How Many Essential Fatty Acids Are There?

With so many alternative health practitioners talking about essential fatty acids, it’s interesting to see how many of them don’t really know what essential fatty acids are. Most say something like “Omega 3s and Omega 6s are essential fatty acids”. This is an inaccurate statement.

By definition, there are only two essential fatty acids; alpha-linolenic acid (one of many omega-3 fatty acids), and linoleic acid (one of many omega-6 fatty acids). The body can convert these two essential fatty acids into all the other fatty acids the body needs, but the body is not always able to do this adequately for optimum health. For this reason, a wide variety of healthy fats are essential for optimum health.

For more on fat check out our article, FAT.

Cultural Cognition and Alternative Medicine

Alternative medicine changed my life. After successfully reversing chronic, debilitating auto-immune disease, I believed my experience with alternative medicine would convince my sister to follow the same route to health. Her battles with Lupus and heart disease left her disabled and living with pain, fatigue, and limitations every day of her life. She missed her formerly active lifestyle. She truly wanted to get well, but her values, her belief system, would not allow her to embrace alternative medicine. A former ICU and CCU nurse, she placed her faith in conventional treatment. She died.

A few months ago my eldest brother was diagnosed with lung cancer. I didn’t even try to argue the merits of alternative treatment. I knew better. He immediately began chemotherapy. Within weeks, he was dead. The treatment killed him before cancer had the chance.

I have not taken an antibiotic or any other prescription medication for more than 15 years (other than Novocain at the dentist). It’s not that I’ve never been sick—I continued to battle ear infections, sinus infections, even pneumonia. But I never resort to antibiotics. Instead I choose to use supplements and herbs, to aid my immune system, to allow my body to heal itself. As a result, I’ve suffered substantially fewer and significantly milder infections each year.

My friends, my family, my co-workers have all been aware that I embrace alternative medicine. Occasionally, they’ll even try one of my suggested remedies. But no matter how well it works, they tend to forget the easy, natural cure when the same symptoms strike a year later. And no matter how many times we’ve discussed my philosophies and success with alternative treatments, when I tell them I am sick, they tell me I need antibiotics. My success with alternative medicine has had little influence on anyone I know other than my children and my best friend, who now has one foot in alternative treatment and one foot in conventional treatment.

When I hear people talking about a health problem, especially chronic or potentially fatal conditions or diseases, I want to share information. I want to help. But unless that person is already open to alternative treatment, expounding my views is a waste of breath. The truth is, we all tend to stay in our comfort zones and maintain our world views. People who believe conventional medicine is science and alternative medicine is quackery tune out reports of 200,000 head-in-sand or more deaths each year from prescription drug complications (not overdoses, not the wrong drug, not illegal drugs—properly prescribed drugs), but their ears perk right up when they hear a news report that says a natural remedy caused one or two deaths. Facts don’t matter when our prevailing culture tells us conventional medicine is good and alternative medicine is bad.

The first time I encountered this blind indifference to the truth was soon after my eldest son was diagnosed with severe ADHD. I had read about treating ADHD through diet. When I mentioned the possibility of diet management to the diagnosing physician, he patiently and thoroughly explained that diet management didn’t work, sharing details about a study that had statistically proven it.

Undeterred and refusing to place my preschooler on Ritalin, I tried the dietary restrictions. Within weeks, there was not only an astounding change in my child’s behavior, there was a measurable change in his ability—concrete, fully measurable change. My child, whose artistic ability had been limited to drawing smiley faces and pictures of the sun (far below his age level), drew detailed pictures such as a bird in a cage with talons and feathers and a rocket ship blasting off, complete with flames, pictures that far exceeded his age level.

The only change in his world had been the removal of all food colorings, flavorings, and preservatives from his diet. In other words, he had eaten no processed foods.

The doctor did not want to discuss our success. He did not want to see my proof. Nor did he want to hear about my son’s astounding change in behavior. Success in treating ADHD through diet was completely at odds with his world view, even on a case-by-case basis.

In recent years, our society has grown to accept a few truths about health and diet. Now that the medical establishment tells us so, we believe a high fat diet rich in fried foods will lead to heart disease. Most of us also believe there is a link to type II diabetes. We accept the medically recommended changes in diet to manage those diseases, as long as we include prescribed pharmaceuticals. But most of us, even those of us who believe a healthy diet could have prevented these diseases in the first place, have a hard time imagining a healthy diet could offer a cure. The belief that food has the power to heal, or that food can give the body what it needs to heal itself, is so foreign to today’s modern medical approach it is rejected out of hand.

On Facebook, Michael (Editor and Chief of OLM), posted his belief that we are responsible for our health, that getting healthy is easier than most of us think. “It’s getting over the brainwashing that’s tough,” he said. “Most people could rid themselves of most any disease from cancer to diabetes in a few months or even weeks.”

Michael’s post really offended a few people who vehemently reacted to the idea that a cancer “victim’s” lifestyle choices may have led to the disease. While it is acceptable to assume lifestyle choices lead to heart disease, it is not as acceptable to reach the same conclusion in regards to cancer, unless, of course, we blame the pack-a-day smoker for contracting lung cancer.

The statement that we could actually cure cancer also set off a firestorm. ”If you know between diet and how to cure cancer, why isn’t it on the front page of the newspaper? Why isn’t it on the news?”

Max Gerson’s therapy has been curing cancer for 80 years. So, I ask you, why isn’t it on the news? Why aren’t we hearing about the miracle cures? Why don’t we hear the personal testimonies from people who were told their cancer was incurable or inoperable, who went on to recover through nutritionally based therapy? Why aren’t we hearing from the women who chose nutrition-based therapy over a mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation, who are cancer free 20 years later? Or the men with testicular cancer? Or the cases of melanoma?

Yes, cancer is big business in this country. Yes, pharmaceutical companies run conventional medicine. But it’s more than that. Truly caring physicians believe that not one case of cancer has ever been cured by Gerson’s therapy or any other alternative treatment. Even when presented with first person accounts from a patient who fully recovered through alternative therapy, many otherwise intelligent, thoughtful physicians will find some means to disregard the obvious truth that lies outside of their value system. “They never had cancer in the first place,” they say. Or they decide the prior chemotherapy or radiation deemed a failure, had worked after all.

Why is the success of alternative medicine so blatantly ignored or dismissed? Perhaps it is a case of what Yale University calls cultural cognition. According to this theory, astute, intelligent people are prone to disregard facts that do not align with their cultural values. Information that does not support the prevailing value system is not believed, regardless of its validity or persuasiveness. If cultural cognition is the culprit, what values of conventional medicine are in conflict with alternative medicine?

Looking back at the cultural history of disease and treatment, we realize humankind saw disease as something outside of the body—ill fate, a curse of the gods. Herbs The patient wasn’t responsible for his or her health. The patient was the victim. In many ways, conventional medicine perpetuates this thinking. We get sick. We take drugs and we get well. Alternative medicine does not support this way of thinking or living. Alternative medicine forces us to take responsibility for our health by recognizing that we create or destroy it.

In order to be healthy, we must eat nutrient dense, live foods. We must exercise and get good quality sleep. We need to laugh, to play. We must minimize chemical exposure and detoxify the body.

Far too many of us place a higher value on convenience. We live fast lives. We eat fast foods. We buy them at the drive through. We pop a package into the microwave or we open a can. We live on chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and hamburgers. We don’t get near enough sleep so we down high caffeine energy drinks and coffee just to make it through the day.

We dye our hair. We lather up our skin with chemicals, and spray more chemicals into our armpits and onto our hair. We use more chemicals to clean our homes and to sweeten the air. And when our bodies give out, we blame our genetics rather than consider the possibility that our lifestyle could be at fault. When we seek out treatment, will we choose the fix that requires a complete overhaul of the lifestyle we have chosen? No. Not a chance. We choose the treatment that aligns with our values. We choose to be the victim. We choose to place our lives in the hands of our doctors. We choose what is easy, even when our lives are literally at stake.

As a society, our only hope to change this aberrational, mainstream perception of health and disease is through education and example. The more people are faced with the truth, the more they read, hear, and see the miracle of natural healing, the more they will open their minds to the possibility that our bodies are miraculous and that health begins and flourishes through a diet rich in organic, nutrient dense foods.

Dr. Max Gerson – Persecuted for Curing Cancer Naturally

Treating disease through nutritional therapy and detoxification is not a new treatment modality. Dr. Max Gerson discovered the power of healing through nutrition and detoxification more than eighty years ago.

Gerson suffered from migraines since childhood. His early experiments with diet were conducted as a means to find a cure. After becoming an M.D., he recommended his successful migraine diet to his patients, one of whom also suffered from lupus vulgaris (skin tuberculosis). The diet rid the man of migraines, and his skin lesions disappeared as well.

Albert Schweitzer and Max Gerson become lifelong friends after Dr. Gerson’s therapy cured Schweitzer of his Type II diabetes, cured Albert’s daughter of a chronic skin condition, and saved the life of Albert’s wife, suffering from tuberculosis of the lung, which had not responded to conventional treatment.

As Dr. Gerson continued to treat and cure tuberculosis patients, word spread. A well known and well respected physician set up a carefully monitored, in-house, hospital trial to replicate the results of the Gerson Therapy, but the diet wasn’t working. The patients made no progress towards recovery; several actually worsened. The hospital was on the brink of ending the trial when a nurse was caught sneaking prohibited food into the ward. Once the Gerson Therapy diet was strictly enforced, the patients rapidly responded to treatment. Of 450 lupus vulgaris patients – patients suffering from a hideous incurable disease – 446 were cured.

As is often the case when alternative treatments prevail, Dr. Gerson became the object of derision and suspicion by critics in the medical community. It didn’t matter that his results had been independently verified in the hospital study, or that sanatoriums were reporting great success treating their patients with his diet therapy. His critics accused him of falsifying data, saying Gerson’s patients had never suffered from lupus vulgaris.

During this time a woman with an advanced case of inoperable cancer of the bile duct heard of Gerson’s success in treating both tuberculosis and arthritis. She asked Dr. Gerson for help, but he didn’t want to treat her, fearing an attempt at cancer treatment would increase the professional backlash. But the woman insisted, telling him she would sign a statement holding him harmless if the treatment did not work. She finally convinced him. After she was cured, she brought two relatives with cancer to him for treatment, whom he also cured.

Dr. Gerson decided to appease his critics by conducting a new study. No patient would be included in the study unless two doctors independently confirmed the diagnosis prior to treatment. Unfortunately, Gerson’s research was left behind when he fled Nazi Germany.

Though Dr. Gerson was the first to say he didn’t know why the treatment worked on those first three cancer patients, he was intrigued by the possibility of successfully treating cancer. In Vienna he attempted to treat six more cancer patients, without success. In Paris he treated seven, with three successes.

When he immigrated to the United States and became licensed to practice, he again began treating cancer patients. Gerson said, “On the one side, the knife of the AMA was at my throat and on my back. I had only terminal cases. If I had not saved them, my clinic would have been a death house. Some of the cases were brought on stretchers. They couldn’t walk. They could no longer eat. It was very, very difficult. So, I really had to work out a treatment that could help these far advanced cases.”

As he continued to refine his treatment, he came to the conclusion that the disease process is essentially the same in all degenerative diseases.

He believed the digestive tract to be the most important part of our bodies. If digestion does not work properly, the body and its other organs are not properly nourished. And if digestion does not work properly, all waste products—toxins and poisons—are not eliminated. Instead they accumulate in our bodies. If the liver is overwhelmed, good health is impossible. During the Gerson treatment, the body is flooded with nutrients, oxidizing enzymes, and potassium. No added salt or fats other than flaxseed oil are allowed. Freshly pressed organic fruit and vegetable juices are given hourly. Coffee enemas are administered several times daily. As tumors die, the mass of dead cells are absorbed. They flood the bloodstream. Without proper detoxification, poisons accumulate, and patients, even those whose cancer has been eradicated, will die. Coffee enemas aid in detoxification and decrease pain.

Gerson believed our health begins with the quality of the soil in which our food is grown. “Our soil must be normal, no artificial fertilizers should be used, no poisons, no sprays which go into the soil and poison it. Whatever grows on a poisoned soil carries poison, too. And that is our food, our fruit and vegetables. I am convinced that the soil is our external metabolism. It is not really far removed from our bodies. We depend on it. But our modern food, the “normal” food people eat is bottled, poisoned, canned, color added, powdered, frozen, dipped in acids, sprayed-no longer normal. We no longer have living, normal food, our food and drink is a mass of dead, poisoned material, and one cannot cure very sick people by adding poisons to their systems.”

And he believed our diet was also the cause of disease. “We cannot detoxify our bodies when we add poisons through our food which is one of the reasons why cancer is so much on the increase. Saving time in the kitchen is fine but the consequences are terrible. Thirty or fifty years ago cancer was a disease of old age. Only elderly people whose liver was no longer working well – was worn out-became sick. They contracted cancer when they were 60 to 70 years old and cancer was a rare disease. Everybody knows that. And now four, even going on one out of three dies of cancer. Now in the second generation it is even worse. The poor children get leukemias more and more. There is no country which has so much leukemia as this country (USA), no country in the world. That is our fault. Ice cream is made with invert sugar. Coca-Cola contains phosphoric acid. Is it surprising that children get degenerative disease?”

These words were spoken by Gerson in a speech delivered in 1956. By the ‘50s our food was toxic and processed. By the ‘50s cancer and other diseases were on the rise due to diet, after petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides became the norm, a mere 10-15 years after processed foods overran our grocery shelves.

As was the case in Germany so many years ago, Max Gerson’s alternative therapy has long been dismissed by mainstream medicine, despite its success. A Stephen Kroschel documentary, Dying to Have Known interviews Max Gerson’s family members who carry on his work, Gerson patients, and conventional doctors who denounce the Gerson Therapy.

Dr. Dean Edell, a well known conventional doctor, states, “I don’t think the Gerson therapy has ever cured a terminally ill patient. People get very confused by this.

“This is a world of science, a world of data. I always like to think of it as a courtroom, the courtroom of science and medicine. You don’t send somebody to jail or convict somebody without hard, hard evidence.

“And Gerson has been looked at many, many times. If you think of basically what’s in Gerson therapy, you really wouldn’t expect it to cure cancer. But people… Sometimes cancer cures itself. There is a rate of cancer <that> goes away by itself.

“Some people didn’t really have cancer. It’s a misdiagnosis. Sometimes people had chemotherapy many months before. And then try, for instance, Gerson therapy. They get better and attribute it to the Gerson therapy. Or whatever they’ve done.
“So no I don’t think there’s any evidence that anybody has ever been cured by Gerson therapy.”

Kroschel asked Dr. Wallace Sampson, Clinical Professor Emeritus at Stanford University and Editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine what it would take for him to be convinced or even persuaded a slight bit that the Gerson therapy has credibility.

Sampson said, “Well, first of all they’d have to show some reason why it should work. We know how cancers behave and we know the kinds of things that cause cancer. So they’d have to come up with some kind of a believable theory of why their diet should work. But second of all, they’d have to convince us that everything we know about it in the last 50 years is wrong and they’re right. Now how are they going to come up with material like that? That’s impossible. They don’t have it.”

After both of these doctors claimed no one had ever been cured by the Gerson therapy, Kroschel selected two patient files at random and asked if they would agree to an interview.

The first was a woman who had been cancer free for 6 years following treatment from melanoma which had spread to her liver, causing two large tumors. Her oncologist had told her she had 3-4 months to live.

She stayed at the Gerson clinic for two weeks and then followed the diet at home for 10 months before having a new CT scan. The scan was clear. She had attended a cancer support group in which she was the only patient pursuing alternative treatment. Every other member of her support group died.

The second case was a man suffering from testicular cancer who has been cancer free for 10 years. When he returned to his oncologist after just “a couple months” on the Gerson diet, his CT scan showed he was cancer free. His doctor said it was a miracle. The film includes many more amazing interviews, stories of men and women who completely regained their health and vitality.

Kroschel also interviews doctors in other countries who are successfully treating cancer patients with the Gerson Therapy. The Loma Linda Clinic in Japan is run by two doctors, one of whom, Prof. Yoshihiko Hoshino, M.D., developed colon cancer sixteen years ago that metastasized to his liver. He cured his own cancer through the Gerson Therapy and has remained cancer free for fifteen years. Through the clinic, they have treated more than 500 cancer patients using the Gerson Therapy.

The Gerson Therapy has been used to successfully fight cancer and other degenerative diseases for more than 80 years, and yet, a quick search on the Internet reveals many sites that claim the Gerson Therapy to be nothing short of quackery.

Conventional medicine continues to dismiss the success of plant based nutritional therapy. As long as pharmaceutical companies remain the driving force behind conventional medicine and remain in control of the medical journals, pharmaceutical treatment will prevail.

As plant based nutritional therapy gains in popularity, as cancer survivors tell their stories, the tide will turn. Hopefully, we will reach that tipping point soon.

Recommended Supplements:

Cancer Costs Double in Nearly 20 Years

In the United States the cost of treating cancer has doubled within the last 20 years. But according to a new study, the rising cost of cancer treatments is not the reason. The study shows that cancer accounts for only five percent of the U.S. total medical costs which has not changed much in the last 30 years.

In other words, medical costs as a whole have doubled in the last 20 years. The rise in cost of cancer treatment appears to be caused by more people getting cancer.

We also hear the argument that cancer rates are rising becuase the American population is living longer. We at Organic Lifestyle Magazine contend that this is inaccurate. Studies that show people are living longer are flawed because they take into account the infant mortalities, and people dying in wars. The actual average age the elderly die at is not significantly older then it was 50 years ago. It seems to us that the rise in cancer costs, which appears to coincide with the rise in overall medical costs, is skyrocketing because more and more people are seeking medical treatment. And the amount of people seeking treatment for medical problems is climbing faster than the population increase.

The Big C

The big C – Cancer. The word strikes fear in the bravest of us all, and rightly so. The American Cancer Society reveals the current, chilling statistics: one out of every two men and one out of every three women will battle cancer at some point in their lives. And too often, they will lose. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States.

The National Cancer Institute’s statistics report a 66%, five-year survival rate. Longitudinal studies reveal a 58-59% twenty-year survival rate. Conventional medicine claims today’s statistics prove current treatments are effective at curing cancer or at the very least extending life. Not everyone agrees with these claims.

Cancer is a slow moving disease; early detection is increasing. The earlier cancer is detected, the greater the odds of living for five years, with or without effective treatment. Critics, such as Mike Anderson, (from the documentary, Healing Cancer from the Inside Out) contend the increase in numbers of cancer patients living for five years is caused by the increase in early detection rather than the efficacy of current conventional treatment. In addition, he contends the methodology of reporting numbers is highly suspect—that the cancer industry massages numbers to support claims of effective treatment.

The National Cancer Institute’s data graphs show significant improvement in the survival rate for lymphoma and melanoma. When these numbers are combined with the statistics for all types of cancers, the overall cancer survival rates dramatically improve. But when the other cancers are looked at individually, their survival rate from 1975 through today shows negligible improvement on a graph.

Cancer begins with a single damaged cell—a cell that refuses to follow a normal life cycle of growth, division, and death. The cancer cell mutates and refuses to die; instead dividing to form a mass we call a tumor, or, in the case of leukemias, disrupting normal processes in the bone marrow and blood.

As cancer grows, tumors impede normal function of organs and body systems. The bloodstream and the lymphatic system become the means for cancer cells to invade other parts of the body.

Conventional treatment zeros in on the tumor or tumors, primarily using surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to kill the cancer cells. Treatment is aggressive and invasive. Chemotherapy and radiation destroy healthy tissue as well as cancerous tissue. Chemotherapy also suppresses the patient’s immune system, raising the risk of death by other causes such as pneumonia.

Nutritionally based alternative treatments such as the Gerson and Budwig diets view the tumor as a symptom of disease, not the cause. Treatment is focused on building health, strengthening the immune system and the liver, raising oxygen in the cells, detoxifying the body, and eliminating the wastes created as the body wages war against the cancer.

Whichever protocol you choose to follow, select a proven path and fully consider your ability to comply. If you’re a person who “can’t follow a diet to save my life,” conventional treatment may be a better fit for you. If you choose the alternative route, be sure to surround yourself with a safe and protective support system. Naysayers, both professionals and laymen, are vicious. They will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to undermine your decision, your confidence, and your resolve. They will truly believe you to be a fool in need of their advice and they will make every effort to bring you over to their way of thinking. Strangely enough, their concern for you, heartfelt as it may be, may vanish when alternative treatment is successful. Don’t be too surprised when they don’t show the least interest in your success.
You choose the way you live. You choose your quality of life. Choose well.

Is Stevia Safe?

Is stevia a good sugar replacement? Yes, up to a point. Sugar addicted people must stop and heal before switching to stevia.
Stevia, a plant-extract originally from Central and South America, has been used as a sweetener for several centuries. It has been described alternately as either 30 or 300 times as sweet as sugar. Stevia has slowly gained popularity as an alternative to sugar; it was initially marketed in the US as a dietary supplement, and only recently as a sweetener. Stevia has slowly gained popularity as an alternative to sugar, even though it wasn’t marketed until recently.

One would think a food or drug is either safe or not, right? As of September 2009, the Food and Drug Administration has given support to two stevia products, Truvia and Purevia, for use as a sweetener in sodas and other drinks. What changed the stance of a government organization that used a 1985 study that described stevia as a mutagenic agent in the liver (possibly carcinogenic)?

Apparently, Coca-Cola and other large manufacturers of drinks and sodas have twisted the arms of some regulators, because as more people grasp Sugar Bad, Stevia Good, Big Soda needs to give the people soda that appears healthy in order to keep up sales. Trust a corporation to turn something potentially helpful in moderation into something you still shouldn’t consume.

No soda is safe to drink. The primary culprit after sugar is phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid is an industrial solvent used to clean toilets and kill insects. Putting the amount of phosphorus from one soda into your body damages the calcium-phosphorus ratio.

Truvia will eventually be stuffed into the rainbow of packets on the table at our favorite eateries. Presently that rainbow includes white (sugar or sucrose), blue (aspartame), pink (saccharin) and yellow (sucralose). For purely aesthetic reasons how about green for Truvia?

However, don’t eat stevia from these Truvia packs because it will be mixed with dextrose or maltodextrin as the first ingredient (largest amount) in each pack, as is the case with the other colors in the bin. These are sugar derivatives that willadulterate whatever is good and useful about stevia. Mixing good things with bad things only ruins the food value of the beneficial.

So, what is so good about stevia that we actually are cautiously optimistic about the eventual release of small bags of pure stevia powder in the supermarket for use in baking, coffee, grapefruit and lemonade? Well, despite the ignominious beginning to stevia as a sweetener, a study that had been described as being “able to classify distilled water as a mutagen”, enough people have used the product now that there are health studies that show benefits for many diseases.

A study published in 2000 gave stevioside (stevia’s active ingredient) to 60 hypertension patients with a placebo group of 49. Results described as significant for reducing blood pressure supplemented similar animal studies.¹

Stevia’s reputed limited effect on blood glucose naturally led to diabetes studies. A Denmark study took blood glucose readings from 12 type-2 diabetes patients before eating stevia or cornstarch with their meals and a couple of hours later. The stevia group showed blood glucose levels at least 18-percent less than the starch group, leading to the possibility that diabetes patients have finally found the sweetener that will allow them to have their sweet cake and eat it, too.²

But after the FDA has spent many years trying to keep stevia out of the U.S. marketplace, we should ask if there are any side effects. A study conducted by the Burdock Group generally supports the safety of stevia, finding no adverse effects in rats at the massive doses such studies use to determine carcinogenic or mutagen properties of foods.³

And so we give stevia qualified support because while almost no information has surfaced to say that this sweetener hurts people, we realize that the weak link in any health plan is the patient. Many of us are unlikely to moderate our consumption of stevia because we just have to have ice cream, chocolate cake, or soda. Too much of a good thing isn’t good. But, on the range of things that are sweet but not named sugar, stevia is a great start.

1 Chan, P, et al “A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study of the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Oral Stevioside in Human Hypertension” Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 September; 50(3): 215–220. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00260.x

2 Gregersen S, et al. “Antihyperglycemic Effects of Stevioside in Type-2 Diabetic Subjects.” Metabolism 2004 Jan;53(1):73-76

3 Williams LD, Burdock GA “Genotoxicity Studies on a High-Purity Rebauside A Preparation.” Food Chem Toxicol. 2009 Aug;47(8):1831-1836

Is Agave Nectar Healthy?

Is Agave Nectar Better Than Sugar?

Is Agave Nectar Good For You?

Is Agave Nectar Safe For Diabetics?

No! Agave Is Not Healthy!

Agave Nectar is highly concentrated fructose.

Now, many readers may believe that since fructose is fruit sugar, it is “healthy sugar”. It isn’t. Refined fructose is no better than refined glucose.

Consuming fructose naturally from whole foods is different from consuming concentrated agave. In its natural state, fructose is part of a whole food which includes enzymes, fiber, vitamins, and minerals. But refined sugars, sugars that have been stripped of their nutrition through processing, are never healthy.

Refined fructose lowers circulating insulin and leptin levels and raises ghrelin levels after the meal. Since leptin and insulin decrease appetite and ghrelin increases appetite, some researchers suspect that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.

Refined fructose puts an enormous strain on the liver. Dr. Meira Field says, “;…the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose.”

Large amounts of fructose in the diet rapidly turn into fatty acids, which are stored as fat or released into the bloodstream as triglycerides. These fatty triglycerides are insulin resistant and cause a host of problems. Overwhelming the liver and producing insulin resistant fatty triglycerides is the road to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases.

This is another example of marketing magic. Agave is sold as the healthy alternative to refined sugar. But it is refined sugar. Avoid it like you avoid white table sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

Good alternatives for sugar are stevia, raw honey, date sugar, or sugar cane juice. To understand more about sugar, please read Healthy Sugar Alternatives.