You'd think it would be reason to jump for joy when the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which tracks how much we eat of the various sweeteners on the market, says we're using less high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). According to the USDA's most recent report, consumption of HFCS in the U.S. has declined by 11 percent. As a result, HFCS manufacturers will buy 13 percent less corn this year, compared to 2001. However, the problem is that while high fructose corn syrup consumption is down, overall sugar consumption isn't. In fact, the consumption of sugar and added sweeteners in our food grew to about 140 pounds per person per year in the U.S., a 20% jump since 1970. Yes it's true that during the same timeframe, the balance tipped strongly in the direction of HFCS, which reached a high of about 64 pounds per person in 1999, an increase of about 66 percent over 1970 consumption levels. But once HFCS started getting some bad press, sugar marketing organizations fought back via advertising, notably the Sugar Association's "Sweet by Nature" campaign. And now consumers can have the satisfaction of having started a return to that "natural" and "healthy" ingredient, refined sugar. But this isn't a better choice; it's Morton's Fork — two lines of reasoning that lead to the same unpleasant conclusion. Understand what sugars are healthy to eat, do not contribute to obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure, and why stevia may not be that much more healthier with this health podcast.
HFCS vs Sugar | Natural Health Podcast
What Sugar is Really Healthy?
Submitted by onMarch 10, 2011 - 12:11pm
Concerning stevia...Jon said that it was harmless in smaller amounts...only that it would not supply the body with a filling feeling concerning calories.
Submitted by onFebruary 14, 2011 - 3:34pm
Very, very good podcast! No, nonsence, informative to the point and not boring at all. Good job! George Stastny, M.Sc., MH
Submitted by onFebruary 21, 2011 - 10:59pm
Stevia makes me feel weak and sick. It takes over three hours to gain my normal strength back. If it were really good for humans, that would not be so, because "I "are" one".
Taking a natural substance and in essence, reformulating it, makes it non-natural. This organization is the first to stand for truth in stating the detrimental effects of re-manufacturing a natural substance and therefore changing it and its effects on the human body.
Of course, I now scrutinize ingredient labels for the dreaded "Stevia" word-but if I found it growing wild, I would break off a piece and try it.
Submitted by onFebruary 14, 2011 - 10:27pm
It is of the utmost importance that people realize the danger of excesive sugar use. The health dangers of sugar consumtion can not be over stated. Only through education can one take control of ones health
Submitted by onFebruary 16, 2011 - 10:02am
You had better explain Why Stevia is no good.I disagree with you.I thing you are all wrong.
Submitted by onFebruary 16, 2011 - 2:30pm
I think we need to stop cossetting people with the notion of exchanging one sugar for another. The only advice that needs to be given especially to avoid the inevitable consequence of discovering that we were wrong- is to be clear that we need to eliminate sugar (brown, white,turbinado, high fructose and corn syrup, agave syrup, maple syrup, refined processed honey, stevia, and the other chemical unmentionables). No matter which way you look at it they are bad for you, and there should be no advocation of limiting them; the idea of limiting them begs the clarity of how much is too much. It's like asking...how much arsenic should I ingest before I die. Let's call all these sweeteners what they really are- poison. It will only be a matter of time before stevia will join their cousins in the poison family because like it or not, it is also refined- otherwise, why would a green plant when crushed at home produce a green not readily dis-solvable substance translate to a very bleached powdered substance found on the shelves of the market. Let's not forget that this is all about marketing, and the bottom line is that manufacturers think that to sell something it needs to look desirable and they will do whatever it takes to make it so. Think about that. If you want to eat sweet foods God has provided them for you in the form of fruits- not just berries that are on some low glycemic level but all fruits- mangoes and bananas and persimmons are three that come to mind. There is no mistaking that God knew what He was doing when He provided different fruits for different seasons, because we were meant to eat a variety of them. Different fruits are indigenous to different regions for a reason- some people need more than others depending on where they live and the climate they live in. If you can't grow it where you live you probably do not need it. You can bet that there is a substitute for every nutrient available. As someone who grew up in the Caribbean I am always amazed how different the fruit selection really is. Truly sweet fruits(not readily available here in the US) are plentiful in the Caribbean, whilst the not so sweet fruits are somehow in this country in more abundance. Of course if mangoes are not available here peaches(which can also be very sweet if left to ripen naturally)are an excellent substitute in nutritional value. Commercialization has rendered some of our fruits less than palatable which creates the yearning for sweets we were intended to have; but there are always ways to satisfy those sweet cravings. Try baking a sweet potato- no amount of sugar can substitute that natural sweetness. Eliminate those unnatural foods and see how healthy you really can be. In fact, when you eat well, you really will not have the space nor the inclination to want non food substances- there is a word for that I learned at a Nutrition seminar years ago, and its called PICA. It's the craving for non-food substance, and what is more non food than sugar and all its ugly relatives. As a side bar, we were talking about PICA and afterwards being served sugar, and we were never educated to warn patients about the use of sugar- unless of course you were a diabetic. Seems to me that PICA is just like any other addiction. A horrible enemy that takes over your will power. Well who is really in charge here- you or the food. The choice is yours. It's about time we do for sugar what we have done for alcohol and drugs. Those latter two addicts have a camp somewhere- do we need one for sugar too, or will you stand up against it?
Submitted by onFebruary 28, 2011 - 12:59pm
I am one of those sugar addicts and I daily have to fight the urge to eat sugar. Once I start I have a terrible time stopping. I have gone as long as 14 days without any sugar and with only 2 or 3 packs of Stevia. Then I fell off the wagon and the internal struggle started all over again. I keep trying because I know I am an addict, no less so than an alcoholic or drug addict. It is so hard and yes I believe it is a poison but it calls to me.
I am educated. I read anything and everything on Sugar and how dangerous it is and I believe it and yet--- I struggle. It is not easy to take control of one's health---even if one knows better. If anyone out there knows how to help me cope,I am open to suggestions.
Submitted by onMarch 13, 2011 - 1:41pm
I have found for me when I am craving sweets that, actually, I am thirsty and dehydrated. If you have a sugar attack, you must drink a full glass of cool water. Flavor it with lemon or orange if you don't like the taste of water but it must be water! Heck, drink two glasses.
Submitted by onMarch 14, 2011 - 1:40pm
Let's not lump all sweetners together and label them bad. Honey is a very good sweetner and one that is promoted by God Himself. Proverbs 24:13 states " My son, eat thou honey, because it is good;". John the Baptist lived on honey and locusts in the desert.
Submitted by onMarch 20, 2011 - 9:09pm
Stevia is NOT a chemical! It is a NATURAL plant.
Submitted by onMarch 20, 2011 - 10:27pm
Eight essential sugars, gene transferes that amino acids were thought to be responsible for decades fall under their domain. Non essential sugars that flush bacteria and claim resceptor cells to keep bacteria from setting up their shop. Glycotherapy is still young in my mindset, the long chain sugars are not found in our supermarkets except for aloe,which only gives delpeted bodies a easily disrupteded system a chance at creating what it needs. If essential sugars are responsible for gene transfer without the loss of the telemeres to retain youth I can only hope you can add insite to what little I have gleaned from Nicholas Perricones' latest book and web site offerings. I can't exspect you to go as in depth as your digestive system operation insites , but when it comes to the ins and outs throughout the chemistry set we call are bodies, I look to you with the greatest hope. thank you.
Submitted by onMarch 21, 2011 - 12:38am
A lot of the desire for sugar is actually the body calling for nutrition. We have for so long been using the "hunger" for sweets that we now believe we need them. this is similar to a smker saying they like the smell of tobacco. Who are we fooling. One of the bigger causes of malnutrition is not so much poor food value but in fact a very different problem. When I went to school (55+ years ago) we were told that Proteins needed an acid digestion and that starches needed an Alkaline digestion. Since we ate these together i could never quite work out how this was supposed to happen because acid and alkaline offset each other. It wasn't until just a couple of years ago that I learnt that Proteins and starches should never be eaten at the same meal. Does it make any difference really? I have seen the direct results of putting this to work properly and it is astounding. The "munchies" desire drastically reduces simply because now the food is actually being digested and providing the nutrients to the body instead of just a neutralised glum which is not producing much nutrition t all. Just enough to keep one alive and often to pile on the pounds (kilograms). The old saying, "What isn't fattening will at least be filling" is a total cop out. If it is fibre vegetables that one is eating, it will be filling but not fattening. If it is low fibre or no fibre then it sure will be fattening, even those so called "diet" foods which in fact create within the digestive system a very high acidic challenge and from that to the encapsulating of the toxins in fat, actually make one fatter. Terrible advertising lies to sell the artificial. But then, The saying of Temperance in all things should only ever be considered with using GOOD foods, NOT damaging ones. Weight loss can be achieved very simply by properly combining foods WITH OUT USING SOME DIET idea. A simple consideration is to eat fruit first in the day and wait for 20 minutes, bananas take 45, for the fruit to go through the stomach. Then either have your proteins with salad vegetables or you can have your starches with similar vegetables. Anything with a high sugar content will be a starchy food, ie potatoes, carrots, sweet corn, peas etc. DO NOT eat with Proteins of any sort until the body gets itself operating properly and then reintroduce those few vegetables or nuts that have both protease and Carbohydrates together. Once the body has learnt to get it's digestion working properly, it can assimilate those few double ingredients. Most folks who have the extra kilos are prone to making excuses. When one eats with them in their home, it becomes very obvious that food is almost a god to them. Gotta Haveit. Need it for daily sustenance and many other excuses. One fellow who was lecturing on health explained that the best exercise to lose weight was to still be feeling just a little peckish but to stand up at the table, push back with the knees so the chair moves away, turn around and go walk for at least 50 metres away from the food. Stop at that point and start walking on the spot for 15 minutes. By that time the message will have got from the stomach to the brain saying that the stomach is full. Apparently takes around 20 minutes for the message to get to the brain. To learn more about the best food combinations go and check out this site and get the daily emails for a couple of months. Put it into action and you will feel a whole different person. Download the Test Drive and use it for four days. That costs no money. The instruction books cast around $80 Australian with postage and include the main explanation and advice, a 30 day suggested food intake with about 4 to 6 suggestions for each meal and a recipe book with around 110 or so recipes for the proper mixing of foods. Well worth the money. Without dieting and just by using the right foods combined I lost 7 kilos over a period of just over 3 weeks. BUT, you can't cheat or it doesn't work. The hardest challenge you will have to fight will be with your taste buds which of course are programmed to eat wrongly mixed foods.
Submitted by onMarch 21, 2011 - 10:01am
I use Xylitol in very small quantities and not regularly. In fact if you go on over to Jonathan V. Wright's web space you may be able to find an article he wrote recently spelling out the health benefits of Xylitol. See for yourself.
Submitted by onMay 16, 2011 - 3:54pm
The confusion is that now their is GMo Stevia which is now closely resembling natural, and very bad for your body.
Submitted by onMay 16, 2011 - 4:01pm
It was good til they GMO;d it made it non bio compatable.