Originally Written by: Dean, Carolyn, B.Sc., M.D.

Dr. Dean graduated from Dalhousie Medical School and interned at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. During her medical training she studied acupuncture and nutrition at the U.C.L.A. Pain Control Clinic and the U.C.L.A. School of Public Health. She has appeared as a guest on more than 100 seminars, radio and television programs. She has written articles for medical journals and published a popular book, When you Can’t Reach the Doctor. Another book is in press, her controversial sugar book, Sugar: Pleasure or Poison. At present Dr. Dean is conducting research in the United States using non-toxic medicines in the treatment of AIDS patients. She believes that scientific research is the only way to persuade the establishment about the validity of non-drug forms of therapy.

In 1816, the average sugar consumption per person was 15 pounds per year. In 1955, the average sugar consumption was 120 pounds per year. In 1990 it wass about 180 pounds per person per year. This is equivalent to half a pound per day per person. Sugar constitutes about 25 to 35 per cent of the diet and this is a problem because sugar weakens the enzymes of essential fatty acid metabolism. Sugar has no vitamins or minerals to offer in its digestion. It takes up space in our diet that should be filled with fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Sugar hides in many places. Some brands of ketchup have more sugar per ounce than ice cream. Many salad dressings have three times the sugar content of cola drinks. Some non-dairy creamers have more sugar than a chocolate bar. There are nine teaspoons of sugar in a 12-ounce can of pop, 20 teaspoons in a milk shake and about eight teaspoons in most desserts. The labelling is also important, and it is often misleading. Manufacturers avoid listing sugar as the first ingredient by dividing it into different terminologies like dextrose, corn syrup solids, malt powder, etc. If you add these ingredients together, they would become the first ingredient on the product list.

We have been deluded into thinking that we can eat as much sugar as we want and not reap the consequences. The consequences come about when we finally find we have diabetes, hypoglycemia, heart disease, hyperactivity or even allergy to sugar. Dr. Ross Hume Hall says that “nutrition is a stagnating science since its marriage of convenience with the food industry – a lot of our nutrition departments are being funded by the food industry to promote the advantages of food refining”.


About a year ago, clinical studies were conducted on school children which showed that sugar is okay for children. When I read the studies, I found they used a relatively small amount of sugar in the trial, 9 or 10 teaspoons of sugar daily. This represents only one quarter of children’s usual daily sugar intake. If children have a sugar-coated cereal in the morning, a treat at recess, and sugar and ice cream at lunch, they can get up to 100 teaspoons of sugar a day. Testing them on merely 10 or 12 teaspoons of sugar in the morning and saying that this doesn’t cause hyperactivity, that sugar is fine, is truly a false premise. Additionally, they used a very small number of children, about 20 children, and studied them for only about five hours, from one to three days. Furthermore, they didn’t have a control group of children, a normal comparison group who had been given a normal breakfast. In the comparison group they used, children were given artificial sweeteners rather than no sweeteners at all. We have found that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame have adverse neurological and behavioural side effects. Children eating sugar may be expected to be hyperactive and children taking aspartame may have neurological side effects, so you don’t have an experiment at all. You are just comparing two similar things. In addition, artificial colourings and flavourings were also used in the drinks and it has been shown that they have allergic effects. So all these things make it very difficult to understand how this research proves sugar is all right for children. A proper clinical trial would withhold sugar for at least seven days, then reintroduce it and see how the children react. This is what I used to do in my practice, so that the sugar could be eliminated from their systems and the effect of the sugar could be observed when it is reintroduced. Most children react very negatively when they feel the irritation and tension in their bodies and they cut back on the amount of sugar they eat and automatically limit themselves.

In a well designed study by Schoenthaler and Schauss, sugar was withheld from children for a long period of time and it was found that positive behaviour was greatly enhanced . Subsequently, Schoenthaler was hired to study one million school children from 800 New York schools over a seven year period. They found a 15.7 per cent increase in learning ability compared with other schools. Of 124,000 children who were unable to learn grammar and math, 75,000 could perform these skills after dietary changes alone were introduced. In another study, 68 juvenile criminals’ anti-social acts diminished by 80 per cent within seven months. In a follow-up study with 276 children, one group stayed on the junk food diet while the other group received healthy foods. And the difference in anti-social acts between the two groups was almost 50 per cent. Schoenthaler then worked with the Los Angeles probation department diet behaviour program. Over 1,000 juvenile delinquents showed a 44 per cent drop in anti-social behaviour on a low sugar diet. What was the result of all these studies? The California Council against Health Fraud issued a statement that a low additive low sugar diet was “ineffective, dangerous and costly”. This was published in the American Council of Science and Health newsletter and Schoenthaler was allowed no rebuttal. Anyone can see that the first study I described, a study of 20 children for a day, does not compare with a study of a million children over seven years.

In 1976, the U.S. Select Committee on GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) substances gave their findings on the health aspects of sugar as a food ingredient. The report states that except for dental caries, there is no clear association between sugar and health problems such as vascular disease, degenerative disease or diabetes in this country. A rebuttal was finally printed in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Sheldon Reiser of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He stated that the incubation time for people from primitive countries for developing degenerative conditions is 20 years. You cannot do a one year research project and find the answer. The incidence of diabetes becomes very high in certain cultures when the intake of sugar is introduced. Sucrose alone may be a very important etiological factor in heart disease and diabetes. So Reiser recommended that sugar be decreased by 60 per cent and replaced by complex carbohydrates from vegetables and cereals.

Research is very important in the area of alternative medicine even though only 20 per cent of orthodox medicine is scientifically proven to date. I remember being told in medical school that bottled milk was just as good as breast milk until the benefits of breast milk were scientifically proven! We who practice alternative medicine are told that we haven’t proved that our treatments are effective scientifically. That means people can put us aside and hope we will go away.


Where are our priorities? I have a question that I ask my young patients: “Do you like sugar?” Of course they do. Then I ask them if they have animals, a puppy dog or pussy cat and if they would feed their puppy or cat sugar. No, of course they wouldn’t. Many studies have been done on the effects of sugar on animals. Dr. Cheraskin studied a group of rats who ate sugar-coated cereal and another group who ate the box the cereal came in, and you guessed it, the rats who ate the box lived longer than the rats who ate the cereal.

The Pottinger cat studies are a favourite topic of mine. In the 1940’s, 900 cats were studied by a group of anthropologist dentists. One group of cats were fed mainly raw meat and milk and they lived happily ever after, generation after generation. Another group were fed cooked and processed food. The second and third generation had arthritis, diabetes, dermatitis, cancer, skin disease, all the chronic degenerative diseases that we are seeing now in our human population. By the third generation, this group had no more live births; in other words there was no fourth generation. We’ve got to see some similarities between ourselves and these cats. We are not cats, but we are getting to the third generation of people growing up on refined foods and it has got to have some impact.


People addicted to substances like alcohol are also addicted to sugar. Many addicted people have strong withdrawal effects when they remove sugar from their diet. Researchers have found that there is a strong correlation between alcohol or other addictive drugs and a strong craving for sugar. Heroin addicts consumed staggering amounts of sugar while they were undergoing treatment and in fact the sugar seemed to diminish the withdrawal effects of heroin.


It is absent in primitive communities. After 20 years of eating sugar, North American Indians, Eskimos, and populations in India and Africa develop diabetes. You do not suddenly become diabetic. It is a gradual build up over many years.


If you are eating sugar without the fibre from cane or beet, you are creating constipation which can lead to diverticular disease, appendicitis, colitis, gallstones, peptic ulcers, all these problems. Incubation time for this condition is 40 years. There is continued evidence that there is a high incidence of gallstones with excess sugar intake.


Studies show that sugar intake is related to a decrease in lymphocytes (suppresses the immune system). It was demonstrated that 19 teaspoons of sugar increased insulin, which then competed for binding sites on lymphocytes and inactivated them. It jams up the lymphocytes and kind of paralyzes them. Other studies showed that sugar intake decreased antibody production and decreased macrophages which destroy foreign bodies and cancer cells. With rises in sugar intake, the antibody production decreases correspondingly.


In 1990, a study in the Lancet showed that a vegetarian diet, relaxation exercises, and giving up smoking actually reversed coronary artery lesions. This is definite proven research that should make every cardiologist say, “Here is the evidence we need. Now we can implement these methods to treat coronary artery disease.” Studies showed over and over again that increased sugar intake causes elevated triglycerides, elevated total cholesterol, elevated insulin and elevated uric acid.

References for the research studies mentioned in Dr. Dean’s article is listed in her book: Sugar: Pleasure or Poison.


Your brain on sugar: UCLA study shows high-fructose diet sabotages learning and memory, by effecting the psychophysiological develepment of the brain;


Attention, college students cramming between midterms and finals: Binging on soda and sweets for as little as six weeks may make you stupid.
A new UCLA rat study is the first to show how a diet steadily high in fructose slows the brain, hampering memory and learning — and how omega-3 fatty acids can counteract the disruption. The peer-reviewed Journal of Physiology publishes the findings in its May 15 edition.
“Our findings illustrate that what you eat affects how you think,” said Fernando Gomez-Pinilla, a professor of neurosurgery at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a professor of integrative biology and physiology in the UCLA College of Letters and Science. “Eating a high-fructose diet over the long term alters your brain’s ability to learn and remember information. But adding omega-3 fatty acids to your meals can help minimize the damage.”
While earlier research has revealed how fructose harms the body through its role in diabetes, obesity and fatty liver, this study is the first to uncover how the sweetener influences the brain.
Sources of fructose in the Western diet include cane sugar (sucrose) and high-fructose corn syrup, an inexpensive liquid sweetener. The syrup is widely added to processed foods, including soft drinks, condiments, applesauce and baby food. The average American consumes roughly 47 pounds of cane sugar and 35 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup per year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“We’re less concerned about naturally occurring fructose in fruits, which also contain important antioxidants,” explained Gomez-Pinilla, who is also a member of UCLA’s Brain Research Institute and Brain Injury Research Center. “We’re more concerned about the fructose in high-fructose corn syrup, which is added to manufactured food products as a sweetener and preservative.”
Gomez-Pinilla and study co-author Rahul Agrawal, a UCLA visiting postdoctoral fellow from India, studied two groups of rats that each consumed a fructose solution as drinking water for six weeks. The second group also received omega-3 fatty acids in the form of flaxseed oil and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), which protects against damage to the synapses — the chemical connections between brain cells that enable memory and learning.
“DHA is essential for synaptic function — brain cells’ ability to transmit signals to one another,” Gomez-Pinilla said. “This is the mechanism that makes learning and memory possible. Our bodies can’t produce enough DHA, so it must be supplemented through our diet.”
The animals were fed standard rat chow and trained on a maze twice daily for five days before starting the experimental diet. The UCLA team tested how well the rats were able to navigate the maze, which contained numerous holes but only one exit. The scientists placed visual landmarks in the maze to help the rats learn and remember the way.
Six weeks later, the researchers tested the rats’ ability to recall the route and escape the maze. What they saw surprised them.
“The second group of rats navigated the maze much faster than the rats that did not receive omega-3 fatty acids,” Gomez-Pinilla said. “The DHA-deprived animals were slower, and their brains showed a decline in synaptic activity. Their brain cells had trouble signaling each other, disrupting the rats’ ability to think clearly and recall the route they’d learned six weeks earlier.”
The DHA-deprived rats also developed signs of resistance to insulin, a hormone that controls blood sugar and regulates synaptic function in the brain. A closer look at the rats’ brain tissue suggested that insulin had lost much of its power to influence the brain cells.
“Because insulin can penetrate the blood–brain barrier, the hormone may signal neurons to trigger reactions that disrupt learning and cause memory loss,” Gomez-Pinilla said.
He suspects that fructose is the culprit behind the DHA-deficient rats’ brain dysfunction. Eating too much fructose could block insulin’s ability to regulate how cells use and store sugar for the energy required for processing thoughts and emotions.
“Insulin is important in the body for controlling blood sugar, but it may play a different role in the brain, where insulin appears to disturb memory and learning,” he said. “Our study shows that a high-fructose diet harms the brain as well as the body. This is something new.”
Gomez-Pinilla, a native of Chile and an exercise enthusiast who practices what he preaches, advises people to keep fructose intake to a minimum and swap sugary desserts for fresh berries and Greek yogurt, which he keeps within arm’s reach in a small refrigerator in his office. An occasional bar of dark chocolate that hasn’t been processed with a lot of extra sweetener is fine too, he said.
Still planning to throw caution to the wind and indulge in a hot-fudge sundae? Then also eat foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids, like salmon, walnuts and flaxseeds, or take a daily DHA capsule. Gomez-Pinilla recommends one gram of DHA per day.
“Our findings suggest that consuming DHA regularly protects the brain against fructose’s harmful effects,” said Gomez-Pinilla. “It’s like saving money in the bank. You want to build a reserve for your brain to tap when it requires extra fuel to fight off future diseases.”


~ by 619 on November 11, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: