News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
EventsScientists against sugar
Do we really need scientists to tell us how harmful sugar is? Yes, unfortunately. And here they are:
Researchers highlight strong links between sugar and chronic disease:
UCSF Launches Sugar Science Initiative
“The average American consumes nearly three times the recommended amount of added sugar every day, which is taking a tremendous toll on our nation’s health,” said Laura Schmidt, PhD, a UCSF professor in the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy and the lead investigator on the project. “This is the definitive science that establishes the causative link between sugar and chronic disease across the population.” Continue Reading…
More
The Soda Industry Suffers Historic Loss in the US
If I ever hear another creep telling us that controlled sugar consumption is OK...............
http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/health/carbohydrates-are-more...
More and more grains and limiting carbs to vegetables is a concept on the rise.
In general the benefit of some kind of fasting, carbohydrate reduction to produce ketones ans the selection and use of healthy fat like butter has the potential to greatly crease health and reduce health care cost, pain, and suffering.
When sugar levels insulin levels etcetera can be recorded day and night the health benefits will be self evident and behavior should follow.
Does this mean one diet for all. No, just a model to look at the feedback the body has in response to diet
Per person, in case anyone is wondering.
It's over 200 pounds now.
That 10#/yr is 4.5 kg/year or 12.4 grams per day. Depending on what else is being eaten, that could easily be below a typical LC target of say, 50 grams net carbs/day.
The current 200#/year is nearly 250 grams/day, which is a health disaster.
The title is: Effects of Step-Wise Increases in Dietary Carbohydrate on Circulating Saturated Fatty Acids and Palmitoleic Acid in Adults with Metabolic Syndrome
Just published this week (2014-11-21).
Despite its admitted limitations (modest size cohort of IR subjects with metabolic syndrome, and hypocaloric diet program), this paper needs to be required reading for every clueless MD still advocating a low fat diet.
Alas, they'll probably dismiss it because PLOS.
The problem with Lustig and his sock puppets is that the RCT science doesn't really substantiate their position. Even the crappy epidemiology never explains the difference between sugars and carbohydrate, and RCTs of isocaloric substitution of sucrose / HFCS for starch seem few and far between.
In 1960 we hardly ate any chicken meat, now we eat a lot. Coincidence ? Marker for the low fat diet paradigm ? Don't know, but correlates well with obesity and T2D......
National Nutritional Disaster: U.S. Government Guidelines Sickening/Killing Americans
by William A. Johnston, M.B.A.
November 23, 2014
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” —Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, (1788-1860)
“Theories have four stages of acceptance: 1. This is worthless nonsense. 2. This is an interesting but perverse point of view. 3. This is true, but quite unimportant. 4. I always said so.”—J.B.S. Haldane, British geneticist and evolutionary biologist. (1892–1964)
“[O]ur opponents in this argument have a marked advantage over us. They need only a few words to set forth a half-truth; whereas, in order to show that it is a half-truth, we have to resort to long and arid dissertations.”—Frederic Bastiat, French classical liberal theorist, political economist, and member of the French assembly. (1801-1850)
“[T]he amount of information necessary to invalidate a hypothesis is considerably greater than the amount of information required to make an initial interpretation.” “When faced with an analytical problem, people are either unable or simply do not take the time to identify the full range of potential answers.” —Richards J. Hueur, Jr., former CIA veteran of 45 years and most known for his work on Analysis of Competing Hypotheses and his book, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis.
Introduction
It’s late January 2012. I saw Michelle Obama on TV. She was talking about the “New School Lunch Nutrition Guidelines.” This is where kids should eat meals that include more veggies, fruits and grains. It is a part of her signature “Let’s Move!” initiative that works to fight childhood obesity. It stems from some studies done in 2009-2010 that showed 24.3 per cent of black children and adolescents were obese compared to 14.0 per cent of white children and adolescents.
Looking back to my early years, I recall that very few people were obese. In that time, people ate a lot of meat and cooked with butter or lard or, especially, beef tallow. Most people were hale and hearty. Diabetes was rare; most diabetics had what was then called “Sugar Diabetes”, later called Juvenile Onset Diabetes; still later called “Type I Diabetes.” A very few people had what was then called “Adult Onset Diabetes, later labeled “Type II.”
Then, I start thinking about how I, and probably everybody I know, after it came out in 1978, had been following the nutritional guidelines contained in the “Dietary Goals for the United States.” I think most people in America have tried hard to follow those “Guidelines,” too. Yet, I saw a gigantic disconnect between the action of following those guidelines and the results of the actions.
More recently, at the grocery markets, I remember noticing that most shopping carts were filled with low-fat and no-fat foods; whole grain cereals; crackers and breads; heart-healthy this and heart-healthy that. But, strangely, most of the people pushing the carts were visibly overweight; many were morbidly obese. Logic said that, if the contents of their shopping carts were a reflection of what their diets comprised, these people should not be fat. How could that be? They were following the Guidelines, yet were getting so fat. The whole thing didn’t make sense.
I was disquieted. I have a gnawing feeling. Why? I don’t feel up to par. I tire easily. I’ve got heartburn. I feel mentally sluggish. I’m within ounces of weighing 240 pounds, I have a pot belly, and my waist size has been increasing; it is about to hit 40 inches.
I looked into my clothes closet and saw stuff I can’t wear —not because the stuff is worn out— but because I could no longer fit into them. I’ve got pants, jackets, suits —good stuff; stuff that’s been there for quite a while. No matter; I still can’t wear them; they don’t fit my current waist. So, why are they in my closet? Simple answer: I just haven’t dealt with them. Out of sight, out of mind? Perhaps. For me, life seemed to be not so good all around. I had heartburn, my knees objected to climbing stairs, I felt logey most of the time, not mentally sharp. In short, I felt like I was just “going through the motions” of life.
My wife is also overweight; I’m not saying how much.. She developed Type II Diabetes a few years ago. She has been taking various medications for it, plus some for elevated cholesterol. I think back to when I first met her. At that time, I was still on active duty in the U.S. Navy. She was slim and trim. She did not have diabetes. I was slim and trim. My naval uniforms fit me quite comfortably.
A set of custom-made Service Dress Blues (made for me in Hong Kong by Lee Chong Tai and Sun Kee Tailors), that I had worn when I first met her, was one of the items hanging in my closet. I took it out of its plastic garment bag and tried it on. Well, more accurately, I tried to put it on. No Dice! I was unable to. I tried the same with my “Wash Khakis,” (former working uniform.) Same deal. Then, more of the same with other clothes from that time. I had to face the unwelcome fact that I had a lot of money tied up in unwearable clothing. That was not a good day.
My wife started talking about my 80th birthday, upcoming in 2013. She wants to throw a party for me. I told her, in my best mafioso style, “fuggedaboudit.’ I don’t want a party; the last thing I want is a party. She persists. She wears me down. I say OK. (I can’t stand the nagging.)
Here, I begin a short digression. I did a lot of Internet research. I discovered, among other sites, the biggest health blog in Scandinavia, with over 50 000 daily visitors. This is the blog of Andreas Eenfeldt, M.D. It’s at DietDoctor.com. I strongly advocate you visit this site.
In my search, I also found that all forms of carbohydrate are merely different forms of sugar. Some are short-chain, or simple; some are long-chain, or complex. I also discovered that, contrary to conventional wisdom, dietary fat, including saturated fat, was good for the body. I learned how carbohydrate causes the creation of body fat through the repression of fat burning by the hormone, Insulin. Therein seems to lie the master key. Further, I came across additional information, including some videos, that warned of the many dangers of dietary sugar. I discovered how ingesting sugar in any of its forms could lead to all kinds of bad things —including Diabetes and a host of other diabolically debilitating and life-threatening diseases.
Now, you might be thinking that getting information from the Internet is very risky; there’s too much garbage out there. You are right. But, be advised that I also sought out material “on the other side of my argument,” both on the Internet and in independent printed material. I added my analytical skills, which have been proven in another forum. So, although my reliability vetting process was not perfect, I think it was more than adequate to “prove” my points.
Fundamentally, developing any strategy requires serious consideration of three things: ends, ways, and means. The ends comprise the terminal objective, the ways comprise the path to be taken toward achieving that objective. The means comprise the resources necessary to expend on traveling the chosen path. By definition, unless all three aspects have been considered and established, a strategy cannot exist.
I decided that my strategy would be as follows: my end/terminal objective would be: “I will be able to wear at my birthday party (coming up in about 17 months, my now unwearable clothes.” The way, or path I would take for girth reduction, would be: “Shifting from my present high carbohydrate-low fat lifestyle to a low-carbohydrate-high-fat lifestyle. The means would be: “severely restricting my intake of all carbohydrate/sugar, no matter the form.
In execution of the strategy, I was going to stop eating carbohydrates to the maximum extent feasible. As a practical matter, I realized that I probably could not totally avoid carbohydrates, so I settled for a daily goal of eating not more than 15 grams of the stuff. In addition, I would substitute fat in place of the carbohydrate.
I began to execute the strategy starting near the end of January 2012. By the end of July 2012, only six months later, I had dropped 35 pounds of excess weight and five excess inches from my waist measurement. I have since lost another five pounds. As of this writing, my weight has stabilized at 200 pounds, I am comfortably ensconced in my Kirkland Brand 5-pocket blue jeans: Size 34 waist — and no overhanging belly! I feel very much better; no heartburn! My endurance has rebounded. I feel 50 years younger; maybe, 60, even!
Based on my own positive experience, I decided then to try to pass on the information that I had gathered and analyzed to family and friends. This paper grew out of that decision. To those who have seen it, the reactions have ranged from head-shaking, to partial acceptance, to considerable incredulity, to rejection. No matter. The important thing is that those who have taken heed have been very successful in losing weight and girth. Here, I end my short digression.
With no attempt to be facetious, I intend this paper to be read by everyone who eats food. Why this is a reasonable intention will be come clear well before you reach the end of the paper. With the foregoing in mind, I hope that it not only stimulates your thinking about what you eat and how it affects your health and well-being, but inspires you to action. My U.S. Navy colleague and former shipmate, Alan Hemphill, a writer of some repute, told me there is too much in it, that it is too long, too boring. Nobody will finish it; they don’t have a long enough attention span; I should break it up into smaller pieces. I will very likely do that. Doing that, however, will take a great deal of time; more than I have right now. I am impatient. I feel the need to get something “on the street” now. If you have got this far, I hope you can continue to slog your way through it. I will start my story with the genesis of the problem.
How The Seeds for the Obesity/Diabetes Disaster Were Sown
End of excerpt
Is that really the case or are the "food" manufacturers just doing a better job of obfuscating the facts... hiding it better?
Even if your statistic were true, and I highly doubt it is, does this "less than 10 years ago" now mean it is below the safe threshold for its ingestion? Because surely once something goes over a toxic level, it matters less whether that level is toxic + 10%, or toxic + 20% now does it?
Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2012 Nov 25;364(1-2):1-27. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2012.08.003. Epub 2012 Aug 10.
The molecular mechanisms of pancreatic β-cell glucotoxicity: recent findings and future research directions.
Bensellam M1, Laybutt DR, Jonas JC.
Author information
Abstract
It is well established that regular physiological stimulation by glucose plays a crucial role in the maintenance of the β-cell differentiated phenotype. In contrast, prolonged or repeated exposure to elevated glucose concentrations both in vitro and in vivo exerts deleterious or toxic effects on the β-cell phenotype, a concept termed as glucotoxicity. Evidence indicates that the latter may greatly contribute to the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes. Through the activation of several mechanisms and signaling pathways, high glucose levels exert deleterious effects on β-cell function and survival and thereby, lead to the worsening of the disease over time. While the role of high glucose-induced β-cell overstimulation, oxidative stress, excessive Unfolded Protein Response (UPR) activation, and loss of differentiation in the alteration of the β-cell phenotype is well ascertained, at least in vitro and in animal models of type 2 diabetes, the role of other mechanisms such as inflammation, O-GlcNacylation, PKC activation, and amyloidogenesis requires further confirmation. On the other hand, protein glycation is an emerging mechanism that may play an important role in the glucotoxic deterioration of the β-cell phenotype. Finally, our recent evidence suggests that hypoxia may also be a new mechanism of β-cell glucotoxicity. Deciphering these molecular mechanisms of β-cell glucotoxicity is a mandatory first step toward the development of therapeutic strategies to protect β-cells and improve the functional β-cell mass in type 2 diabetes.
Do ketogenic diets really suppress appetite? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gibson AA1, Seimon RV, Lee CM, Ayre J, Franklin J, Markovic TP, Caterson ID, Sainsbury A.
Author information
Abstract
Very-low-energy diets (VLEDs) and ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets (KLCDs) are two dietary strategies that have been associated with a suppression of appetite. However, the results of clinical trials investigating the effect of ketogenic diets on appetite are inconsistent. To evaluate quantitatively the effect of ketogenic diets on subjective appetite ratings, we conducted a systematic literature search and meta-analysis of studies that assessed appetite with visual analogue scales before (in energy balance) and during (while in ketosis) adherence to VLED or KLCD. Individuals were less hungry and exhibited greater fullness/satiety while adhering to VLED, and individuals adhering to KLCD were less hungry and had a reduced desire to eat. Although these absolute changes in appetite were small, they occurred within the context of energy restriction, which is known to increase appetite in obese people. Thus, the clinical benefit of a ketogenic diet is in preventing an increase in appetite, despite weight loss, although individuals may indeed feel slightly less hungry (or more full or satisfied). Ketosis appears to provide a plausible explanation for this suppression of appetite. Future studies should investigate the minimum level of ketosis required to achieve appetite suppression during ketogenic weight loss diets, as this could enable inclusion of a greater variety of healthy carbohydrate-containing foods into the diet.
Here's the one I asked: "Are carbohydrates made up of sugar molecules all strung together?"
(I have a video of Dr. Eric Westman saying that.)
We'll see if they address that one, since Dr. Lustig doesn't seem to recognize that fact.
I guess that depends on how you define "sugar"... all part of the obfuscation I referred to above.
On page 69 of Lustig's book, Fat Chance, he says he
hasn't taken off the 45 pounds that he gained during his residency.
That tells us that he completely misunderstands the effects
of carbohydrates (strings of sugar molecules) on obesity.
Focusing on just fructose, is being myopic about other carbs.
His efforts are generally a waste of time.
Maybe it only becomes important with periodic fasting, including the likes of 5:2 diets.
In pre-LCHF days I had bonked a few times on lengthy, high-intensity mountain bike rides. I presume I had depleted my glycogen stores, without fasting.
Thanks,
Bill UK
PS anyone in this forum know whats happened to Dr Briffa, his blog has been static for months.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3142722/
was about to give birth.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225645/
Paul, would it depend on the source of the palmitoleic acid. When I eat avocado this is a dietary source that I would expect to be benign. But when palmitoleate is produced by the liver, this means high carbs and a suite of other effects and causalities. So the palmitoleate in the blood may merely be a sign of the other activity (in most cases) and not itself a causal agent. This would imply that palmitoleate in the blood may or may not be a marker or risk factor for disease, depending on the source, which may explain the inconsistent observational data.
http://lowcarbdoctors.blogspot.se/
Nature. 2014 Oct 9;514(7521):181-6. doi: 10.1038/nature13793. Epub 2014 Sep 17.
Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota.
Suez J1, Korem T2, Zeevi D2, Zilberman-Schapira G3, Thaiss CA1, Maza O1, Israeli D4, Zmora N5, Gilad S6, Weinberger A7, Kuperman Y8, Harmelin A8, Kolodkin-Gal I9, Shapiro H1, Halpern Z10, Segal E7, Elinav E1.
Author information
Abstract
Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) are among the most widely used food additives worldwide, regularly consumed by lean and obese individuals alike. NAS consumption is considered safe and beneficial owing to their low caloric content, yet supporting scientific data remain sparse and controversial. Here we demonstrate that consumption of commonly used NAS formulations drives the development of glucose intolerance through induction of compositional and functional alterations to the intestinal microbiota. These NAS-mediated deleterious metabolic effects are abrogated by antibiotic treatment, and are fully transferrable to germ-free mice upon faecal transplantation of microbiota configurations from NAS-consuming mice, or of microbiota anaerobically incubated in the presence of NAS. We identify NAS-altered microbial metabolic pathways that are linked to host susceptibility to metabolic disease, and demonstrate similar NAS-induced dysbiosis and glucose intolerance in healthy human subjects. Collectively, our results link NAS consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive NAS usage.
That date surprised me too. But one would need to be quite an optimist to assume that there is no health consequence for a 20x difference for those two moments in time. Yes, a trend line that focuses on the Age of Metabolic Syndrome would be more useful.
re: The current consumption of sugar is probably a bit less than 10 years ago, and over 30 years has been broadly the same per head in the US, UK etc (certainly not orders of magnitude difference).
Even if the per capita consumption has recently been constant or declining, the proportion of free fructose in the sugars (principally from HFCS) provides a separate trend line that more closely tracks our chronic non-infectious disease trends.
re: In 1960 we hardly ate any chicken meat, now we eat a lot. Coincidence ? Marker for the low fat diet paradigm ? Don't know, but correlates well with obesity and T2D......
You are perhaps making a rhetorical argument, but chicken needs a hard look. It's not just quantity that changed. CAFO chickens present all sorts of new problems, with added hormones, antibiotics, arsenic, reduced nutritional value, etc. I advocate getting organic pastured-raised (or just raise your own) birds, but hardly consider it the #1 menu problem.
The trends also correlate to the transition to and rise in consumption of mutant runt goatgrass (sold misleadingly as semi-dwarf hybrid wheat), rise in consumption of carbs generally, PUFA industrial grain oils (sold misleadingly as "vegetable" oils), low fat mania (including low saturated fat mania), rise in the use of glyphosate (RoundUp), GMO crops (and practices they permit), soy consumption, and the list doesn't stop there.
Is one of these the sole problem?
No.
Is some combination of them the main problem?
Perhaps.
Are all of worth dispensing with and returning to a more ancestral diet until we know for sure?
For sure.
And that seems that some populations have other bacterias than westeners and if we get the same we would be sick.
I note people like Chris Kresser are big on resistant starch. (See for example http://chriskresser.com/7-things-everyone-should-know-about-low-carb-...) In the following except from that post, he suggests poorer microbiota with long-term VLC. There is a big "may" qualifier there. As to inflammation, my understanding is that VLC is very anti-inflammatory so perhaps the comparators for MAC and inflammation were SAD (standard American diet) not VLC.
-------------------------
"Yet as impressive as very low-carb (VLC) and ketogenic diets can be in certain situations, that does not mean that these diets may not have some undesirable side effects over the long term—some of which we’re only beginning to understand. For example, as I discussed with Jeff Leach from the American Gut project in a recent podcast, some preliminary research suggests that long-term ketogenic/VLC diets may cause adverse changes to the gut microbiota. (6) In addition, a new paper soon to be published in the journal Cell by two Stanford microbiologists indicates that diets low in “microbiota-accessible carbohydrates (MACs)” contribute to modern, inflammatory disease. (7)
The phrase “microbiota-accessible carbohydrates” refers to the various fibers found in fruits, vegetables, starchy plants, nuts, seeds, legumes, and other foods that are poorly absorbed by us, but can be utilized as a food source by our intestinal bacteria. It’s worth noting that many of these fibers are found in foods with moderate to high carbohydrate content—foods that would typically be excluded on very low-carb diets.
It’s important to note, however, that the beneficial bacteria-starving effects of ketogenic/VLC diets can be at least partially offset by consuming non-digestible, fermentable fibers like resistant starch and non-starch polysaccharides that don’t count toward daily carbohydrate intake. This is something I recommend to all of my patients following low-carb diets)"
Its a hype now a days about raw potato starch, and he is comenting it.. its perticaly in Paleo comunities its a hype.. strange becuse potatoes is mostly Neolitic!
I my self dont care that much about it, if one take the paleo trail and think about it.. allmoste every vegetable food that we did eat in paleolitikum was high fibrus.. so we developed a way to coop whit that too.. or "mayby" it give some benefits.
And on the other side, there are populations that lived of almoste animal sources, they didnt get fibrius plant so it cant be that crusial?
How ever they get animal "fibers" as hard digestblel parts of the animal and we do have perticaly colon bacterias that take care of those parts altso.
Soo.. let os make a slurry of raw potatoe starch, Inulin, suloble fibers, skin, cartilage, sinews.. and drink this for our gut bacterias!
In other hand.. if one eat real whole food.. one get this anyhow!
On the other hand.. people that start eating LCHF tends to eat whats in the shopps, they eat pressed food moste of the time.
The problem is that people eat processed food.
And yes, some that dont eat that much real whole food can "mayby" have some benefits providing substitites.. for real whole food!
I have colleagues who work on diet-microbes-health, some are long-timers LCHFers; we often talk about the topic. Let me put it in few points:
1) if copious amounts of dietary fiber was necessary for the optimal health, I (and few of my close friends) would be dead.
2) it is generally understood that butyrate is the fuel of choice for colonocytes, is involved in gene regulation et cetera et cetera, however:
2a) so are ketone bodies and medium chain fatty acids, when they are available, ketones from the blood, medium chain fats directly from the gut or blood - in fact ketones and MCFA outperform butyrate as far as colonocytes energetics is concerned
2b) we do harbor bacteria which utilize glycans for energy (glycans are main component of mucins, lining our gut) producing butyrate as a by-product. It has been shown that mucins production is related to the energy status of the intestinal epithelium, if one provides gut with good energy source (fatty acids), mucins synthesis "runs at full speed" supporting population of mucins munching bugs - supplying butyrate to the gut - and so on
3) all those pro/pre bacteria or drinks in the bottles or capsules are waste of money - these bacteria are destroyed in the stomach or/and overrun very quickly by our on flora in the intestines.
4) it goes without saying that diet does change gut micro-biome, but is micro-biome of a vegan more beneficial to health that the, say mine micro-biome (close 20 years on LCHF)?. I feel great, do not remember when I was ill last time, my digestive tract is in a perfect health and order, I acknowledge that not everyone feels good on LCHF is it to do with bacteria ?, possibly.
5) is high fiber/starch diet necessary for good gut health? - in my case no.
I meant commensal bacteria , not pathogens.
Dr. Mercola's latest post about this topic with some good references:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/05/12/fiber-f...
I guess nothing new for you in there, but actually 30-32 g/day is not that copious amount. If one eats some veggies and some low sugar fruits every day, adding one medium raw potato every other day and one big Jerusalem artichoke tuber (Helianthus tuberosus) the other days seems to be enough and more or less risk free.
I use Jerusalem artichokes in soups and stews, togheter whit Root Parsley!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsley
On the other hand I have no clue about the carb vs. resistant starch difference in raw carrots vs. potatoes. I guess carrots are sweeter for a reason? My children like raw carrots and I do not forbid its consumption. Better than the big majority of junk sweets.
And they have a lot more ensyms for digesting restistante starch.. its one of there natural food stuffs.. roots!
Carrots dont have that much Amylose as potatoes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanine
"In potato tubers, 30–80% of the solanine develops in and close to the skin"
I guess pigs are also aware by instinct.
http://www.solidbellyfatloss.com/2014/12/05/diabetes-miracle-cure-fin...
Are you saying that probiotic supplements are worthless?
It is my experience that most probiotics preparations available over the counter are useless - bacteria they contain simply do not survive in our gut. Even when well protected agains the gut environment (see attached reference) they are overgrown very quickly by native flora. These bugs are like a "pack" of, say, York-terriers released into the woods of Alaska and ask to survive agains a pack of native wolves.
If you want to reduce number of pathogens do it by consuming low sugar diet, add occasional good quality yogurt, kefir, soured milk, fermented cabbage (I realize that to most Anglo-saxons these food are non-palatable), cooked/casseroled meat, cheese, whole spectrum of fatty acids et cetera. Go dietdoctor.com for inspiration. It takes only a couple of weeks, at the most, to shift the composition of gut micro biome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4177644/pdf/ijpr-13-843.pdf
But there are a lot of food substitutes to buy that almost looks like real food and somtimes they tastes like real food, but not always!
Soo.. one have the gut biome as the food one eats, thats not a big suprise?
And then, its not only to provide the biotika strains, its altso about to make them prosper.
And then if one like to have a healty gut biome, there are some tricks, raw and fermented veggies as somthing that one can find in stores.
Try Saurkrates and Kimchi.. its taste good.
And its as simple as that that raw carrots is good, cooked Jerusalem Artichokes in ones soup too.
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000167.full.pdf+html
The wrong white crystals: not salt but sugar as aetiological in hypertension and cardiometabolic disease