On Health

[Skybird]

https://isupportgary.com/articles/th...-diet-is-vegan

Religious Ideology, with an anti-meat agenda, and the Corporate Food Industry have formed an alliance over the last 80 years to create our low-fat/high-carb 'Plant-based' dietary and health guidelines.
This unlikely partnership is becoming stronger than ever and manipulating health education on every level to the tune of 'Exercise is Medicine™' and 'Lifestyle Medicine' with a cereal/grain/soy bias and an anti-meat, anti-dairy agenda.
The introduction of the terms 'Exercise is Medicine™', 'Lifestyle Medicine' and a 'Plant-based diet' have not evolved. They have been deliberately inserted into our health vocabulary, allowing 'prescriptions' to be written by health professionals encouraging people to 'move more' and 'eat less... meat'.



The Corporate Food Industry has been health-washing the 'Exercise is Medicine™' and 'Lifestyle Medicine' mantra to allow discretionary foods and sugary drinks to be part of an active and balanced lifestyle, placing the blame for poor health outcomes on an energy imbalance - too many ‘Calories In’ and not enough exercise for ‘Calories Out’.
[...]

[Skybird]

[mapuc]

Here's an infographic video on what happen inside us, when we eat sugar or stuff filled with sugar



Markus

[Skybird]

Carbohydrates = Sugar.
Sugar = Carbohydrates.
Fruits, veggies, starch: all results in/gets broken up into sugars (Glucose and Fructose).

Worse than Glucose and Fructose is High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

There is no difference with brown sugar, bio sugar, honey, maple syrup, and whate else the organic food industry tries to sell as sugars that are less harmful. They aren't. It always comes down to glucose and fructose, no matter how you twist, turn and bend it. And when yiu have thes ein your blood, the body must make insulionbe, and if you have insuline in your blood, you cant go into ketosis, you cant burn fat, so that fat gets stored in the fat cells instead, so does the fructose, and fatter is what you get. Fat eaten together with sugar: very bad idea. Thats why cream cake is so "lethal" fopr your weight and figure.

Sweeteners. Some have more calories than sugar, some have none. For both categories, there are sweeteners known causing a higher or a lower or practically no insuline reaction. To what degree the mere perception of the taste "sweet" triggers the brain into calling an alarm in the body that it should get ready to digest incoming sugars and by this "workaround" an insuline reaction is started, is still debated and not really clear. The frontlines are quite hardened over this topic, diet ideology plays a lot into the arguments people make pro and contra sweeteners. Its very mined terrain. You have been warned.

The appetite argument I do not accept, I prefer to keep psychology and/or habit, and biochemical causation separate. Mysself, i do not feel more appetite and eat more when eating something sweet. Many people make this argument however, using it to tell people they should ban sweetness completely from their diet for this reason, that even nil-calory and nil-insuline sweeteners make people fat becasue the taste of sweetness makes them eat more, like salty food makes oyu want to drink becasue you are thirsty. The salt story is true, the sweetness story I dont buy that easily, it contradicts my experience. A glass of coke does not make me want to drink more coke or eat more. The only trigger working like this in me, is thirst-related. I eat salty, I get thirsty.

The worst glycaemic reaction, btw, you get not from sugars, but - beer. If you want to lose weight, you must give up beer, completely, sorry. Even carb-reduced beer, it triggers less glycaemication, but still does so.


Carbohydrates are not needed to live healthy. The few instances in the body where indeed glucose is needed, do not justify to eat carbs, because the body can make the needed (low) amount of glucose himself, it must not get externally delivered at all.



Wetsenr diet advice is nto focussed on health benefits, but priofit benefits for the industry. They want you to eat useless cellulose (=fibre) and cabrohydrates en masse and plant seed oils and vegetables and dairy because they produce all this cheap and en masse, and so want to sell it. That you ge till form it and then buy therapies and medications makes it even better, for first they make profit by makign you ill, then they maske profit from selling you snake oil and pills and injections. Snd then they make a third profit from treating the side effects from the snake oils and pills and injections. Its a win-win-win situation for them, and it is even for potlics, and nobody wants to change it for that reason.



The only thing one must know about the health system is that the health system is about many things - just not about health. Healthy people are the dystopian sky-falling vision in this systemt hat it rreies to rpevent at all cost. By far at worst it must be in the US.

[Skybird]

Healthy people are customers that dont return.
Yes, this video might very well get him into trouble.
But he is right.

[Skybird]

[Skybird]

[Gerald]

Very enjoyable video uphere Marc!

[Skybird]

[Skybird]

Next time your stubborn Doc endlessly tries to focus on LDL and cholesterol and wants to talk you into accepting a Statin, you may want to confront him with this new study.

https://openheart.bmj.com/content/8/2/e001680



The high risk factors in the above table are all diet-related. The come from the propagated Westzern idea of a balanced diet that ocndlues all comßionents, focusses on palnts, and is depicted as the usual classic food pyramide.

To me the food pyramides have become graphics showing how to damage yourself in the best and most efficient way.

I learned this from the last years: when your triglycerides are normal and in the green range, and your HDL is not too low, then you can safely almost ignore high LDL levels, even the more so the more you are on a fatty ketogenic or carnivore diet (and excludindg scenarios in which you also must take into account an own individual specific health condition that sets you apart from the statistical "normal").

Also consider that statins' benefits are severely under doubt already, and are measured in lifespan extensions in the range of just 2-4 days over many years (in other words they are statistically not significant and thus are random noise) - paid for with tremendous side effects reducing your health, namely the much feared brain fog, cognitive and mental degeneration, and others.

More and more responsible doctors categorically reject to prescribe statins.

Statins are a major money maker for Big Pharma.

Now add 1 and 1 together.

[Rockstar]

Oh thank god for science

Honestly I like a little sweetness in life but it comes from fruit. But this is really getting ridiculous.


Forget Cutting Sugar—New Tech Makes It Healthier Instead

Scientists are experimenting with enzymes that turn sugar to fiber in the gut, microscopic sponges to soak up sugar, and more

https://www.wsj.com/science/biology/...tists-a8bb2dce

By Jesse NewmanFollow
July 31, 2024 at 10:00 am ET

A guilt-free chocolate bar, full of sugar, could someday land at a supermarket near you.

The chocolate would look and taste normal, and contain the same amount of sugar. But an enzyme, encased in an edible substance and added to the bar, would reduce how much sugar is absorbed into the bloodstream, and even turn it into a fiber that is good for your gut.

The product is the brainchild of scientists at Harvard University’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering. In 2018, Kraft Heinz tapped the scientists to help develop a sugar substitute that would enable the food giant to cut the sweetener from its food without losing its benefits. The scientists had a different idea—save the sugar but devise a way to make it healthier.

“The problem is not the sugar itself,” says Sam Inverso, director of business development partnerships at the Wyss Institute. “The problem is that we eat too much sugar.”

The sugar-to-fiber enzyme is among the latest technologies dreamed up to deal with America’s sugar habit without ditching sugar itself. Another fix involves a drink mix containing microscopic sponges that soak up sugar in the stomach at mealtime. Even researchers still working to reduce sugar are peddling new technologies, like individual sugar crystals modified to dissolve more quickly in the mouth, making food taste sweeter.

Some sugar occurs naturally in our foods, like fruit and dairy products. But much of it is added by manufacturers to processed food and drinks, such as cereal and soda. U.S. regulators in recent years have begun cracking down on added sugar, in 2016 requiring food and beverage makers to disclose on nutrition labels how much sugar has been added to products. Regulators this year put limits on added sugar in school meals and are weighing a requirement that food high in substances like sugar must say so on the front of their packaging.

“Sugar is the new tobacco,” says Steve Young, managing partner at private-equity firm Manna Tree Partners, which invests in food companies.

Food and beverage companies are ramping up work on new products with little to no added sugar—and trying to reduce it in existing ones—as consumers grow more aware of its ubiquity, including in unexpected foods like salad dressing and condiments, Young says.

Artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, the key ingredient in Diet Coke, came into vogue years ago as a fix for calorie-conscious consumers, but scrutiny over their safety has dented their popularity. More recently, some food companies have sought to replace sugar with natural ingredients like stevia and monk fruit, which are so sweet that they can add flavor without contributing calories.

But slashing sugar has run into roadblocks. Sugar does more than just sweeten food. It acts as a preservative, while adding texture, bulk and, often, a caramel color when heated. Alternative sweeteners can come with an aftertaste, and some substitutes don’t work because their intensity means they are needed in smaller quantities, to the point of making the food itself smaller. “If you were to take the sugar out of a brownie, you don’t have much left,” Young says.

Reducing sugar often requires retooling decades-old recipes, and substitutes can entail higher costs, regulatory hurdles or consumer backlash.

Kraft Heinz, for instance, has pledged to cut 60 million pounds of sugar from its products by 2025. The company in 2022 launched a major renovation of its juice drink, Capri Sun, cutting sugar across its original varieties by an average of 40% and swapping in monk fruit instead. Many consumers didn’t like the change, and sales of the product weakened. The company is now adding back in some sugar.

Enter the Wyss Institute’s plan to lessen sugar’s harmful effects. Its enzyme, used by plants to create stalks, is encased in spherical nanoparticles—tiny mesh-like cages made of pectin that allow the enzyme to be added to food without being activated until it reaches the intestine. Once there, a change in pH causes the cage to expand, freeing the enzyme to float through its holes and start converting sugar to fiber.

The Wyss Institute’s goal for its enzyme product was to reduce the sugar absorbed from food by 30%, though it has the potential to remove even more than that, Inverso says.

The enzyme’s ability to turn sugar into fiber is also key, as most Americans don’t get nearly enough fiber in their diet, says Adama Sesay, a senior engineer at the Wyss Institute who worked on the project.

After initial funding, Kraft Heinz is no longer financing the project. The Wyss Institute is now licensing the technology to a company to help bring its enzyme product to market, a process that entails additional testing and work to secure regulatory approval. Inverso says that the aim is for the product to be available to U.S. food manufacturers within the next two years, and that other encapsulated enzymes could follow: products that reduce lactose absorption after drinking milk, or cut gluten after eating bread.

For now the enzyme works better in solid food than in a liquid. Producing it in large quantities and at low cost is still a ways off—currently it’s 100 times more expensive than raw sugar, Inverso says.

Kraft Heinz is evaluating possible applications for the enzyme, though it won’t have ownership or exclusive rights to it, according to John Topinka, an R&D lead at the company who spearheaded the collaboration with the Wyss Institute. The enzyme could be game-changing, he says, because it avoids one of the biggest challenges that comes with many alternative sweeteners: the need to significantly tweak the tried-and-true recipes behind iconic food brands.


Monch Monch drink mix contains fibrous, microscopic sponges designed to soak up sugar once it reaches the stomach and prevent it from reaching the bloodstream. PHOTO: MONCH MONCH

Other companies are trying similar methods. San Francisco-based startup Biolumen recently launched a product called Monch Monch, a drink mix made of fibrous, microscopic sponges designed to soak up sugar and prevent it from reaching the bloodstream. At mealtime consumers can blend a teaspoon of Monch Monch, which has no taste, smell or color, into drinks from water to wine. Once it has reached the stomach, the sponges start to swell and sequester sugar, reducing its burden on the body, says Dr. Robert Lustig, Biolumen’s co-founder and chief medical officer.

Biolumen is still studying what ultimately happens to the sequestered sugar, Lustig says, adding that it is either chewed up by bacteria in the intestine, carried from the body in stools, or a little bit of both.

One gram of Monch Monch can sequester six grams of sugar, says Lustig, a neuroendocrinologist who for years has sounded alarms about added sugars. The product, introduced as a dietary supplement, can also be used as a food ingredient under a Food and Drug Administration principle known as “generally recognized as safe.” Packets of Monch Monch are available for purchase online, and Biolumen says it is in talks with U.S. food manufacturers it declined to name about its use in other products.

Some people have raised concerns that the mix could cause gastrointestinal side effects like bloating or diarrhea, but clinical trials have shown no such issues, Lustig says. Biolumen underwrote two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, carried out in India and Australia.

Similar concerns prompted a backlash years ago against the fat substitute Olestra, used in some of PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay chips. PepsiCo says those products have been discontinued, and it no longer uses the ingredient. Biolumen says its product works differently from Olestra. The Wyss Institute consulted with a gastroenterologist to determine how its enzyme product would affect digestion, Harvard’s Inverso says, adding that the product won’t create enough fiber to cause issues.

Jerold Mande, an adjunct professor of nutrition at Harvard who isn’t part of the sugar research, says he is for all using technology in food, but that the U.S. doesn’t have a sufficient system for ensuring the safety of many such products. “There are a lot that come in as dietary supplements,” says Mande, a former official at FDA and the Agriculture Department. “They’re essentially unregulated.”

Food companies are betting on other solutions for now. Cereal startup Magic Spoon uses allulose, a natural sugar found in figs and raisins that is growing in popularity, helped by FDA guidance that allows it to be excluded from sugar or added-sugar totals on nutrition labels. Ingredient company Tate & Lyle, which makes allulose from corn kernels, says the sweetener tastes like sugar and adds bulk and caramel color, but passes through the body without being metabolized.


Incredo is a sugar that has been physically altered to taste sweeter, enabling manufacturers to use less sugar in products. PHOTO: INCREDO


The company says allulose is 70% as sweet as table sugar—or sucrose—making it a more direct sugar replacement compared with high-intensity sweeteners that can be up to 600 times as sweet.

Chicago-based Blommer Chocolate recently launched a line of reduced-sugar chocolate and confectionery products made with Incredo, a sugar that has been physically altered to taste sweeter using a mineral carrier that dissolves faster in saliva and targets the sweet-taste receptors on the tongue. Incredo’s use enables manufacturers to use up to 50% less sugar, the company says.

The best option for reducing the health toll of sugar? Nick Fereday, executive director of food and consumer trends for agricultural lender Rabobank, suggests eating less: “In food, we tend to look for complex solutions when there’s a simple one.”

[Skybird]

^ I wonder what all of a sudden is wrong with the diet our ancestors have eaten for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years - meat.



What they design in the lab for eating is just self-supporting evasive action, usually ending in "dietsaster".



The whole theory of bacteria in the gut that are fed with fiber is stupid. Nobody has yet been able to prove what else these bacteria are supposed to be good for - apart from cracking those fibers that are only supposed to be stuffed "up there" because of them. If that were all there was to it, we could do without these bacteria and therefore wouldn't need fiber (which, like all cellulose, we can't digest at all).


We dont need fibre. Its not good for us. Quite the opposite is true: its bad for us.



So now they want to do the same with "sweetness". I'll say what it's most likely to be: nonsense, probably with health side effects.


Adapt to eat less sweetness in general. Become less addicted to sweetness. Remember that starch and cereals and all that - also is sugar, or gets turned into sugars . Even if you delete all taste of sweetnees from your diet, you nevertheless jave a high sugar intake into your system as long as you still eat corn, wheat, bread, pasta, fruits, veggies.



Hence the soogan: "go zero carb." I say: at least keep them on a very, very, very short line.

[Skybird]

https://youtube.com/shorts/GhyTOPghY...5WBlCgn5CKvklo

[Skybird]

[Skybird]