By Robert H. Lustig, MD

ABSTRACT Fructose consumption (as both high fructose corn syrup and sucrose) has increased coincidentally with the

worldwide epidemics of obesity and metabolic syndrome.

Fructose is a primary contributor to human disease as it

is metabolized in the liver differently to glucose, and is

more akin to that of ethanol. When consumed in large

amounts, fructose promotes the same dose-dependent

toxic effects as ethanol, promoting hypertension, hepatic

and skeletal muscle insulin resistance, dyslipidemia and

fatty liver disease. Also similar to ethanol, through direct

stimulation of the central nervous system “hedonic

pathway” and indirect stimulation of the “starvation pathway,”

fructose induces alterations in central nervous system

energy signaling that lead to a vicious cycle of excessive

consumption, with resultant morbidity and mortality.

Fructose from any source should be regarded as

“alcohol without the buzz.” Obesity prevention

and treatment is ineffective in the

face of the current “fructose glut”

in our food supply. We must learn

from our experiences with ethanol

and nicotine that regulation of

the food industry, along with individual

and societal education,

will be necessary to combat this

fructose epidemic.

INTRODUCTION

As America’s (and the world’s)

collective girth continues to increase,

we ponder the answer to our

dilemma: Who or what are to blame

for the obesity epidemic? That depends

upon who you ask. The Institute of Medicine says

it is an interaction between genetics and environment.

Well, our genetics have not changed in 30 years but our

environment sure has, and in particular, our diet. The distribution

curve for Body Mass Index (BMI) shows that all

segments of the population are increasing in weight (1),

so whatever is happening is clearly pervasive and insidious.

Even developing countries that have adopted a Western

diet for convenience and expense have paid for it by

manifesting the same obesity prevalence, co-morbidity

profi les and mortality (2).

SECULAR TRENDS IN FRUCTOSE

CONSUMPTION

One of the striking features of the modern Western diet

is its reliance on refi ned carbohydrate as the predominant

energy source. Due to the “low-fat” admonition by

the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),

American Medical Association and American Heart Association

(AHA) in the early 1980’s, the percentage of fat

in the Western diet has reduced from 40% to 30% over

the past 25 years; which has resulted in the percentage of

carbohydrate rising from 40% to 55%; coinciding with

the obesity epidemic. Of this, a sizeable and

ever-increasing portion of the diet is attributable

to monosaccharides and disaccharides

used to sweeten foods

and drinks. Furthermore, in response

to the market for lower

fat fare, food companies have

chosen to substitute disaccharides

to maintain palatability of

processed foods. Until recently

the most commonly used sugar

in the U.S. diet was disaccharide

sucrose (e.g. cane or beet

sugar) which is composed of 50%

fructose and 50% glucose. However,

in North America and many other

countries, due to its abundance, sweetness,

and low price, high-fructose corn syrup

(HFCS) which contains between 42% and 55% of the

monosaccharide fructose, has overtaken sucrose as the

most ubiquitous caloric sweetener. These factors have led

to an inexorable rise in fructose consumption. Prior to

1900, Americans consumed approximately 15 gm/day of

fructose, mainly through fruits and vegetables. Prior to

World War II this amount had increased to 24 gm/day. By

THE BARIATRICIAN • 11

1977 fructose intake was 37 gm/day; by 1994 55 gm/day;

and currently Vos et al. estimates that adolescents average

72.8 gm/day (3). Thus current fructose consumption

has incrementally increased 5-fold compared to a century

ago. Disappearance data over the past 25 years from Economic

Research Service (ERS) of the USDA also supports

this secular trend. The ERS documents partial substitution

for sucrose by HFCS; however annual per capita

total caloric sweetener usage has increased from 73 to 95

lbs in that interval. Although soda has received most of

the attention (4, 5), high fruit juice intake (sucrose) is also

associated with childhood obesity, especially by lower income

families (6), although it is not captured in the ERS.

Thus, after adjustment for juice intake, per capita consumption

of mono- and disaccharides is at approximately

113 lbs/yr or 1/3 lb/day for all Americans.

HOW WE GOT HERE: POLITICAL,

ECONOMIC, AND MEDICAL DRIVERS

OF FRUCTOSE CONSUMPTION

The reader is referred to The Omnivore’s Dilemma (7)

for a complete discussion of the political and economic

factors that led to the secular trend in fructose consumption.

In brief, the 1966 industrialization of the discovery

of the glucose oxidase process to convert glucose to fructose

(8), combined with a directed policy by the

USDA in the 1970’s to reduce the price of food

by advancing growth and production of corn as

a dietary staple, provided the political and economic

impetus for this trend. In addition, during

this decade the medical establishment focused

on dietary reduction of coronary heart disease.

Two competing schools of thought dominated

this discussion. John Yudkin, a British physiologist

and nutritionist, championed the anti-sugar

movement. His work “Pure, White, and Deadly”

(9) espoused the primary role of sugar in human

disease. Conversely, the anti-saturated fat

movement was spearheaded by Minnesota epidemiologist

Ancel Keys. His work, the Seven

Countries: study (10), was one of the fi rst multivariate

linear regression analyses. A review

of this document (P. 262) notes: “The fact that

the incidence of coronary heart disease was signifi

cantly correlated with the average percentage

of calories from sucrose in the diets is explained

by the intercorrelation of sucrose with saturated

fat. Partial correlation analysis demonstrates that

with saturated fat constant there was no signifi -

cant correlation between dietary sucrose and the incidence

of coronary heart disease” (10). However, Keys neglected

to perform the converse analysis demonstrating that the

effect of saturated fat on cardiovascular disease (CVD)

was independent of sucrose. In other words, sucrose and

saturated fat co-migrated; it is impossible to tease out the

relative contributions of sucrose vs. saturated fat on CVD

from this study.

Furthermore, the medical establishment based their

low-fat recommendations on the goal of LDL reduction;

however, several studies have since demonstrated little to

no effect of low-fat diets on weight gain or CVD events

(11, 12). However, we now know that there are two LDL’s.

The large buoyant or Type A LDL is driven by dietary fat,

but is neutral from a cardiovascular standpoint. The small

dense or Type B LDL, which is driven by carbohydrate

and fructose (13), is the species associated with CVD (14).

Conversely, we have ample evidence that triglyceride

(TG) is a major risk factor for CVD (15) and that fructose

consumption is a primary contributor to TG accumulation

(16, 17). A recent analysis has led the AHA Nutrition

Committee to publish a policy statement on the negative

role of sugars in the pathogenesis of CVD (18).

Figure 1: Effects of introduction of corn sweeteners (HFCS) to

the American diet in 1975 on: a) the U.S. Producer Price Index

for sugar; b) the U.S. and international (London) price of

sugar; and c) the U.S. retail price of sugar and on HFCS. Data

document stabilization or lowering of sugar prices.

12 • THE BARIATRICIAN

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP (HFCS)

VS. SUCROSE

Although many consumer activist groups have specifi -

cally vilifi ed HFCS as the cause of obesity and CVD, scientifi

c studies of acute satiety vs. energy intake support

the notion that HFCS is not metabolically different from

sucrose (19-27). This has led to a vociferous campaign by

the Corn Refi ners Association to infl uence the debate on

fructose consumption by equating HFCS with sucrose,

suggesting that it is no different, “natural,” and it is safe

(see www.sweetsurprise.com). Indeed, the distinction between

HFCS and sucrose is not metabolic (as they are

essentially equivalent), but rather economic. The introduction

of HFCS to the Western diet in 1975 resulted in

stability of the U.S. Producer Price Index for sugar, and

sizeable reductions in the U.S. and international price of

sugar (Fig. 1). HFCS on average costs about one third

that of sucrose. This, along with changes in the Farm Bill

and food policy, promoted the addition of fructose to our

collective diets; not just in soft drinks and juice, but in

salad dressing, condiments, baked goods and virtually

every processed food, which raised our total consumption

5-fold in the last 100 years. Below, it becomes clear that it

is not the specifi c vehicle (sucrose vs. HFCS) that makes

it unsafe, but rather the total dose of fructose.

CORRELATION OF FRUCTOSE CONSUMPTION

WITH DISEASE

Numerous reviews have indirectly implicated fructose

consumption in the current epidemics of obesity and

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) (28-30). Correlative

studies in humans link soft drink consumption with energy

overconsumption, body weight, poor nutrition (31)

and T2DM (32). Similarly, juice consumption also correlates

with risk for T2DM (33), suggesting that excessive

fructose consumption is playing a role in the epidemics

of insulin resistance, obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia,

and T2DM in humans (28, 34-38). Collectively, this constellation

of fi ndings is referred to as the Metabolic Syndrome

(MetS). Conversely, early short-term prospective

studies limiting soft drink ingestion in children have met

with some success in stabilization of weight and CVD

parameters (39, 40).

MECHANISMS OF FRUCTOSE

TOXICITY

Although others have already pointed out the unique

metabolic effects of fructose (28-30, 34, 36, 38), this review

was written to outline the unique, pernicious, and

dose-dependent toxic effects of fructose in the pathogenesis

of both metabolic disease and excessive consumption.

Fructose is similar in its metabolism to a more familiar

toxin, ethanol. Therefore, it is necessary to delineate the

hepatic outcomes of metabolism of glucose and ethanol

fi rst. In each case, we will follow a 120 kcal oral bolus of

each carbohydrate.

Hepatic Glucose Metabolism

Glucose is the body’s preferred carbohydrate substrate

for energy metabolism. Each cell in the body can utilize

glucose for energy. Upon ingestion of 120 kcal of glucose

(e.g. two slices of white bread) (Fig. 2a), 24 kcal

(20%) enter the liver; the remaining 96 kcal (80%) of the

glucose bolus are utilized by other organs (41). Plasma

glucose levels rise, insulin is released by the pancreas

which binds to its receptor on the liver, generating two

metabolic signals (42). The fi rst is the phosphorylation of

the forkhead protein Foxo1; which reduces the expression

of the enzymes of gluconeogenesis (GNG), to keep blood

sugar levels from rising (43). The second is an increase

in the expression of the transcription factor Akt, which

causes the majority of G6P (about 20 kcal) to be deposited

as the non-toxic storage carbohydrate glycogen. Only a

small amount of G6P is broken down by the Embden-

Meyerhoff glycolytic pathway to pyruvate (approx 4 kcal).

Pyruvate enters the mitochondria where it is converted

to acetyl-CoA, which then participates in the Krebs tricarboxylic

acid (TCA) cycle, which generates adenosine

triphosphate (ATP), the chemical storage form of energy,

and carbon dioxide. Any pyruvate not metabolized in the

Figure 2: Hepatic metabolism of 120 kcal carbohydrate:

a) glucose; b) ethanol; and c) sucrose (fructose).

Similarities in hepatic metabolism between

ethanol and fructose are highlighted.

THE BARIATRICIAN • 13

mitochondrial TCA cycle exits back into the cytoplasm

as citrate through the “citrate shuttle” (44). This small

amount of citrate (perhaps 0.5 kcal) can serve as substrate

for the process of de novo lipogenesis, which turns excess

citrate into free fatty acids (FFA). These can then be

packaged with apolipoprotein B (apoB) to form very low

density lipoproteins (VLDL; measured in the triglyceride

fraction), which are transported out of the liver, and can

serve as a substrate for atherogenesis or obesity. Thus,

in response to a 120 kcal glucose bolus, only a tiny fraction

(less than 1 kcal) contributes to adverse metabolic

outcomes.

Hepatic Ethanol Metabolism

Ethanol is a naturally occurring carbohydrate, but is

also recognized as both an acute central nervous system

(CNS) toxin and chronic hepatotoxin, due to its unique

dose-dependent hepatic metabolism (Fig. 2b). Upon ingestion

of 120 kcal of ethanol (e.g. 1.5 oz. of 80 Proof

hard spirits), approximately 10% (12 kcal) is metabolized

within the stomach and intestine as a fi rst-pass effect, and

10% is metabolized by the brain and other organs (41).

Thus approximately 96 calories reach the hepatocyte (4

times more than with glucose). Ethanol enters the liver

and is converted by alcohol dehydrogenase 1B to form the

toxic substrate acetaldehyde, which in high dosage can

promote free radical formation and toxic damage. Acetaldehyde

is then quickly metabolized by the enzyme aldehyde

dehydrogenase 2 to acetic acid, which can then enter

the mitochondrial TCA cycle (as per glucose, above); but

now, a large amount of excess citrate is formed (perhaps

70 kcal), which exits into the cytosol and then participates

in synthesis of fatty acids through de novo lipogenesis.

Thus, the metabolism of an ethanol bolus is likely

to cause the liver to increase FFA and VLDL production,

and contribute to dyslipidemia. Intrahepatic lipid and

ethanol are both able to induce the transcription of the

enzyme c-jun N-terminal kinase-1 (JNK-1) (45). This enzyme

is the bridge between hepatic energy metabolism

and infl ammation; and once induced, begins the infl ammatory

cascade (46). As part of its infl ammatory action,

JNK-1 activation induces serine phosphorylation of insulin

receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1) in the liver (47), leading

to hepatic insulin resistance, hepatic triglyceride accumulation

in lipid droplets, with resultant infl ammation (48);

eventually leading to alcoholic steatohepatitis, and ultimately

to cirrhosis. Lastly, FFA can exit the liver, which

can contribute to skeletal muscle insulin resistance. The

VLDL produced (perhaps 30 kcal) can be transported to

the adipocyte to serve as a substrate for obesity, or participate

in atherogenic plaque formation. Thus, in response

to a 120 kcal ethanol bolus, a large fraction (perhaps 40

kcal) can contribute to disease.

Hepatic Fructose Metabolism and the MetS

The liver is the only organ possessing the Glut5 fructose

transporter and is solely responsible for fructose metabolism

(49). Upon ingestion of 120 kcal of sucrose (e.g.

8 oz. of orange juice; composed of 60 kcal glucose and 60

kcal fructose) (Fig. 2c), the entire 60 kcal fructose bolus

reaches the liver, along with 20% of the glucose bolus

(12 kcal), for a total of 72 kcal; in other words, the liver

must handle triple the substrate as it did for glucose alone

Figure 2: Hepatic metabolism of 120 kcal carbohydrate:

a) glucose; b) ethanol; and c) sucrose (fructose).

Similarities in hepatic metabolism between

ethanol and fructose are highlighted.

Figure 2: Hepatic metabolism of 120 kcal carbohydrate:

a) glucose; b) ethanol; and c) sucrose (fructose).

Similarities in hepatic metabolism between

ethanol and fructose are highlighted.

14 • THE BARIATRICIAN

(50). The fructose is immediately converted to fructose-1-

phosphate (F1P) by the enzyme fructokinase (51), depleting

the hepatocyte of intracellular phosphate. This leads

to activation of the enzyme adenosine monophosphate

(AMP) deaminase-1, which converts the adenosine phosphate

breakdown products into the cellular waste product

uric acid (52, 53). Buildup of urate in the circulation inhibits

endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), resulting

in decreased nitric oxide (NO) and contributing to hypertension

(54-56). Almost the entire F1P load (50 kcal) is

metabolized directly to pyruvate, entering the mitochondrial

TCA cycle; again, excess citrate (perhaps 40 kcal)

will be exported to the cytosol, to participate in de

novo lipogenesis, with resultant dyslipidemia from

FFA and VLDL formation. Alternatively, a proportion

(10 kcal) of early glycolytic intermediaries

will recombine to form fructose-1,6-bisphosphate,

which then also combines with glyceraldehyde to

form xylulose-5-phosphate (X5P) (57, 58), which

activates carbohydrate response element binding

protein (ChREBP), also stimulating de novo lipogenesis

and contributing to fructose-induced dyslipidemia

(13, 17, 59-62). FFA export from the liver

leads to uptake into skeletal muscle, resulting in

skeletal muscle insulin resistance (63, 64). Some of

the FFA will precipitate in the hepatocyte, leading

to lipid droplet accumulation (65). Intrahepatic lipid

and FIP are both able to induce the transcription of

JNK-1 (45), which induces serine phosphorylation

of insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1) in the liver

(47), thereby preventing normal insulin-stimulated

tyrosine phosphorylation of IRS-1, and promoting hepatic

insulin resistance. This will prevent Foxo1 from becoming

phosphorylated; Foxo1 enters the nucleus and gluconeogenesis

ensues, raising blood sugar and furthering the

hyperinsulinemia (43). Thus, in response to a 120 kcal

sucrose bolus, a large fraction (perhaps 40 kcal) can contribute

to disease.

Comparison of Hepatic Metabolic Detriments of Fructose

vs. Ethanol

As the brain does not possess the Glut5 transporter,

fructose does not lead to the acute CNS toxic effects like

those of ethanol. However, its hepatic metabolic profi le

strongly resembles that of ethanol. Table 1 demonstrates

the hepatic burden of a can of beer vs. a can of soda. Both

contain 150 kcal per 12 oz. can. The fi rst pass effect of

ethanol in the stomach and intestine removes 10% of the

ethanol. In the case of beer (3.6% ethanol and 6.6% other

carbohydrate (e.g. maltose, which is a glucose disaccharide),

this amounts to 92 calories reaching the liver, while

for soda this amounts to 90 calories reaching the liver.

Thus, hepatic metabolism of either fructose or ethanol results

in the majority of energy substrate being converted

to lipid, without any insulin regulation or ability to be

diverted to non-toxic intermediaries such as glycogen.

Intrahepatic lipid generation promotes infl ammation and

insulin resistance (66). Indeed, the hepatic metabolic

strain of beer and soda are congruous; such that beer or

sugar sweetened beverage consumption similarly led to

visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, and the metabolic

syndrome.

FRUCTOSE EFFECTS ON THE CNS LEAD

TO EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION

The limbic structures central to the hedonic pathway

that motivates the “reward” of food intake are the ventral

tegmental area (VTA) and nucleus accumbens (NA). The

NA is also referred to as the “pleasure center” of the brain

(67) and is the seat of goal-oriented behavior. This is also

the brain area responsive to nicotine, morphine, cannabinoids,

amphetamine, nicotine, and ethanol (68). Food intake

is a result of activation of the reward pathway; for

example, administration of morphine to the NA increases

food intake in a dose-dependent fashion (69). Dopamine

neurotransmission from the VTA to the NA mediate the

reward properties of food (70). Leptin and insulin receptors

are co-localized in VTA neurons (71), and both

hormones have been implicated in modulating rewarding

responses to food and other pleasurable stimuli. Leptin

decreases VTA-NA activity, and extinguishes reward for

food (72, 73).

Soda (12 oz can) Beer (12 oz can)

Calories 150 150

Percent Carbohydrate 10.5% (sucrose) 3.6% (alcohol)

5.3% (other

carbs)

Calories From:

Fructose 75 (4.1 kcal/gm)

Alcohol 90 (7 kcal/gm)

Other carbs 75 (glucose) 60 (maltose)

1st pass stomachintestine

metabolism

Calories Reaching

Liver

90 92

Table 1: Similarities between soda and beer with respect

to hepatic handling

THE BARIATRICIAN • 15

However, increasing the palatability of food by addition

of fructose undermines normal satiety signals, and

as a result increases total caloric consumption both in

direct and indirect ways. Direct effects of fructose include

motivation of food intake independent of energy

need (74-79). Indeed, in animal models, sugar consumption

can lead to dependence (80). There are four indirect

effects of fructose on excessive food consumption. First,

fructose does not stimulate a leptin rise, thus contributing

acutely to a diminished sense of satiety (81). Secondly,

fructose induces hypertriglyceridemia, which reduces

leptin transport across the blood-brain barrier (82). The

third is chronic hyperinsulinemia, which interferes with

leptin signal transduction at the second messenger level

(83). By reducing leptin’s ability to extinguish hunger at

the hypothalamus, and likely leptin’s ability to extinguish

the dopamine reward signal at the NA (84, 85), chronic

hyperinsulinemia fosters a sense of starvation and need

for reward, leading to increased caloric intake (86). Lastly,

fructose has been shown to decrease the production in

hypothalamic neurons of malonyl-CoA, which may help

promote a sense of energy inadequacy (87). Together with

promoting hepatic and muscle insulin resistance, fructose

ingestion may alter the hedonic response to food to drive

excessive energy intake, setting up a positive feedback

cycle of hepatic and CNS dysfunction, leading to persistent

overconsumption. Whether this CNS “vicious cycle”

is tantamount to true addiction or merely psychological

dependence is not yet clear. What is clear is that obesity,

depression, and sugar craving and consumption are linked

epidemiologically and mechanistically (88).

SUMMARY

The hepatic metabolic pathways outlined above demonstrate

that fructose is a dose-dependent chronic hepatotoxin.

Fructose is capable of promoting hepatic and

skeletal muscle insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia,

dyslipidemia, hepatic lipid deposition, and infl ammation;

similar to the dose-dependent toxic effects of ethanol.

Furthermore, the central pathways outlined above demonstrate

that fructose is capable of promoting hypothalamic

leptin resistance and activation of the reward pathway, resulting

in an abnormal drive to continuous consumption,

also similar to ethanol. Indeed, fructose may be described

as “alcohol without the ‘buzz’”.

The metabolic and central similarities between fructose

and ethanol are striking. Other stimulators of the nucleus

accumbens have led to disease and societal deterioration,

and thus have required education, regulation, and in some

instances, interdiction. America attempted ethanol interdiction

(prohibition) in the 1930’s, but was unsuccessful; it

will be even harder to restrict fructose consumption. Furthermore,

the Food and Drug Administration has given

fructose GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status, thus

declining to regulate its use. While many obesity programs

counsel voluntary reductions in personal fructose

consumption, recidivism is frequent; thus, a major effort

in public health education seems daunting. Nonetheless,

we have made signifi cant progress with ethanol reduction,

mostly through regulation. Soda taxes have recently

been proposed both in New York and California, and legislation

for the removal of soft drinks from schools has

been enacted in several states. However, until Yudkin’s

prophecies of 1972 are taken seriously and the public is

made aware of the specifi c dangers of the fructose fraction

of our current Western diet, our current vicious cycle

of consumption and disease will continue.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank Jean-Marc Schwarz,

Ph.D., for his insight and assistance in vetting all the carbohydrate

pathways and biochemistry elaborated in this

article, and Andrea Garber, Ph.D., R.D., Kristine Madsen,

M.D., Patrika Tsai, M.D., M.P.H., Michele Mietus-

Snyder, M.D., and Jung Sub Lim, M.D., Ph.D. for useful

discussions and clinical excellence. ?

About the Author

Robert H. Lustig, MD is Professor of Pediatrics in the

Division of Endocrinology at University of California,

San Francisco. He is a neuroendocrinologist, with specifi

c interests in the central regulation of energy balance.

He is interested in the interactions between leptin

and insulin and how these two hormones are perturbed

to drive weight gain. He is a member of the Endocrine

Society Obesity Task Force and other advisory groups.

References

1. Hill JO, Wyatt HR, Reed GW, Peters JC 2003 Obesity

and the environment: where do we go from here? Science

299:853-855.

2. Ebbeling CB, Pawlak DB, Ludwig DS 2002 Childhood

obesity: public-health crisis, common sense cure. The Lancet

360:473-482.

3. Vos MB, Kimmons JE, Gillespie C, Welsh J, Blanck HM

2008 Dietary fructose consumption among US children and

adults: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination

Survey. Medscape J. Med. 10:160.

4. Ludwig DS, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL 2001 Relation

between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood

obesity: a prospective,observational analysis. The

16 • THE BARIATRICIAN

Lancet 357:505-508.

5. Warner ML, Harley K, Bradman A, Vargas G, Eskenazi B

2006 Soda consumption and overweight status of 2-year-old

Mexican-American children in California. Obesity 14:1966-

1974.

6. Faith MS, Dennison BA, Edmunds LS, Stratton HH 2006

Fruit juice intake predicts increased adiposity gain in children

from low-income families: weight status-by-environment

interaction. Pediatrics 118:2066-2075.

7. Pollan M 2006 The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Penguin, New

York.

8. Marshall RO, Kooi ER 1957 Enzymatic conversion of Dglucose

to D-fructose. Science 125:648-649.

9. Yudkin JS 1972 Pure, white, and deadly. Viking Penguin,

New York.

10. Keys A 1980 Seven countries: a multivariate analysis of

death and coronary heart disease. Harvard University Press,

Cambridge.

11. Howard BV, Manson JE, Stefanick ML, Beresford SA,

Frank G, Jones B, Rodabough RJ, Snetselaar L, Thomson C,

Tinker L, Vitolins M, Prentice R 2006 Low-fat dietary pattern

and weight change over 7 years: the Women’s Health Initiative

Dietary Modifi cation Trial. JAMA 295:39-49.

12. Howard BV, Van Horn L, Hsia J, Manson JE, Stefanick

ML, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Kuller LH, LaCroix AZ, Langer

RD, Lasser NL, Lewis CE, Limacher MC, Margolis KL,

Mysiw WJ, Ockene JK, Parker LM, Perri MG, Phillips L,

Prentice RL, Robbins J, Rossouw JE, Sarto GE, Schatz IJ,

Snetselaar LG, Stevens VJ, Tinker LF, Trevisan M, Vitolins

MZ, Anderson GL, Assaf AR, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black

HR, Brunner RL, Brzyski RG, Caan B, Chlebowski RT, Gass

M, Granek I, Greenland P, Hays J, Heber D, Heiss G, Hendrix

SL, Hubbell FA, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM 2006 Lowfat

dietary pattern and risk of cardiovascular disease: the

Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary

Modifi cation Trial. JAMA 295:655-666.

13. Aeberli I, Zimmermann MB, Molinari L, Lehmann R,

l’Allemand D, Spinas GA, Berneis K 2007 Fructose intake

is a predictor of LDL particle size in overweight schoolchildren.

Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 86:1174-1178.

14. Krauss RM 2001 Atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype and

diet-gene interactions. J. Nutr. 131:340S-343S.

15. Austin MA, Hokanson JE, Edwards KL 1998 Hypertriglyceridemia

as a cardiovascular risk factor. Am. J. Cardiol.

81:7B-12B.

16. Fried SK, Rao SP 2003 Sugars, hypetriglyceridemia, and

cardiovascular disease. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78:873S-880S.

17. Teff KL, Elliott SS, Tschop M, Kieffer TJ, Rader D, Heiman

M, Townsend RR, N.L. K, D’Alessio D, Havel PJ 2004

Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates

postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases

triglycerides in women. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 89:2963-

2972.

18. Johnson RK, Appel LJ, Brands M, Howard BV, Lefevre

M, Lustig RH, Sacks F, Steffen L, Wylie-Rosett J (in press)

Effects of sugars on cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular

disease risk factors. Circulation.

19. Soenen S, Westerterp-Plantenga MS 2007 No differences

in satiety or energy intake after high-fructose corn syrup,

sucrose, or milk preloads. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 86:1586-1894.

20. Anderson GH 2007 Much ado about high-fructose corn

syrup in beverages: the meat of the matter. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.

86:1577-1578.

21. Bray GA 2007 How bad is fructose? Am. J. Clin. Nutr.

86:895-896.

22. Bowen J, Noakes M, Clifton PM 2007 Appetite hormones

and energy intake in obese men after consumption of fructose,

glucose, and whey beverages. Int. J. Obes. 31:1696-

1703.

23. Melanson KJ, Angelopoulos TJ, Nguyen V, Zukley L,

Lowndes J, Rippe JM 2008 High-fructose corn syrup, energy

intake, and appetite regulation Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 88:1738S-

1744S.

24. Stanhope KL, Havel PJ 2008 Endocrine and metabolic

effects of consuming beverages sweetened with fructose, glucose,

sucrose, or high-fructose corn syrup. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.

88:1733S-1737S.

25. Duffey KJ, Popkin BM 2008 High-fructose corn syrup: is

this what’s for dinner? . Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 88:1722S-1732S.

26. White JS 2008 Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup:

what it is and what it ain’t Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 88:1716S-

1721S.

27. Fulgoni V 2008 High-fructose corn syrup: everything

you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask Am. J. Clin. Nutr.

88:1715S.

28. Le KA, Tappy L 2006 Metabolic effects of fructose. Curr.

Opin. Nutr. Metab. Care 9:469-475.

29. Rutledge AC, Adeli K 2007 Fructose and the metabolic

syndrome: pathophysiology and molecular mechanisms.

Nutr. Rev. 65:S13-S23.

30. Johnson RJ, Segal MS, Sautin Y, Nakagawa T, Feig DI,

Kang DH, Gersch MS, Benner S, Sanchez-Lozada LG 2007

Potential role of sugar (fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension,

obesity and the metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney

disease, and cardiovascular disease. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.

86:899-906.

31. Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD 2007 Effects

of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic

review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Public Health 97:667-

675.

32. Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, Colditz GA, Stampfer

MJ, Willett WC, Hu FB 2004 Sugar-sweetened beverages,

weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and

middle-aged women. JAMA 292:927-934.

33. Bazzano LA, Li TY, Joshipura KJ, Hu FB 2008 Intake

of fruit, vegetables, and fruit juices and risk of diabetes in

women. Diab. Care 31:1311-1317.

34. Havel PJ 2005 Dietary fructose: implications for dysTHE

BARIATRICIAN • 17

regulation of energy homeostasis and lipid/carbohydrate

metabolism. Nutr. Rev. 63:133-157.

35. Gross LS, Li S, Ford ES, Liu S 2004 Increased consumption

of refi ned carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes

in the United States: an ecologic assessment. Am. J.

Clin. Nutr. 79:774-779.

36. Elliott SS, Keim NL, Stern JS, Teff K, Havel PJ 2002

Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome.

Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 76:911-922.

37. Dhingra R, Sullivan L, Jacques PF, Wang TJ, Fox CS, Meigs

JB, D’Agostino RB, Gaziano JM, Vasan RS 2007 Soft drink consumption

and risk of developing cardiometabolic risk factors and

the metabolic syndrome in middle-aged adults in the community.

Circulation 116:480-488.

38. Brown CM, Dulloo AG, Montani JP 2008 Sugary drinks in the

pathogenesis of obesity and cardiovascular diseases. Int. J. Obes.

32:528-534.

39. James J, Thomas P, Cavan D, Kerr D 2004 Preventing childhood

obesity by reducing consumption of carbonated drinks:

cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 328:1237.

40. Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Osganian SK, Chomitz VR, Ellenbogen

SJ, Ludwig DS 2006 Effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened

beverage consumption on body weight in adolescents: a randomized,

controlled pilot study. Pediatrics 117:673-680.

41. Zakhari S 2006 Overview: how is alcohol metabolized by the

body? Alcohol Res. Health 29:245-254.

42. Brown MS, Goldstein JL 2008 Selective versus total insulin

resistance: a pathogenic paradox. Cell Metab. 7:95-96.

43. Qu S, Su D, Altomonte J, Kamagate A, He J, Perdomo G, Tse T,

Jiang Y, Dong HH 2007 PPAR? mediates the hypolipidemic action

of fi brates by antagonizing FoxO1. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol.

Metab. 292:E421-E434.

44. Scott CC, Heckman CA, Snyder F 1979 Regulation of ether

lipids and their precursors in relation to glycolysis in cultured

neoplastic cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 575:215-224.

45. Samuel VT, Liu ZX, Qu X, Elder BD, Bilz S, Befroy D, Romanelli

AJ, Shulman GI 2004 Mechanism of hepatic insulin resistance in

non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J. Biol. Chem. 279:32345-32353.

46. Hirosumi J, Tuncman G, Chang L, GoÅNrgu?n CZ, Uysal KT,

Maeda K, Karin M, Hotamisligil GS 2002 A central role for JNK

in obesity and insulin resistance. Nature 420:333-336.

47. Tuncman G, Hirosumi J, Solinas G, Chang L, Karin M, G.S.

H 2006 Functional in vivo interactions between JNK1 and JNK2

isoforms in obesity and insulin resistance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

USA 103:10741-10746.

48. Onishi Y, Honda M, Ogihara T, Sakoda H, Anai M, Fujishiro

M, Ono H, Shojima N, Fukushima Y, Inukai K, Katagiri H, Kikuchi

M, Oka Y, Asano T 2003 Ethanol feeding induces insulin resistance

with enhanced PI 3-kinase activation. Biochem. Biophys.

Res. Comm. 303:788-794.

49. Douard V, Ferraris RP 2008 Regulation of the fructose transporter

Glut5 in health and disease. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol.

Metab. 295:E227-E237.

50. Dirlewanger M, Schneiter P, Jequier E, Tappy L 2000 Effects

of fructose on hepatic glucose metabolism in humans. Am. J.

Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 279:E907-E911.

51. Fiaschi E, Baggio B, Favaro S, Antonello A, Camerin E, Todesco

S, Borsatti A 1977 Fructose-induced hyperuricemia in essential

hypertension. Metabolism 26.

52. Gao XB, Qi L, Qiao N, Choi HK, Curhan G, Tucker KL, Ascherio

A 2007 Intake of added sugar and sugar-sweetended drink

and serum uric acid concentration in U.S. men and women. Hypertension

50:306-312.

53. Taylor EN, Curhan GC 2008 Fructose consumption and the

risk of kidney stones. Kidney Int. 73:489-496.

54. Savoca MR, Evans CD, Wilson ME, Harshfi eld GA, Ludwig

DA 2004 The association of caffeinated beverages with blood

pressure in adolescents. Arch. Ped. Adolesc. Med. 158:473-477.

55. Nakagawa T, Tuttle KR, Short R, Johnson RJ 2006 Hypothesis:

fructose-induced hyperuricemia as a causal mechanism for the

epidemic of the metabolic syndrome. Nat. Clin. Pract. Nephrology

1:80-86.

56. Nguyen S, Choi HK, Lustig RH, Hsu CY (in press) The association

of sugar sweetened beverage consumption with serum uric

acid and blood pressure in a nationally representative sample of

adolescents J. Pediatr.

57. Bonsignore A, Pontremoli S, Mangiarotti G, De Flora A, Mangiarotti

M 1962 A direct interconversion: D-fructose 6-phosphate

to sedoheptulose 7-phosphate and D-xylulose 5-phosphate catalyzed

by the enzymes transketolase and transaldolase. J. Biol.

Chem. 237:3597-3602.

58. Kabashima T, Kawaguchi T, Wadzinski BE, Uyeda K 2003 Xylulose

5-phosphate mediates glucose-induced lipogenesis by xylulose

5-phosphate-activated protein phosphatase in rat liver. Proc.

Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:5107-5112.

59. Faeh D, Minehira K, Schwarz JM, Periasami R, Seongsu P,

Tappy L 2005 Effect of fructose overfeeding and fi sh oil administration

on hepatic de novo lipogenesis and insulin sensitivity in

healthy men. Diabetes 54:1907-1913.

60. Lê KA, Faeh D, Stettler R, Ith M, Kreis R, Vermathen P, Boesch

C, Ravussin E, Tappy L 2006 A 4-wk high-fructose diet alters lipid

metabolism without affecting insulin sensitivity or ectopic lipids

in healthy humans. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 84:1374-1379.

61. Hellerstein MK, Schwarz JM, Neese RA 1996 Regulation of

hepatic de novo lipogenesis in humans. Ann. Rev. Nutr. 16:523-

557.

62. Schwarz JM, Linfoot P, Dare D, Aghajanian K 2003 Hepatic

de novo lipogenesis in normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic

subjects consuming high-fat, low-carbohydrate and low-fat, highcarbohydrate

isoenergetic diets. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 77:43-50.

63. Montell E, Turini M, Marotta M, Roberts M, Noé V, Ciudad CJ,

Macé K, Gómez-Foix AM 2001 DAG accumulation from saturated

fatty acids desensitizes insulin stimulation of glucose uptake in

muscle cells. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 280:E229-E237.

64. Krssak M, Falk Petersen K, Dresner A, DiPietro L, Vogel SM,

Rothman DL, Roden M, Shulman GI 1999 Intramyocellular lipid

concentrations are correlated with insulin sensitivity in humans:

a 1H NMR spectroscopy study. Diabetologia 42:113-116.

65. Cave M, Deaciuc I, Mendez C, Song Z, Joshi-Barve S, Barve

S, McClain C 2007 Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: predisposing

factors and the role of nutrition. J. Nutr. Biochem. 18:184-195.

66. Postic C, Girard J 2008 Contribution of de novo fatty acid

synthesis to hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance: lessons from

genetically engineered mice. J. Clin. Invest. 118:829-838.

67. Phillips PE, Walton ME, Jhou TC 2007 Calculating utility:

preclinical evidence for cost-benefi t analysis by mesolimbic dopamine.

Psychopharmacology 191:483-495.

68. Tupala E, Tiihonen J 2004 Dopamine and alcoholism: neurobiological

basis of ethanol abuse. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol.

18 • THE BARIATRICIAN

Biol. Psychiatry 28:1221-1247.

69. Kelley AE, Bakshi VP, Haber SN, Steininger TL, Will MJ,

Zhang M 2002 Opioid modulation of taste hedonics within the

ventral striatum. Physiol. Behav. 76:365-377.

70. Carr KD, Tsimberg Y, Berman Y, Yamamoto N 2003 Evidence

of increased dopamine receptor signaling in food-restricted rats.

Neuroscience 119:1157-1167.

71. Figlewicz DP, Evans SB, Murphy J, Hoen M, Baskin DG 2003

Expression of receptors for insulin and leptin in the ventral tegmental

area/substantia nigra (VTA/SN) of the rat. Brain Res.

964:107-115.

72. Farooqi IS, Bullmore E, Keogh J, Guillard J, O’Rahiilly S,

Fletcher PC 2007 Leptin regulates striatal regions and human

eating behavior. Science epub Aug 9 2007/science.1144599.

73. Shalev U, Yap J, Shaham Y 2001 Leptin attenuates food

deprivation-induced relapse to heroin seeking. J. Neurosci.

21:RC129:121-125.

74. Erlanson-Albertsson C 2005 How palatable food disrupts appetite

regulation. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 97:61-73.

75. Pelchat ML 2002 Of human bondage: food craving, obsession,

compulsion, and addiction. Physiol. Behav. 76:347-352.

76. Spangler R, Wittkowski KM, Goddard NL, Avena NM, Hoebel

BG, Leibowitz S, F. 2004 Opiate-like effects of sugar on gene expression

in reward areas of the rat brain. Mol. Brain Res. 124:134-

142.

77. Ackroff K, Sclafani A 2004 Fructose-conditioned fl avor preferences

in male and female rats: effects of sweet taste and sugar

concentration. Appetite 42:287-297.

78. Lenoir M, Serre F, Cantin L, Ahmed SH 2007 Intense sweetness

surpasses cocaine reward. PLoS ONE 2:e698.

79. Lindqvist A, Baelemans A, Erlanson-Albertsson C 2008 Effects

of sucrose, glucose and fructose on peripheral and central

appetite signals. Regul. Pept. 150:26-32.

80. Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG 2008 Evidence for sugar addiction:

behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive

sugar intake. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32:20-39.

81. Adams SH, Stanhope RW, Cummings BP, Havel PJ 2008 Metabolic

and endocrine profi les in response to systemic infusion of

fructose and glucose in rhesus macaques. Endocrinol. 149:3002-

3008.

82. Shapiro A, Mu W, Rocal C, Cheng KY, Johnson RJ, Scarpace

PJ 2008 Fructose-induced leptin resistance exacerbates weight

gain in response to subsequent high fat feeding. Am. J. Physiol.

Integr. Comp. Physiol. 295:R1370-R1375.

83. Lustig RH 2006 Childhood obesity: behavioral aberration or

biochemical drive? Reinterpreting the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Nature Clin. Pract. Endo. Metab. 2:447-458.

84. Figlewicz DP 2003 Insulin, food intake, and reward. Seminars

in Clinical Neuropsychiatry 8:82-93.

85. Anderzhanova E, Covasa M, Hajnal A 2007 Altered basal and

stimulated accumbens dopamine release in obese OLETF rats as

a function of age and diabetic status. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr.

Comp. Physiol. 293:R603-R611.

86. Han JC, Rutledge MS, Kozlosky M, Salaita CG, Gustafson

JK, Keil MF, Fleisch AF, Roberts MD, Ning C, Yanovski JA 2008

Insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and energy intake in overweight

children. J Pediatr 152:612-617.

87. Cha SH, Wolfgang M, Tokutake Y, Chohnan S, Lane MD 2008

Differential effects of central fructose and glucose on hypothalamic

malonyl-CoA and food intake. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

105:16871-16875.

88. Mietus-Snyder ML, Lustig RH 2008 Childhood obesity: adrift

in the “limbic triangle”. Ann. Rev. Med. 59:119-134.

About the Author (Patient Handout – page 38)

Dr. Harry Lefebre’s personal interest in weight control

began as an overweight child. He has nurtured his interest

throughout his entire medical career. He was a

Family Physician for 10 years and his medical practice

began focusing entirely on Bariatrics in 1985. Dr.

Lefebre is Board Certifi ed in Bariatrics and has been an

ASBP member since 1983.

So what’s the big blasphemy, you ask?  Here it is:

Until you are eating right, you have no business exercising.

The free radical damage created when you exercise is so great that, unless you are consuming a huge variety of anti-oxidant rich and nutrient dense food, the net loss to your health is greater than any gain you receive from exercise. That’s right… I’m saying that there are people out there who have no business doing anything more strenuous than taking a leisurely walk outdoors in order to get a bit of fresh air and sunshine. But before you decide that this is your get-out-of-jail-free card with regards to exercise, we should talk about what it actually means to “eat right,” what you can do to get yourself there quickly, and what I mean by exercise.

Typically, when a person decides that they are ready to take their health seriously, one of the first things they’re taught is to begin to exercise. There’s all sorts of logic to this, as the benefits of exercise are manifold and dramatic (more on that, and how to reap its benefits, later), but it’s actually not the first thing that a person should do when they set out to get healthy.

For many people, adding exercise to their lives is easier than dramatically changing the way that they eat. And we have been taught that if you exercise enough, you can eat just about anything and stay healthy. If you exercise enough, you may be able to keep the scale weight stable, but that’s a far cry from being healthy and, in fact, you may become unhealthier in certain ways if you exercise vigorously but don’t eat the right food.

The very nature of exercise is to break down tissue in the body. The body responds by building stronger tissue, which is how muscles increase in size, and why you’re able to lift greater amounts of weight, or run further distances, over time. One problem with this, however, is that in addition to building stronger muscles, the body also builds protein carbonyls, which are oxidized protein from free radical damage. Free radical damage is something that the body is equipped to deal with if it is getting adequate nutrition, and if it isn’t exposed to any pollution, chemical or environmental toxins, or physical or emotional stress of any kind. That is to say, if you lived in a pristine environment, where the air, soil, and food were always fresh and unspoiled, with no chemical pollutants, and if you were always happy and stress free, your body could combat free radical production, provided that you ate a whole-food, plant-based diet, rich in a wide spectrum of fruits, vegetables, and grains, and that you avoided all preservatives, sugars, and additional fats. I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t live in that world. I’d like to someday, but for now I have to accept that the air, water, and soil are polluted. I also have to accept that I become stressed at times, and it turns out that mental stress is a huge contributor to free radical production.

Additionally I enjoy exercise, which creates a huge amount of free radicals. Given that I can only partially control the environment I live in, I have to rely on the food that I eat to combat the free radical production in my body. The challenge is that although a diet rich in plant-based, whole foods is necessary to repair free radical damage, it’s not sufficient. It’s just not enough given the world that we live in, the stressful lives that we lead, and the extra damage created by exercise. Eating our fruits and vegetables is vital, but it’s not enough. This is when supplementation with an anti-oxidant rich, whole-food based product is essential. Juice Plus+® is one such product, and while there are others on the market, none of them can boast the more than fifteen different, double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized clinical trials that have been conducted on Juice Plus+®.

Three of these studies were specific to exercise, and executed by top exercise physiologists (Bloomer, 2006; Lamprecht M. O., 2007; Lamprecht M. O., 2009). And two of these studies were conducted on the elite military Cobra forces in Austria during a 28 week intense training period. Amongst the markers of health measured, they noticed that the Juice Plus+® group had produced much less protein carbonyls and had fewer illness days. And the harder they trained, the more they benefited from the whole food nutrition available in Juice Plus+®. This is significant because what every athlete wants is fewer illness days and quicker recovery time between trainings, which would be accomplished by reducing the amount of free radical damage in the body as a result of exercise.

Until you’re getting your phytochemical needs met through whole-food supplementation and/or from your whole-food, plant-based diet, I recommend that you avoid strenuous exercise. Instead, take a 10 – 20 minute walk at a relaxed pace. Allow yourself to use the time to focus on your breathing, to enjoy the fresh air, and to rejuvenate, rather than focusing on building muscle or endurance. Another option is to take a yoga class that focuses on restorative poses, and save the power yoga until you’ve got your nutrition handled.

Sources:
Bloomer, R. G. (2006). Oxidative Stress Response to Aerobic Exercise: Comparison of Antioxidant Supplements. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 38 (6), 1098-1105.

Lamprecht, M. O. (2009). Protein Modification Responds to Exercise Intensity and Antioxidant Supplementation. Medicine & Science in Sports & Medicine, 155-163.

Lamprecht, M. O. (2007, December). Several Indicators of Oxidative Stress, Immunity, and Illness Improved in Trained Men Consuming an Encapsulated Juice Powder Concentrate for 28 Weeks. The Journal of Nutrition, 2737-2741.

Part 2
What should athletes (and the rest of us) be eating?
Whether you’re a competitive athlete, a weekend warrior, or someone who exercises regularly for fitness and enjoyment, you’ve likely been told that when you exercise you need a great deal of protein. Even the most serious of athletes can thrive with just 8-10% of their total calories coming from protein, but more than 10% is not healthy for them or anyone else. The catastrophe that is the Standard American Diet is filled with processed foods and animal products, which are acid-producing foods. Over time this release of acid creates metabolic acidosis, which seems to create a muscle wasting response. In a study conducted at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, researchers found that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables offsets the wasting of muscle tissue due to metabolic acidosis.
Generally when people think of acidic foods, citrus foods come to mind. In reality, foods should be considered alkaline or acidic based on the residues that are created in the body and excreted in the urine, rather than whether they are alkaline or acidic themselves. Thus the renal acid load (the acid load on the kidneys) can be measured through analysis of urine. What becomes clear is that fruits and vegetables are metabolized to alkaline residues and therefore prevent metabolic acidosis and muscle wasting. And they are the richest source of the phytonutrients that act as natural antioxidants and natural anti-inflammatory agents. These should be the staple of an athlete’s diet.
We’ve been taught that milk and cheese are healthy sources of calcium and protein, but their protein profile is so high that the body responds by leaching calcium bicarbonate from bones. This is the beginning of the osteoporosis spiral: the bones grow weaker, and then people feel that they need to consume more dairy in an effort to increase calcium intake. But the body can’t handle the protein load from the extra dairy, and the cycle of leaching and alkalinizing begins again. It’s not just dairy, however, that’s dangerous to eat. Any protein, whether it is from animal sources or from soy, creates acidosis when too much is consumed. And you’d be surprised by how little protein is actually “too much” protein.
The most protein that the average person will ever need to consume in their lives is when they are a baby. Babies need lots of protein and fat to support the tremendous growth of muscle, bone, and brain that occurs during the first two years of life. But here’s the kicker: this super diet that a baby needs should be comprised of approximately 6% protein! Breast milk, nature’s perfect food, is made up of 6% protein. That’s it. At no other time during a person’s life is there more need for protein than during infancy. So if Mother Nature designed breast milk to have 6% protein, then that is all we ever need in our diet to be healthy. However, it is hard for people, especially athletes, to shake the belief that they don’t need all that protein. That is because whenever you reduce your protein intake, it takes time for the body to adjust to the new diet and there is a period of detoxification that can make a person feel weak. There are other confounding factors that are beyond the scope of this article. However, the stakes are high and it is important to explore the long-term benefits of a more plant-based diet. With a variety of plants (whole grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, beans, nuts and seeds) it is impossible to get less than 8% of total calories from protein. Plants are also a source of slow-releasing proteins which are more healthy than the quick hit of animal protein. Just as slow-releasing complex carbohydrates are more healthy than fast-releasing simple sugars, slow-releasing plant proteins are more beneficial than fast-releasing animal protein.
So how has it come to be that as a culture we consume so much protein? The diet industry, and its fascination with high-protein, low carbohydrate diets is partly to blame. But the diet industry and the doctors and nutritionists who are part of it were first duped by the food industry. It is the food industry that has driven our desire, and perceived need, for large amounts of protein in the diet.
Whey is a byproduct from the creation of cheese, and for centuries it’s simply been thrown away. But the dairy industry saw an opportunity to reuse this waste product, and protein supplements were born. Today, you can walk into any gym or health food store and find whey-based protein products that are marketed as healthy means of building muscle. Even worse than athletes believing that they need huge amounts of protein is that this myth has trickled down to the rest of society so that even sedentary people are making high protein shakes with whey (or soy) protein, convinced that more protein and fewer carbohydrates are the keys to weight loss and health. And people are giving their children high protein snacks, shakes, and bars, believing these to be healthy alternatives to junk food like cookies or candy bars. While junk food is never a good choice, young children certainly don’t need to be consuming these high protein meal replacement bars and drinks. Fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are what kids should be snacking on in order to build muscle and fuel their brains. It is quite useful, in fact, to think about the analogy of food as fuel when we discuss how athletes, and the rest of us, should eat.
For the human body, the “gasoline” that fuels are the macronutrients in our food: carbohydrates, proteins and fats. These macronutrients provide the calories and building blocks for the body. The most effective source for energy turns out to be complex carbohydrates as found in whole grains. For this reason, whole grains are essential to the diet of an athlete, and to anyone who is exercising regularly. Acceptable whole grain choices are: all types of rice, other than white rice; quinoa, which is naturally high in protein, and has a nice chewy texture and pleasant taste that works well in recipes where rice is usually called for; buckwheat; amaranth; spelt; steel-cut oats; and millet. Chickpeas are an excellent source of protein, and can build muscles just as well as meat can.
If macronutrients are the “gasoline” that fuels the human body, then the micronutrients found in plants are the “oil” that protect this delicate human machinery. Just as we need to regularly put new, clean oil in our cars, we regularly need to replenish the plants in our diets. Plants have so much to offer, and eating a rainbow variety (every color fruit and vegetable that you can find that’s grown locally and organically) will serve to keep you healthy – to keep your engine running smoothly. You want to eat fiber rich, anti-oxidant packed, nutrient dense leafy greens every day: kale, chard, bok choi, spinach, collard greens, dandelion greens, mustard greens, arugula, etc. They are excellent in a “Green Drink”, which is the fruit and vegetable breakfast smoothie that I drink every morning (see Green Drink recipe), but they’re great lightly sautéed in a bit of water, with a squeeze of lemon, or stir fried with garlic (again with water – there’s no need to use oil) and a heap of your other favorite vegetables, served over the whole grain of your choice. Greens aren’t just high in fiber and pretty in color. They truly are the “oil” that protects the various tissues in your body, all of which have unique needs. For example, too much exercise contributes to macular degeneration, but dark greens are high in luteins which can protect against macular degeneration. Luteins also may prevent clogging of the arteries, and are a powerful anti-inflammatory. And luteins are just one example of the manifold benefits that come from eating a wide range of fruits and vegetables.
The bottom line is that athletes need to be eating whole grains, fruits, and vegetables all day, every day, to keep their motors running. They also need to supplement with an anti-oxidant rich, whole-food based product like Juice Plus+®. Athletes literally cannot eat enough fruits and vegetables to get all of the nutrients they need to combat free-radical damage, so the right source of supplementation is key for them.

And those of us who aren’t athletes, and who like to bike, swim, run, or do yoga for general fitness and enjoyment, should be eating the same exact stuff: a whole-food, plant-based diet with tons of leafy greens, and fruits and vegetables in every color of the rainbow, along with a whole-food based supplement like Juice Plus+®. Your kids can eat this way, too!

Part 3
The first article in my series on exercise focused on the nutritional needs of people who exercise. Contrary to current recommendations on exercise, weight loss, and diet, I urge people to avoid any strenuous physical activities unless the resulting increase in free radical damage, or exercise-induced oxidative stress, is being offset by consuming plenty of antioxidants from whole foods.

But let’s say you are balancing exercise-induced oxidative stress with enough fruit and vegetable nutrition in your diet: you’re eating a wide variety of organic vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, and you’re supplementing with a product like Juice Plus. What’s next? What’s the best way to exercise?

In terms of weight training, most personal trainers and exercise manuals would have you focus on the large and visible muscle groups in your arms, legs, chest, butt, and abdomen. Building these muscles will give you peripheral strength and may help you look good, but they won’t provide much in the way of deep strength and true health. The most important muscles to build and train are the ones that you can’t see, but you can feel, which are referred to as core muscles. Core strength is the most important aspect of a healthy physique, and focusing on these critical muscles will not only give you strength and stamina, over time it will help you to tone and highlight the muscles that we all want to show off in our arms, legs, bellies, and butts. But you have to do the deep, inner work first. As with a building or a sculpture, you’ve got to build from the inside out; when the foundation is strong, the upper floors and extremities are strengthened as well.

Gravity takes a huge toll on the spine, and the only thing that can offset this is core strength. Even though I eat well and am very physically active, my spine still has problems and is compressed. Most people are in the same boat as I am, or a boat that’s even less sea-worthy. If you don’t believe me, go get an x-ray: if you’re over 40, you have discs that are starting to degenerate, which can be very serious.

Rule #1 when it comes to exercise and moving your body is: learn how to walk straight. If you can support your weight and hold yourself up using core strength, your spine will thank you, and many aspects of health will be positively affected.

Another mistake that fitness trainers and do-it-yourself-exercisers make is that instead of focusing on core strength and posture, they focus on cardiovascular fitness. Cardiovascular activity is excellent for someone who is eating well, and there are great benefits to huffing and puffing while exercising (especially outdoors), but most people don’t do enough strength training. While most of us desire a six-pack, there are more important muscles to strengthen and build than the rectus abdominal muscles that you can see. It may look good, but won’t actually contribute to your health and longevity. What you really want to focus on and engage are the big transverse abdominal muscles that start under the ribcage and go all the way down your abdomen. I think it’s valuable for anyone interested in exercise to get an anatomy book and learn about the small muscles that hold up the spine, as well as all of the other muscle groups in the body.
Pilates and yoga classes are excellent places to learn about core muscles and to begin to work on deep muscle strength. As a certified yoga instructor I’m often asked about Bikram, or “hot” yoga. I don’t generally recommend hot yoga because I believe that the body needs a great deal of airflow, ideally found outside. In an over-heated room, it’s easy to overstretch and injure yourself without knowing it. Instead, I prefer to do yoga in a comfortably warm room, so that the body heats from the inside out, rather than jacking up the temperature in a room and making you feel hot on the outside before your muscles are actually warmed up.
Finally, it’s important to remember that it’s hard to have that six-pack, or those slim, toned arms, if you don’t eat right. A plant-based, whole-food diet will get you there faster than traditional stomach crunches or bicep curls. Animal products contribute to that beer-gut that most men dread, and cutting them out is the first place to start when attempting to exercise and gain health.

The Role of Antioxidants in
the Endurance Athlete

David B. Phillips, M.D.

Much has been talked about in the sports and science
community about the adverse affects of prolonged and
strenuous exercise as it relates to the production of
free radicals in an athlete’s body. What are these by-
products of aerobic exercise and why are they
damaging to the human body? More importantly, what
role do antioxidants play in neutralizing these damaging
molecules and what can we as athletes do to facilitate
this protective process?

An Apple a Day

The ‘Radical’ Concept
Free radicals are highly reactive species produced
during various molecular processes in the human body.
While environmental factors such as pollution, radiation
and cigarette smoke can spawn free radicals, in this
article we will focus on those free radicals produced
during endurance exercise.

Free radicals are atoms or groups of atoms with an odd
or unpaired number of elections and can be formed
when oxygen interacts with certain molecules. Once
formed, these reactive radicals can start a chain
reaction, similar to a domino effect. In other words,
these compounds attack the nearest stable molecule,
“stealing” its electrons in order to gain stability. When
the “attacked” molecule loses its electron, it becomes
a free radical itself, beginning a chain reaction. Once
the process is started it can cascade, resulting in the
disruption of a living cell. Free radical damage not only
contributes to accelerated aging, it also causes
damage to immune cells. It’s not uncommon for
endurance athletes such as triathletes or marathoners
to have a higher incidence of colds and upper
respiratory infections after competition and intense
training. Free radical damage to cellular DNA plays a
significant role in the evolution of certain cancers,
heart disease and neurological disorders such as
Alzheimer’s disease.

Exercise and Oxidative Damage
Endurance exercise can increase oxygen utilization
from 10 to 20 times over the resting state and up to 100
to 200 times in working muscles. This greatly
increases the generation of free radicals via oxidative
metabolism in skeletal mitochondria. Fortunately, the
body has an elaborate antioxidant defense system that
utilizes dietary intake of antioxidant vitamins and
minerals as well as our body’s own enzyme systems to
decrease concentrations of the most harmful oxidants
in tissues. Regular endurance training has been shown
to enhance our internal antioxidant defense system,
these changes of which occur slowly over time and
appear to parallel other adaptations to exercise. When
free radical production exceeds the ability of
antioxidant enzymes and nutritionally obtained
antioxidants to neutralize them, oxidative stress
results. So, what can we as endurance athletes do to
minimize the damage caused by the inevitable overflow
of free radicals during training and competition?

Fruits and Vegetables:
The Power of the Pyramid!
A recent change in dietary intake of fruits and
vegetables by the USDA has placed a greater emphasis
on increasing our daily consumption from the previous
5-7 servings a day to 7-9 servings and up to 13 servings
or more for endurance athletes! Vitamins C, E, and beta
carotene are the primary vitamin antioxidants.
Previous research looking into the effects of
supplementing our diets with these isolated nutrients
has yielded equivocal results. Once thought to be
beneficial to cardiac health, isolated vitamin E
supplementation has now been questioned. Beta
carotene supplements have been shown to increase
lung cancer in smokers as well as contribute to
thickening of the lining of arteries.

Recent studies now point to the synergistic role of
numerous antioxidants obtained from the consumption
of whole foods such as fruits and vegetables.
Therefore, a diet rich in naturally occurring antioxidants
appears to outweigh the risks inherent to
supplementing one’s diet with isolated laboratory made
supplements. Furthermore, various key trace minerals
such as zinc, selenium and manganese found in
naturally occurring foods are needed for the proper
functioning of various endogenous antioxidant enzymes.

Training Right, Eating Right:
Final Thoughts
The endurance athlete faces a challenge of balancing
daily aerobic exercise with preventative measures that
minimize the damaging affects of oxidative stress.
Clearly, fruits and vegetables rich in antioxidants are
vital to this balance. Many of us may find it difficult to
consume the recommended amounts of fruits and
vegetables to achieve this balance. For those who are
unable to take in enough daily produce, cryoevaporated
fruits and vegetables in capsule form, such as Juice
Plus+, make it possible to supplement what we are not
able to consume when we visit the salad bar.
Antioxidant supplementation helps to bridge the gap
between what we eat on a daily basis (what we know
we should be eating!) and the optimal amount of
phytonutrients needed to combat the damaging effects
of oxidative stress.

As endurance athletes, it is important to be aware of
not only the benefits of aerobic exercise but the
potentially negative aspects training and racing can
have on our bodies and long term health. Finding a
healthy balance between training and proper nutrition
will go a long way in promoting longevity in any
endurance athletic activity.

(Dr. Phillips recently completed the 2005 Ironman World
Championships in Kona; he is a USAT All-American and
the 2004 USAT National Long Course Masters
Champion; he was ranked #1 USAT Southeast Masters
Division 2004 and was also an All-American swimmer at
Harvard University.)

REFERENCES

“Antioxidants: What are They and What Role Do
They Play in Physical Activity and Health?”
Priscilla M. Clarkson, Ph.D.
“The Role of Antioxidant Vitamins and Enzymes in
the Prevention of Exercise-induced Muscle
Damage,” Sports Medicine, 1996; 21: 213-38
“Antioxidants: Role of Supplementation to Prevent
Exercise-induced Oxidative Stress,” Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 25(2): 232-236,
1993, Feb.
“Oxidative Stress in Endurance Athletes,”
Triathlete Magazine, 256: 74-76, 2005, August.
(Excellent in-depth review of specific nutritional
antioxidants.)

Deciding what to eat for dinner can be mind-bending. How do we keep track of the ever-evolving recommendations for what to put on, and leave off, the plate? Red meat might cause cancer! But don’t replace it with tofu—soy concoctions might be carcinogenic, too! Don’t even try to figure out where carbs stand this week. And the verdict on coffee, chocolate, and alcohol changes faster than you can order a mocha martini.

Vitamins—with their promise to bridge the gap between the nutrients our bodies need and those they get—have always seemed reassuringly simple: Just pop a multivitamin and let your body soak in those extra nutrients. But not any longer. During the past few years, study after study has raised doubts about what, if any, good vitamins actually do a body. They could even pose some real medical risks.

Half of all American adults take some sort of nutritional supplement. But research on a wide variety of patient populations and medical conditions has failed to find much evidence that multivitamins, the most commonly used of the lot, prevent major chronic diseases in healthy people. The most recent knock came this spring, when a study of more than 160,000 post-menopausal women, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that the all-in-one pills did not prevent cancer, heart attacks, or strokes and did not reduce overall mortality.

Individual vitamins and minerals haven’t fared much better under scientific scrutiny, with research debunking some of the reputed benefits of vitamin B6, calcium, niacin, and others. In 2006, the National Institutes of Health convened an independent panel of experts to evaluate the evidence that vitamins could prevent chronic disease. The scientists ultimately issued a report stating that studies “do not provide strong evidence for beneficial health-related effects of supplements taken singly, in pairs, or in combinations.”

The news on antioxidants, the darlings of the vitamin menagerie, is even more troubling. These compounds, which include vitamins A, C, and E, selenium, beta carotene, and folate, fight free radicals, unstable compounds thought to damage cells and contribute to aging. But not only do antioxidant supplements fail to protect against heart disease, stroke, and cancer; they actually increase the risk of death, according to a 2007 analysis of research on more than 232,000 people, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as otherstudies.

Exactly why they might increase mortality is unclear, but doctors at prominent research institutions—including New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center—have highlighted some unsettling connections between supplemental antioxidants and an increased risk of a variety of cancers. Popping certain kinds of antioxidant pills can feed latent cancers growing in the body, for instance, and reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy. These observations make a certain intuitive sense, since vitamins and minerals play an important role in the replication of healthy cells—why shouldn’t they be doing the same for cancerous cells? (Feeding mice a diet poor in antioxidants, on the other hand, can actually help shrink their brain tumors.) Scientists are also beginning to suspect that the body may actually need free radicals—which help kill cancer cells, ensure optimal immune function, and regulate blood sugar, among other things—so we shouldn’t necessarily be mopping them all up.

The list of worrisome findings goes on, but it doesn’t seem to have put a dent in the $25 billion supplement industry. Sales are not only robust but rising in the United States. Doctors still recommend multivitamins as part of basic preventative care. Despite the demonstrated risk, as many as 80 percent of cancer survivors swallow a daily dose, according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2008.

Vitamins have a powerful psychological hold over us. As precautionary health measures go, supplements are easy. Compare the two seconds required to swallow a pill with the constant vigilance necessary to exercise and eat right.And the fact that vitamins are available without a prescription makes them seem safe—even though it probably makes them less so, since they’re not regulated by the FDA as drugs, and manufacturers are not required to prove that they’re effective at treating disease.*

But the risk-benefit calculus has changed. We know more about the risks, and it’s clear that there’s also less potential benefit. During the early 20^th century, diseases like scurvy and rickets were common until researchers began to isolate compounds in food—which became known as vitamins—that could altogether cure these ailments. It must have been remarkable to see devastating diseases alleviated with common foodstuffs.

During an era when many people legitimately had nutritional deficiencies, placing your bets on a multi might have been reasonable. But today, of course, actual deficiencies are much less common. Our salt, milk, flour, juice, cereal, and more are all fortified with extra nutrients, and a 2009 study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine suggests that most of the kids who end up taking vitamins in the United States today don’t actually need them.

If vitamins are useful for anything, it’s probably for tapping into our old friend the placebo effect. In a 2008 survey, 38 percent of doctors confessed to recommending vitamins because they believed the pills could promote health purely through the power of positive expectations. Consider a famous 1975 study designed to probe whether vitamin C supplements alleviated colds better than a placebo, an inert lactose tablet. It turned out that it didn’t matter much which pill the subjects were actually taking. What mattered was what they thought they were getting: Those who believed they were taking vitamin C had fewer and milder cases of the sniffles than those who believed they were just swallowing lactose. That would be reason enough to pop a supplement—there are worse things than deceiving yourself into better health—if it weren’t for the emerging evidence that the pills might be capable of causing real harm.

That’s not to say that vitamins aren’t important. Vitamins are critical to all sorts of bodily functions, and we have to get them through diet because our bodies can’t make them on their own. The Office of Dietary Supplements at the NIH recommends that we get certain levels of a variety of kinds of vitamins, and that recommendation is sound. But encouraging us to get a complete suite of vitamins is not the same as suggesting that we get them by popping a pill.

In fact, the reports littering the ODS site seem to converge upon the same point: There is some good news for supplements, but it’s extremely limited. The 2006 NIH panel, for instance, concluded that postmenopausal women should probably take calcium and vitamin D to safeguard their bones; that pregnant women should keep taking folate; and that adults with age-related macular degeneration, an eye disease, should take a combination of antioxidants and zinc. But beyond that, the panel’s strongest recommendation was that scientists conduct further research on the risks and benefits of vitamins. For every study that turns up disconcerting vitamin side effects, there seem to be two more that conclude that we simply don’t know enough yet about supplements to make evidence-based recommendations.

Until we do, we should stop treating supplements like health candy and more like prescription meds, to be used only when there’s a demonstrated need. Doctors should create individualized regimes, tailored to a particular patient’s deficiencies. As for the rest of us, we can put the pills back on the shelf and save our cash for one of those martinis.

Correction,Jan. 8, 2010: This article originally and incorrectly stated that vitamin supplements are not regulated at all by the FDA. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Posted by: Dr. Mercola

1. Canned Tomatoes

The expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A

The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Acidity — a prominent characteristic of tomatoes — causes BPA to leach into your food.

2. Corn-Fed Beef

The expert: Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of books on sustainable farming

Cattle were designed to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. A recent comprehensive study found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium.

3. Microwave Popcorn

The expert: Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group

Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize — and migrate into your popcorn.

4. Nonorganic Potatoes

The expert: Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board

Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting.

5. Farmed Salmon

The expert: David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany

Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT.

6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones

The expert: Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers.

7. Conventional Apples

The expert: Mark Kastel, codirector of the Cornucopia Institute

If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides with Parkinson’s disease.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

This is one of the best “foods to avoid” lists I’ve seen come out of the mainstream media. It is very rare when this happens, but I agree with every food on this list.The reality is that most food nowadays is far from pure. Pesticide residues have been detected in 50 percent to 95 percent of all commercially grown U.S. foods, and that is only one type of toxin.

Babies are actually born toxic due to the toxic load of their mothers, some of which comes from dietary contaminants and food additives. One study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that blood samples from newborns contained an average of 287 toxins, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides, and Teflon chemicals!

The list above is a great starting point to cleaning up your diet, but focusing on organically grown, biodynamic whole foods is really the key to success here.

I want to expand on some of the toxic foods mentioned above, as well as add a few more to the list, so you can significantly reduce your exposure to toxins in the foods you eat.

Why Fresh is Better Than Canned

Many leading brands of canned foods contain BPA — a toxic chemical linked to reproductive abnormalities, neurological effects, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, heart disease and other serious health problems.

According to Consumer Reports’ testing, just a couple of servings of canned food can exceed the safety limits for daily BPA exposure for children.

The current US federal guidelines put the daily upper limit of “safe” exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. You should know, however, that even low-level exposure to BPA can be hazardous to your health, and Consumer Reports’ testing found that eating popular canned foods may expose you to excessive amounts of BPA:

• Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans had BPA levels ranging from 35.9 ppb to as much as 191 ppb
• Progresso Vegetable Soup had BPA levels ranging from 67 to 134 ppb
• Campbell’s Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup had BPA levels ranging from 54.5 to 102 ppb

So, ideally avoid canned foods entirely and stick to fresh fruits and vegetables, or switch over to brands that use glass containers instead.

Grass-Fed is the Healthy Choice for Beef

Grass-fed beef is vastly superior to grain-fed beef, and in fact it’s the clear beef of choice you should be eating. It is far more important to choose grass-fed than to choose organic, as most grass-fed beef are also organic

Not only is it raised in a more sustainable way for the environment and a more humane way for the animal, but it’s the superior choice for your health.

Grass-fed beef, for instance, is lower in fat than regular beef and, more importantly, contains higher amounts of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a fatty acid. Grass-fed animals have from three to five times more CLA than grain-fed animals.

CLA has been making headlines for its extreme health benefits, which include:

• Fighting cancer and diabetes
• Helping you lose weight
• Increasing your metabolic rate, a positive benefit for promoting normal thyroid function
• Helping you maintain normal cholesterol and triglyceride levels
• Enhancing your immune system

Keep in mind that grass-fed meat is almost always preferable to certified organic meat also because most organic beef is fed organic corn, which is what causes the myriad of health problems associated with eating beef. If you can find organic, grass-fed meat, that would be ideal.

What You Need to Know About Milk

I strongly recommend you avoid milk that has the added growth hormone rBGH.

Samuel Epstein, MD, a scientist at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, is one of the top experts on cancer prevention, and he has been speaking out against rBGH in milk, the so-called “crack for cows,” for years.

For starters, Dr. Epstein points out that rBGH milk is “supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), excess levels of which have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.”

But that’s not all.

“This milk is qualitatively and quantitatively different from natural milk,” states Dr. Epstein. “In addition to the issue of increased IGF-1 levels, these differences include:

• Contamination of milk by the GM hormone rBGH
• Contamination by pus and antibiotics resulting from the high incidence of mastitis in rBGH-injected cows
• Contamination with illegal antibiotics and drugs used to treat mastitis and other rBGH-induced disease
• Increased concentration of the thyroid hormone enzyme thyroxin-5′-monodeiodinase
• Increased concentration of long-chain and decreased concentration of short-chain fatty acids
• A reduction in levels of the milk protein casein.”

You very well may be drinking rBGH milk and not know it, as no labels are required. This is despite the fact that nearly every American wants it labeled, but the government, as usual, bowed to industry lobbyists and, amazingly, does not require this on the label.

However, as increasing numbers of people and dairies choose to avoid rBGH, you can find labels that say “rBGH-free” or a similar variation. Organic milk is also rBGH-free.

This is certainly preferable to milk that contains this dangerous hormone … but I still don’t recommend drinking any milk, organic or otherwise, that is pasteurized.

You can avoid both the risks of rBGH and pasteurization by only drinking raw milk that comes from a small farmer you know and trust. This is the only way to drink milk if you’re interested in protecting your health.

The Most Important Foods to Buy Organic

Most fruits and vegetables contain unacceptable and unsafe levels of pesticides, so it’s a wise choice to buy organic produce as often as you can.

However, if you need to pick and choose which foods to buy organic, the most important foods to buy organic are animal products — not produce. This is because animal foods, which are raised on pesticide-laced feed, tend to have higher concentrations of pesticides.

Non-organic meats have up to five times more pesticides than non-organic vegetables.

Non-organic butter can have up to 20 times as many pesticides as non-organic vegetables.

So when prioritizing your purchases, look for organic meats, eggs and dairy products before anything else.

There is one exception to this rule, and that is you may be better off choosing fresh local foods over organic foods. Often, locally grown foods are raised according to organic standards at a more affordable price.

Is Farmed Salmon the Only Seafood to Avoid?

Farmed salmon is among the worst seafood choices out there, as numerous studies show the salmon contain toxins and cancer-causing pollutants. Farmed salmon typically have at least 10 times more cancer-causing persistent organic pollutants than their wild counterparts.

That said, I do not agree that farmed salmon is the only fish you need to stay away from.

A recent study from the U.S. Geological Survey detected mercury in every fish sampled from nearly 300 U.S. streams. Among them, 27 percent contained mercury at levels that equaled or exceeded the U.S. EPA’s criterion for the protection of human health, and more than two-thirds exceeded mercury safety levels for fish-eating mammals like mink and otters.

Therefore, I do not recommend eating any fish — whether farm-raised or from an ocean, lake, river or stream — unless you have lab results in your hand that can attest to its purity.

There are still some safe areas out there, such as in certain pristine waters in Alaska, but it will take some searching on your end to seek them out. The ONLY safe fish I have discovered so far is Vital Choice wild red salmon, which remains the only source of fish I’ll eat.

Eating smaller fish, like anchovies and sardines, is also an option, as their small size makes them far less likely to be contaminated.

An important point to remember if you’re not eating fish is that your body still has a requirement for omega-3 fats. Fortunately, you can easily meet your omega-3 needs by taking a high-quality krill oil supplement, instead of risking your health by eating contaminated fish.

Another Food to Avoid: Unfermented Soy

This one did not make the above list, but it’s one I would definitely add.

Any soy that is unfermented — soy milk, tofu, soybean oil, soy burgers, and all the other processed soy products out there all belong to this category — is not a health food and in fact is not a food I would advise eating at all. This is true whether it is “organic” or not.

Soy infant formula is also on this list and is one of the absolute worst foods you can give your baby.

Unfermented soy products have been linked to everything from reproductive disorders and infertility to cancer and heart disease.

Further, unfermented soy contains isoflavones that are clearly associated with reduced thyroid function. Eating unfermented soy products is likely the single largest cause of hypothyroidism in women.

Another major problem with unfermented soy is that it contains natural toxins known as “antinutrients.” This includes a large quantity of inhibitors that deter your enzymes needed for protein digestion.

While a small amount of these antinutrients would likely not be a problem, the amount of soy that many Americans are now eating (and drinking in the form of soy milk) is quite significant.

The result of consuming too many of soy’s antinutrients is extensive gastric distress and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake, which can result in pancreatic impairment and cancer.

For more details on soy foods, including the fermented varieties that can actually be healthy, please read Why This Type of Soy is Better.

Guidelines for Healthy Food

Whatever food you’re looking to eat, whether imported organic or locally grown, from either your local supermarket or a farmer’s market, here are the signs of a high-quality, healthy food:

1. It’s grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)
2. It’s not genetically modified
3. It contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs
4. It does not contain artificial anything, nor any preservatives
5. It is fresh (if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh conventional produce, the latter may be the better option)
6. It did not come from a factory farm
7. It is grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free-range access to the outdoors)
8. It is grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)

If the food meets these criteria, it is likely a good choice. Most often, the best place to find these foods is from a sustainable agricultural group in your area. You can also review my free nutrition plan to get started on a healthy eating program today.

Dr. Mercola is the founder of the world’s most visited natural health web site,Mercola.com. You can learn the hazardous side effects of OTC Remedies by getting a FREE copy of his latest special report The Dangers of Over the Counter Remedies by going to his Report Page.

consumption for Americans

December 2, 5:26 PMOregon Natural Health Examiner

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has released the findings of their first study on how many fruits and vegetables Americans are eating within each state. The CDC’s focus on preventative health care rides on the coat tails of research these last few years that points to the overwhelming advantages of a fresh, balanced diet. The research summary for this report states, “Fruits and vegetables are important for optimal child growth, weight management, and chronic disease prevention.”
The research is accompanied by a nationwide program to improve the diets of Americans. This program is set to be released next month as the Healthy People 2010system. It includes sharing information and recipes for preparing fruits and vegetables as they arrive in season to stores and farmer’s markets. The CDC is incorporating the involvement of state officials, health professionals, employers, retail owners, farmers, school staff, and community members increase outreach and make this program a success.
Healthy People 2010 hopes to increase fruit consumption by Americans by 75% and vegetable consumption by 50%. Oregonians needed a little more improvement in their diets. Only 25 -29% of our state’s residents ate vegetables three or more times a day while 30 -34% ate fruit two or more times a day.
The CDC has a user friendly web site designed to encourage the average citizen to get more involved in their dietary choices. The site includes a short quiz to determine how many fruits and vegetables are needed daily for various body types, budget tips, recipes and a fruit and veggie of the month calendar. Clicking on the tab marked interactive tools brings the viewer to a program that analyzes the meal choices that the viewer enters with a simple drag and click of the mouse. Healthy People 2010 is cosponsored by the National Cancer Institute, USDA, FDA, American Cancer Society, and the National Council for Fruit and Vegetable Nutrition Coordinators.
Vintage PSA encourages children to eat fruit.

An important advantage to having plant-based foods as an abundant part of your daily diet appears to result from thephytochemicals they contain. As noted in the UF findings recently published in the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, these natural substances prevent oxidative stress– a process linked to being overweight and to the onset of diseases including heart disease and diabetes. Phytochemicals include lycopene from tomatoes, isoflavones from soy, beta carotene from carrots, anthocyanins from blueberries, allicin from garlic, and many more.

Without enough phytochemicals and antioxidants to counteract oxidative stress, damaging free radicals cause inflammation and other toxic problems in the body. In overweight people, excess fat tissue and certain enzymes that are more active also trigger the production of excessive free radicals, according to a media statement by the UF researchers.

The research team, headed by Heather K. Vincent, Ph.D., studied a group of 54 young adults divided into a normal weight and an overweight or obese group, analyzing their dietary patterns over several days. Surprisingly, the people in both groups took in about the same amount of calories. However, the overweight and obese young people were found to be eating fewer plant-based foods. That means those who were carrying around excess pounds were consuming fewer protective trace minerals and phytochemicals and consuming far more saturated fats.

In addition, those eating less plant-based foods were found to have higher levels of oxidative stress and inflammation in their bodies than their normal-weight counterparts. This is a crucial finding because oxidative stress and inflammation are processes clearly associated with the onset of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and joint disease.

“Diets low in plant-based foods affect health over the course of a long period of time,” Dr. Vincent explained in a statement to the press. “This is related to annual weight gain, inflammation and oxidative stress. Those are the onset processes of disease that debilitate people later in life.”

“People who are obese need more fruits, vegetables, legumes and wholesome unrefined grains,” she said. “In comparison to a normal-weight person, an obese person is always going to be behind the eight ball because there are so many adverse metabolic processes going on.”

In order to get enough protective phytochemicals daily, the UF researchers concluded that people should try to consume plant-based foods such as leafy greens, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes at the start of each meal. As a way to encourage people to get enough phytochemicals from meals and snacks, Dr. Vincent also called for use of aphytochemical index, which compares the number of calories consumed from plant-based, nutrient-rich foods with the overall number of calories taken in each day.

“Fill your plate with colorful, low-calorie, varied-texture foods derived from plants first. By slowly eating phytochemical-rich foods such as salads with olive oil or fresh-cut fruits before the actual meal, you will likely reduce the overall portion size, fat content and energy intake. In this way, you’re ensuring that you get the variety of protective, disease-fighting phytochemicals you need and controlling caloric intake,” said Vincent, an assistant professor in the UF Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Institute, in the media statement.

Check out this great article:

http://www.NaturalNews.com/027616_degenerative_disease_phytochemicals.html

It’s really interesting!

Dallas, TX 1/15/2009 08:36 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)

In the wake of the economic recession, businesses are becoming more efficient in reducing expenditures and maximizing investments. Employers are weathering the lean times by cutting back. One of the first cutbacks that most firms make relates to employee perks and benefits. For most companies, employee health care is one of their costliest items and is constantly under review. Often times, the only choice that companies can make in order to reduce this cost is to share the burden with their workers. However, employers are also investing in corporate wellness programs to offset higher medical costs that their employees may incur.

According to the 2008 Annual Employer Health Benefits Survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Education Trust, health care costs for private and public employers and workers increased 119% and 117% respectively, during the period of 1999-2008. The following is a summary of the survey’s findings:

• Increases in the average single and family premiums
• Increases in the percentage of workers enrolled in high-deductible health plans with a savings option
• Increases in cost sharing (insurance deductible)
• Increases in wellness program offerings

In 2008, the average premium for workers with health insurance offer through their employer was $4,704 for single coverage and $12,680 for family coverage – a 5% increase from 2007.

To mitigate the costs, employers are moving towards consumer-driven medical plans. Statistics from this survey show that employees who are covered under their company’s plan with a deductible of at least $1,000 for single coverage increased from 10% to 18% in the past two years and, with small organizations, the rate of covered employees with a deductible of at least $1,000 has increased from 16% to 35%.

Wellness programs were offered to workers as part of their health benefits package in over two-thirds on the respondents surveyed. Over one-half of small companies and almost 90% of large companies offer one or more of the following to workers as a part their health benefits:

• Weight loss program
• Gym membership discounts or on-site exercise facilities
• Smoking cessation program
• Personal health coaching
• Classes in nutrition or healthy living
• Web-based resources for healthy living
• Wellness newsletter

Corporate health management has become pervasive in all industries due to the impact it has on reducing and/or controlling employer and employee medical costs and positively affecting the health of workers. A well planned and managed corporate wellness program can have the following effects for employers and employees:

• Decrease medical claims and savings for employer – With its wellness program, the Travelers Corporation claims a $3.40 return for every dollar invested in health promotion, yielding total corporate savings of $146 million in benefits costs.
• Decrease medical costs for employees – With lower health care claims, medical costs decreased 16% for City of Mesa (Arizona) employees who participated in the health promotion program.
  
  

• Decrease employee absenteeism – Du Pont saw that each dollar invested in workplace health promotion yielded $1.42 over two years in lower absenteeism costs.
  
  

• Increase productivity, healthier employees – Union Pacific Railroad employees who participated in the company-sponsored wellness program lowered their risk of high blood pressure by 45% and high cholesterol by 34%; 30% moved out of the at-risk range for weight problems and 21% stopped smoking.

Through the implementation of wellness, organizations and workers are seeing medical cost savings that are measurable and health benefits that are immeasurable.

For 2009 and beyond, the Employer Health Benefits Survey reports that approximately 40-45% of the firms surveyed predicted an increase in their employee’s health care premium contribution, deductible amounts for office visits, insurance cost sharing and/or prescription drugs costs.