It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In 1968-Project 259 Found Sugar may lead to Heart Disease/Cancer-Funding pulled

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
1968, the US is working hard to get to the moon and there is a study with the ominous name of Project 259 being conducted. While being just a rat study that fed them lots of sugar it started to show a bit of bad info about consuming sugar. So what is a huge industry to do? De-fund the study of course. De-funding it shut the study down and it was never published.


About 50 years ago, the sugar industry stopped funding research that began to show something they wanted to hide: that eating lots of sugar is linked to heart disease. A new study exposes the sugar industry’s decades-old effort to stifle that critical research.

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, recently analyzed historical documents regarding a rat study called Project 259 that was launched in 1968. The study was funded by a sugar industry trade group called the International Sugar Research Foundation, or ISRF, and conducted by W. F. R. Pover at the University of Birmingham. When the preliminary findings from that study began to show that eating lots of sugar might be associated with heart disease, and even bladder cancer, the ISRF pulled the plug on the research. Without additional funding, the study was terminated and the results were never published, according to a study published today in PLOS Biology.
www.theverge.com...

Large corps have a history of using their $$$ to sway public opinion.
Coca-cola and candy manufactures have paid for research/scientists to distract the public, one example is a candy maker paying for a bogus study that showed kids who eat candy weight less than those who don't.


Researching the health effects of certain foods is critical because it helps shape the federal government’s dietary guidelines, which recommend how Americans should eat in order to prevent disease. But nutrition science is sometimes influenced by industry groups that have a stake in the results: in 2015, The New York Times reported that Coca-Cola had paid scientists to distract the public from the connection between sugary drinks and obesity. Last year, The Associated Press showed that candy makers also fund bogus research: one study showed that kids who eat candy weigh less than those who don’t.


Ahhh, triglycerides. Project 259 showed rats that had a sugary diet had very high levels of triglycerides. High triglycerides are thought to be a danger to the heart and also some cancers.


Project 259, suggested that rats on a high-sugar diet, instead of a starch diet, had higher levels of triglycerides. The rats that ate lots of sugar also had higher levels of an enzyme called beta-glucuronidase in their urine, which at the time was thought to be potentially linked to bladder cancer, says study co-author Cristin Kearns, an assistant professor at the UCSF School of Dentistry.

The findings were described as “one of the first demonstrations of a biological difference between sucrose and starch fed rats,” according to the internal documents reviewed by the UCSF researchers. But after funding the research for 27 months, the International Sugar Research Foundation discontinued their support. So the study was never completed and the results were never published, according to the UCSF researchers. “Why would they want to fund research that would be against their interests? There’s no reason why they’d want to do that,” Nestle tells The Verge.


The sugar association said the Project 259 was significantly delayed and over budget and said it was not a study it was a "perspective". The Sugar Association also said it has always embraced research and innovation.


In a statement to The Verge, the Sugar Association — as the ISRF is known today — criticized the PLOS Biology paper, calling it not a study but a “perspective.” Project 259 was ended because it was “significantly delayed” and it was “consequently over budget,” the statement says. It adds: “Throughout its history, the Sugar Association has embraced scientific research and innovation in an attempt to learn as much as possible about sugar, diet, and health.”




posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Does anyone these days actually think sugar is good??

It is tasty though!



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
That was the point another article on this study made.

Who actually thinks eating sugar is good for them?

However, on the converse, how long have we been fighting fats as though they are the devil, and that was one of the outcomes of this - the sugar industry supposedly campaigned to shift the blame onto fats which were not and are not quite the demons we've all been led to believe until recently.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Too much refined sugar is the problem.

Eat all the sweet fruit you want.

natural vs. refined sugar



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton
Does anyone these days actually think sugar is good??

It is tasty though!


Thats the problem lol -- people dont care. As long as it tastes good! Never mind that it rewires your brain akin to the affects of coc aine. Never mind that your body almost immediately turns it into fat. Never mind that the (white) sugar everyone eats is bleached and probably ridden with other chemicals due to processing. Mmm sugar.

Subsequently i want donuts.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Jefferton

Very few think it is "good" for you.

That may not be the point, it is in everything. Take the fat out and jam the sugar in or the new "healthy" products will not sell.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I just finally gave up on it all and decided to cook what I was going to cook. The key word is cook. Make your on instead of trusting others to make it for you.

Sure you'll have sugar, salt, and fat, but then you know what it is and how much.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Le Cordon Bleu qualified chef here. Refined” white sugar which is pure sucrose is washed with a syrup solution, then with almost boilingwater, then clarified (almost always chemically) to remove impurities, decolorized, concentrated, evaporated, re-boiled until crystals form, centrifuged again to separate, then dried out a final time. Sounds yum right? Even brown sugar is just white sugar with some molasses built back into it. The key is to use unrefined sugar products. Treacle, molasses.
Anything with high fructose corn syrup and it's derivatives should be avoided like the plague. It's revolting it is allowed in food especially kids food. More American greed. Absolutely revolting. And glysophate in the food. Literally killing people. The weed killer gives you cancer, then sugar is cancers number one friend. It's just so disturbing and unhuman.
1. Use unrefined sugars.
2. Remove all food from diet with any glysophate involved at any stage!! Can trigger false gluten intolerance positives.
3. No trans fats
Do your research. Any self respecting restaurant should not be serving you any of this toxic rubbish but they definitely are.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
This situation is very similar to the the tobacco suit, Big Tobacco had the info and hid it.

Make no mistake the Sugar Association knows it is selling a dangerous product that needs to be recognized for what it is. Dangerous. But the large corp will hide this til a suit opens all their files. This is about keeping the industry afloat with no "danger" regs.
There will be a lawsuit against this industry because they are lying. Only a matter of time.


,
edit on 23-11-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
thats only the tip of the iceberg, what about the people who built water powered motors, working perpetual motion machines and antigravitational devices and where never ever heard of?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Moderate carb consumption isn't bad for you. But our society goes way overboard. Sugar doesn't cause cancer from what I see, but it is fuel for it's rapid growth. A few types of cancer can use lipids to grow, but those are rare.

Cereals for breakfast and bread turn to glucose. we need a little bread to help with protein formation from what I read. You need a combination of amino acids in the body at the same time to make protein. A slice of bread or roll with dinner is actually a combination that can help the body, too much carbs though are not good.

The big cereal companies used specially chosen evidence to show that fats were bad to consume. That was to boost their business, it worked. Butter is better for us than margarine too, but it depends on what the cow is fed. Too much hormones or hormone producing food and the butter contains estrogens and androgens and they can trigger cancers. But Butrate in butter is sort of anticancer so that makes up for it somewhat.

Sugar and carbs do not cause diabetes if eaten in moderation, some cinnamon on that roll with a cup of coffee will help to keep diabetes at bay too. There are epigenetic factors that raise diabetes risk but those people need to follow a diet that helps to reduce the risk. If a receptor on a cell that powers it gets locked by something like one of the troublesome isothiocyanates, it cannot hook up to the insulin till the chemical is knocked off by glucose. That is why people need more and more sugar. Isothiocyanates are made in the body by a combination of thiols like those found in onions, thio-sulfate, coupled to a cyanide molecule which comes from a cell dying or from bacteria dying in the gut. Also, microbes will give off cyanide as a chemical defense so we get thirsty when that happens. Isotiocyanates are actually good for us in moderate amounts, they help to keep the muscles from cramping. But consuming too much mustard is not good.

We need to hold to moderation, and depending on genetic traits, moderation is different for everyone. Sugar is fuel for disease though, more sugar and carb consumed, the more candida can live in our digestive system. That can lead to bigger wars in our guts. Also, these yeast critters eat sugar and turn it into acetylaldehyde, if you have a reduction in the enzymes to detox this chemical it can lead to organ damage, which can lead to diabetes. You need adequate molybdenum in your diet to help create the enzymes and also moderation in sugars to keep this from happening. Organic Oatmeal is a good source of molybdenum, but remember it is also a carb. Flour is a poor source, Whole grain breads are better, but wheat intolerance is growing in our country. It is not always gluten that causes intolerance, many of the people have a wheat intolerance and also roundup is used to treat the wheat preharvest to help dry it and as a funguside to make it last longer. It is also used in this country on other grains. Organic is better, but organic fields close to commercial fields using this can get some of it on them.

I could go on and on for hours with this. I quit supplying links, I have way too many already in my bookmarks, most all legitimate research verifies what I am saying, research on glyphosate by our government is not correct, they parrot Monsanto on this.

Sugar beet sugar contains some isothiocyanate, in small amounts it is not bad. It has a bitter sweet flavor because of this. They used to use the thiosulfate, now they use sulfur dioxide to neutralize the cyanide residue. Either way it winds up sharp, I like pure cane better, it has a smoother flavor.

We burn either lipids or sugar. They say Dextrose and Glucose are the same, but they may have the same chemical formula, but the molecule is spun the opposite way. Does this make a difference in being able to be used by the body? I do not know, but I would have to say maybe. It seems like there was not much testing done on this that I can find. Usually that means they are hiding something.

Happy thanksgiving, don't worry about that one piece of pie....I am going to have two pieces myself tonight. I have hypoglycemia, if I eat a bunch of sugar I crash about an hour later, either get the shakes or spinny head. But when I eat a berry pie, that does not happen for some reason.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
It really doesn't matter if we now know the evils of sugar [and excess carbs] in our diet.

What does matter is that this study...and likely many others...were aborted to keep products on the shelves.
For decades, we thought fat was the enemy, and not sugar.
That Frosted Mini Wheats were better for us than bacon and eggs.

Corporate greed.
And the FDA and USDA went along with it.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Exactly!!

There are, also, other natural sweetners out there that are even better than sugar, and less of a problem if one over indulges. Which is, of course, where the problem is.

Too much of anything is bad.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The implications of not hiding this research: humanity cannot continue to survive on this planet with our current economic system.

For our economy to flourish we need growth. To have growth you need to increase human capital to perform labor. Any business not growing is shrinking, due to cash rot (inflation).

So with a shrinking population comes economic turmoil. With a growing population, we get economic boom (in theory...there are more moving parts to consider, like rate of investment, cost of goods, etc).

How do you support billions of people on this planet by feeding them fats, proteins, and fiber? Im sure it could be done logistically....but consider how hard it would be to (without lab grown meat) support the planets dietary needs without sugar and carbs like rice, corn, and wheat providing the energy needed to work?

Sugar is the lynchpin here. Its an economy all its own, on top of being an easy to attain source of food energy. Much easier to grow a crop of corn for its sugar than to try to grow cows into maturity.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
It really doesn't matter if we now know the evils of sugar [and excess carbs] in our diet.

What does matter is that this study...and likely many others...were aborted to keep products on the shelves.
For decades, we thought fat was the enemy, and not sugar.
That Frosted Mini Wheats were better for us than bacon and eggs.

Corporate greed.
And the FDA and USDA went along with it.


Problem is that you know who will get the main blame.

Everyone with who is either fat or has diabetes will line up to sue big sugar, but the USDA and FDA were at least as complicit in letting it slide.

Who's going to blame the government?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

When I was about 17 my doctor was alarmed that my liver enzymes were a wack.
He was sure I was a heavy drinker. Thing was, I never drank a drop till I was 21.
After a few blood tests he gave me a fasting test and before the blood test I had to drink some sugary substance.
It showed i was on track to diabetes, yikes.

I was drinking two cans of soda a day, one usually with lunch and one after school or in the evening. Sometimes more. And I had at least one snack. Couple that with cereal, granola bars, stuff you find in the mid sections of grocery stores. No wonder my insides were a mess. I wasn't overwieght tho.

I cut out all soda, snacks, you name it.
Been fine ever since, even in my heavy drinking days my liver never showed abnormal levels. Scary stuff when abused.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Me, I'll blame 'em. Then I'll add myself and everyone else who relies on the govt. to be the sole arbiter of what's right for us.

That's our job, not theirs. If we can't be bothered to, at the least, question their decisions, don't we pretty much get what we deserve?

They only get away with what we allow 'em to get away with.

Sorry, this is an old, old peeve...I'll stop now.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I think your idea applies more now than in the pre internet era.

Lobby, lobby, lobby. That is a major problem with the "civilian or person corporations". Big money to the inbreed politicians.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

As far as access to the information...it is easier today than it was back when I was younger. That's true! Very true.

But...

The information was out there. I grew up in a little farm town/college town, etc... But it had a kick ass public library. I swear to god it had every medical research journal known to man... Maybe this library was the exception to the rule, I don't honestly know, but I used a lot of those journals and other sources while I was in school in what was essentially that era. Pre-internet.

I may have overstated it a bit...I'll admit to that. But it was out there to be found, it just took a bit longer to find...

MHO, of course.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Let's not forget that the feeling the American populace have toward the Govt has drastically changed. There is a lack of trust from the US pop to govt AND from the US govt Toward it's citizens.

The bloom is off that rose.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join