Hospitals contain experts in ILLNESS

25. August 2006 William Davis (0)
Hospitals contain many experts in sickness. This seems obvious. But walk down the hallways of any hospital, and you'll quickly be convinced that hospitals contain almost no experts in health.

People (hospital staff, that is, not the patients) in hospitals are especially good at identifying and treating disease. They lack knowledge of health.

If your nurse is 100 lbs overweight and struggles to walk down the hall because of arthritis in both knees, would you entrust her with health advice?

If your doctor sits down in the cafeteria and eats his lunch of a ham sandwich with cheese on a bun, fried onion rings, and a milkshake and pastry, can you believe that he/she possesses any insight into health and nutrition?

If your physical therapist or cardiac rehabilitation counselor struggles nearly as much as you while climbing a single flight of stairs, can you accept their advice on how to regain your stamina and use exerise to full health advantage?

The answer to all these questions is, of course, no. Hospital staff are generally expert at dressing surgical wounds, stopping bleeding, identifying infections, and providing the support services for surgical and diagnostic procedures. In contrast, they are generally miserable at conveying genuine health advice. They certainly fall short in being examples of health themselves.

To hospitals and their staff, health is a temporary situation that persists only until you become ill. Illness is an inevitability in the hospital staff mindset. Health is a temporary state in between illnesses.

We need to shake off this perverse mentality. Health is the state of life that should dominate our practices and philosophies. Illness via the occasional catastrophe, e.g., broken leg from skiing, car accident, etc., is the province of hospitals. We should gravitate towards this philosphy and away from the over-reliance on hospitals that has come to dominate our present perceptions of health. Hospitals are not glamorous. They are, for the most part, profit-seeking businesses intent on portraying themselves as champions of health.

When I walk down the halls of hospitals, I am shocked and ashamed at the extraordinary examples of ill-health presented by hospital staff. Yet they falsely paint themselves as experts in both illness and health. Don't believe it for a second.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Opiate of the masses

Opiate of the masses

18. April 2012 William Davis (22)
Although it is a central premise of the whole Wheat Belly argument and the starting strategy in the New Track Your Plaque Diet, I fear that some people haven't fully gotten the message:

Modern wheat is an opiate.

And, of course, I don't mean that wheat is an opiate in the sense that you like it so much that you feel you are addicted. Wheat is truly addictive.

Wheat is addictive in the sense that it comes to dominate thoughts and behaviors. Wheat is addictive in the sense that, if you don't have any for several hours, you start to get nervous, foggy, tremulous, and start desperately seeking out another "hit" of crackers, bagels, or bread, even if it's the few stale 3-month old crackers at the bottom of the box. Wheat is addictive in the sense that there is a distinct withdrawal syndrome characterized by overwhelming fatigue, mental "fog," inability to exercise, even depression that lasts several days, occasionally several weeks. Wheat is addictive in the sense that the withdrawal process can be provoked by administering an opiate-blocking drug such as naloxone or naltrexone.

But the "high" of wheat is not like the high of heroine, morphine, or Oxycontin. This opiate, while it binds to the opiate receptors of the brain, doesn't make us high. It makes us hungry.

This is the effect exerted by gliadin, the protein in wheat that was inadvertently altered by geneticists in the 1970s during efforts to increase yield. Just a few shifts in amino acids and gliadin in modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat became a potent appetite stimulant.

Wheat stimulates appetite. Wheat stimulates calorie consumption: 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year, for every man, woman, and child. (440 calories per person per day is the average.) We experience this, sense the weight gain that is coming and we push our plate away, settle for smaller portions, increase exercise more and more . . . yet continue to gain, and gain, and gain. Ask your friends and neighbors who try to include more "healthy whole grains" in their diet. They exercise, eat a "well-balanced diet" . . . yet gained 10, 20, 30, 70 pounds over the past several years. Accuse your friends of drinking too much Coca Cola by the liter bottle, or being gluttonous at the all-you-can-eat buffet and you will likely receive a black eye. Many of these people are actually trying quite hard to control impulse, appetite, portion control, and weight, but are losing the battle with this appetite-stimulating opiate in wheat.

Ignorance of the gliadin effect of wheat is responsible for the idiocy that emits from the mouths of gastroenterologists like Dr. Peter Green of Columbia University who declares:

"We tell people we don't think a gluten-free diet is a very healthy diet . . . Gluten-free substitutes for food with gluten have added fat and sugar. Celiac patients often gain weight and their cholesterol levels go up. The bulk of the world is eating wheat. The bulk of people who are eating this are doing perfectly well unless they have celiac disease."

In the simple minded thinking of the gastroenterology and celiac world, if you don't have celiac disease, you should eat all the wheat you want . . . and never mind about the appetite-stimulating effects of gliadin, not to mention the intestinal disruption and leakiness generated by wheat lectins, or the high blood sugars and insulin of the amylopectin A of wheat, or the new allergies being generated by the new alpha amylases of modern wheat.
Tags :

Comments (22) -

  • Judy B

    4/20/2012 4:23:26 PM |

    Unbelievable!  When are doctors going to get a clue?  Thank you, Dr. Davis for giving us the truth.

  • Joe

    4/20/2012 4:31:44 PM |

    Dr. Davis, somehow I've managed to get my Vitamin D, 25-hydroxy level to 90 ng/ml! It's the first time I've had it tested since taking your advice. Is this too high? Or about right?

    I take about 8000 IUs per day (in the form of drops) and get 20-40 minutes of daily sun (in Florida, that's pretty easy to do). That's year-round.

    Nota bene: My HDL/TC ratio was 0.241 (64/265), and TRGS/HDL ratio was 1.4 (94/64), which are pretty good numbers, I think. My LDL was mostly Pattern A (large bouyant), which is also good, I think. Since my doctor said my TC of 265 was still too high, he recommended statin therapy, which I declined.  I've lost ~80 pounds in the past 12 months eating a low-carb paleo diet (and no freakin' WHEAT!), and I've heard that a large weight loss can screw up cholesterol levels for a while.  Could that be the reason the TC is still "high." Should I be concerned? I think my good ratios and large bouyant LDL trump TC, but my doctor thinks otherwise.

    Thanks!

  • Galina L.

    4/20/2012 9:50:48 PM |

    I have a question for you as a cardiologist. Does a ketogenic diet affect an edema associated with a heart failure?  I understand that congestive heart failure is a very serious condition, one of my husband's coworkers wife is in a hospital right now with such condition, they removed one gallon of fluid from her legs there, and I am just curious. I had a pitting  edema  at 46 when my pre-menopause issues started, and it got cured with a carb. restriction (together with the rest of pre-menopause issues and asthma). What about edemas associated with other health conditions? Does carb restriction could help to some degree?

  • Eva

    4/25/2012 8:39:55 PM |

    This is interesting info. I am not a big fan of wheat for a number of reasons, the obvious being lack of nutrition and evidence of negative response in celiacs.  Those issues seem fairly certain and I am also open to other arguments.  However, I would like to see some of the research on these particular accusations against wheat, specifically the evidence that wheat is a addictive and that wheat makes you hungrier.  

    If it were merely addictive, then we could just eat more wheat and less other foods.  But then, wheat has lack of nutrition so maybe the desire for nutrition drives us to eat more food in addition, thus leading to more overall food consumption.  In that nutrition is probably somewhat 'addicive' as well, ie the body craves it.  Seems to me that pure addiction could account for a lot.  

    If were were addicted to sugar and addicted to wheat, we'd eat a lot of them both, which on average is what Americans are doing.  Then on top of that, the body might still try to get some scraps of nutrition, so that means yet more food is consumed.  Seems to me, the prob could be a simple issue of being addicted to foods that pack a lot of calories but do not give nutrition in return.  Then you have to eat even more on top of that just to survive and get at least minimal nutrition.  

    So I guess what I am pondering is a subtle variation on the theme of 'hunger' in that  perhaps wheat addiction drives the desire for more wheat consumption (at least in some), sugar consumption drives the desire for more sugar consumption (at least in some), and lack of nutrition drives the desire to eat more in general until nutritional needs are met.  The solution would be that as we have already seen, eating healthy foods and avoiding sugar and wheat naturally returns hunger to normal levels in most people.    

    Another interesting issue is to look at meth users who often become very skinny.  My understanding is even if food is available, hunger is stunted by meth, which implies that meth is able to override all food drives, perhaps even those of sugar and wheat?  I wonder what might be found if that is studied!  (not that I am suggesting we take meth of course for obvious reasons, but the mechanism itself is interesting)      

    I am somewhat familiar with on study that showed rats packed on 25% more fat when fed wheat, which is interesting because rats are seed eating creatures by nature, but that one study by itself is not enough.  I am guessing you have put a lot of time into gathering a lot more research and would be so appreciative if you could list a tad of it if possible.
    -Eva

  • May 2nd | CrossFit-HR

    5/1/2012 9:01:42 PM |

    [...] Opiate of the masses Although it is a central premise of the whole Wheat Belly argument and the starting strategy in the New Track Your Plaque Diet, I fear that some people haven’t fully gotten the message:  Modern wheat is an opiate. And, of course, I don’t mean that wheat is an opiate in the sense that you like it so much that you feel you are addicted. Wheat is truly addictive. Post your 5RM total working time to comments [...]

  • Anna

    5/7/2012 8:28:16 PM |

    Your book said that only 1/3 of people experience withdrawal symptoms when giving up wheat.  If it's as addictive as you say in this article then why do only a third have withdrawal symptoms?
    Perhaps I misread what you said in your book?

  • Anon

    5/8/2012 11:32:23 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    For the last 5-6 months, I switched over to a low carb (~50-75g/day) diet, mostly making up the calories with whey protein and lots of fats (olive oil, avocado, grass fed butter). It's not exactly bulletproof, but pretty close.

    While a lot of clear markers improved, my total cholesterol and LDL jumped quite a bit, to levels that I believe
    you've mentioned you feel are high. (I'm male and I think you mentioned 220 as a reasonable limit)

    What next tests or changes would you make if you were me?

    Total cholesterol: 204 --> 238 * scares me the most out of all thee numbers. Most say this should be below 220.
    HDL: 60 --> 70 * very nice improvement
    Triglyceride: 104 --> 84 * very nice improvement
    LDL: 123 --> 151 * big jump here. most docs hate to see this, but from what i'm reading LDL doesn't mean very much - only particle size.
    Triglyceride/HDL ratio: 1.73 --> 1.2 * this is considered the best predictor of cardiovascular disease. Very nice change here

    Should I be worried about the total cholesterol hitting 238?  I'm obviously happy about the HDL/TGL numbers.

  • Jane

    5/9/2012 3:42:46 PM |

    Dear Dr Davis

    I have been asked to convey to you some intormation about heart disease and copper.  Some months ago I searched your blog for the word copper and found nothing.  Here is what copper researcher Leslie Klevay says about ischemic heart disease and copper deficiency.  

    '...the Western diet is frequently low in copper. Copper deficiency is the only nutritional insult that elevates cholesterol (7), blood pressure (8), and uric acid; has adverse effects on electrocardiograms (7, 9); impairs glucose tolerance (10), to which males respond differently than do females; and which promotes thrombosis and oxidative damage. More than 75 anatomic, chemical, and physiologic similarities between animals deficient in copper and people with ischemic heart disease have been identified. Copper deficiency is offered as the simplest and most general explanation for ischemic heart disease.'
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/5/1213.full

    Yours sincerely
    Jane Karlsson PhD

  • old timer

    5/10/2012 9:41:37 AM |

    doc what about the stores selling organic wheat . any good?

  • linda Stevens

    5/10/2012 8:16:30 PM |

    At my local library "Wheat Belly"  has 10 holds on first copy returned of 12 copies in our libary system. Many people are becoming informed and educated!!!!!!!!

  • Mark Stenson

    5/29/2012 12:26:09 AM |

    http://cprfordepressives.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/eating-wheat-can-cause-depression/ talks about the link between wheat and depression.

  • Mark Stenson

    5/29/2012 12:27:27 AM |

    http://cprfordepressives.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/eating-wheat-can-cause-depression/ talks about the link between wheat consumption and depression.  I was interested to hear some of the same things that I hear fro you, Dr. Davis.

  • jpatti

    5/31/2012 3:57:48 PM |

    I never quite "got" why you were anti-wheat over-and-above the low carb thing, but this is some interesting info.  I shall have to get this book.

  • simon choo

    6/1/2012 4:45:29 AM |

    Thanks for the info. its really helpful.

  • Robin

    9/7/2012 6:46:57 AM |

    Hi Joe ~
    If you read wheatbellyblog.com, you may have already seen this in a comment from JillOz. It's a very interesting and eye-opening talk (some 2hrs but I stayed focused easily) and may ease your mind regarding cholesterol. You were very wise to reject the statins.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8

  • P.M

    9/17/2012 5:50:31 PM |

    Thanks for interesting Blog

    I haven't found any published articles about gliadin and appetite in PubMed.  Do you have any hints what are the keywords? I've tried gliadin, appetite or satiety.

Add comment

Loading
Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet

Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet

17. April 2009 William Davis (0)
Despite all the hoopla heart disease receives in the media, I continue to marvel at how many people I meet who still think that aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet constitute an effective heart attack prevention program.

It doesn't. No more than washing your hands prevents all human infections. It helps, but it is a sad substitute for a real prevention program.

Of course, aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet is the same recipe followed by the unfortunate Tim Russert and his doctors. You know how that turned out. Mr. Russert's experience is far from unique.

What is so magical about aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet?

There is a simple rationale behind this approach. Aspirin doesn't reduce atherosclerotic plaque growth, but it inhibits the propagation of a blood clot on top of a coronary plaque that has "ruptured," thereby reducing likelihood of heart attack (which occurs when the clot fills the artery). So aspirin only provides benefit if and when a plaque ruptures.

Lipitor and other statin drugs reduce LDL cholesterol, promote a modest relaxation of constricted plaque-filled arteries (normalization of endothelial dysfunction), and exerts other effects, such as inflammation suppression.

A low-fat diet is intended to reduce saturated fat that triggers LDL cholesterol formation and to encourage intake of whole grains that reduce cardiovascular events and LDL cholesterol.

If that is the extent of your heart disease prevention program, you will have a heart attack, bypass surgery, or stent--period. It may not be tomorrow or next Friday, or even next month. Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet may delay your heart attack or procedure for a few years, but it will not stop it.

Some flaws in the aspirin, Lipitor, low-fat program:

--Aspirin can only exert so much blood clot-blocking effect. It can be overwhelmed by many other factors, such as increased blood viscosity, increased fibrinogen (a blood clotting protein that also triggers plaque), and plaque inflammation.
--Lipitor reduces LDL, but does not discriminate between the relatively harmless large LDL and the truly plaque-triggering small LDL--it reduces all LDL, but small LDL can still persist, even at extravagant levels since neither aspirin nor Lipitor specifically reduces small LDL, while a low-fat diet increases small LDL.
--Low-fat diet--A diet reduced in fat and loaded with plenty of "healthy whole grains" will trigger increased small LDL (an enormous effect), c-reactive protein, high blood sugar, resistance to insulin, high blood pressure, and an expanding abdomen ("wheat belly").


Aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet do not address:

--Vitamin D deficiency
--Omega-3 fatty acid deficiency and the eicosanoid path to inflammation
--High triglycerides
--Small LDL particles
--Distortions of HDL "architecture"
--Lipoprotein(a)--the worst coronary risk factor nobody's heard of
--Thyroid status

In other words, the simple-minded, though hugely financially successful, conventional model of heart disease prevention is woefully inadequate.

Don't fall for it.

Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Restaurant eating: A fructose landmine

Restaurant eating: A fructose landmine

13. January 2011 William Davis (25)
There is no remaining question that fructose is among the worst possible things humans can consume.

Followers of the Heart Scan Blog already know this, from conversations like The LDL-Fructose Disconnect, Where do you find fructose?, and Goodbye, fructose.

But fructose, usually as either high-fructose corn syrup (44%, 55%, occasionally higher percentage fructose) or sucrose (50% fructose), is ubiquitous. I've seen it in the most improbable places, including cole slaw, mustard, and dill pickles.

It's reasonably straightforward to avoid or minimize fructose exposure while eating at home, provided you check labels and focus on foods that don't require labels (like green peppers, salmon, and olive oil, i.e., unprocessed foods). But when you choose to eat at a restaurant, then all hell can break loose and fructose exposure can explode.

So what are some common and unsuspected fructose sources when eating at a restaurant?

Salad dressings--Dressings in all stripes and flavors are now made with high-fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose. This is especially true of low-fat, non-fat, or "lite" dressings, meaning oils have been replaced by high-fructose corn syrup. It can also be true of traditional non-low-fat dressings, too, since high-fructose corn syrup is just plain cheap.

Olive oil and vinegar are still your safest bets. I will often use salsa as a dressing, which works well.

Sauces and gravies--Not only can sauces be thickened with cornstarch, many pre-mixed sauces are also made with high-fructose corn syrup or sweetened with sucrose. Barbecue sauce is a particular landmine, since it is now a rare barbecue sauce not made with high-fructose corn syrup as the first or second ingredient. Sauces for dipping are nearly always high-fructose corn syrup-based.

Ketchup--Yup. Good old ketchup even is now made with high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, you should be suspicious of any condiment.

Highball, Bloody Mary, Margarita, Daiquiri, beer--Even the before-dinner or dinner drink can have plenty of fructose, particularly if a mix is used to make it. While Blood Marys seem the most benign of all, adorned with celery, pickle, and olive, just take a look at the ingredient label on the mix used: high-fructose corn syrup.

Fructose is a stealth poison: It doesn't immediately increase blood sugar; it doesn't trigger any perceptible effect like increased energy or sleepiness. But it is responsible for an incredible amount of the health struggles in the U.S., from obesity, to diabetes, to hyperlipidemias and heart disease, to arthritis, to cataracts.
Tags :

Comments (25) -

  • Chuck

    1/13/2011 3:41:14 PM |

    I can't believe that there is so much high fructose corn syrup in all these foods. Thanks for the information!

  • JohnR

    1/13/2011 3:48:51 PM |

    I question the importance here. If you've already eliminated the major offenders like sweet drinks and desserts, is the amount of fructose you're likely to consume from sources like restaurant salad dressings really likely to do any more damage than, say, the ethanol in the glass of wine you drink with dinner 4 or 5 times a week?

    Also, Heinz now makes a non-HFCS ketchup ("Simply Heinz"), not that subbing sucrose for HFCS really buys you much from a health perspective.

  • Ed Terry

    1/13/2011 4:03:34 PM |

    Proponents of HFCS state that it's no worse than sucrose.  However, the physical properties of HFCS allow it to be used in a lot more foods than sugar.

  • Tom H.

    1/13/2011 6:16:21 PM |

    I'm thinking about eating an apple a day. How would this affect my glucose levels, and lipid levels. Is my plan good, bad, or neutral? Thanks for any answers.

  • Thrasymachus

    1/13/2011 6:24:44 PM |

    I could go on about the amazing, appalling corruption of our ssystem of government but the fact the government promotes and subsidizes bad food for the benefit of a tiny portion of the population has to be one of the worst examples.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/13/2011 11:32:06 PM |

    Apple harvest, before refrigeration, was consumed as cider. The more alcoholic it got the less residual fructose it had.

    "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" is a relatively new rhyme. Old heirloom tree stock yields pretty sour apples; we've bred them to be sweeter.

  • Dr. William Davis

    1/14/2011 12:11:52 AM |

    Fructose is far worse than previously suspected. It is, in my view, a large part of the reason so many Americans are obese, diabetic, with all the complications of these conditions.

    A few milligrams per day from fructose is likely of little to no consequence. But a little here, a little there and it all adds up. Ketchup, salad dressing, a couple of pieces of fruit, some "organic agave nectar" on your dessert, an you've had a substantial exposure.

    Let the belt out a notch or two.

  • Darrin

    1/14/2011 1:53:10 AM |

    It's definitely a drag that so much of the food you get in a restaurant now is doused in sugar to match most peoples' tastes, to say nothing of the fact that everything is also cooked in refined vegetable oils!

  • yoyo

    1/14/2011 2:18:23 AM |

    Beer does not contain (more than trace) fructose. It does contain significant dextrose and starch in excess of what is found in wine/whiskey.

  • Anonymous

    1/14/2011 3:14:47 AM |

    How much fructose did a caveman on average consume? Does anyone know?

  • revelo

    1/14/2011 3:58:30 AM |

    Some of the cooked vegetables at restaurants (especially tomato sauce and diced tomatoes) also typically come from cans with BPA linings.

    MSG is also pretty common with restaurant food. I once saw a guy at a Chinese place carrying a 50 lb sack of MSG into the back door. Yes, it comes in bulk. Most horrifying food-related sight I have ever seen, and trust me, Chinatown has some pretty horrifying food-related sights. But it's not just Chinese food. MSG is everywhere.

  • revelo

    1/14/2011 5:25:49 AM |

    Re: fructose and average cavemen. "Average" is meaningless. But during berry season, I wouldn't be surprised if 60% of the calories were from berries, so 30% of calories each from fructose and glucose, with dried meat or fish making up the other 40%. Have you ever been in the mountains of Washington during August? Incredible numbers of wild blueberries, slightly smaller than the ones in stores but just as tasty. The Indians of that area preserved blueberries in salmon oil, so they would be available year-round.

    Humans are clearly designed to process fructose as 30% or more of daily calories, just like our ape ancestors. Whether this amount of fructose contributes to longevity or not is another story. Evolution needs us to bear and raise healthy offspring, which requires living to age 40 or so. After that, we are no longer needed, and evolution might even want us to get out of the way after age 40.

  • Ruth

    1/14/2011 9:16:38 AM |

    As often the solution is simple: eat real food. Don't eat anything that is advertised. Stay away from anything that has been processed. Learn how to cook.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/14/2011 6:13:14 PM |

    Just wondering about "cave men" and their kin .... It seems their epoch's realtors
    pitch about cave sites being all about location, location, location determined who got the best pickings.

    I don't think the hunting was all so easy for them. Cavemen had to share any game brought down; a fellow needed to feed his gun bearer and give his trucker some.

    For them it was probably hieracrchial portion of the kill and seasonal wild pickings. Mostly allaying hunger with rationed dried meat and what they dug up or stripped from plants.

    When the cave far from water it might mean progressive dehydration spells. Many may very well have been experiencing protracted disassociation brain chemistry states.

  • Davide Palmer

    1/14/2011 6:42:31 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Yet, in my opinion, I still think there is a substantial difference between consuming natural fructose and HFCS.

    For example, an apple contains polyphenols, flavanols, fiber, and other various anti-inflammatory substances that work synergistically together to buffer the some of negative effects high blood glucose.

    Pure HFCS, on the other hand is highly processed from genetically modified corn, void of any buffering nutrients and very high in reactive aldehydes and ketones(which cause serious oxidative stress and inflammation).

    --Big difference, here

    A high consumption of HFCS has, through numerous studies, been clearly implicated in numerous conditions such visceral fat, insulin resistance, fatty liver and obesity, etc. A high consumption of natural fruit has not.

    A just think this distinction should be made more clearly. Just my opinion.

  • Davide Palmer

    1/14/2011 6:42:53 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Yet, in my opinion, I still think there is a substantial difference between consuming natural fructose and HFCS.

    For example, an apple contains polyphenols, flavanols, fiber, and other various anti-inflammatory substances that work synergistically together to buffer the some of negative effects high blood glucose.

    Pure HFCS, on the other hand is highly processed from genetically modified corn, void of any buffering nutrients and very high in reactive aldehydes and ketones(which cause serious oxidative stress and inflammation).

    --Big difference, here

    A high consumption of HFCS has, through numerous studies, been clearly implicated in numerous conditions such visceral fat, insulin resistance, fatty liver and obesity, etc. A high consumption of natural fruit has not.

    A just think this distinction should be made more clearly. Just my opinion.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/14/2011 11:37:37 PM |

    Hi Davide Palmer,

    Would you please elaborate on ketones? I am assuming it's about the context wherein they occur.

    I was taught ketones are the heart's preferred fuel.
    One Doctor who uses cocconut oil for Alzheimers says we fortuitously convert it into ketones.

  • Davide Palmer

    1/15/2011 12:26:55 AM |

    oops...meant to say reactive carbonyls. Reactive ketones are produced in response to reactive carbonyls.

  • Anonymous

    1/15/2011 12:53:55 AM |

    your correct about the problems of BBQ sauce. i have eliminated most of the HFCS from my diet...except for BBQ sauces. the best tasting one in my opinion is Sweet Baby Rays but its loaded with HFCS, and lots of sodium. KC Masterpiece is marginally healthier and less appetizing. Any recommendations for a readymade sauce?

  • reikime

    1/15/2011 2:13:35 AM |

    As one of many out there who suffers from Fructose Malabsorption, I can tell you it is a very hard substance to avoid!  Garlic, onions, apples, pears are very high in fructose and everyone has their own personal threshhold for tolerance.

    I wonder how this factors into overall health issues such as cardiovascular disease, IDDM etc.?

  • d

    1/15/2011 2:55:36 PM |

    I read some studies (sorry, I don't have immediate links) where men eating HFCS had their lipid profiles somewhat return to baseline after eating the HFCS diet beyond 3 months?  

    Has anyone else read this?

  • ultrasonic liposuction guide

    1/18/2011 6:43:44 AM |

    I can't believe that there is so much high fructose corn syrup in all these foods. I just want to say that eat real food. Don't eat anything that is advertised.
    Thanks for the information! Please keep sharing!

  • Anonymous

    1/21/2011 2:57:10 AM |

    I thought I once read that a caveman ate only 12 to 15 tablespoons of sugar per year based on the scarcity of fruit and the type of fruit that existed but I have not been able to verify. Just wondering if anyone had data.

  • John Fernandes

    2/11/2011 3:47:17 AM |

    Research just released by University of Auckland shows that fructose consumption can harm unborn babies

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/4647075/Fructose-can-harm-babies-study

  • Anonymous

    2/23/2011 1:26:28 PM |

    So Dr. Davis are you suggesting we don't eat fruit at ALL. Or just have a few servings per day?

Add comment

Loading