Sugar=Cancer=Heart Disease

[gipper]

I wonder why our wonderful and benevolent central government with it's amazing wealth and power has refused to protect the American people.

Oh yeah...I forgot...they are bought and paid for. Must everything be crooked in this country?


The sugar industry blocked research linking sucrose to heart disease and cancer from publication 50 YEARS ago, damning report reveals

• The researchers at the University of California at San Francisco have uncovered data showing the sugar industry hid research linking sugar to cancer in 1968
• New documents show the Sugar Association funded an animal experiment called Project 259 to evaluate sucrose's effects on cardiovascular health
• But when the data showed a clear link between sucrose and poor heart health, they pulled the plug
• The researchers say that, had this paper been published in 1968, it would have led to scrutiny and even regulation of sugar by the FDA

The finding, published today in PLOS Biology, is the latest in a series of bombshell reports from investigative researcher Dr Cristin Kearns and co-author Dr Stanton Glantz, who was the first researcher to reveal Big Tobacco was hiding research on the danger of cigarettes in 1996.

Last year the duo sent shockwaves through the nutrition world with a study that showed the sugar industry had paid Harvard University's most respected nutrition scientist to play down the health dangers of sugar, and demonize fats.

Speaking to Daily Mail Online, they say that, had this new study been published in 1968 as planned, it would have automatically triggered a review of sucrose by the US Food and Drug Administration, which would have likely led to regulation of sugar.

Instead, they say, it has taken five decades for the scientific community to reach relative agreement that sugar is bad for you, and has a direct link to cancer and heart disease.

WHAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT SUGAR'S LINK TO THE HEART
Today, we are urged to limit our sugar intake as much as possible.

According to FDA regulations, women should have no more than 25g (six teaspoons) of added sugar per day.

That is less than a can of Coca Cola.

Men should have no more than 36g (nine teaspoons) extra.

That equates to a regular Snickers bar.

Sugar, peer-reviewed studies now show, triggers insulin resistance, lower good cholesterol and dangerous bad cholesterol.

It also causes inflammation of the arteries.

These are all direct causes of heart disease.

LAST YEAR'S REPORT: HOW THE SUGAR INDUSTRY FUNDED RESEARCH TO DEMONIZE FAT
The sugar industry paid prestigious Harvard scientists to publish research saying fat - not sugar - was a key cause of heart disease, newly unveiled documents reveal.

At the time, in the 1960s, conflict of interest disclosure was not required.

It meant sugar chiefs could work closely with researchers to re-draft and re-draft their paper until it was 'satisfactory' - without having to report their involvement.

The result shaped public health approaches to nutrition for years.

The findings, revealed today in a special report in JAMA Internal Medicine, has sent shockwaves through the research community.


Read more: Sugar industry blocked research linking sucrose to cancer | Daily Mail Online

But you love yer Trump and his fat ass...

Go away dumb ass.

I have no problems ingesting sugar or corn syrup..Maybe you guys are just weak?

You need to exponentially increase your consumption of those products.

 

[gipper]

And BTW - I am always glad when I see threads like these...the more people can become educated at just how bad corporate food is the better.
Gipper is right the government hides the data.
Consider the "Nutritional Facts" on food...what is missing below?

SUGAR as a percentage of daily allowance. The sugar industry successfully paid off enough lawmakers to remove the percentage of daily diet because MANY foods were grossly over the percentage needed for an entire day.

So true. The following profound statement is true too...more true every day.

We have the best government that money can buy.

 

[Moonglow]

I wonder why our wonderful and benevolent central government with it's amazing wealth and power has refused to protect the American people.

Oh yeah...I forgot...they are bought and paid for. Must everything be crooked in this country?


The sugar industry blocked research linking sucrose to heart disease and cancer from publication 50 YEARS ago, damning report reveals

• The researchers at the University of California at San Francisco have uncovered data showing the sugar industry hid research linking sugar to cancer in 1968
• New documents show the Sugar Association funded an animal experiment called Project 259 to evaluate sucrose's effects on cardiovascular health
• But when the data showed a clear link between sucrose and poor heart health, they pulled the plug
• The researchers say that, had this paper been published in 1968, it would have led to scrutiny and even regulation of sugar by the FDA

The finding, published today in PLOS Biology, is the latest in a series of bombshell reports from investigative researcher Dr Cristin Kearns and co-author Dr Stanton Glantz, who was the first researcher to reveal Big Tobacco was hiding research on the danger of cigarettes in 1996.

Last year the duo sent shockwaves through the nutrition world with a study that showed the sugar industry had paid Harvard University's most respected nutrition scientist to play down the health dangers of sugar, and demonize fats.

Speaking to Daily Mail Online, they say that, had this new study been published in 1968 as planned, it would have automatically triggered a review of sucrose by the US Food and Drug Administration, which would have likely led to regulation of sugar.

Instead, they say, it has taken five decades for the scientific community to reach relative agreement that sugar is bad for you, and has a direct link to cancer and heart disease.

WHAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT SUGAR'S LINK TO THE HEART
Today, we are urged to limit our sugar intake as much as possible.

According to FDA regulations, women should have no more than 25g (six teaspoons) of added sugar per day.

That is less than a can of Coca Cola.

Men should have no more than 36g (nine teaspoons) extra.

That equates to a regular Snickers bar.

Sugar, peer-reviewed studies now show, triggers insulin resistance, lower good cholesterol and dangerous bad cholesterol.

It also causes inflammation of the arteries.

These are all direct causes of heart disease.

LAST YEAR'S REPORT: HOW THE SUGAR INDUSTRY FUNDED RESEARCH TO DEMONIZE FAT
The sugar industry paid prestigious Harvard scientists to publish research saying fat - not sugar - was a key cause of heart disease, newly unveiled documents reveal.

At the time, in the 1960s, conflict of interest disclosure was not required.

It meant sugar chiefs could work closely with researchers to re-draft and re-draft their paper until it was 'satisfactory' - without having to report their involvement.

The result shaped public health approaches to nutrition for years.

The findings, revealed today in a special report in JAMA Internal Medicine, has sent shockwaves through the research community.


Read more: Sugar industry blocked research linking sucrose to cancer | Daily Mail Online

But you love yer Trump and his fat ass...

Go away dumb ass.

I have no problems ingesting sugar or corn syrup..Maybe you guys are just weak?

You need to exponentially increase your consumption of those products.

One can only consume so much maybe you should do your part also..

 

[gipper]

I wonder why our wonderful and benevolent central government with it's amazing wealth and power has refused to protect the American people.

Oh yeah...I forgot...they are bought and paid for. Must everything be crooked in this country?


The sugar industry blocked research linking sucrose to heart disease and cancer from publication 50 YEARS ago, damning report reveals

• The researchers at the University of California at San Francisco have uncovered data showing the sugar industry hid research linking sugar to cancer in 1968
• New documents show the Sugar Association funded an animal experiment called Project 259 to evaluate sucrose's effects on cardiovascular health
• But when the data showed a clear link between sucrose and poor heart health, they pulled the plug
• The researchers say that, had this paper been published in 1968, it would have led to scrutiny and even regulation of sugar by the FDA

The finding, published today in PLOS Biology, is the latest in a series of bombshell reports from investigative researcher Dr Cristin Kearns and co-author Dr Stanton Glantz, who was the first researcher to reveal Big Tobacco was hiding research on the danger of cigarettes in 1996.

Last year the duo sent shockwaves through the nutrition world with a study that showed the sugar industry had paid Harvard University's most respected nutrition scientist to play down the health dangers of sugar, and demonize fats.

Speaking to Daily Mail Online, they say that, had this new study been published in 1968 as planned, it would have automatically triggered a review of sucrose by the US Food and Drug Administration, which would have likely led to regulation of sugar.

Instead, they say, it has taken five decades for the scientific community to reach relative agreement that sugar is bad for you, and has a direct link to cancer and heart disease.

WHAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT SUGAR'S LINK TO THE HEART
Today, we are urged to limit our sugar intake as much as possible.

According to FDA regulations, women should have no more than 25g (six teaspoons) of added sugar per day.

That is less than a can of Coca Cola.

Men should have no more than 36g (nine teaspoons) extra.

That equates to a regular Snickers bar.

Sugar, peer-reviewed studies now show, triggers insulin resistance, lower good cholesterol and dangerous bad cholesterol.

It also causes inflammation of the arteries.

These are all direct causes of heart disease.

LAST YEAR'S REPORT: HOW THE SUGAR INDUSTRY FUNDED RESEARCH TO DEMONIZE FAT
The sugar industry paid prestigious Harvard scientists to publish research saying fat - not sugar - was a key cause of heart disease, newly unveiled documents reveal.

At the time, in the 1960s, conflict of interest disclosure was not required.

It meant sugar chiefs could work closely with researchers to re-draft and re-draft their paper until it was 'satisfactory' - without having to report their involvement.

The result shaped public health approaches to nutrition for years.

The findings, revealed today in a special report in JAMA Internal Medicine, has sent shockwaves through the research community.


Read more: Sugar industry blocked research linking sucrose to cancer | Daily Mail Online

But you love yer Trump and his fat ass...

Go away dumb ass.

I have no problems ingesting sugar or corn syrup..Maybe you guys are just weak?

You need to exponentially increase your consumption of those products.

One can only consume so much maybe you should do your part also..

I think it best for you to only consume white sugar and nothing else.

 

[Moonglow]

But you love yer Trump and his fat ass...

Go away dumb ass.

I have no problems ingesting sugar or corn syrup..Maybe you guys are just weak?

You need to exponentially increase your consumption of those products.

One can only consume so much maybe you should do your part also..

I think it best for you to only consume white sugar and nothing else.

No thanks there is a plethora of sweetness to partake in...I still like molasses...You can make it at home along with sugar beets...

 

[Bonzi]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have no problems ingesting sugar or corn syrup..Maybe you guys are just weak?

Your trolling.

 

[Moonglow]

I have no problems ingesting sugar or corn syrup..Maybe you guys are just weak?

Your trolling.

Nope just stating a fact....

 

[Bonzi]

No matter who is in office, it's bad.
There definitely should be a higher tax on things that are bad for you, such as processed foods, sodas, candy, chips etc. And yeah, even alcohol dammit.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No matter who is in office, it's bad.
There definitely should be a higher tax on things that are bad for you, such as processed foods, sodas, candy, chips etc. And yeah, even alcohol dammit.

Absolutely.
People whine daily about the cost of healthcare in America - well the best damn way to reduce healthcare cost is to stop eating corporate franken-food. If people stopped eating shit daily, healthcare cost would dramatically decline.

 

[gipper]

No matter who is in office, it's bad.
There definitely should be a higher tax on things that are bad for you, such as processed foods, sodas, candy, chips etc. And yeah, even alcohol dammit.

If Americans were told the truth about sugar, they would dramatically reduce it's consumption without government taxing it. However our government would likely LOVE to excessively tax sugar or anything else, to generate more revenue for itself.

Americans have dramatically reduced their use of tobacco, which is a good example. We all KNOW smoking it bad. Many Americans do not know that sugar consumption is very bad.

Even worse is the clear collusion between government and sugar companies to keep Americans uninformed and unhealthy.

 

[gipper]

No matter who is in office, it's bad.
There definitely should be a higher tax on things that are bad for you, such as processed foods, sodas, candy, chips etc. And yeah, even alcohol dammit.

Absolutely.
People whine daily about the cost of healthcare in America - well the best damn way to reduce healthcare cost is to stop eating corporate franken-food. If people stopped eating shit daily, healthcare cost would dramatically decline.

Agreed...and this may be why nothing is done. They want sick Americans to generate huge healthcare profits.

It is all about greed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thanks for posting.

I'd wager that sugar is our Number 1 killer, and has been for 50 years.

Yet our government refuses to do anything about it.

and just what do you propose the governemnt do, ban sugar?

People will eat what they want to eat and it's none of your business

 

[gipper]

Thanks for posting.

I'd wager that sugar is our Number 1 killer, and has been for 50 years.

Yet our government refuses to do anything about it.

and just what do you propose the governemnt do, ban sugar?

People will eat what they want to eat and it's none of your business

I have not suggest that at all. However, big government should not be colluding with sugar companies, as it does today....just as big gov colludes with big banks, big pharma, big whatever. It is all about the money.

If you have read any of my many thousands of posts, you know I am very much anti-government. This is a perfect example of why a big centralized government structure SUCKS.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Thanks for posting.

I'd wager that sugar is our Number 1 killer, and has been for 50 years.

Yet our government refuses to do anything about it.

and just what do you propose the governemnt do, ban sugar?

People will eat what they want to eat and it's none of your business

I understand that line of thinking, and agree with the principle of it in most cases.
But not this time. The fact is Skull, it IS our business. Because terrible eating habits cost every single one of us a LOT in healthcare premiums. Healthcare cost would dramatically decline if people ate better. Therefore they should be paying more since they contribute to the problem so much more than those who don't.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thanks for posting.

I'd wager that sugar is our Number 1 killer, and has been for 50 years.

Yet our government refuses to do anything about it.

and just what do you propose the governemnt do, ban sugar?

People will eat what they want to eat and it's none of your business

I have not suggest that at all. However, big government should not be colluding with sugar companies, as it does today....just as big gov colludes with big banks, big pharma, big whatever. It is all about the money.

If you have read any of my many thousands of posts, you know I am very much anti-government. This is a perfect example of why a big centralized government structure SUCKS.

Look everyone already knows that a candy bar is not healthy.
Everyone already knows that eating more fruits and vegetables is better for you
Everyone knows that to lose weight you have to eat less and exercise more.

There is no reason to get all wound up about what people choose to eat because they are eating exactly the way they want to eat

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thanks for posting.

I'd wager that sugar is our Number 1 killer, and has been for 50 years.

Yet our government refuses to do anything about it.

and just what do you propose the governemnt do, ban sugar?

People will eat what they want to eat and it's none of your business

I understand that line of thinking, and agree with the principle of it in most cases.
But not this time. The fact is Skull, it IS our business. Because terrible eating habits cost every single one of us a LOT in healthcare premiums. Healthcare cost would dramatically decline if people ate better. Therefore they should be paying more since they contribute to the problem so much more than those who don't.

We'll have to disagree.
No one has any right for any reason to tell anyone else how to eat, whether or not to smoke, drink, etc.

Health care is expensive because insurance companies collude with the medical industry to hide actual costs.

If people knew what all their medical care actually costed them then we could bring real market pressure to the medical industry.

We need to reject the idea that we have the right to dictate how others behave.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There is no reason to get all wound up about what people choose to eat because they are eating exactly the way they want to eat

And taking money right out of my pocket to finance those choices.
I wouldn't give a damn what people ate if it didn't cost me probably at least $100 a month in premiums to cover the cost.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no reason to get all wound up about what people choose to eat because they are eating exactly the way they want to eat

And taking money right out of my pocket to finance those choices.
I wouldn't give a damn what people ate if it didn't cost me probably at least $100 a month in premiums to cover the cost.

They are not taking money from you.

Your issue is with the insurance and medical industries

 

[gipper]

Thanks for posting.

I'd wager that sugar is our Number 1 killer, and has been for 50 years.

Yet our government refuses to do anything about it.

and just what do you propose the governemnt do, ban sugar?

People will eat what they want to eat and it's none of your business

I understand that line of thinking, and agree with the principle of it in most cases.
But not this time. The fact is Skull, it IS our business. Because terrible eating habits cost every single one of us a LOT in healthcare premiums. Healthcare cost would dramatically decline if people ate better. Therefore they should be paying more since they contribute to the problem so much more than those who don't.

We'll have to disagree.
No one has any right for any reason to tell anyone else how to eat, whether or not to smoke, drink, etc.

Health care is expensive because insurance companies collude with the medical industry to hide actual costs.

If people knew what all their medical care actually costed them then we could bring real market pressure to the medical industry.

We need to reject the idea that we have the right to dictate how others behave.

Americans DO NOT KNOW the health dangers of sugar. This is even admitted by some posters in this thread.

Don't try to minimize this problem.