It is SUGAR that you need to be concerned with, not merely corn syrup.

[MarkCentury]

Yes fructose is metabolised differently than glucose both in the liver and from this research in cancer cells as well.  Virtually all fructose is metabolised by the liver (as opposed to other tissues).  In the liver fructose leads directly to the formation of new fat and fat of the worse kind:  VLDL (very low density lipoproteins) implicated in the formation of plaques within our blood vessels.  Fructose also accelerates aging by glycating (cross linking) proteins TEN TIMES FASTER than glucose.

A recent study at Princeton shows that HFCS is indeed worse that sucrose (table sugar)

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

However, since fructose increases cancer proliferation it is SUGAR that you need to be concerned with, not merely corn syrup.

Remember that ...

Sucrose (table sugar) = fructose + glucose
High Fructos Corn Syrup = fructose + glucose

Both Sucrose and HFCS contain roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose.  

The disaccharide sucrose (table sugar) bonds the fructose to the glucose.  Splitting this bond requires an extra step and the enzyme sucrase which may be one reason that table sugar is better than HFCS.  The fructose and glucose in HFCS exist as free saccharides which means the fructose can be easily and rapidly metabolized by the liver.

Of course much of the HFCS on the market (50% or more) has also been shown to contain mercury.

However, don't view sucrase (table sugar) as the "good guy"!  We all have abundant amounts of the enzyme sucrase that splits the fructose-glucose bond as soon as sugar hits our digestive system.   So even regular table sugar gives you lots of fructose.  And excess glucose leads to insulin insensitivity, syndrome X, diabetes, inflammation and death.

Fresh fruit contains lots of fructose and sucrose (which in turn is made up of fructose and glucose).  However the fructose in fruit is somewhat offset by the large amounts of fiber in fruit.

For a visual comparison go here:
http://sugarstacks.com/

Bottom line: ALL SUGAR IS POISON.  If you want to be healthy follow these rules:

1) Eliminate ALL sweetened beverages!!!  Of course this includes sodas and diet sodas, but also includes fruit juices that are TERRIBLE for you (extremely high in sugar!).  Drink water and unsweetened tea (or tea sweetened ONLY with stevia).

2) Elminate virtually ALL sugar replacements (aspartame, Splenda (sucralose), acesulfame potassium, "organic" sugars, agave syrup (TERRIBLE for you because its all fructose!!).  There are only three sweeteners you should consider: stevia, erythritol, and an occassional very small amount of honey.  There ARE NO OTHER SHORTCUTS ... if its sweet and wasn't sweetened with stevia or erythritol, its bad for you!

3) Eliminate ALL "crunchy carbs" (cookies, potato chips and other snacks)

4) Dramatically reduce (to almost nothing) starchy carbs (rice, pasta, potatoes, bread)

5) Get virtually all of your carbs from colorful organic VEGETABLES and fruits.

6) Whenever you eat carbs (from vegetables and fruit) match them with protein.  This will help control the glucagon/insulin axis which in turn controls inflammation.

Learn more about the dangers of sugar (in all its forms) by watching this presentation:

Sugar: The Bitter Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[wvoutlaw2002]

Bottom line, get your sugar intake from organic fruits and organic veggies (whether by eating or juicing), and if you must have sugar, limit your sugar consumption and use only organic cane sugar. Avoid corn syrup and GMO cane sugar completely. And eliminate toxic man-made sweeteners such as aspartame, neotame, sucralose, and Truvia/PureVia at all costs. I use Stevita Supreme stevia as my sweetener of choice. It's 95% stevia, 5% xylitol. It does a great job sweetening my coffee and tea, and it's the best-tasting stevia I've used so far. I used to use Nature's Bounty stevia, but it's way more expensive than Stevita Supreme and doesn't taste as sweet.

[freedom_commonsense]

Those measures sound over the top to me, surely overeating is the main issue here?

[MarkCentury]

Bottom line, get your sugar intake from organic fruits and organic veggies (whether by eating or juicing), and if you must have sugar, limit your sugar consumption and use only organic cane sugar. Avoid corn syrup and GMO cane sugar completely. And eliminate toxic man-made sweeteners such as aspartame, neotame, sucralose, and Truvia/PureVia at all costs. I use Stevita Supreme stevia as my sweetener of choice. It's 95% stevia, 5% xylitol. It does a great job sweetening my coffee and tea, and it's the best-tasting stevia I've used so far. I used to use Nature's Bounty stevia, but it's way more expensive than Stevita Supreme and doesn't taste as sweet.

A mixture of Stevia and Xylitol sounds good.  Xylitol by itself can lead to digestive problems if used in too large of quantities.  This is not true for Erythritol. 

Organic cane sugar is organic poison.

Truvia is stevia -- so its fine.

Your bottom line (organic vegetables and fruits) sounds great!  Get your oils from coconut oil (the only oil to use for for cooking), olive oil, and pharmaceutical grade fish oil, protein from protein powder, beans, with small amounts chicken/turkey.

[MarkCentury]

Those measures sound over the top to me, surely overeating is the main issue here?

Over eating is the result of obesity, not the cause of it.

Obese people are usually starving because they have developed insulin resistance as the result of chronic inflammation and they MUST eat incredible amounts or their cells will starve. So don't ever look at someone overweight and say to yourself that they just don't have enough "control" or that they are too lazy to exercise.  It's just not true.

Gaining weight results from excessive Insulin and chronic inflammation.  I recommend Barry Sear's book:

Toxic Fat
http://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Fat-When-Good-Turns/dp/1401604293/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280917646&sr=8-1

and I recommend this web site:

http://www.level1diet.com/

[roganvilla]

"Sweet Poison" is supposed to be a good book on this topic.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/how-hard-can-it-be-to-cut-sugar-20100630-zmvt.html

[freedom_commonsense]

Over eating is the result of obesity, not the cause of it.

Obese people are usually starving because they have developed insulin resistance as the result of chronic inflammation and they MUST eat incredible amounts or their cells will starve. So don't ever look at someone overweight and say to yourself that they just don't have enough "control" or that they are too lazy to exercise.  It's just not true.

Perhaps I should be more specific: too much eating of processed crap, and not enough fresh fruit\vegetables.

Gaining weight results from excessive Insulin and chronic inflammation.  I recommend Barry Sear's book:

Toxic Fat
http://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Fat-When-Good-Turns/dp/1401604293/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280917646&sr=8-1

and I recommend this web site:

http://www.level1diet.com/

Somewhat different to the 6 steps listed in the OP...

[Satyagraha]

Truvia is stevia -- so its fine.

NO. Truvia is NOT FINE.

If you're going to give out nutritional information, please do your homework. READ, RESEARCH and LEARN before you make statements that are absolutely and dangerously UNTRUE.

Cargill's fake Stevia product Truvia is a MAJOR HEALTH RISK!!!

IMHO, Truvia is a black-op being used to associate itself with true Stevia and to scare people away from true Stevia to the point where they will beg the government to completely ban Stevia altogether.

Found this website and copied and pasted the text from the page.

http://side-effects.owndoc.com/truvia-side-effects.html

I am collecting data on possible negative Truvia sweetener side effects. Since the FDA recently approved Truvia as a sweetener, it is sold in sachets.

One reader emailed me with this: "I noticed recently after using Truvia for a short while, it seems my lactose intolerance has been much worse than usual."

Another reader named Susan wrote: "I started using Truvia in an effort to get myself off of Sweet and Low. Actually I needed 1 1/2 packets to equal one S&L. I took it for about 3 weeks and then started having symptoms which at first I didn't relate to the Truvia."

"First symptom was bad breath. Next one was back, neck and shoulder pain. I'm an avid tennis player so that was a problem for me. I went to my chiropractor a number of times and although I got temporary relief, it always returned. Finally it dawned on me that the only thing I was doing differently was using the Truvia. I stopped and within 48 hours all pains stopped and my breath problems disappeared. Clearly there is something in Truvia that I can't handle. I thought I was doing something good for my body but in this case I was wrong."

Chris wrote: "I have never had a bad reaction to Stevia so I tried the new product "Truvia". I put it into my coffee in the morning for a couple of weeks and I seemed to be fine. However, I baked a pie with it, (cooking it and using a larger quantity of Truvia). Within 10 mins of eating a piece of the pie I had a severe mental reaction. My mouth began to itch, and I broke out in hives. I am highly sensitive to mold and yeast and this is the reaction I usually get from a heavy mold or yeast exposure. Therefore, I assumed my reaction was possibly from the yeast that is used to ferment the Erythritol or perhaps the Erythritol itself.not sure. But I will not be using it again!"

I have done some Googling and came up with this:

..Truvia side effects..

"I bought some Truvia at the supermarket. It's a new sugar-substitute made from stevia and erythritol. I use stevia regularly to sweeten cocoa with no apparent side-effects. I was a bit cautious about consuming erythritol because I generally do not tolerate sugar alcohols. So I only used one packet of Truvia at a time, and usually only once a day. Then I used it twice a day and the side-effects showed up. I suffered some gas and diarrhea. Immediately I stopped using Truvia and went back to using plain stevia (which also can be purchased in packets). That was four days ago and the Truvia side-effects have not stopped."

This posting is worrying on many levels. Firstly, people seem to think that Truvia is made of Stevia + Erythritol, which is only true if you stretch the truth a bit! Because Stevia is an extract of half a dozen natural steviosides (glycosides), and Truvia is chemically pure Rebaudioside A, derived from genetically modified plants.

Not to mention the side effects of Erythritol, which is a "sugar alcohol" made by fermenting glucose with a yeast. I hope her alleged Truvia side effects are merely imaginary, because side effects that linger for four days are not good..
..Truvia adverse effects..

"I tried it. The taste was fine and all, but it seemed to spark some crazy carb cravings in me. It actually took me a few days to figure out it was the truvia."

Hm. "crazy carb cravings" are not exactly good when trying to lose weight using a zero-calorie sweetener..
..Truvia bad effects..

I tried truvia also. It made me feel extremely tired, and I felt ill all day. The feeling was different than anything I had experienced before. It did not taste very good in my coffee either, tasted bitter and just nasty. When I tried two packets the side effects became more pronounced with added abdominal cramps and very loose stools and lasted all day. I E-mailed the company and told them what I thought of their marketing ploy of truvia as a "natural sweetner" too. Needless to say I have received no reply.  I do not perceive erythritol as a natural substance. On their website they NEVER  write exactly how they make or THEIR source of erythritol. Char Downs
..Truvia effects..

I have been using Truvia for about a week now. I use about 4-8 packets a day, mostly in the morning, in my coffee. For years I have used Splenda but I have wanted to try a healthier option. Ever since I have used Truvia I too have had bad side effects. I have had bad abdominal cramps. At times it has been pretty painful, feeling like trapped gas. I have also been constipated. I will not use this product anymore. I am a healthy 28 years old and I eat healthy everyday so I can only associate these new problems with Truvia. Thanks for the info on your website. Jennifer Tuscany
..Truvia and metallic taste..

Dear Sarah - Thank you for collecting this important information. I, too, wanted to use a "healthier" alternative to Splenda. Using 2 or 3 packets per day seemed reasonable. After three days I began having a terrible taste in my mouth whenever I ate or drank anything. It was a combination of a metallic and detergent sensation - awful! My husband made the connection with the Truvia and I stopped it all together. 24 hours in I still have the problem, but am hoping for resolution soon. A few teaspoons of raw sugar can't be that bad for me. Again my thanks! Anne
..Truvia side effects..

I just found your web site and want to report what happened to me this morning. Someone had put Truvia in our Splenda bin at work and I decided to try some in my coffee. The first one didn't sweeten the coffee enough so I put a second packet in and it was fine. Not long after starting to drink the coffee, I found myself getting groggy at my desk. It was like I had eaten a large lunch and was falling asleep from it. Except that it was early morning and I had only had half a bagel, an apple, and orange juice for breakfast. As I drank more coffee it got worse. I could not focus on what I was doing for any length of time. I decided I needed a second coffee to wake up. This time I just used Splenda which doesn't affect me and within a little while I started to come out of the haze. It is a few hours later now and I seem to be back to normal. John Karam, Sr. Programmer/Analyst, Friendly Ice Cream Corporation
..Truvia adverse effects..

I tried Truvia  about a month ago. I developed mouth sores which I thought was from my increased use of tomatoes this time of year. I stopped the Truvia as I suspected this new substance. I don't like stevia and I found the taste of Truvia to be good. Today I tried 3 packets of Truvia again and my mouth erupted again. Won't be trying that again. Just wanted to share this and was wondering if anyone else has had this kind of reaction. Karen Todd
..More side effects of Truvia..

I tried it for 3 months now. NO changes in my diet other than not using sugar and using truvia. Gained 15 pounds, loads of headaches and neck/shoulder pain. I called Truvia and they told me this was not a side effect, checked the internet and ooooo! I used stevia for years with no side effects, so there is something in this truvia that is no good! Gaining weight seems to be the opposite of what the point was!! Carol K
..Dangerous Truvia side effect?..

I went to google to lookup the side-effects of Truvia and came across your website. My story is a bit different from the other side-effects. After using Truvia for one week I ended up with the worst UTI I have ever had. The doctor said more than likely the artificial sweetner was the cause. This product should come with warnings! Pam Grubb
..Truvia and IBS..

I started using Truvia yesterday. I have IBS and within one hour of use, started having alot of abd pain. Then the next day, I had two packets again in my coffee. Within a few hours, the abdominals were going crazy, and had very loose diarrhea. How can they say its all natural? this tastes like Aspertame to me, yet I did not see this on the packet. I will have to trash this box. S. Miller
..Truvia and mouth sores..

Have recently (within the last 6-7 weeks) started using Truvia in a commercially prepared frozen product (one of my few vices!) that formerly was sweetened with Splenda. Developed strange mouth sores that lingered. Normally follow an organic, healthy diet and have not had this symptom. In a process of elimination, I realized yesterday that the only difference was that change/addition of Truvia, so I decided to Google Truvia side effects. The light was dawning that perhaps the one change I could document, Truvia, was contributing to the strange mouth sores (new for me). Tonight, found your commentary site and noted a similar response from a Karen Todd. Sounds like what I have been experiencing. No more of that particular vice - I'll go back to my favorite sweetener - Xylitol. Back to the old adage - "don't mess with Mother Nature..." Anonymous reader
..Truvia and bad taste..

I too tried Truvia, had an adverse response and found your website while googling Truvia's side effects. Two days ago I bought some Blue Bunny "fudgecicles" sweetened with Truvia. I ate one in the car on the way home; it left a slightly bad taste in my mouth but once I popped in a piece of minty gum, the taste went away. That evening after dinner I ate another and then nothing I put in my mouth made it go away. I liken it to the "sucking on a rusty pipe" taste I get from some antibiotics. I'm coming up on 48 hours from the first one I ate and I still have the taste at the back of my tongue. I'm curious if anyone else has reported this symptom. Needless to say I'm returning or pitching those suckers!!! Thank you for any info you can provide! Penny Cherrix, Salt Lake City, Utah
..Truvia and bloating, constipation, hives and itching..

Two anonymous readers reported resp. bloating and constipation after using Truvia, and Severe hives and itching. Sigh. And Stevia is STILL illegal!

[EvadingGrid]

Those measures sound over the top to me, surely overeating is the main issue here?

It is the main issue.

Over eating is defined by the amount of Exersise

[MarkCentury]

NO. Truvia is NOT FINE.

Hi Pilikia, can you cite any studies that support this?

[EvadingGrid]

Hi Pilikia, can you cite any studies that support this?

Some of the most common Truvia side effects include gastrointestinal problems of all different kinds.  You’ll find that you can end up feeling bloated, and uncomfortable, and you can also notice a change in your bowel movement habits.  But what’s more, Truvia side effects can even reach as far as affecting your breathing, as well as making you dizzy or nauseous when used in large doses.  Those are fairly serious conditions, and something that you really want to avoid, especially when you’re trying to be more healthy anyway.

http://truvia.org/truvia-side-effects/

[MarkCentury]

Thanks EvadingGrid ... unfortunately the website in your link doesn't provide a single citation.

btw I've used Truvia without any side effects at all.  

Without controlled studies I can't judge whether the opinions expressed on that website are true or not.

[Satyagraha]

Read this article and the others in the series. Clearly, Truvia is NOT Stevia (if the ingredients aren't enough to convince you that you have mischaracterized Truvia as EQUAL to Stevia, just remember that this product is manufactured by Cargill - one of the biggest eugenicist corporations on the planet), and so is deceptively advertised as being a 'natural' sweetener. It is anything BUT natural.

=============================================
http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/02/stevia-controversy/

In general with food, we see a destructive pattern with each refined product brought onto the market place.  Whole grains reduce the risk of heart disease while refined grains increase it.  The fructose in honey helps the body, while the fructose in HFCS has been linked to obesity, diabetes and insulin resistance.  Cold pressed natural oils dramatically reduce inflammation, while heavily refined hydrogenated oils promote inflammation – and chronic disease.  Why refined rebiana would be better for us than the whole leaf stevia has not been explained.

Cheers or Jeers?

There is some reason to think extracts of stevia, specifically stevioside, could prove extremely beneficial in a refined form but Truvia and PureVia do not contain any of that material.

Both sweeteners are proprietary formulas containing the largely untested rebiana and large amounts of erythritol, another non-caloric sweetening agent.

In fact, by volume, Truvia and PureVia have more erythritol than they do rebiana.  There is still no science testing Truvia and PureVia themselves, which would show how these two sweeteners (rebiana and erythritol) metabolize together.

=============================================

SO.... there is a LACK of scientific studies - as they prefer to use the designation of GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) to avoid sticky things like running studies to determine long-term effects of using Truvia or Purevia. (note the use of those psyop names 'TRUE' and 'PURE' for laboratory concoctions that have yet to be adequately tested). The fact is, you can't "PATENT" a natural herb... so the manufacturers carry it off to a lab, and proceed to develop a chemical version that they then call 'natural'. And whether or not it is harmful is yet to be determined; there is not enough data. But these are not just wholesome corporations trying to make a profit... these people have shown their true colors over the years. They do not deserve our trust; in fact, they deserve to be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.

Cargill recalls 1 mln pounds ground beef in U.S.
Sun Nov 4, 2007 7:22am EST

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Agricultural giant Cargill Inc said on Saturday it was recalling more than 1 million pounds of ground beef distributed in the United States because of possible E. coli contamination.

Full article

Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Review of F. William Engdahl's book published by Global Research
...

Pause to think: a normal healthy person can at the most go without food for perhaps seven days but it takes a full season, say around four months, for a seed to grow into food crop.

Just five agri-biz corporations, all US based (Cargill, Bunge, Archer Daniels, et al), control global grain trade, and just five control global trade in seeds.

Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, and Dow Chemicals control genetically engineered seeds. While these powerful oligopolies were being knocked into place, anti-trust laws were diluted to exempt these firms. Engdahl writes, "It was not surprising that the Pentagon's National Defense University, on the eve of the 2003 Iraq  War, issued a paper declaring: 'Agribiz is to the United States what oil is to the Middle East.' Agribusiness had become a strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world's only superpower." (page 143)

The "Green Revolution" was part of the Rockefeller agenda to destroy seed diversity and push oil and gas based agriculture inputs in which Rockefeller's had main interest. Destruction of seed diversity and dependence on proprietary hybrids was the first step in food control. (See my notes, Box 1)

It is true that initially Green Revolution technologies led to spurt in farm productivity but at a huge cost of destruction of farmlands, bio-diversity, poisoned aquifers and progressively poor health of the people and was the true agenda of 'the proponents of Green Revolution.'

The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008

The financial meltdown and economic crisis illustrated that corporations will destroy even themselves in search of profit.



By Robert Weissman, Multinational Monitor
Posted on November 24, 2008, Printed on November 24, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/108321/

Cargill: Food Profiteers

The world's food system is broken. Or, more accurately, the giant food companies and their allies in the U.S. and other rich country governments, and at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, broke it.

Thirty years ago, most developing countries produced enough food to feed themselves [CHECK]. Now, 70 percent are net food importers.

Thirty years ago, most developing countries had in place mechanisms aimed at maintaining a relatively constant price for food commodities. Tariffs on imports protected local farmers from fluctuations in global food prices. Government-run grain purchasing boards paid above-market prices for farm goods when prices were low, and required farmers to sell below-market when prices were high. The idea was to give farmers some certainty over price, and to keep food affordable for consumers. Governments also provided a wide set of support services for farmers, giving them advice on new crop and growing technologies and, in some countries, helping set up cooperative structures.

This was not a perfect system by any means, but it looks pretty good in retrospect.

Over the last three decades, the system was completely abandoned, in country after country. It was replaced by a multinational-dominated, globally integrated food system, in which the World Bank and other institutions coerced countries into opening their markets to cheap food imports from rich countries and re-orienting their agricultural systems to grow food for rich consumers abroad. Proponents said the new system was a "free market" approach, but in reality it traded one set of government interventions for another - a new set of rules that gave enhanced power to a handful of global grain trading companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, as well as to seed and fertilizer corporations.

"For this food regime to work," Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved, told the U.S. House Financial Services Committee at a May hearing, "existing marketing boards and support structures needed to be dismantled. In a range of countries, this meant that the state bodies that had been supported and built by the World Bank were dismantled by the World Bank. The rationale behind the dismantling of these institutions was to clear the path for private sector involvement in these sectors, on the understanding that the private sector would be more efficient and less wasteful than the public sector."

"The result of these interventions and conditions," explained Patel, "was to accelerate the decline of developing country agriculture. One of the most striking consequences of liberalization has been the phenomenon of ‘import surges.' These happen when tariffs on cheaper, and often subsidized, agricultural products are lowered, and a host country is then flooded with those goods. There is often a corresponding decline in domestic production. In Senegal, for example, tariff reduction led to an import surge in tomato paste, with a 15-fold increase in imports, and a halving of domestic production. Similar stories might be told of Chile, which saw a three-fold surge in imports of vegetable oil, and a halving of domestic production. In Ghana in 1998, local rice production accounted for over 80 percent of domestic consumption. By 2003, that figure was less than 20 percent."

The decline of developing country agriculture means that developing countries are dependent on the vagaries of the global market. When prices spike - as they did in late 2007 and through the beginning of 2008 - countries and poor consumers are at the mercy of the global market and the giant trading companies that dominate it. In the first quarter of 2008, the price of rice in Asia doubled, and commodity prices overall rose 40 percent. People in rich countries felt this pinch, but the problem was much more severe in the developing world. Not only do consumers in poor countries have less money, they spend a much higher proportion of their household budget on food - often half or more - and they buy much less processed food, so commodity increases affect them much more directly. In poor countries, higher prices don't just pinch, they mean people go hungry. Food riots broke out around the world in early 2008.

But not everyone was feeling pain. For Cargill, spiking prices was an opportunity to get rich. In the second quarter of 2008, the company reported profits of more than $1 billion, with profits from continuing operations soaring 18 percent from the previous year. Cargill's 2007 profits totaled more than $2.3 billion, up more than a third from 2006.

In a competitive market, would a grain-trading middleman make super-profits? Or would rising prices crimp the middleman's profit margin?

Well, the global grain trade is not competitive.

In an August speech, Cargill CEO Greg Page posed the question, "So, isn't Cargill exploiting the food situation to make money?" Here is how he responded:

"I would give you four pieces of information about why our earnings have gone up dramatically.

The demand for food has gone up. The demand for our facilities has gone up, and we are running virtually all of our facilities worldwide at total capacity. As we utilize our capacity more effectively, clearly we do better.
Fertilizer prices rose, and we are owners of a large fertilizer company. That has been the single largest factor in Cargill's earnings.
The volatility in the grain industry - much of it created by governments - was an opportunity for a trading company like Cargill to make money.

Finally, in this era of high prices, Cargill over the last two years has invested $15.5 billion additional dollars into the world food system. Some was to carry all these high-priced inventories. We also wanted to be sure that we were there for farmers who needed the working capital to operate in this much more expensive environment. Clearly, our owners expected some return on that $15.5 billion. Cargill had an opportunity to make more money in this environment, and I think that is something that we need to be very forthright about."

OK, Mr. Page, that's all very interesting. The question was, "So, isn't Cargill exploiting the food situation to make money?" It sounds like your answer is, "yes."

This report was published in Dec 1995.

Ten to twelve pivotal companies, assisted by another three dozen, run the world's food supply. They are the key components of the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, which is grouped around Britain's House of Windsor. Led by the six leading grain companies—Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and Born, André, and Archer Daniels Midland/Töpfer—the Windsor-led food and raw materials cartel has complete domination over world cereals and grains supplies, from wheat to corn and oats, from barley to sorghum and rye. But it also controls meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, fruits and vegetables, sugar, and all forms of spices.

Each year tens of millions die from the most elementary lack of their daily bread. This is the result of the work of the Windsor-led cartel. And, as the ongoing financial collapse wipes out bloated speculative financial paper, the oligarchy has moved into hoarding, increasing its food and raw materials holdings. It is prepared to apply a tourniquet to food production and export supplies, not only to poor nations, but to advanced sector nations as well.

The use of food as a weapon can be found at least four millennia ago in Babylon. Imperial Rome took this tack, as did Venice and various Venetian offshoots, including the Antwerp-centered, powerful Burgundian duchy, and the Dutch and British Levant companies, East India companies, and West India companies. Today, food warfare is firmly under the control of London, with the help of subordinate partners in especially Switzerland and Amsterdam. Today's food companies were created by having had a section of this ancient set of Mesopotamian-Roman-Venetian-British food networks and infrastructure carved out for them.

The Windsor-led oligarchy has built up a single, integrated raw materials cartel, with three divisions—energy, raw materials and minerals, and increasingly scarce food supplies. Figure 1 represents the situation. At the top is the House of Windsor and Club of the Isles. Right below are two of the principal appurtenances of the House of Windsor: the World Wide Fund for Nature, headed by the Doge of London, Prince Philip, which leads the world in orchestration of ethnic conflict and terrorism, such as the British-created afghansi movement; and British intelligence's Hollinger Corp. of Conrad Black, which is leading the assault to destroy Bill Clinton and the American Presidency.

...

Food is a weapon
Episode #041
Date/Duration:    
2008/05/11 / 1:04:53
Description:    
What do the Rockefellers, the Gates, Monsanto, the Norwegian government and other nefarious entities have to do with the doomsday seed vault? And what is their endgame. Let's connect the dots and find out who the enemy really is.

============================================

Henry Kissinger's 1974 Plan for
Food Control Genocide
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/kiss_nssm_jb_1995.html
   
This article appeared as part of a feature in the December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, and was circulated extensively by the Schiller Insitute Food for Peace Movement. It is reprinted here as part of the package: “Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage?”

Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide

by Joseph Brewda
Dec. 8, 1995

On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.

The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 “to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population.” The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since “a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production.” The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, “might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West,” especially effecting “military strength and security.”

NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 “key countries” in which the United States had a “special political and strategic interest”: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.

For example, Nigeria: “Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa.” Or Brazil: “Brazil clearly dominated the continent demographically.” The study warned of a “growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years.”

Food as a weapon

There were several measures that Kissinger advocated to deal with this alleged threat, most prominently, birth control and related population-reduction programs. He also warned that “population growth rates are likely to increase appreciably before they begin to decline,” even if such measures were adopted.

A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targetted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: “There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”

“Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” the document continued, adding, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? ... Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?”

Kissinger also predicted a return of famines that could make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary. “Rapid population growth and lagging food production in developing countries, together with the sharp deterioration in the global food situation in 1972 and 1973, have raised serious concerns about the ability of the world to feed itself adequately over the next quarter of century and beyond,” he reported.

The cause of that coming food deficit was not natural, however, but was a result of western financial policy: “Capital investments for irrigation and infrastucture and the organization requirements for continuous improvements in agricultural yields may be beyond the financial and administrative capacity of many LDCs. For some of the areas under heaviest population pressure, there is little or no prospect for foreign exchange earnings to cover constantly increasingly imports of food.”

“It is questionable,” Kissinger gloated, “whether aid donor countries will be prepared to provide the sort of massive food aid called for by the import projections on a long-term continuing basis.” Consequently, “large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished,” was foreseeable—famine, which has indeed come to pass.

==============================================

Cargill is part of the cabal that supports the NWO population reduction agenda.
Their products, including TrueVia, will support their agenda.

Don't use TrueVia - don't trust Cargill.

Any questions?

[WhiteWitch]

There is a brown sugar made from molasses that makes a good alternative, our nutrition tutor told us about it but I can't for the life of me remember what it's called.. Also-just like brown bread, most brown sugar is just White sugar dyed brown, sickening huh?

Still, I'd rather deal with the sugar in moderation than any sweeteners.. I think the main problem is that people don't understand the concept of moderation anymore.. Natural sugars are not of themselves bad-but the sheer amount of them that we consume daily-THAT is the problem

[HealthWyze]

Both Sucrose and HFCS contain roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose.  

This is where it all went wrong. Sugar (virtually all sucrose) is not glucose + fructose.  Sure, it may be digested into them, but that is a major difference.  They are metabolized differently.  L-Tryptophan can be metabolized in the body into serotonin, melatonin, and lactic acid, but taken by themselves, at least two of those can cause problems. Taken as a supplement, however, tryptophan can reduce depression and aid sleep without the side-effects associated with SSRIs.

[WhiteWitch]

The name of that brown sugar made from molasses is Rapunzel. The reason its better for you is that it actually has nutritional value (minerals) as opposed to just being a sugar.

I would be concerned with putting forth the idea that all sugar is bad.. As we require glucose to live. All "sugars" are made up of glucose, the different names come from the legnth of the chain and the distribution of glucose molecules. This is the difference between simple and complex carbs.

Glucose is broken down in the mouth by amylase and absorbed quickly, this sends the blood sugar shooting up and in turn sends the insulin levels rising to account for the sudden rise in blood sugar. This is why refined carbs are bad, they are known as monosaccharides (one glucose molecule = simple)

The more complex sugars (disaccharides) are digested and absorbed in the duodenum by their relevant enzymes. Therefore, they are slower to release and are considered to be better sources of carbohydrates.
Maltose = glucose + glucose ->converted to glucose by the enzyme maltose
sucrose = glucose + fructose ->glucose is released by the enzyme sucrase
lactose = glucose + galactose ->glucose is released by the enzyme lactase
Lactose intolerant people are missing the enzyme lactase and therefore cannot break down galactose into monosaccharides - or glucose molecules.

Fructose on the other hand is a different arrangement of glucose molecules, it is broken down in the duodenum as the shape needs to be altered in order for it to be converted into disaccharides. It is then taken to the liver via the hepatic vein. As it is a slow burning sugar it should be better for you - provided it is to be used rather than laid down as fat.

The reason that high fructose corn syrup is bad is (as pointed out in the main post) the amount of chemical f**kery that goes on in its manufacture. Fructose + glucose = sucrose, so whatever is added to this syrup in order to prevent this bond from forming is the culprit.
Plus the name gives it away, HIGH fructose corn syrup.. Again with the moderation I was talking about in my last post, fructose is not a problem when consumed in its natural form, because there would not be an abnormally high amount in the plant. The fact that they have taken the fructose from corn starch, isolated it, messed around with it, concentrated it and started adding it into everything so liberally means that it is consumed in amounts far greater than the body can handle. And because it doesn't trigger the insulin response in the same way as glucose, it is not metabolised effectively and is therefore stored as fat for when there is a food shortage and the body needs it, and fat around the liver is not a good thing.

Only, there's never a food shortage in the "developed" world.. There is always a food excess, and this stored fat is never utilized, and constantly being added to..

Sadly when it comes to food everyone always blows things way out of proportion, from its consumption (over or under), to the things were told by the media about it. We humans are supposed to be hunter gatherers, were not supposed to sit on our asses drinking soda and eating chips, were supposed to live on the stuff growing out of the ground (without the chemicals made by big Agri thank you're the GM nonsense) and some fish or a little meat.. But thats all gone out the window since profit got involved. Were supposed to work for our food too, but the majority of us spend our days sitting in front of some semblance of screen.. The sugars (glucose, sucrose, fructose etc) wouldn't be evil if we weren't getting so much of them and we were burning them off - but the HIGH fructose syrup would be because its not one of the ideal sources that Mother Nature so lovingly gave us, the same way vitamin isolates are not vitamins.

I realise that the original post did go someway to pointing this out, but unfortunately to those who do not understand digestion the phrase "all sugar is bad" will be misread and misunderstood. In the same way telling someone to cut all carbs from their diet is basically saying live on fat and protein alone which would be very bad for you indeed. By all means cut refined carbs out, but you can no more remove carbs from your diet than remove air from your respiration.

Pasta and bread are not in themselves bad - provided they are really wholegrain and the consumer is not intolerant to wheat - and even then there are alternatives. There are plenty out there who can tolerate wheat, and so long as they stick to the whole grain it would more contribute to fibre in the diet (although wheat bran is not the best form of fibre available). On the other hand if you are intolerant to gliadin you have to avoid oats as well as wheat - and oats are a far better source of fibre. But moderation is key as with everything
Potatoes are not "bad" either, but they are starchy and for those wanting to lose weight they are slower to burn and therefore require more work to burn off, the simple sugars will be burnt off first. Baby potatoes however are not as starchy, and again, in moderation, are ok.
Cakes and biscuits are bad because they are always made with refined wheat. Refined wheat has had the fibrous husk removed and the protein inside - gluten, is exposed, this is not meant to be in the digestive tract until the colon when the intestinal flora would be breaking down the husk which the refining process has removed - this is what triggers an insensitivity and in some cases allergy to wheat (and all other gluten containing grains). That and it also destroys the cells that make insulin; the "islets of langerhans", with the bleach used to make the flour white - alloxan. Leading to late onset type 1 diabetes (or insulin dependant diabetes). In people "born" with diabetes iT is usually the result of consumption of cows milk before the gut wall has developed, releasing a protien strand from the cows milk into the body undigested - triggering an immune response and manufacturing antibodies to this protein, which is identical to the islets of langerhans, thus rendering the infant incapable of insulin production.

The fact of the matter is that all sugars are destined to be broken down and used by the cells mitochondria as fuel, provided there is sufficient heat being generated by the body, but for the majority of people, is that actually happening?

[freedom_commonsense]

Well I'm not concerned with weight *loss* at this point, I'm less than 130lbs 

[MarkCentury]

First I will agree with anyone who says we need to be very, very cautious of any products promoted by the large international food conglomerates (monsanto, cargill, etc.).  Their track record proves they put profits over the health of their customers.  And worse they have an agenda (I'm thinking of Monsanto and GMOs) that is nothing short of pure evil -- ultimately leading end of our species (GMOs cause complete sterility by the 3rd generation).

Having said that, we also need to be very, very cautious about jumping to conclusions without careful review of data and studies.  

Let's start by being very careful about our terminology.

When I say "sugar" I mean sucrose, or common table sugar.

sugar = sucrose = 50% fructose + 50% glucose (linked via a glycosidic linkage).

I've seen people erroneously refer to HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) as "fructose".  This is not true and greatly confusing.  HFCS contains both fructose and glucose.

HFCS = 55% fructose + 45% glucose (not linked, existing as free monosaccharides).

Another point of confusion is the name "high" fructose corn syrup which makes people think HFCS has large quantities of of fructose, which it doesn't -- only 55% (there is another version known as HFCS 90 - but this is seldom used).  The term "High" was introduced to distinguish HFCS from regular corn syrup which is primarily glucose.

This fructose-glucose linkage of is rapidly broken via hydrolysis, accelerated via acid in the stomach and by the enzyme sucrase which is secreted by the villi in the small intestine (primarily in the duodenum, the first part of the small intestine).

Once sucrose has been broken down in the small intestine to the monosaccharides fructose and glucose there is no difference from the monosaccharides (fructose and glucose) supplied by HFCS.

So if HFCS has greater health issues than table sugar (I previously referenced one study that suggests that it does) it must be due to greater availability of the monosaccharides (no bonds to break),  contaminants (mercury), isomers, or other components found in HFCS.  I'm still researching this and will report back.

So the monosaccharide fructose is a serious toxin regardless of whether you are getting it from HFCS, table sugar or honey.  

I haven't really discussed the problems with fructose (again I'm talking now about the monosaccharide fructose NOT HFCS), but here are some headlines:

- fructose glycates (non-enzymatic cross-linking) proteins at a very high rate.  This leads to accelerated aging.  For example, fructose glycates 10x faster than glucose.

- fructose is 100% metabolized by the liver (only 20% of glucose is - the rest taken up and metabolized directly by other tissues.  More signicantly, fructose metabolism in the liver also yields high levels of VLDL --the form of LDL that is particularly prone to result in plaques within ateries.  Fructose metabolism leads to fatty deposits within organs (the dangerous abdominal fat) as opposed to storage in adipose tissue (which is where fat is supposed to be stored).  

So fructose is bad news.  However glucose is also a problem when its levels get too high.  High levels of glucose result in high levels of insulin and inflammation.  Chronic inflammation is the mother of most serious diseases.  

Over eating (too many calories) is not the main cause of being overweight.  It's WHAT you eat that is the problem.  The chief causes of being overweight are high levels of insulin and inflammation (and high levels of insulin results in inflammation because insulin accelerates the production of arachidonic acid which is the precursor of "bad" (inflammatory) prostaglandins -- particularly PGE2.

To minimize insulin (and inflammation and being overweight) you want to minimize blood glucose levels:

- Eat a very high fiber diet (shoot for 50 to 100 grams a day).

- Virtually eliminate all forms of simple sugars (table sugar, HFCS, honey, organic sugar)

- Eliminate all sweetened drinks (regular soda, diet soda, fruit juices, flavored milk, commercial sweetened teas)

- Eliminate all sugar replacements except stevia, erythritol, Lou Han Gou, and small amounts of Xylitol

- Drink water and tea sweetened with stevia.

- Concentrate on alkaline forming foods.  Lemon juice is actually alkaline forming in the body and is a great way to make reduce your acidity.

- Eat only small quantities of starchy foods (bread, pasta, rice)

- Eliminate all "crunchy carbohydrates" (cookies, crackers, potatoe chips etc.).  These supply large quantities of dietary AGEs (advanced glycation end products) - which are just as poisonous as endogenous (produced internally) AGEs.  These are highly glycemic (raise blood glucose levels).  

- Don't fry, cook or bake at high temperatures.  This can produce acrylamides, and produce AGEs.  The upper limit of your cooking temps should be steaming or boiling with water.  Instead of frying, saute vegetables using water/coconut oil at low temps.

- Raw vegetables (salads but salads with all sorts of healthy vegetables) are GREAT.  Make your own salad dressing from olive oil, balsamic vinegar (SCFA) and lots of anti-inflammatory spices (tumeric, ginger, cinnamon, rosemary, cloves, basil, cilantro, parsley, garlic).

- Get your glucose instead from organic vegetables (and smaller amounts of fruit)

- Eat very little meat.  Its acid forming, filled with contaminants, contains inflammatory fats.

- match your consumption of organic vegetables and fruits with high quality source of protein (protein powder, beans, small amounts of lean chicken, turkey).  Protein boosts glucagon which will counteract insulin and this will reduce inflammation.

- Of course eat no trans-fats.  Of course no GMOs.

- Elminate all vegetable oils (including canola oil).  These are ALL highly oxidized and very dangerious.

- Elminate all margarines and "spreads" (except SmartBalance which is great)

- Get your fats from SCFA (by eating fiber and taking probiotics you'll produce your own in your large intestine) and MCFA (coconut oil), virgin olive oil (store it in opaque containers and don't cook with it! -- cook with coconut oil put olive oil on your salads), and pharmaceutical grade fish oils (EPA/DHA).

[Satyagraha]

Having said that, we also need to be very, very cautious about jumping to conclusions without careful review of data and studies.  

Agreed, and yet you failed to include any links to original sources in your post. What's up with that?
It would be especially welcomed when you make assertions about commercially available products you decide are 'great'.

[MarkCentury]

Agreed, and yet you failed to include any links to original sources in your post. What's up with that?
It would be especially welcomed when you make assertions about commercially available products you decide are 'great'.

I agree Pilikia.  The problem is I've got limited time.  So I'm trying to be as helpful as I can in the time I have. 

I certainly encourage everyone to research these health suggestions for themselves.

[LivingintheMatrix]

what about adding honey as a substutute for sugar in hot beverages?

[Femacamper]

Xylitol will give you the runs if you have too much, but other than that it's healthy with most usage.

[wvoutlaw2002]

The name of that brown sugar made from molasses is Rapunzel. The reason its better for you is that it actually has nutritional value (minerals) as opposed to just being a sugar.

I would be concerned with putting forth the idea that all sugar is bad.. As we require glucose to live. All "sugars" are made up of glucose, the different names come from the legnth of the chain and the distribution of glucose molecules. This is the difference between simple and complex carbs.

Yeah, and that's why I have an issue with organizations such as CSPI and "nutritional advocates" such as Marion Nestle. On one hand, the corn industry shills from the Corn Refiners Association and the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) say "HFCS is nutritionally the same as sugar, therefore all sugar is good for you". On the other hand, CSPI and Marion Nestle use HFCS as a trojan horse to demonize all sugar equally by saying "HFCS is nutritionally the same as sugar, therefore all sugar is bad for you and must be taxed and/or banned". So the "all sugar is good for you" crowd and the "all sugar is bad for you" crowd are pretty much the same...from different points of view. And both sides of the phony debate whitewash any role that aspartame and MSG play in causing obesity. According to the "personal responsibility" crowd, obesity is caused by people being lazy slobs spending too much time watching TV and playing video games. While according to the "food police", obesity is caused by "cheap foods loaded with fat, salt, and sugar". Yet neither side utter a peep about aspartame and MSG causing obesity. Both sides are aspartame/MSG apologists owned, controlled, and funded by the aspartame/MSG industry. Google CSPI, CCF, and Monsanto. Monsanto controls both sides of the phony debate.

[LivingintheMatrix]

Yes fructose is metabolised differently than glucose both in the liver and from this research in cancer cells as well.  Virtually all fructose is metabolised by the liver (as opposed to other tissues).  In the liver fructose leads directly to the formation of new fat and fat of the worse kind:  VLDL (very low density lipoproteins) implicated in the formation of plaques within our blood vessels.  Fructose also accelerates aging by glycating (cross linking) proteins TEN TIMES FASTER than glucose.

A recent study at Princeton shows that HFCS is indeed worse that sucrose (table sugar)

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

However, since fructose increases cancer proliferation it is SUGAR that you need to be concerned with, not merely corn syrup.

Remember that ...

Sucrose (table sugar) = fructose + glucose
High Fructos Corn Syrup = fructose + glucose

Both Sucrose and HFCS contain roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. 

The disaccharide sucrose (table sugar) bonds the fructose to the glucose.  Splitting this bond requires an extra step and the enzyme sucrase which may be one reason that table sugar is better than HFCS.  The fructose and glucose in HFCS exist as free saccharides which means the fructose can be easily and rapidly metabolized by the liver.

Of course much of the HFCS on the market (50% or more) has also been shown to contain mercury.

However, don't view sucrase (table sugar) as the "good guy"!  We all have abundant amounts of the enzyme sucrase that splits the fructose-glucose bond as soon as sugar hits our digestive system.   So even regular table sugar gives you lots of fructose.  And excess glucose leads to insulin insensitivity, syndrome X, diabetes, inflammation and death.

Fresh fruit contains lots of fructose and sucrose (which in turn is made up of fructose and glucose).  However the fructose in fruit is somewhat offset by the large amounts of fiber in fruit.

For a visual comparison go here:
http://sugarstacks.com/

Bottom line: ALL SUGAR IS POISON.  If you want to be healthy follow these rules:

1) Eliminate ALL sweetened beverages!!!  Of course this includes sodas and diet sodas, but also includes fruit juices that are TERRIBLE for you (extremely high in sugar!).  Drink water and unsweetened tea (or tea sweetened ONLY with stevia).

2) Elminate virtually ALL sugar replacements (aspartame, Splenda (sucralose), acesulfame potassium, "organic" sugars, agave syrup (TERRIBLE for you because its all fructose!!).  There are only three sweeteners you should consider: stevia, erythritol, and an occassional very small amount of honey.  There ARE NO OTHER SHORTCUTS ... if its sweet and wasn't sweetened with stevia or erythritol, its bad for you!

3) Eliminate ALL "crunchy carbs" (cookies, potato chips and other snacks)

4) Dramatically reduce (to almost nothing) starchy carbs (rice, pasta, potatoes, bread)

5) Get virtually all of your carbs from colorful organic VEGETABLES and fruits.

6) Whenever you eat carbs (from vegetables and fruit) match them with protein.  This will help control the glucagon/insulin axis which in turn controls inflammation.

Learn more about the dangers of sugar (in all its forms) by watching this presentation:

Sugar: The Bitter Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM


Thank you for bringing this information to my attention as well as providing the film. I'll have to look into this at some point in the near future. 

[MarkCentury]

what about adding honey as a substutute for sugar in hot beverages?

If you were going to eat sugar, honey is your best bet because along with the sugar you get lots of nutrients.

However if you read my prior post (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=182442.msg1080218#msg1080218) you'll see that I've suggested:

- Virtually eliminate all forms of simple sugars (table sugar, HFCS, honey, organic sugar)

- Eliminate all sweetened drinks (regular soda, diet soda, fruit juices, flavored milk, commercial sweetened teas)

- Eliminate all sugar replacements except stevia, erythritol, Lou Han Gou, and small amounts of Xylitol

Good health to you LivingInTheMatrix

[MarkCentury]

Speaking of honey ... here's a study that shows that honey applied topically is 43% better for cold sores than the prescription antiviral drug  acyclovir.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15278008

Of course in addition to honey be sure to take large quantities of lysine (2 to 3 grams a day at first and then slowly reduce down to 500 mg per day).  You can also get l-Lysine ointment which will stop an emerging cold sore completely if you treat it soon enough.

http://www.vitacost.com/Quantum-Super-Lysine-Cream

Also absolutely avoid arginine (in supplements, chocolate or nuts) while fighting cold sores.  

[WhiteWitch]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to explain that my comment about HIGH fructose syrup is that it is a concentrated source of the stuff, not that there is more fructose than glucose or anything of the sort.

ANYTHING in a large enough dose is bad for you. But you can pretty much take it as read that if it was man made as opposed to naturally formed, then it is bad. If it is a man made equivalent of a natural substance, it is bad. The syrup is evil just as aspartame is-but there is such a thing as naturally occurring sugars, and to just say eliminate all sugars is to simplify it to an unhealthy extent.

Fructose is found in fruit, alongside enzymes that help to break it and other things down-which is why the fruit is not considered a bad thing. But eating too much fruit is bad for you too.

Moderation is the key-once again. Our problem as humans is that this idea of moderation goes out the window because food stimulates the pleasure centres in our brain and we keep eating more. We get told that something is healthy so we assume more is better which is rarely the case.

By the same token, when something is overconsumed, like for instance, sugar, and we all get told that it's evil even though this is not strictly the case.

A little of (almost) everything does you good. Now if man hadn't insisted on f**king with the chemical make up of plants then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.. Profit and greed, it will be the downfall of us all.

[MarkCentury]

Those profiting from selling high fructose corn syrup are fighting back (understandably). 

The link below points to numerous studies they claim demonstrate that the metabolism of the fructose and glucose in corn syrup is no different than metabolizing other sugars that contain these saccharides.

If the scientists behind these studies are intentionally disorting their findings, they should be imprisoned.

http://www.cornnaturally.com/sweeteners-science/sweetener-research/

[Libertarian Perspective]

4) Dramatically reduce (to almost nothing) starchy carbs (rice, pasta, potatoes, bread)


Sugar: The Bitter Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

I must correct you here. Eliminate all sugar from refined carbohydrates such as WHITE rice, WHITE pasta, all potataoes (you are right here), WHITE bread.

The key word here is white, since these have been refined and all the minerals have been taken away. The key is also the removing of husk from rice which contains minerals and vitamins the most important. In English we say: white and brown rice, but the rioce isn't really brown, it's COMPLETE. White rice is incomplete.

Most diabetes started during the industrial Revolution when sugar was brought back from Jamaica and the indies and flour started to get refined, "sophisticated" as they called it. Back before 17th century there was no such thing as diabetes or bad teeth.

[Libertarian Perspective]

There is a brown sugar made from molasses that makes a good alternative, our nutrition tutor told us about it but I can't for the life of me remember what it's called.. Also-just like brown bread, most brown sugar is just White sugar dyed brown, sickening huh?

According to Kushi the sugar made from molasses, the one you are talking about is also bad. Sugar is bad full stop, it is refined. What you are talking about maybe is needing complex carbohydrates which found in brown bread and grains and limited amounts of sugar from organically grown vegetables. Then again if we analyse I am using the wrong word, it's not even technically called sugar.

[Libertarian Perspective]

I would recommend to people this article from the Macrobiotics website about sugar:
http://macrobiotics.co.uk/sugar.htm

[WhiteWitch]

The recommendation about the rapunzel sugar came from a man who has been a well respected nutritional therapist and has been involved in nutritional research for 35 years.. I was merely passing on his recommendation from the lecture we spent discussing sugar. 
As with anything balance is the key. A small, limited amount of sugar is not a bad thing-unless it's white sugar, which has no nutritional value at all. Anything in a large enough dose can be harmful, even pure water.. 
It's humans and their tendency toward extremes that led us to this. We have an overconsumption problem, so now instead of preaching balance-we tip to the other side and are being told to avoid it completely-which is absurd.. Much like the salt or saturated fat propaganda.. 
Just watch-cutting out sugar completely may lead to it's own issues, just as cutting out salt completely (electrolyte imbalance) or cutting out saturated fat altogether (arterial degeneration) does.