Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States.
It kills over 600,000 Americans every year, and is responsible for a mind blowing 1 out of every 4 deaths in the U.S. So it’s no surprise that scientists have been focused on finding ways to lower our risk of heart disease for decades.
Originally, they thought dietary fat was to blame. This led to the rise of the low-fat movement, starting in the 60s. But, as we know now, fat is NOT public enemy #1 when it comes to heart disease.
It’s SUGAR!
It kills over 600,000 Americans every year, and is responsible for a mind blowing 1 out of every 4 deaths in the U.S. So it’s no surprise that scientists have been focused on finding ways to lower our risk of heart disease for decades.
Originally, they thought dietary fat was to blame. This led to the rise of the low-fat movement, starting in the 60s. But, as we know now, fat is NOT public enemy #1 when it comes to heart disease.
It’s SUGAR!
There was a paper published in the Journal of American Medicine Association that made waves in the research community.
The paper revealed that the decades old sugar industry conspired to put the blame elsewhere.
What’s even worse is that the scientists from Harvard have been implicated in this industry-funded conspiracy to increase American sugar consumption.
Here’s how it went down:
Back in 1954, a man named Henry Hass, president of the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), gave a speech to industry “hookers”.
In it, he painted a picture of an inspiring new business opportunity.
If American consumers could be persuaded to see dietary fat as a health risk, he told them, many would cut it out altogether, and then they’d have to replace it with something else -- sugar.
He figured that America’s sugar consumption could shoot up by as much as one third.
But, by the early 1960s, the demise of sugar on our health was becoming clearer and clearer. It was seen as “a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates,” according to John Hickson, a VP with the SRF.
So they decided to fund their own studies to “refute” these claims.
At the time, the SRF had a little-known connection to Harvard:
The chairman of Harvard’s Public Health Nutrition Department was also a member of SRF’s board. Through him, the SRF paid for a “literature review” project, to the tune of about $50,000.
The purpose of a literature review project is to identify broader trends within a field of study.
In funding their own literature review, the SRF hand-picked a bunch of articles and expected researchers from Harvard to critique them.
And they got their wish.
The review paper, which was published in 1967, applied a clear double-standard to the articles it covered.
The authors heavily downplayed research showing sugar increased the risk of heart disease — often claiming investigator incompetence or a flaw in the study’s methodology — only to ignore these same things in studies showing an association between fat and heart disease.
Some examples:
In the end, the study concluded that eating a low-fat diet was “no doubt” the best way to reduce the risk of heart disease.
But that wasn’t even the study’s biggest flaw. The biggest flaw was the fact that the paper did NOT disclose it was funded by the sugar industry, and it was a mind-blowing conflict of interest that remained hidden for decades.
Despite the fact that Big Sugar did what it could to conceal the long-term health impacts of sugar consumption, the bottom line is we now know the truth.
According to Healthline, added sugars accounts for up to 17% of the total calorie intake of adults in the US and research has shown this eating much sugar can lead to:
Not to mention it can also increase your risk of heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer.
In other words, our addiction to sugar is making us fat, sick, and putting a crushing burden on our broken healthcare system.
So, what’s the easiest way to reduce your sugar intake? First and foremost, cut out sugary drinks like soda and added sugar fruit juice. First of all, they are virtually all pasteurized, which basically kills all the nutrients.
Then, a cup of fruit juice contains around 23 grams of sugar (6 teaspoons), while a can of soda has at least 39 – 64 grams of sugar, depending on the brand and the size. Bear in mind that every 4 grams of sugar equals 1 teaspoon of sugar.
I can only relate to what I consume. I try to make a smoothie every morning using organic frozen strawberries, blueberries, mangos and cherries, which I get from Costco. I then add a scoop of Orgain Creamy Chocolate Fudge protein powder and use So Delicious Original Vanilla Coconut Milk. If I want fresh juice I will make carrot, apple, beet and ginger juice from my juicer. I learned a long time ago not to trust bottled juices unless they were made fresh, put in a bottle and sold from the store that made them.
It’s about time we got our health on line.
Aloha!
Sources:
www.cdc.gov
www.npr.org
www.jamannetwork.com
www.nytimes.com
www.health.harvard.edu
www.healthline.com
It’/www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htmhttps://www.npr.org/s
The paper revealed that the decades old sugar industry conspired to put the blame elsewhere.
What’s even worse is that the scientists from Harvard have been implicated in this industry-funded conspiracy to increase American sugar consumption.
Here’s how it went down:
Back in 1954, a man named Henry Hass, president of the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), gave a speech to industry “hookers”.
In it, he painted a picture of an inspiring new business opportunity.
If American consumers could be persuaded to see dietary fat as a health risk, he told them, many would cut it out altogether, and then they’d have to replace it with something else -- sugar.
He figured that America’s sugar consumption could shoot up by as much as one third.
But, by the early 1960s, the demise of sugar on our health was becoming clearer and clearer. It was seen as “a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates,” according to John Hickson, a VP with the SRF.
So they decided to fund their own studies to “refute” these claims.
At the time, the SRF had a little-known connection to Harvard:
The chairman of Harvard’s Public Health Nutrition Department was also a member of SRF’s board. Through him, the SRF paid for a “literature review” project, to the tune of about $50,000.
The purpose of a literature review project is to identify broader trends within a field of study.
In funding their own literature review, the SRF hand-picked a bunch of articles and expected researchers from Harvard to critique them.
And they got their wish.
The review paper, which was published in 1967, applied a clear double-standard to the articles it covered.
The authors heavily downplayed research showing sugar increased the risk of heart disease — often claiming investigator incompetence or a flaw in the study’s methodology — only to ignore these same things in studies showing an association between fat and heart disease.
Some examples:
- One study where rats were given a low-fat, high-sugar diet was rejected from the review because “such diets are rarely consumed by man.”
- Another study that found health benefits from eating less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because a dietary change like that was “not feasible.”
In the end, the study concluded that eating a low-fat diet was “no doubt” the best way to reduce the risk of heart disease.
But that wasn’t even the study’s biggest flaw. The biggest flaw was the fact that the paper did NOT disclose it was funded by the sugar industry, and it was a mind-blowing conflict of interest that remained hidden for decades.
Despite the fact that Big Sugar did what it could to conceal the long-term health impacts of sugar consumption, the bottom line is we now know the truth.
According to Healthline, added sugars accounts for up to 17% of the total calorie intake of adults in the US and research has shown this eating much sugar can lead to:
- Weight gain
- Acne
- Skin aging
- Low energy
- Fatty liver disease
- And cognitive decline
Not to mention it can also increase your risk of heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer.
In other words, our addiction to sugar is making us fat, sick, and putting a crushing burden on our broken healthcare system.
So, what’s the easiest way to reduce your sugar intake? First and foremost, cut out sugary drinks like soda and added sugar fruit juice. First of all, they are virtually all pasteurized, which basically kills all the nutrients.
Then, a cup of fruit juice contains around 23 grams of sugar (6 teaspoons), while a can of soda has at least 39 – 64 grams of sugar, depending on the brand and the size. Bear in mind that every 4 grams of sugar equals 1 teaspoon of sugar.
I can only relate to what I consume. I try to make a smoothie every morning using organic frozen strawberries, blueberries, mangos and cherries, which I get from Costco. I then add a scoop of Orgain Creamy Chocolate Fudge protein powder and use So Delicious Original Vanilla Coconut Milk. If I want fresh juice I will make carrot, apple, beet and ginger juice from my juicer. I learned a long time ago not to trust bottled juices unless they were made fresh, put in a bottle and sold from the store that made them.
It’s about time we got our health on line.
Aloha!
Sources:
www.cdc.gov
www.npr.org
www.jamannetwork.com
www.nytimes.com
www.health.harvard.edu
www.healthline.com
It’/www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htmhttps://www.npr.org/s
RSS Feed