The Real Story Behind Sugar: Sugar's Hidden History
By Christopher Walker
Sugar is not bad; it is essential to health. The cell needs glucose in order to function properly in an anti-stress state with high energy flow. Research supports the idea that carbohydrates are needed to “thrive”. The modern demonization of sugar is entirely based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of what sugar is, and its vital roles in the human body. Half of the problem in understanding (anything) is based in language - definitions, and a knowledge gap between assumptions and reality. The knowledge gap, characterized by ignorance, is a result of “received wisdom.” Enlightenment is born out of critical re-examination of our previously held beliefs, which are almost always beliefs that slither into the deep recesses of our minds without our conscious acceptance or rejection. If enough authorities echo the same sentiment, it must be true… right? The beliefs currently held by the majority of Western society about sugar are all based in received wisdom, and are inaccurate. These inaccurate beliefs pour gasoline on an already epidemic-level fire of chronic health issues in hundreds of millions of people. Myths around cancer, diabetes, insulin reactivity, and ketosis are keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of millions of people who need help! Enhance your understanding of the reality of sugar’s role in the human body, and you will unlock the door to optimal thyroid function, insulin sensitivity, mitochondrial efficiency, and low stress hormones. Start using sugar properly, from the right sources, and the resulting body fat loss, boundless energy, high sex hormones, mental clarity, and incredible sleep will completely change your life for the better.
The History of Sugar
In 1938, the results of a 6-month long study were published in The Journal Of Nutrition… and the lab that published them was at a critical crossroads, one that would set the wheels in motion for the public’s understanding - or rather misunderstanding - around human health for the next 80 years.
The results of the study most certainly would’ve been “disturbing” to the researchers, primarily because they indicated the opposite of what the researchers set out to prove.
Were true scientific methodology the guiding light, these results would have necessitated a different path than the one that was chosen. But there was a lot at stake, and these results were inconvenient. As stated in the Advancement of Learning, “if a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.”
The lab of George Burr had started with certainties, and ended in doubts. But it wasn’t long before those doubts were forgotten, stamped out by the unbridled force of their original certainties.
The mental and biological constructs at work in the brain to ensure what scientists call “certainty bias” are of the strongest kind of misdirected superpower. Robert Burton M.D., former Chief of Neurology at the University of California at San Francisco, points out that “we need to recognize that the feelings of certainty and conviction are involuntary mental sensations, not logical conclusions.”
Burton points out that there are two separate aspects of a thought: the actual thought and an independent involuntary assessment of the accuracy of that thought. The brain has powerful built-in involuntary mechanisms for unconscious cognitive activity. Many thoughts that surface in someone’s mind, researchers included, are driven from this not-necessarily-logical unconscious inroad… what William James, the Father of American Psychology and professor of philosophy at Harvard University, referred to in his Gifford Lectures as “felt knowledge.”
Often this “felt knowledge” is much stronger than a logical conclusion, and will drive human behavior far beyond the rigid regulations of logical thought, even when that person is staring directly into the cold, unblinking eyes of a conflicting truth… potentially to their own demise, or worse, to the demise of others.
It is entirely possible that the Burr laboratory in the 1930’s was driven chiefly by “felt knowledge” - in fact, the evolution of their theories birthed at that time would indicate as much, including the fact that they “invented” a disease - the resulting turn of events - part-scientific, part-political, and part-blind-ambition - spawned a divergence from the truth that nobody could have possibly predicted the effects of at that time.
So what happened?
In the early 1930’s, years before the publication of the aforementioned study, Burr was running experiments related to his theory of “essential fatty acid deficiency” in rats. He noticed that PUFA-deficient rats on a specific high sugar diet consumed oxygen at an uncharacteristically high rate.
Burr erroneously concluded that first, this increased consumption of oxygen was a bad thing, which was based on a foundational misunderstanding and bias that was brought into the experiment. Secondly, he observed that it was due to a lack of unsaturated fats in the animals’ diet. His reasoning was that this lack of unsaturated fats increased the rate at which water escapes as vapor through the skin of the rats, and that, because of this, the so-called “essential fatty acid deficiency” must be overcome in order to slow this rate of evaporation.
His observations missed some key pieces to the puzzle. It was the 1930s afterall, and scientific understanding of the human body has advanced massively since then (in some areas, while devolving in others).
He didn’t understand that the amount of water evaporated from an animal’s body is actually a reliable indicator of metabolic rate, a direct function of a healthy thyroid gland! The animals were healthier without the “essential fatty acids” in their diet. When an animal’s metabolic rate is higher, it burns calories at a higher rate, creating more heat. The body’s natural response is to leverage the sweat glands to help the animal maintain a steady body temperature… and evaporation is the main cooling mechanism.
He threw the baby out with the bathwater!
This is where William Brown entered the picture in 1938. Working as a researcher in Burr’s lab, Brown became curious about the effects of this “essential fatty acid deficient” diet. What type of impact would it have on humans? To that point, it had only been measured on animals.
He decided to put it to the test on himself.
For 6 months Brown consumed a 2500 calorie per day diet completely void of unsaturated fats, and high in sugars in the forms of glucose, fructose, lactose, sucrose, and potato starch along with micronutrient supplementation from mineral oil, baking soda, and salt, as well as Vitamin D3, Vitamin A, and iron.
Despite the fact that the Burr laboratory was clutching onto the idea that a diet without unsaturated fatty acids was “unhealthy” and caused the fake disease (of their own invention) “essential fatty acid deficiency,” the results from Brown’s study were undeniable: this diet made him healthier.
First, Brown had suffered since childhood from migraines. Within 6 weeks on this high sugar diet, they completely subsided and never returned. Secondly, he started the diet with slightly high blood pressure. A few months into the experimental diet, his blood pressure completely normalized.
He also lost a significant amount of weight through the 6 month period, corresponding to a measurable increase in his metabolic rate indicators. He went from 152lbs at the start of the dieting period with a metabolic rate at -12% below normal, and within a few months raised his metabolic rate to just -2% below normal while dropping to 138lbs, which he easily maintained through the end of the study period.
At 2500 calories per day, mostly from sugar, this is a feat most people would not believe possible, especially at his body weight and without extra activity.
Brown also reported a noticeable increase in energy throughout his work days. Where he used to feel a sense of fatigue at the end of the day, he reported that this fatigue completely disappeared while on the diet.
And similar to the rats, his respiratory quotient significantly increased, which also indicates an increase in metabolic rate and thyroid function. His respiratory quotient was above a 1.0, hitting as high as 1.14 during the sixth month of the experiment.
A respiratory quotient of 1.0 and above indicates an exceptional ability of the body to oxidize pure carbohydrate for fuel. Juxtapose this against the respiratory quotient of a Type 2 diabetic, which can fall down into the 0.7 range, indicative of a preference in the diabetic physiology of oxidizing fatty acids instead of carbohydrates.
And weirdly, despite their reporting that the diet didn’t significantly change Brown’s cholesterol measurements, it actually dropped his total serum cholesterol quite a bit, going from 298 to 206 mg/dL over the first four months. That’s significant in my book.
Despite these findings of lack of fatty acids, and a higher sugar diet actually improving health biomarkers in both the animals and in Brown’s six month human trial, Burr pushed forward and continued to assert his “essential fatty acid deficiency” hypothesis. Funny enough, it mostly fell on deaf ears in the scientific community at the time, since many other researchers were corroborating similar positive health results of the opposite of what Burr was claiming with his fatty acid hypothesis. The other researchers at the time were finding that as the thyroid gland improved functioning through a higher sugar diet and lower polyunsaturated fats, the serum cholesterol numbers also normalized into the healthy range.
Unfortunately, this was all forgotten when the Seed Oil industry stepped into the picture, and changed the course of Western society for the remainder of the century. I discuss this sad historical phenomenon in detail in Chapter 9, but to sum it up in the context of Burr and his “essential fatty acid deficiency” hypothesis, once cottonseed oil no longer had a distribution in the paint industry, the massive surplus of this oil and other “vegetable oils” in the US in the early 1900s spurred the marketing of it as a food product, with a steady introduction into the American food supply, primarily via companies like Wesson, J.M Smucker, and Procter & Gamble.
The essential fatty acid deficiency hypothesis was the perfect marketing fodder to prop up a “scientific” argument for why Americans should start consuming vegetable oils en masse, since these vegetable oils are entirely made up of the same fatty acids as Burr was asserting to be “essential” - polyunsaturated fats, or PUFAs.
The very fact that they became referred to as “vegetable” oils is also a misnomer and a testament to the propaganda influence behind this early 20th century movement in corporate food marketing, especially since none of these oils are actually taken from vegetables, but rather seeds.
“If you are deficient in these essential vegetable oils, you cannot possibly be healthy,” the propaganda began to spread like wildfire, to the tune of billions in profits, no doubt with the help of the prodigal propagandist Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, who worked with companies like Procter & Gamble during this time, and who is also well-known for the central role he played in convincing the American public that water fluoridation was healthy and necessary (he was hired by the special interest group Alcoa - the Aluminum Company of America to do this), that cigarettes were cool, and in working with the large multinational corporation United Fruit Company (now named Chiquita Brands International) and the US government (the CIA, President Eisenhower, and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles) to overthrow the democratically-elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman - who took a hard line against the United Fruit Companies exploitative labor practices in Guatemala, in operation PBSUCCESS in 1954.
It’s important to understand the historical sequence of events here, as well as the players involved, in order to have an accurate basis for your decision making around sugar, especially since sugar, vegetable oils and “essential” fatty acids, cholesterol, and heart disease are all such intricately tied topics when it comes to the propaganda and marketing milieu of the 20th and 21st centuries.
This sequence of events made certain corporations massive amounts of money, setting them up to be in the top most influential and powerful companies on Earth now in the 21st century, while also causing a massive confusion within the medical, scientific, and research communities… trickling down to the general public and no doubt correlating - and I would even go so far as to suggest a causal role - with the epidemic rise of chronic metabolic disease in the world population over the last 100 years, with obesity tripling since 1975, where more than 1 in 3 adults are now overweight, and over 340 million children were found to be overweight in a 2016 population survey.
Why does everyone still believe sugar is bad for the body, especially when sugar consumption is actually decreasing while the rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes continue to rise?
The idea that eating sugar causes obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and cancer is a prescientific belief, perpetuated through the last few centuries to the detriment of hundreds of millions of people. The development of this “sugar disease” theory rode alongside, and relied heavily upon, the veracity of the lipid theory of heart disease, which indicts cholesterol and saturated fat consumption as causal factors in cardiovascular disease, and, despite the fact that these theories have both been thoroughly disproven, these inaccurate ideas remain firmly seated on the dogmatic throne at the center of the temple of the cultural hive mind, held as immutable truth.
To paint an accurate picture of reality, we must understand the origin of these debunked theories. Confucius put it simply, “study the past if you would define the future.”
Everyone loves to demonize sugar as the cause of obesity, yet when you analyze both the research and the actual biochemistry of the human body, you start to see a very different picture unfold, with some extremely convincing evidence to the contrary.
People rarely ever consume sugar in its pure form.
When was the last time you ate a spoonful of raw coconut or maple sugar, real honey, or royal jelly? For many people, probably never.
First off, sugar does not equal baked goods, candy bars, soft drinks, and anything else people commonly associate it with.
It is NOT the same thing.
All of these foodstuffs are nothing more than nutrient-void garbage food that should be consumed sparingly, if at all. They contain large amounts of polyunsaturated fats, grain flours, and frankenfood ingredients and flavoring chemicals that negatively influence your health far more than a little sucrose.
This is the real crime in implicating “sugar” as something that’s bad for the body…
Because the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater…
People, by association, demonize fruit, honey, and even just simple raw cane sugar, with zero real evidence for its negative effects in the context of an otherwise solid hormonally-focused diet like I outline in this book.
Rarely do people fully understand what sugar is, how it acts in the body, and how much it really contributes to obesity, inflammation, hormones, etc. And now that we’ve moved over from blaming saturated fat for all of our health problems, we need a new thing to demonize and blame for our obesity and health problems.
Sugar is the perfect target, and it certainly gets its share of a bad rep already.
But did you know that even though we try to blame sugar for everything, and say that we are getting fatter and fatter due to increased sugar usage, science actually shows that sugar consumption has dropped during this time that obesity rates have dramatically risen.
One study calls this “the Australian Paradox“, as during the timeframe of 1980-2003, obesity rates tripled in the country, yet the intake of refined sugar dropped by 23%.
What is Sugar
Sugars are naturally occurring carbohydrates that provide energy for the body in the form of glucose and fructose. Your brain, for example, requires roughly 130 grams of glucose on a daily basis to cover the most basic energy needs.
The major internal organs, glands, and muscles all use glucose as their main energy source. If you deprive the body from this, it will try to make up for it by a process called gluconeogenesis, in which the body breaks down protein and fatty-acid to create glucose, do this long enough and your body goes into ketosis which just another form of metabolic stress during glucose deprivation.
Almost all carbohydrates, starches and sugars, break down to glucose – the simplest form of sugar – after ingestion. The rate at which this happens is measured by the “glycemic index” or “glycemic load”.
Although the low-carbers tried for years to confuse average people into believing that low glycemic index foods would be “it” for weight loss. Research has shown time after time again that it was the total energy intake of daily calories, not the GI that is behind our ability to gain or lose weight.
The most common kinds of sugars in our diet include:
- Glucose – the simplest form of sugar and the main energy provider of the cells in the body. The “blood sugar” in your veins is also glucose.
- Fructose – found naturally in fruits and honey. It’s much sweeter than glucose and is metabolized in the liver instead of the gut.
- Sucrose – (table sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose, extracted from beets or sugar cane. Sucrose occurs naturally in vegetables and fruit.
- Lactose – (milk sugar) is found in milk and dairy products. There’s also maltose, which is found in malted drinks and beer.
The studies looking into the effects of sugar on various health parameters, often use pure fructose, pure glucose, or sucrose. In our normal daily lives, the majority of the sugars we consume come in balance of ~50% glucose, ~50% fructose. The main difference between glucose and fructose, is the fact that the latter is metabolized in the liver and is more rapidly absorbed.
The best possible way to fully understand sugar, is to understand the structure and function of carbohydrates inside the human body.
Carbohydrates are organic compounds that contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. A convenient shorthand that scientists use to reference a carbohydrate, or carbohydrate-fed subject group, in the literature is CHO (carbon-hydrogen-oxygen).
Carbohydrates are the most abundant biomolecule on Earth and they’re used for accessible energy to fuel cellular reactions and for vital structural support of cell membranes. The presence of the carbohydrate enhances the ability of the cell to not just function at baseline, but to be able to improve its functionality over time - as long as it has a steady access to a source of carbohydrate.
For example, a cell can use a carbohydrate molecule to bind to the lipids in the cell membrane to improve cell identification, cell signaling, and cellular immune responses.
Certain forms of carbohydrates such as deoxyribose and ribose are essential parts of DNA and RNA molecules’ structure and function.
There are thousands of different carbohydrate forms, but they all consist of one or more units called monosaccharides.
Monosaccharides are named accordingly, with Greek roots, as “simple sugars.” The number and type of monosaccharide used - as well as the positioning of how they’re bonded with one another - determines the structure of a carbohydrate.
For example, sucrose (table sugar) is known as a disaccharide, and is formed by the bonding of two monosaccharides, glucose and fructose.
Different monosaccharide pairs form a lot of the common sugars we associate with foods: such as sucrose, maltose (two glucose monomers), and lactose (glucose and galactose monomers).
Polysaccharides - also known as “complex carbohydrates” - consist of chains of hundreds of more monosaccharide units, and they’re usually - but not always - composed of the same type of monosaccharides, such as glucose, linked together in different numbers.
Polysaccharides are great for energy use and storage in the human body since they’re so easily built and broken down by enzymes naturally found within the body. We create glucose polymers to be stored as energy in the form of glycogen in the liver and muscle tissue. This allows it to be stored in a compact surface area, but provides large amounts of easily available energy when needed. Since glycogen is such a heavily relied upon source of energy in the body, especially in times of urgent need, glycogen depletion - when we don’t consume enough glucose in our diet, or when we intentionally run our glycogen stores low - can cause detrimental side effects in energy production, most commonly described as “hitting the wall” or “bonking” in athletics.
When the body is fully depleted of glycogen, a shift in stress hormone production facilitates a process known as gluconeogenesis, or the creation of glucose from lactate, pyruvate, and amino acids, and is characteristic of a catabolic, or stressed, metabolism.
Gluconeogenesis is a survival mechanism ingrained in the body that can help keep the organism alive in the absence of glucose-rich food. It requires a highly stressed and catabolic shift in certain hormone production such as cortisol and adrenaline, and is not preferable for a healthy long-term condition. Many people report “feeling great” for a short period of time after this hormonal shift, however this feeling of well-being is also a survival mechanism for the animal, and is commonly known as the “catecholamine honeymoon”, characterized by a sharp rise in catecholamines, like adrenaline, followed by the decreased sensitivity to such hormones, despite their chronically-elevated levels of release into the blood in order to sustain gluconeogenesis in the absence of glucose.
After as short as just a few weeks in this condition, the negative effects of these catabolic stress hormones become quite noticeable - decreases in energy, hair thinning, insomnia, loss of sex drive, loss of muscle tissue, and stubborn body fat. You could say, the honeymoon is over at that point.
Due to the demonization of sugar, it may seem a bit outer-worldish to claim that sugar consumption would actually have some health benefits.
Yet it does. And it makes sense.
There’s plenty of research showing how glucose and fructose actually negatively correlate with diabetes, and that fructose – due to the fact that it’s metabolized in the liver – doesn’t need insulin to be pushed into the cells, which is probably why higher intakes of fructose have been found to improve – yes, improve – insulin sensitivity.
Bears coming out of hibernation reverse their full-blown diabetic state by eating honey, which is a rich source of fructose.
Scientists also are now presenting evidence that diet is the primary driver of the evolution of the complexity of the primate - and possibly human - brain. Among all studied primates, the frugivores - animals who may be omnivore or herbivore but whose diet consists mainly of raw fruits - have the largest, most complex brains. The sugars in the fruits are literally fueling their brains to grow.
Sugars are the primary fuel for the thyroid gland, and the thyroid gland actually controls the rate at which your body burns calories, aka. metabolic rate. When you eat more simple sugars, your thyroid gland produces more T4 thyroid hormone, and with adequate sugars stored in the liver, your body can easily convert T4 into the active T3 form, which greatly improves energy production and metabolic rate.
If sugars and carbohydrates make us all fat, why in the world have almost all bodybuilders for the last hundred years eaten high-carb diets while getting to extremely low body fat levels?
When you lower your calories in order to lose weight, one of the most powerful compounds that can preserve metabolic rate, is in fact; fructose. It supposedly is the substance most notorious for making us gain weight, but in reality, high fructose foods are typically low in caloric content, have the ability to greatly support metabolic rate, and have a muscle sparing effect.
The liver provides about 70% of our active thyroid hormone, by converting thyroxine to T3, but it can provide this active hormone only when it has adequate glucose.
Eating Sugar Will Help Your Body Fight Inflammation Naturally
With everyone running around yelling about sugar being toxic, it might be difficult to believe that, in fact, sugar actually plays a very important role in your body’s natural antioxidant defense system, which helps you fight off free radical damage and inflammation.
Glutathione is your “master antioxidant” in the body and glucose plays a vitally important role in its production.
We have a complex endogenous antioxidant system that is ultimately fueled by glucose.
There is a “pathway” known as the pentose phosphate pathway where glucose supplies reducing power to NADPH, from niacin (Vitamin B3), in the form of hydrogen ions and electrons.
Vitamin B2 is then used by the vital enzyme glutathione reductase to pass this reducing power on to glutathione.
Glutathione, your master antioxidant, is then able to neutralize hydrogen peroxide to water, and neutralize lipid peroxides (free radicals from fatty acids like PUFAs) into hydroxy-fatty acids which are less harmful to the body, while recycling Vitamin C - another important antioxidant.
Vitamin C recycles Vitamin E which is your most important defensive antioxidant against PUFA oxidation.
As you can see, this entire system - and all of glutathione’s important roles in the body - from fighting against the accumulation of inflammatory free radical species, to protecting against the degradation of fatty acids in the cell membranes, to cleaning up damage caused by PUFAs, all ultimately depends on the availability and action of glucose… sugar.
Does Cancer Really Prefer Sugar?
I’d like to point out an important truth about cancer, and the roles of sugar and fatty acids in cancer.
This is important for my readers to be aware of, precisely because one of the prevailing mythical mantras that has been repeated ad nauseum over the past 30 years is that cancer is “addicted” to sugar and cannot grow in the absence of glucose.
This could not be further from the truth. And the medical community has known this for well over a decade, and has already accumulated quite a large amount of research to back it up.
This mantra has been one of the main talking points we’ve all heard from proponents of the ketogenic diet, and has been used to prop up their arguments that “sugar is the devil” however, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that a ketogenic diet itself can rapidly accelerate the growth of cancer cells with a common mutation that is found in over 60% of cases of melanoma, 100% of hairy cell leukemia, 10% of colorectal cancer, and 5% of multiple myeloma.
Research published in the journal Cell Metabolism in 2017 demonstrated how this extremely common mutation - V600E - rewires the cancer cells’ metabolic preference to that of the ketogenic pathway. It does this in order to create a feedback loop to “pour fuel on the fire” for the cancer cell growth and further proliferation throughout the body.
A common energy source in ketosis is acetoacetate. With V600E, the acetoacetate binds a specific protein (the B-raf protein) which promotes oncogenic activation, which gives the cells distinct advantages in growing faster through potential further mutations, gene amplification, and chromosome rearrangements.
This becomes even scarier when you realize that the cancer literally mutates itself in order to fuel its growth through what you eat. Researchers found that when they fed mice with V600E a high fat ketogenic diet, the tumor growth literally doubled in just 4 weeks. As they put it,
“Consistent with our findings above, we found that treatment with a high-fat diet promoted tumor growth rate, sizes, and masses.”
Fat oxidation has been found to promote the survival of cancer cells. This is why I think that it is so important to avoid PUFAs as much as possible, since they are so easily oxidized.
Cancer cells are tricky creatures; they have an uncanny ability to mutate and adapt in order to survive. One way that leukemia cells, for example, work is that they prefer to use fatty acid metabolism in order to inhibit the activity of certain proteins to avoid apoptosis, or programmed cell death. This helps the cells stay alive and proliferate.
Again, the important role of fatty acid oxidation in cancer growth is very well known in scientific circles - the public just isn’t as aware. Like Dr. Erin Currie, PhD from the Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics at USCF puts it in her paper entitled, Cellular Fatty Acid Metabolism and Cancer,
“Cellular proliferation, a common feature of all cancers, requires fatty acids for synthesis of membranes and signaling molecules. Here we summarize evidence that limiting fatty acid availability can control cancer cell proliferation.”
The important thing to understand when it comes to cancer cells is that blanket ideas such as “cancer is addicted to sugar,” or “cancer starves without sugar” are quite simply untrue. Cancers can mutate rapidly and get fuel from many things, even amino acids like glutamine. Therefore, the most prudent way to approach cancer treatment from a dietary perspective is for someone to learn about their cancer specifically and follow what’s known as a “precision diet” approach to combat that specific cancer.
It’s not a one-size-fits-all argument. All ideas that would say it is, are utterly non-scientific.
Sugar Does Not Cause Fatty Liver Disease
The single most common scapegoat for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is fructose.
Everyone points the finger without any real evidence. If they’ve “solved” the issue, then how come incidences of fatty liver disease continue to rise so rapidly, and have more than doubled in children over the last 10 years?
They’re missing a key element to the equation.
In reality, fructose has been shown to be protective against hepatic liver problems, and when there’s adequate choline in the diet, over-feeding of fructose does not lead to fat accumulation in the liver at all. The problem of fatty-liver disease has nothing to do with fructose, and everything to do with eating too much polyunsaturated fatty-acids (which prevent exportation of liver fat) and lack of choline (which is a necessary micronutrient required in the exportation of fat from the liver).
To avoid fatty liver disease, you must avoid consuming PUFAs while simultaneously making sure that you’re not deficient in choline. Choline is the one of the single most common nutrient deficiencies in the United States, with an estimated 92% of the entire population carrying this deficiency.
With the prevalence of PUFAs in our cooking oils - being used at nearly every restaurant and in most packaged foods - alongside a 92% population-wide choline deficiency, it’s no wonder that around a whopping 100 million adults in the United States are estimated to have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease… a number that continues to increase every year.
With the rampant demonization of sugar in our modern culture, even in the absence of legitimate scientific evidence to confirm it, the Sugar Myth pervades. Sugar is essential to health, it’s time we Think Again.