you do insist on using a natural sugar substitute, however, consider:

Stevia – has been championed by holistic/natural foods advocates inCanada and theUS, and is used in several countries –Japan, especially, where it has been safely used for over 30 years. This green-leaf herb is commonly known as ‘the sweet leaf ofParaguay’, contains no calories, no natural sugars, and can be used by people with diabetes, hypoglycaemia, or candidiasis issues. Stevia’s phytonutrient profile includes betacartotene, dulcosides, steviol, and stevioside.

Pure coconut palm sugar – is a natural product made from the nectar of the coconut palm tree. Pure coconut palm sugar has a naturally low glycemic index (35GI) –a measure of how fast the sugar contact of a food is released into your bloodstream. (Regular sugar is 68GI). This has led to claims that it is an ideal sugar substitute for people with diabetes, those looking to control blood sugar, or those on a low-carbohydrate diet). Coconut palm sugar contains minerals such as magnesium, potassium, zinc, and vitamins B and C, and has also been called the most environmentally sustainable sweetener by the Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.

Yacon – this raw, low glucose sweetener made from the root of a tuberous vegetable related to the sunflower, and is grown inColumbia and northwestArgentina. It does not cause a rise in blood sugars due to its lower (34%) level of FOS (fructooligosaccharides) and low proportion of simple sugars (e.g., glucose, fructose and sucrose). The human body lacks enzymes to hydrolyze FOS, so it passes through the digestive tract without being metabolized. In this way, FOS acts as a prebiotic. Its marketers claim that the undigested portion of yacon serves as food for “friendly” bacteria, such as Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus species, in the colon. Yacon roots also contain potassium and antioxidants. Its taste is similar to caramel and molasses.

Raw Honey – Although it is higher on the glycemic index, raw honey contains many nutrients. Raw honeys such as manuka honey, have been demonstrated to have antimicrobrial properties and is rich in antioxidants, phytonutrients and enzymes. LifeMel honey is made by bees fed on Siberian ginseng, Echinacea and Uncaria tomentosa and other herbs. This is the only honey that has been subjected to clinical testing (it was found to prevent chemotherapy-induced pancytopenia – a lowering of red and white blood cells and platelets).

Agave nectar – Very recently, agave syrup has been maligned as having the highest fructose content of any commercial sweetener. This is not entirely accurate. Differences in the plant, and collection practices can mean that the fructose content can average from 70 to 97 percent, whereas high-fructose-corn-syrup (HFCS) averages 55 percent. One brand, Madhava, only uses sap from the Salmiana species of the agave plant, which does not require extensive processing. The juice is collected by hand, and no heat is involved in its removal. Low heat, (below 113F) is only used in processing/removal of water. Nonetheless, the majority of of agave manufacturers do not use Salmiana species and instead rely on chemical or thermal methods to process the starch from its root bub. The Weston A Price Foundation cautions that conventionally made agave is worse for you than HFCS, and should be avoided.

SOME HEALTHY SUBSTITUTIONS TO TRY AT HOME:
Because sugary, convenience foods satisfy hunger, they often replace more nutritious foods and weaken disease resistance. When you feel like snacking or having something sweet, try some of these healthier options instead:

Because protein helps to stabilize blood sugar and keeps you feeling full longer, aim for protein based snacks such as a soft boiled egg, or a protein smoothie made with hemp seeds, fresh apples, carrots and ginger root;
Sweeten your organic tea with a cinnamon stick or a vanilla bean;
Add a splash of blueberry or pomegranate juice to your green tea instead of honey;
Skip maple syrup. It adds 50 calories and about 12 grams of sugar per teaspoon. Instead use ‘jam’ made of 2 tablespoons chia seed mixed into 1/2 cup organic pomegranate or cherry juice and leave to thicken;
Make some ginger syrup using stevia. Chop a 5 inch piece of peeled ginger and boil it with 4 cups of water and a half teaspoon of stevia powder. Simmer gently for 8 minutes. This syrup can be stored in the refrigerator for several days.
Try mock instant tapioca pudding: mix 2 TBS chia seeds into a half cup of almond milk. Leave to gel in the fridge for 2 hours;
Instead of reaching for ice cream, try a semi-frozen mashed banana with a dusting of finely ground organic cocoa nibs or carob powder;
Snack on plain organic yoghurt. Vanilla, cinnamon or nutmeg may be added.
Eat more high-fibre foods such as brown rice, lentils, dried beans and peas. Foods high in fibre help you to feel full. They also stabilize your blood sugar levels.
Snack on Pumpkin seeds (Pepitas) sprinkled with curry powder;
Drain and rinse 4 cups of cooked organic chick peas. Toss in olive oil and spices of choice. Place in slow oven (200 F) for 3 hours. They turn out like corn nuts.
Dried fruits can be high in natural sugars. If you are going to reach for dried fruit, try un-sulphured gogi berries. They are high in antioxidant power and not sweet;
Most of all, avoid all soft drinks, energy drinks, and so-called vitamin waters (high sugar water with low quality nutrients). Most soft drinks contain phosphoric acid which blocks absorption of calcium and magnesium in the intestines, leading to early osteoporosis, kidney stones, fatigue, high blood pressure, lowered immunity and other health issues.

Click here for the full bibliography for this article [PDF].

This article originally appeared June 2010 on the IHN website: http://www.instituteofholisticnutrition.com/ihn.asp?section=nutrition_research_artificial

Incoming search terms:

polydextrose pregnancy
polydextrose dangers

New research finds fructose may be cancer cells’ preferred fuel source

Posted September 29th, 2011 in Cancer Prevention Strategies by Rebecca Lane

I just finished reading this article from Dr. Mercola’s web site. I think you’ll agree that the information is very interesting. As well the tables showing the amount of fructose available in popular fruit is a valuable tool. Here is the article reprinted in its entirety. (or Click here to link to the article.)

Is this Simple Sugar a Major Factor in the Failure of the War on Cancer? Posted By Dr. Mercola | September 29 2011

There’s compelling evidence and agreement by many experts that excessive fructose is toxic to your body. Unlike fructose, nearly every cell in your body can directly use glucose. However fructose is primarily metabolized in your liver and can serve as a substrate for increasing cancer cell growth.

Fructose Helps Cancer Cells Thrive
ALL forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer, but in slightly different ways, and to a different extent, as I’ll explain later. Fructose, however, clearly seems to be one of the most harmful sugars. A new article in Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets reviewed the relationship between increased dietary refined sugar and cancer risk, with specific emphasis on the monosaccharide fructose. The researchers noted:

“Recent observations indicate that cancer cells readily utilize fructose to support proliferation and preferentially use fructose for nucleic acid synthesis.”

They named several ways in which dietary fructose can promote cancer growth, including:

Altered cellular metabolism
Increased reactive oxygen species (free radicals)
DNA damage
Inflammation

Research published in the journal Cancer Research also showed that the way the different sugars are metabolized (using different metabolic pathways) is of MAJOR consequence when it comes to feeding cancer and making it proliferate. According to the authors:

” Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different … These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation.”

In this case, the cancer cells used were pancreatic cancer, which is typically regarded as the most deadly and universally rapid-killing form of cancer. The study confirms the old adage that sugar feeds cancer because they found that tumor cells do thrive on sugar (glucose). However, the cells used fructose for cell division, speeding up the growth and spread of the cancer.

Why is This a MAJOR Threat to Public Health?
Whether you’re simply interested in preventing cancer, or have cancer and want to live longer, you ignore these facts and listen to industry propaganda that fructose is safe and no different from other common sweeteners at your own risk. The truth of the matter is that fructose may very well be the most pernicious influence in the Standard American Diet, and is virtually guaranteed to cause chronic disease if consumed in excess.

The major problem is, the vast majority of Americans are consuming fructose at levels 3-600% of the upper limit!

Further, most people are seriously confused about fructose and still believe it is a “healthy” type of sugar because it is found naturally in fruits and touted as having a low glycemic index. But this is not a matter of eating an apple or a handful of raisins as a snack. Fructose, in one form or another, can be found in five of the 10 top sources of calories in America, and in some cases (particularly when processed or from a restaurant) may actually be in ALL of them:

Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars) 139 calories a day
Yeast breads, 129 calories a day
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes, 121 calories a day
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks, 114 calories a day
Pizza, 98 calories a day
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts

If you’re interested in preventing cancer, my recommendation is to keep your total fructose intake below 25 grams of fructose per day, if you’re in good health. Most people will also benefit from limiting your fructose from fruit to 15 grams a day, and, if you need to lose weight, you likely will need to limit your total fructose consumption to 15 grams a day total, including that from fruit.

If you have cancer, however, you’ll want to reduce your total fructose consumption to below 10 grams per day from all sources, including fruit.

Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose
Limes 1 medium 0
Lemons 1 medium 0.6
Cranberries 1 cup 0.7
Passion fruit 1 medium 0.9
Prune 1 medium 1.2
Apricot 1 medium 1.3
Guava 2 medium 2.2
Date (Deglet Noor style) 1 medium 2.6
Cantaloupe 1/8 of med. melon 2.8
Raspberries 1 cup 3.0
Clementine 1 medium 3.4
Kiwifruit 1 medium 3.4
Blackberries 1 cup 3.5
Star fruit 1 medium 3.6
Cherries, sweet 10 3.8
Strawberries 1 cup 3.8
Cherries, sour 1 cup 4.0
Pineapple 1 slice
(3.5″ x .75″) 4.0
Grapefruit, pink or red 1/2 medium 4.3
Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose
Boysenberries 1 cup 4.6
Tangerine/mandarin orange 1 medium 4.8
Nectarine 1 medium 5.4
Peach 1 medium 5.9
Orange (navel) 1 medium 6.1
Papaya 1/2 medium 6.3
Honeydew 1/8 of med. melon 6.7
Banana 1 medium 7.1
Blueberries 1 cup 7.4
Date (Medjool) 1 medium 7.7
Apple (composite) 1 medium 9.5
Persimmon 1 medium 10.6
Watermelon 1/16 med. melon 11.3
Pear 1 medium 11.8
Raisins 1/4 cup 12.3
Grapes, seedless (green or red) 1 cup 12.4
Mango 1/2 medium 16.2
Apricots, dried 1 cup 16.4
Figs, dried 1 cup 23.0

What Makes Sugar so Appealing to Cancer Cells?
In 1931 the Nobel Prize was awarded to German researcher Dr. Otto Warburg, who first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. Malignant tumors tend to use a process where glucose is used as a fuel by the cancer cells, creating lactic acid as a byproduct. The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from cancer cells is then transported to your liver.

This conversion of glucose to lactic acid generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid buildup.

This is a very inefficient pathway for energy metabolism, which extracts only about 5 percent of the available energy in your food supply. In simplistic terms, the cancer is “wasting” energy, which leads you to become both tired and undernourished, and as the vicious cycle continues, will lead to the body wasting so many cancer patients experience.

Additionally, carbohydrates from glucose and sucrose significantly decreases the capacity of neutrophils to do their job. Neutrophils are a type of white blood cell that help cells to envelop and destroy invaders, such as cancer. Meanwhile, fructose appears to be preferred by cancer cells for cell division, which contributes to its growth and spreading throughout your body. Even though the theory that sugar feeds cancer was born nearly 80 years ago, most conventional cancer programs STILL do not adequately address diet and the need to avoid sugars and fructose if you have cancer.

As Patrick Quillin, PHD, RD, CNS wrote more than a decade ago:

“During the last 10 years I have worked with more than 500 cancer patients as director of nutrition for Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Tulsa, Okla. It puzzles me why the simple concept “sugar feeds cancer” can be so dramatically overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment plan. Of the million[s of] cancer patients being treated in America today, hardly any are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy beyond being told to “just eat good foods.” Most patients I work with arrive with a complete lack of nutritional advice.”

Artificial Sweeteners are NOT a Safe Sugar Alternative
You may be tempted to swap sugar for artificial sweeteners, but these can damage your health even more quickly than fructose. In fact, there are already hundreds of published studies linking artificial sweeteners like aspartame, which is widely used in diet soda and many other diet foods, to serious health complications. Cori Brackett’s documentary film Sweet Misery is an excellent summary of the problems with aspartame.

You can also view my interview with Victoria Innes-Brown, who over a 2.5-year period performed a set of meticulous and detailed experiments, documenting the effects of using aspartame liquid comparable to diet soda on mice. This included not only large tumors but also neurological effects, paralysis, skin disorders and symptoms of cerebral palsy.

Recent research has also linked diet soda consumption to higher rates of strokes, heart attacks and other lethal vascular events as well as metabolic syndrome.

There is literally enough evidence showing the dangers of consuming artificial sweeteners to fill an entire book — which is exactly why I wrote Sweet Deception. If you or your loved ones drink diet beverages or eat sugar free foods, this book will explain how you’ve been deceived about the truth behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose.

For times when you want to add a bit of sweetness to your food or beverages, try using the herb stevia instead. It’s a safe, natural plant that’s has been around for over 1,500 years and is ideal if you’re watching your weight, or if you’re maintaining your health by avoiding sugar. It is hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and has virtually no calories.

Alternatively, you could use Lo Han or pure glucose (dextrose) as a sweetener. It costs about $1 a pound and does not cause many of the adverse biochemical disasters that fructose does.

It is only 70 percent as sweet as sucrose though, so you’ll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than sucrose—but still well worth it for your health as it has ZERO grams of fructose. Glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is far safer than the metabolic poison fructose.

Solid Nutrition is Paramount if You Want to Beat Cancer
You’re probably well aware of the link between the foods you eat and your risk of cancer. But if you’re not then please understand that virtually everything you put into (or onto) your body can either help or hinder your natural healing mechanisms, and thereby influence your risk of cancer and your ability to heal from it.

This is not an “alternative” view at all. Rather, even the conservative American Cancer Society states that one-third of cancer deaths are linked to poor diet, physical inactivity, and carrying excess weight.

However, cancer rates are escalating because modern medicine is in no way, shape or form addressing these underlying causes of most cancers. If ever there was an area in which an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure it is cancer. I strongly believe that if you are able to work your way up to the advanced health plan, you will virtually eliminate the risk of most cancers. What is often overlooked, though, is that if you already have cancer it is also crucial that you use nutritious foods to help boost your immune system and heal, and this includes avoiding fructose and other sugars.

The Gerson Research Organization maintains a collection of reports documenting the research behind one nutritional approach, the Gerson Therapy, as well as the role of diet on cancer, and you can hear anecdotes from patients who have improved using this nutritional therapy here.

Many of the success stories include people whose conventional doctors gave no hope for recovery, who were able to overcome their disease against all odds using not toxic cancer drugs but natural fruits and vegetables. The system is not a miracle cure for everyone, and even the Gerson Institute states that “No treatment works for everyone, every time” … but most conventional physicians offer only ONE route for cancer treatment — drugs, radiation and surgery — while ignoring or discounting alternative options such as the power of dietary modifications using healthy foods.

What Else Can You do to Prevent and Fight Cancer?
Along with limiting your intake of sugar and fructose, there are several other things you can do for yourself, right now, not only to prevent cancer, but to make sure you have the best chance of recovery if you do get it. Because cancer is almost wholly a man-made disease, it’s especially important to recognize that you do have power over many factors that could cause you to get cancer. Taking control of your health will put you in a position to make the best health decisions possible if you do get cancer.

Here’s a list to get you started on a cancer prevention plan:

Radically reduce your sugar consumption. Normalizing your insulin levels is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer, and in order to do so, cutting sugars and grains out of your diet is a must.Eliminating fructose is one of the most important sugars to initially concentrate on. Again, if you have cancer, you’ll want to reduce that to below 10 grams per day from all sources.
Optimize your vitamin D levels. There’s overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths might be prevented each year simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population. On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by getting optimal sun exposure year-round.Alternatively, you could use a safe tanning bed, or, as a last resort, an oral vitamin D3 supplement. Remember the BEST way to raise your vitamin D level is by sun exposure. If you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial. To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.
Exercise regularly. There’s compelling evidence indicating that exercise can slash your risk of cancer, primarily by reducing elevated insulin levels and normalizing estrogen. For example, women who exercise regularly can reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive. I prefer to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed and performed at a high enough intensity to achieve its maximum benefit.It’s important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine. Additionally it is likely that integrating exercise with intermittent fasting will greatly catalyze the potential of exercise to reduce your risk of cancer and stimulate widespread healing and rejuvenation.
Get appropriate amounts of high-quality animal-based omega-3 fats.
Eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Seriously consider vegetable, not fruit, juicing.
Use a variety of relaxing tools such as meditation, yoga and social support to manage and relieve emotional stress in your life. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed.
Maintain an ideal body weight.
Get enough high-quality sleep.
Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners, air pollution, and plastic toxins like BPA.
Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.
Avoid artificial sweeteners, which are actually worse for your health than sugar, and have been linked to brain tumors.