Title : Sugar identified as a top cause of cancer epidemiologist Global
link : Sugar identified as a top cause of cancer epidemiologist Global
Sugar identified as a top cause of cancer epidemiologist Global
According to the study by the Institute for Research of Credit Suisse 2013 "Sugar: Consumption at a crossroads". As much as 40 percent of health expenditures in the US are from diseases directly related to excessive consumption of sugar
Incredibly, they spend more than $ 1 trillion each year combating the adverse health effects of sugar, ranging from obesity and diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
The fact that sugar and obesity are associated with increased cancer risk is now becoming well recognized. According to a report on the global burden of cancer, published in 2014, obesity is responsible for an estimated 500,000 cases of cancer worldwide each year.
Almost two thirds of obesity-related cancers - including colon, rectum, ovary, uterus and cancer - are produced in North America and Europe. A more recent British report estimated obesity can lead to an additional 670,000 cancer cases in the UK alone over the next 20 years.
According to the BBC, Cancer Research UK and the UK report Health Forum they are calling for a ban on junk food ads to air before 21:00 to address the increased control obesity and obesity-related diseases.
Meanwhile, a German research on diet-induced diseases and related treatment costs show that sugar-induced oral disease accounts for most of the costs of health care that nation.
"... [T] he substantial impact of consumption of sugar found in the study was mainly due to the costs of treatment of caries and other diseases of hard tissues teeth, and hypertensive cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, colon and rectal cancer and chronic kidney disease. "
How excess sugar and obesity promotes cancer
One of the major mechanisms by which sugar promotes cancer and other chronic diseases is through Mitochondrial dysfunction .
Since sugar is not our ideal fuel, burning dirty with reactive oxygen species much more than fat, which generates free radicals much more than turn causes mitochondrial DNA and nuclear damages together with the cell membrane and alteration of proteins.
Research has also shown that eating in chronic excess in general has a similar effect. Most people who eat too much also tend to eat a lot of sugar-laden foods -. A double whammy in terms of cancer risk
places overeating chronic stress in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER ), membranous network is within the mitochondria of cells. When ER receives more nutrients which can process said cell to absorb the sensitivity of insulin receptors on the cell surface.
Therefore continually eating more than your body really needs promotes insulin resistance by the mere fact that their cells are stressed by work imposed on them by excess nutrients. Insulin resistance in turn is at the heart of most chronic diseases, including cancer.
high fructose syrup guilty primary corn in Cancer
This also helps explain why intermittent fasting (as well as other forms of calorie restriction) is as effective in reversing insulin resistance, which reduces the risk of cancer, and increase longevity.
Obesity, caused by a combination of eating too much refined fructose / sugar rarely or never fasting, you can also promote cancer through other mechanisms, such as chronic inflammation and high production of certain hormones such as estrogen, which is associated with increased risk of breast cancer.
According to recent research, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, refined sugar not only significantly increases the risk of breast cancer, but also increases the risk of spread of tumors in other organs .
Furthermore, this study found that it was mainly refined fructose syrup, high fructose corn syrup, found in food and drinks which was responsible for breast tumors and more elaborate metastasis.
Sugar, cancer can not thrive
One of the most powerful strategies I know to prevent and / or treat cancer is to starve the cancer cells depriving them of their food source, which is mainly sugar and excess protein.
Unlike all other cells in your body, which can burn carbohydrates or fat for fuel, the cancer cells that have lost the metabolic flexibility and can only prosper if there enough sugar present.
German cancer researcher Dr. Otto Warburg is actually given a Nobel Prize in 1931 for discovering this. Unfortunately very few experts have embraced their metabolic theory of cancer, but have embraced the nuclear genetic theory that is a side effect downstream of mitochondrial dysfunction.
Make no mistake about it, the first thing you want to do if you want to prevent or treat cancer, if you have insulin or leptin resistance (that 85 percent of people) is to cut all forms of sugar / carbohydrates fructose and grains from their diet in order to optimize the signaling pathways that contribute to malignant transformation.
reduce their fructose and carbohydrates without fiber intake
I recommend reducing its total consumption of fructose to a maximum of 25 grams / day from all sources including fruit. If you are insulin resistant, you would do well to its upper limit to 15 grams / day.
Cancer patients would probably be a better service with even stricter limits. For a more detailed discussion, please check my interview with Professor Thomas Seyfried , which is one of the leading pioneering researchers in promoting cancer how to treat cancer nutritionally. Personally, I think most would benefit from reducing all carbohydrates without fiber (carbohydrates minus fiber in total), not only the fructose, less than 100 grams per day.
I usually keep mine about 50 to 60 grams a day.
The easiest way to drastically reduce their consumption of sugar and fructose is to switch to real food, like most sugar you end up with comes from the processing fee, not to add a teaspoon of sugar your tea or coffee. But there are other ways to reduce too. This includes:
- Cutting the amount of sugar you add personally to your food and drink
- The use of stevia or luo han instead of sugar and / or artificial sweeteners. You can learn more about the best and worst of sugar substitutes in my previous article, " sugar substitutes - what is safe and what is not "
- The use of fresh fruit instead of canned fruit or sugar to foods or recipes that require little sweetness
- the use of spices instead of sugar to flavor your food
signs of progress but still Dietary Guidelines are flawed
excess sugar consumption in the US They can be directly related to faulty dietary guidelines and agricultural subsidies misplaced. Progress is being made however, with the 2015-2020 dietary guidelines of the United States now recommending limiting their sugar intake to no more than 10 percent of your daily calories.Google trends also reveal that more people are concerned with diets low sugar that low-fat diets.
Unfortunately, the dietary guidelines still suggest limiting saturated fat to 10 percent of calories, which is probably too low for most people. Tragically, it also makes no distinction between healthy saturated fats and trans fats decidedly unhealthy. Saturated fats are really very important for optimal health, and those with insulin resistance / leptin may need more than 50 to 80 percent of their daily calories from healthy fat.
Trans fats , on the other hand, have no redeeming value for health, and evidence suggests that there not safe limit for trans fat. Besides this obvious defect, the enigma of the new guidelines is that both sugar and fat should be limited to 10 percent each of the daily calories.
This completely ignores the fact that as cutting sugar (carbohydrate), it is necessary to replace the lost energy with something else, and that something else is healthy fat, like that found in avocado , organic seeds and nuts, organic raw butter cheese , and coconut oil, just to name a few.
make a number of things fills fine though. In addition to the recommendation to limit sugar limits dietary cholesterol have been removed, give approval for eggs and other foods rich in cholesterol. They also point out that most Americans should reduce the amount of red meat consumed.
As I said before, the risks of eating too much protein include an increased risk of cancer because it can have a stimulating effect on the mTOR pathway, which plays an important role in many diseases, including cancer.
When the protein of is reduced just what your body needs , mTOR is inhibited, which helps minimize the chances of cancer growth. As a general rule, I recommend limiting your protein than half a gram of protein per pound of body mass lean , which for most people is between 40 and 70 grams of protein a day.
US Government has always encouraged the consumption of sugar
With a food - sugar - causing health problems so pervasive and so much domestic spending (again, about $ $ 1 trillion per year!), US regulators would do well by promoting lower consumption of sugar. However, they do not. The new dietary guidelines are a step in the right direction, but to really get to the root of the problem of obesity, but must also rethink subsidies to sugar and corn.
Current agricultural subsidies that bring high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), fast food, junk food, beef corn-fed operations animal feed concentrate ( CAFO ), monoculture , and a number of other contributors to our contemporary unhealthy diet. Both the sugar industry and corn (from which the high fructose corn syrup is obtained) are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Moreover, as noted by The Washington Post last year:
"The [sugar] industry used to brag that his government protection does not cost taxpayers anything directly, but the claim has skyrocketed due to the recent market developments that forced the federal government to, in effect, buy tons and tons of sugar and sell it to ethanol refineries at a loss. - in order to support prices taxpayers they were affected some $ 258 million in fiscal year 2014 ".
Billions of dollars go to corn farmers who have lowered the price of corn so deeply that HFCS is now the main source of calories in the standard American diet, simply because it is so cheap. Meanwhile, very few agricultural subsidies to farmers who grow their products were distributed.
Between 1995 and 2012, the amount provided to producers of corn was $ 84,427,099,356. Compare this with the amount that went to producers of apples: $ 242,064,005. In a 2012 report entitled " Apples to Twinkies ", it was determined that each year your taxes (in the form of grants) will be allowed to buy 19 Twinkies but less than a quarter of a red delicious apple.
There is no doubt that the decision of the US government to subsidize ingredients junk food instead of the real, such as fresh food, plays an important role in the eating habits of Americans, as the people often eat what is available and what you can afford.
Currently, most Americans spend more than 90 percent of their food budgets in processed foods , which are usually loaded with added / fructose sugars, and offer little in terms of nutritional value. Obesity is the result of such eating habits and making real food more readily available at lower prices could go a long way to reverse this trend.
Study: content of reducing sugars and taxing soft drinks greatly reduce obesity
The suggestion of a tax on soft drinks has been mocked by a number of years, both in the US and Britain, and elsewhere. The vast majority have failed due to the intense pressure exerted tax and anti-local campaigns by the sugar industry. on success in one place though. In Mexico, where a 10 percent tax on sugary drinks from 1 January 2014, sales of these beverages were reduced by 12 percent in one year it was enacted. As it reported by Newsweek.
"The decline in consumption was higher among those who earned the least, and seems to be going over time as they change the habits of people ... Frank Chaloupka, an economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who was not involved in the study, he says the tax should be applied elsewhere, and improve health, promoting lower consumption of sugar.
"I think taxes sugary drinks should be an important part of a comprehensive approach to promote healthier diets and reducing obesity, "he says." the experiences in Mexico are proving effective in altering consumer behavior, it is almost certain that eventually , to face "as a decrease in obesity, he adds. '"
Other research suggests simply lowering the sugar content of soft drinks can do the trick. A British study, which evaluated the potential benefits of gradually reducing sugar content in beverages over a period of 5 years, suggests a strategy like this could prevent 1 million cases of obesity more than 20 years.
While the impact on any given individual would be quite small, reducing calorie intake of an average person for just 38 calories a day to the end of the fifth year (equivalent to a weight loss only 1.2 pounds), the great society could still be pronounced effect.
By reducing the weight of people even slightly, an estimated 274,000 to 309,000 cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented over the next two decades. However, if it is considered that the sugar industry and corn are struggling to receive higher subsidies and market share to give you cancer, it would make sense to stop subsidizing sugar and corn before start to tax sugary products.
Cancer Screening does not save lives
Cancer screening is conventionally touted as being an important part of the "cancer prevention", although it does no such thing. Now researchers question the validity of public service announcements claiming that "cancer screening saves lives." According to a recent analysis, it is "unclear" whether screening actually saves lives, and researchers warn that claiming it does is "misleading."
As reported by Newsweek:
"The problem, they say, is that the said Ubiquitous is based on the fact that deaths from the disease in question can decrease but it does not account for deaths related to factors related to the selection itself. of course, the detection of prostate cancer could reduce the incidence of death from that specific disease, but it does reduce the overall mortality of the person who received the screening ? Maybe not.
for example, the detection of prostate cancer is known to return 'many' false positives ... and contributes to more than 1 million prostate biopsies annually . the procedure is "associated with serious damage, including hospital admission and death." what's more, men diagnosed with prostate cancer are 'more likely to have a heart attack or commit suicide in the year after the diagnosis' ... in both cases, the deaths are not due to cancer itself, but rather are linked to the projection. "
The same goes for the detection of breast and colorectal cancer screening cancer:
- 60 percent of women who undergo mammography regular screening for 10 years receive a false positive at some point, leading to unnecessary anxiety and treatment, which can have serious side effects. Studies have also shown that routine mammograms have no effect on the death rates.As reported by Reuters:
"These tests deviate only one death from breast cancer per 1,000 women examined. 'There used to be ads saying Prasad if a woman had not had a mammogram, she needed more than her breasts examined, said. "the fact that the medical profession promoted screening so hard, it was always a balancing act when it was always a personal choice, it is really a shame. ' "
- A study analyzing colorectal cancer screening found 128 cancer deaths among 10,000 people who received the screening, compared with 192 cancer deaths among 10,000 individuals not to screening studies.
Although there were fewer cancer deaths among those under investigation, this link disappeared completely when they looked mortality in all cases. When death from all causes was included, there was no significant difference between the two groups.
Time to change the discussion on cancer screening
According to the authors, in order to determine whether the detection of true cancer saves lives " , statistically robust studies based on millions of people are needed. " This would be an expensive undertaking, allowed, "but no more than bear the weight screening programs population with proven benefits."
In an accompanying editorial, Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development states that:
"Instead of pouring resources into mega-trials '' with a small chance detecting an overall reduction in minimum mortality at an additional cost of doing harm to a large number of patients, who must invest in transparent information in the first place. it's time to change the communication about cancer detection unreliable persuasion something simple. "
To this end, it is suggested that patients should receive brochures with information boxes that clearly give the available data, such as data sheet Literacy risk for mammography then demonstrating that while mammograms reduce cancer-specific mortality in 1 of every 1,000 women, this difference is not reflected in overall mortality.
And that at least 10 women out of every 1,000 women screened will be subjected to unnecessary removal of the breast as a result of a false positive.
Presented with these data, patients would be better able to make a personal decision about whether or not screening in your particular case, it might be worth the risk. He also notes that while some may benefit from an evaluation, doctors should not exaggerate the value of the evidence. In an email to Reuters, Gigerenzer says:
"The bottom line is after decades of research, we have not found clear evidence that screening saves lives, but the clear evidence that screening damage to many. "
Cancer prevention begins with your lifestyle Elections
Cancer screening is presented as the best way of "prevention" can be obtained against of various forms of cancer. However, early diagnosis is not as well as prevention. And cancer screening does more harm than good can hardly be described as the best you can expect ... I think the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strict enforcement, basic strategies lifestyle healthy sense common, including the following:
eat real food; avoid processed foods and processed sugars, especially fructose All forms of sugar are detrimental to overall health and promote cancer. Fructose , however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.Reduce carbohydrates without fiber, but have large volumes of fresh organic vegetables along with plenty of fat from high quality sources such as avocados, raw butter, seeds, nuts, and raw cacao nibs. stop eating at least three hours before going to bed they are fairly convincing evidence that when the fuel supply to the mitochondria in cells at a time when they do not need, will escape one large number of electrons released reactive oxygen species (free radicals), the mitochondrial and nuclear damage over time DNA.There is also evidence that cancer cells uniformly damaged mitochondria, so the last thing you want to do is eat before going to bed. Personally I strive to 6 hours of fasting before bedtime. Optimize your vitamin D vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of the most potent cancer fighters of nature. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death) .If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng / ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, no adverse effects. Limit protein Recent research has highlighted the importance of mTOR pathways. When they are active, cancer growth is accelerated.To quell this way, I think it might be wise to limit your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or about a little less than half a gram of protein for every pound of lean body weight.
That's roughly 40-70 grams per day for most. It would be most unusual to need more than this.
Avoid fermented soy products unfermented soybean is high in plant estrogens or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy seems to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances of mutations and cancer cells. improve insulin sensitivity and leptin receptor The best way to do this is avoiding sugar and grains and carbohydrate restriction without fiber of at least 100 grams per day. You should also make sure you are exercising , especially High intensity interval training . Exercise regularly One of the main reasons exercise works to reduce cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down and control insulin levels is one of the most effective ways to reduce their risks.It cancer has also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells.
Studies have also found that the number of tumors to decrease along with body fat, which can be an additional factor.
This is because exercise helps lower estrogen levels, which explains why exercise seems particularly potent against breast cancer.
Finally, exercise increases mitochondrial biogenesis, which is essential to fight cancer.
Maintaining a healthy body weight This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your type of nutrition and exercise. It is important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen. Drink half liter to one liter of juice daily organic green vegetable Please review my juicing instructions for more details. Get plenty of omega-3 fats high quality of animal origin, such as krill oil Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for the Cancer. Use curcumin This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment cancer .For example, has shown great therapeutic potential in preventing metastasis of breast cancer.
is important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed as well, so we've provided a number of Tips absorption here.
avoid alcohol At a minimum, limit alcoholic drinks to one per day. Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible Even electric blankets can increase your risk of cancer. Avoid replacement therapy synthetic hormones, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer Breast cancer is a cancer related to estrogen, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National cancer Institute, rates of breast cancer for women fell in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy . (There are similar risks for younger women using oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also composed of synthetic hormones have been linked to cancer of the cervix and breast.)
If you are experiencing When "I" becomes "WE" ... The disease becomes welfare. We appreciate the opportunity to help you feel good again. Challenges as an elderly population rapidly growing, more people needing care and fewer hands to care. Great! We are here for you.
The post Sugar identified as a top cause of cancer epidemiologist Global appeared first on http://worldofhealth365.com/2016/06/sugar-identified-as-a-top-cause-of-the-global-cancer-epidemi-watch-out/
Thanks for Reading Sugar identified as a top cause of cancer epidemiologist Global
You are now reading the article Sugar identified as a top cause of cancer epidemiologist Global Url Address https://exerciseplanstoloseweight.blogspot.com/2016/06/sugar-identified-as-top-cause-of-cancer.html
0 Response to "Sugar identified as a top cause of cancer epidemiologist Global"
Posting Komentar