Are we as Americans potentially condemning our children to an anguished filled life that is overflowing with the complications of Type II Diabetes simply by deciding to give our children certain potentially harmful substances to eat for breakfast?
The question has to be asked of all parents because it has the potential to spark a healthy and meaningful discussion that can be instrumental in saving many lives since most people simply aren’t aware of some of the hidden dangers that they are placing on the kitchen table for their children to consume on a constant and daily basis.
Now before I continue let me just state for the record that everyone isn’t affected by the foods that we consume on a regular basis, which is exactly what the statisticians will argue in defense of the companies that they often represent. However, since we cannot determine beforehand who will be adversely affected by the foods that are being marketed to our children, and that are also being marketed to their often uninformed parents who just want the very best for their children; don’t we as consumers as well as members of the media, have a pronounced responsibility to ask certain questions of the manufacturers and proponents of these foods as well as an undeniable responsibility to take certain measures to protect our children that lack the nutritional knowledge to make their very own decisions about the foods that line the shelves of their local grocery stores?
My independent research suggests that the problem with Type II Diabetes seems to start for a number of people with the consumption of cereals and especially sugary cereals, which we as consumers are told are good for us, however, combining cereals and milk without coupling them with protein teaches the body to run off of pure sugar and off of a variety of simple carbohydrates that are quickly converted into sugar or glucose. The body will eventually learn to convert all non-protein items into sugar just as soon as they enter the person’s mouth. This causes an immediate spike in the blood sugar, which can eventually become lethal since everyone isn’t able to regulate their blood sugar without medication or without the application of insulin.
Milk and cereal without protein are not the only things to be concerned about because countless independent studies have proven that aspartame is linked to Type II Diabetes, however, this substance is being added to chewing gum that already contains sugar, which causes many to question why this is being done since aspartame is touted as being a hundred times sweeter than sugar. Is it really necessary to add aspartame to chewing gum that already contains sugar, and if it isn’t, then why is this being done and for what unspoken purpose? Parents must start to ask certain questions of the producers of the foods that we consume on a constant and daily basis, so they can make the very best decisions for their children. Parents must also seek to partner with certain health care professionals that are informed about the potential dangers.
When I was in college the onsite nurse instructed me to start my day off with protein and to avoid eating vegetables and anything else without starting the meal with protein. She also advised me to avoid all sugary substances since sugar has no nutritional value. This information was volunteered once I signed up for a physical education course. We need more health care professionals like the nurse that I had because if I hadn’t followed her advice then I would most likely be like the millions of Americans that cannot lower their blood sugar levels without medication or insulin.
Additional sources for information on the toxicity of aspartame are EMC 205 Aspartame and Dr. Tenpenny as well as Dr. Brackett.
Nathaniel Armstrong, Jr.
Cerritos, CA –
This article was also published by Examiner.com
I guess the answer, like the fact that not everyone is susceptible, is more complex. Milk has protein, lots of it, so cereal and protein shouldn’t be a problem. As for the sugars (by which we both mean simple sugars, as opposed to carbohydrates, that are chemically more complex and need “digestion” before absorption), these again may not be a problem if consumed with the complex sugars or carbohydrates.
We have examples around the world of all sorts of different starts to the day, some being of a narrow food type so just vegetable, fruit, meat or carbohydrate and there is no problem associated with these.
So the first meal may be a problem, but not necessarily so. Not necessarily so, because it is the context of that first meal, that is all the other foods consumed that may add up to a problem.
One certainty we have is that over consumption of calories with respect to expenditure equals obesity, which leads often to diabetes. A second certainty is that regular over consumption of sugars (the simple kind, absorbed directly with the need for major breakdown) may also lead to diabetes. Note that the ‘traditional’ sugary treat, in the form of occasional sugar cane or honey was always highly irregular in the diet. As the nurse told you, regular simple sugar, particularly in the absence of more complex foods giving a longer response to feeding is a big problem.
While I too have major concerns with the food industry, it is perhaps our tendency to eat too much too often and indulge in the sugary output of the food industry that is our undoing. Maybe something like 3 meals a day for kids with a fruit snack or two, 1 meal plus two light snacks of fruit or similar for adults in a sedentary job would work better? This immediately kills off sugary drinks, from milk shakes to fizzy ones and fruit juices – drink water, except on special occasions. The rise in diabetes in the Gulf states (25% of adults) is directly linked to these factors.
I have to say that even with a BSc and a PhD, comparing various packets of produce in the supermarket is a major task, and sometimes a failure, because of the lack of consistent and informative labelling. So there is a big problem with the food industry. Attempts in Europe to get real labelling on foods fail time and time again, simply because of the lobbying power of the industry and the latest debacle is unlikely to change much.