1.
Selenium
2.
Iodine
3.
Magnesium
4.
Vitamin D
These are not
controversial. The science is good and pretty
overwhelming. That they are not more
mainstream reflects the lack of profit from them, rather than questions about
their effectiveness in prevention. They
are also nutrients that are in short supply in nearly all populations. You need all of them—and you probably do not
get what you need. New info about
Vitamin D supplementing is worth reading.
Found here http://preview.tinyurl.com/l8gl7fu If you are older they are now recommending 8,000 iu
per day.
The final subject of this series is an anti-nutrient—something
you need less of than you’re probably getting.
It is sugar.
The sugar industry would have you believe sugar is innocuous
and that because it begins life as cane, beets or corn, it is “natural” and ok
as part of your diet. More and more
research and even mainstream information indicates this is far from the
truth. In this series of articles my
premise has been about the things known to prevent development of cancer. High blood sugar is without doubt a player in
that development. The question remains,
how much is too much.
Here’s a
study done in Sweeden in 2007 published in Diabetes Care. When researchers looked at specific types of
cancer, they found that both men and women with the highest blood sugar levels
were more likely to have pancreatic cancer, urinary tract cancer, and malignant
melanoma (the most deadly type of skin cancer) than those with the lowest blood
sugar levels. And for women, endometrial
and breast cancer risk was highest for those with the highest blood sugar.
Because
there is too much information on this anti-nutrient for this venue, and because
I am busy writing a whole chapter on it for my upcoming book, I will briefly
mention a few items of proof.
Those with highest glucose
levels are 63% more likely to develop breast cancer. A study of 33,293 women – which measured
fasting and after meal glucose spikes – found those in the highest range were
75% more likely to develop other cancers.
Pancreatic cancer is more likely to occur in people who have
long-standing (over 5 years) diabetes than in people who do not have diabetes.
In pancreatic cancer patients who have had diabetes for less than five years,
it is unclear if the diabetes contributed to the cancer or if the precancerous
cells caused the diabetes.
From
a Feb 2013, study in Madrid, what is less well known is that diabetes and
obesity are linked to an increase in cancer risk. The diabetic population has
up to twice the risk of pancreatic or colon cancer among others. Dr.
Custodia García said "We were surprised to realize that changes in our
metabolism caused by dietary sugar impact our cancer risk. We are now
investigating what other dietary components may influence our cancer risk.
Changing diet is one of easiest prevention strategies that can potentially save
a lot of suffering and money."
The connection
between diabetes and cancer was first reported in 2004 in large population
studies by researchers from the World Health Organization’s International
Agency for Research on Cancer. It is not controversial. What it means is that
you are more likely to get cancer if you’re diabetic than if you’re not, and you’re
more likely to get cancer if you have metabolic syndrome than if you don’t.
Suggesting that
sugar might kill us is what zealots do. But Robert Lustig, who has genuine
expertise, has accumulated and synthesized a mass of evidence, which he finds
compelling enough to convict sugar. It
is given in his hour and a half long indictment of sugar widely seen on Youtube
(found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
)
If it’s sugar
that causes insulin resistance, then the conclusion is hard to avoid that sugar
causes cancer — some cancers, at least — radical as this may seem and despite
the fact that this suggestion has rarely if ever been voiced before publicly. For just this reason, neither of these men (Robert
Lustig and Gary Taubs, Author of Good Calories, Bad Calories) will eat sugar or
high-fructose corn syrup.
As if that were
all not bad enough, sugar—high blood sugar is implicated in many, many diseases
and health problems. Nancy Applegate,
author of “Lick the Sugar Habit” lists dozens of them based on research and
studies that prove or strongly suggest the connections.
Of particular
concern to me at this age, is the connection between high blood sugar and brain
shrinkage and dementia/Alzheimers. Dr.
Permutter, a Neurologist and author of “Grain Brain” preaches constantly about
sugar (from any source) and the dangers to brain health. His blog and newsletters are worth the time
to read/watch.
One last thing
in this shortened version of this topic.
The mechanism by which high blood sugar does the damage that it does, is
inflammation. We are not designed for
high blood sugar. The actual role of
insulin in a healthy metabolism is to move nutrients into cells. It’s lesser role of reducing blood sugar was
designed to be only an emergency purpose in rare cases of elevated blood
sugar. Both high blood sugar and high
insulin are highly inflammatory and inflammation causes damage—ultimately all
disease and un-healthy states.
Blood sugar
comes from what you put in your mouth.
Not only the sugar in sodas and desserts and junk food, but from the
added sugar in virtually every processed food in the grocery store. Read labels.
But even for people trying hard
to eliminate that sort of sugar, remember that grains are huge condensed
packages of sugar. Look up glycemic load
of any wheat, rice or corn product here http://nutritiondata.self.com/
(and even the “good” grains like quinoa and the like or gluten-free substitutes.)
Protein and fat
do not convert to blood sugar in digestion.
All carbohydrates do, some in dangerously high amounts and quickly. For lifelong health, freedom from cancer,
especially, but good brain health into old age, less sugar—from all sources--
is mandatory.
Next article
will examine why the information in the last few article is not more widely
known and promoted.
No comments:
Post a Comment