Posts Tagged ‘alternative health’

© 2009 Nancy Appleton PhD and G.N. Jacobs


Dr. Appleton has spent more than 35 years writing, lecturing and preaching, for a lack of a better word, this simple thought: our modern diet does more to harm us than bullets, car wrecks, falling from high places and possibly those scary viruses with names like Ebola Zaire combined will ever do. Mainstream medical opinion has not always been positive during that time. When she brought in Mr. Jacobs to manage the day to day aspects of her business, she admitted to being tired and despaired of why she couldn’t continue like one of her role models, Coco Chanel who ran her fashion and perfume empire well into her eighties.

“Coco Chanel was never beaten up by the medical establishment for thirty years,” Mr. Jacobs replied.

And now perhaps the wheel has turned. People begin to listen and we are still here spreading the word. The latest support comes from the backers of a new bill before the California Legislature concerning medical choices and informed consent. Assembly Bill 1478 is intended to provide accurate information about the risks and benefits to cardiac and diabetes patients in the State of California. The logic says that if people become aware that traditional therapies aren’t nearly as effective as diet, exercise and other lifestyle changes then people will opt out and try something with more hope of working. But, the patient needs to be informed.

Statistics cited by the bill’s backers are quite frightening:

  • Approximately, 44,800 bypass surgeries are performed per year in California.
  • Up to 5-percent die.
  • Nearly 80-percent experience cognitive difficulties afterwards.
  • Repeat bypass surgeries increase the fatal risk to between 15 and 20-percent.
  • Nearly 131,400 angioplasties performed every year with a 25-percent failure rate.
  • Costs to California: $48.36 billion per year or which $8.22 billion is paid directly by Medi-Cal.
  • Two million Californians have diabetes.
  • Diabetes costs California $36 billion per year of which $6.12 billon is paid by Medi-Cal.

The Authors of the bill listed Dr. Appleton’s book Lick the Sugar Habit as a primary “Must Read” sourcebook. But, perhaps the backers aren’t as aware of our continuing work in the nutrition field as we know more now.

We suspect that part of the problem is the medical approach of most doctors who have based much of their work on Louis Pasteur’s Germ Theories. In essence, doctors seek to whack disease with medicine instead of rooting out the causes. Dr. Appleton’s PhD thesis has been published, alternately titled The Curse of Louis Pasteur or Rethinking Pasteur’s Germ Theory.

The work continues in such works as Stopping Inflammation and Suicide by Sugar where further information about sugar and the related problem of inflammation are discussed in more detail. In Suicide by Sugar, the doctor discusses soft drinks and many other sugar-added drinks in detail. It may open your eyes.

Why is it important to include health choice and informed consent laws as part of the total healthcare plan for the country? Consider Congressman Mike Roger’s harsh comments on the cost of healthcare and healthcare reform.[i] While we won’t comment here about the Congressman’s apparent lack of concern for people who can’t pay for their own insurance, he does seem to understand that healthcare costs a lot of money.

Our position and that of the backers of AB 1478 is that prevention over allopathic intervention with drugs and surgery must be considered a viable treatment plan as part of overall healthcare reform. It will certainly reduce the costs of treatment and may make public option health insurance or whatever improvements come out of the political process cheaper to implement.

A home cooked meal of two hamburger patties, mashed potatoes, grilled onions and a salad compared to the same building block foods prepared differently and consumed at McDonalds probably represents at least 300-percent price differential in cost per meal. So does the price break at the register also represent a break when it comes to calculating healthcare costs? Dr. Appleton’s work certainly has always said so, but let’s hear from the supporters of AB 1478 and the position papers they used to justify this legislation.

Dr. Pamela Poppe, one of the experts tasked to defend AB 1478, presents many examples of the comparative ineffectiveness of many traditional treatments for many common diseases. A long-running study conducted by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn started with 24 patients in 1983, of which 18 were still on the program of a healthier diet in 2000, showed that the patients still on the program had no new cardiac events, while the six that left the program had 11, including one death.[ii]

Dr. Poppe continues to list examples for almost all of the main diseases that kill us and in many cases the results of the dietary approach are vastly superior to the drug and surgery approach. A 35-year study on multiple sclerosis patients found that over the time of the study a low-saturated fat diet prevented the disease progression to the tune of a 95-percent success rate.[iii] The traditional therapy shows that half of all patients are dead, in wheelchairs, or using walkers.[iv] Something is wrong.

These facts are but a small sample of how modern medicine hurts us more than helps us. We encourage you to venture to www.camedicalchoice.com for more information on health and the fight to include heart disease, diabetes and other diseases on the long list of things your doctor must tell you before starting treatment.

[i] http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc


[ii] Esselstyn, CB Jr. “Updating a 12-year Experience With Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease (An Overdue Requiem for Palliative Cardiology)” The Am J of Cardiology 1999 August 1; 84:339-341

[iii] Swank, RL, Dugan BB “Effect of Low Saturated Fat Diet in Early and Late Cases of Multiple Sclerosis” Lancet 1990;336:37-39

[iv] Munari, L, et al. “Therapy With Glatiramer Acetate for Multiple Sclerosis.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 (1):CD004678


Read Full Post »

© 2009 Nancy Appleton PhD and G.N. Jacobs

Authors of Suicide by Sugar



Perhaps, you’ve already read one of the many variations of recent statements on sugar from The American Heart Association? We at Nancy Appleton Books are very happy, so much so that we’ll take a moment to do the Snoopy Dance. On second thought, the dance looks stupid when real people do it.

So, what does the American Heart Association’s instructions that everyone should cut their added sugar intake by 70-percent mean beyond giving Doctor Appleton a moment where she gets to say I told you so sometime back in 1986? Well, that depends on your circumstances, because we think the Heart Association has picked a sugar threshold that is still well above what is best for optimal health, but also represents a vast improvement over how things are done now.

Data collected between 2001 and 2004 and cited in the statement put the average American’s sugar consumption at 22 teaspoons or 355 extra calories of sugar per day. Citing recent studies that generally link sugar to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, the association has decided that men on 2,200-calorie diets should cut their sugar intake to 9 teaspoons or 150 calories per day. Woman in similar actuarial brackets assumed to eat 1,800 calories per day are instructed to cut down to 6 teaspoons or 100 calories per day.

Just so you know, while these “official” recommendations may not be enough for some people to lose weight and become healthier, they do represent threats to the major producers of sugar in our modern diet. A soda manufacturer, for instance, will worry because the average cola tips the scale at 8-10 teaspoons or 130-150 calories. The heart association published statistics that break down our sugar usage to regular soda (33%), sugars and candy (16.1%), cakes, cookies and pie (12.9%), fruit drinks (9.7%), dairy desserts and milk products (8.6%) and other grain-based treats (5.8%).

Even with other categories of foods that deliver sugar to an unsuspecting populace not discussed in this breakdown, a reduction to 9 and 6 teaspoons respectively means many sugar producers may change their business model. We’ll discuss what the heart association left out in a later paragraph.

In her first book Lick the Sugar Habit, Dr. Appleton states that the human body needs only about 2 teaspoons of blood sugar (glucose) per day. Normal consumption of whole fruits, vegetables and grains will provide this amount of glucose without resort to any added sugar at all![i] So you see, 6 or 9 teaspoons of sugar versus 2 teaspoons still means that the heart association people have quite a ways to go before they get our full support.

We also have reason to wonder if the statement writers have based their sugar consumption numbers on statistics that underreport the real story. Statistics on sugar vary between reports depending on who is doing the test and how close they are to the U.S. Government, which until very recently thought nothing was wrong with sugar if you brushed your teeth. In 1989, the Berkley Wellness letter, estimated that sugar consumption in 1985 to be 133 pounds per year or 500 to 600 calories per day per person.[ii] We are already well above the numbers cited by the heart association statement written nearly twenty years later. We have in the years since raised yearly sugar consumption to well over 150 pounds per person per year.

One thing that we can completely agree on with the American Heart Association is the high degree to which soda delivers the most sugar to the most people. Their information says that soda represents a third of all sugar injected into the average diet. Our information may not exactly agree, but still says that we get too much sugar from soft drinks, lemonade, punch and whatever Tang is defined as. We devoted a whole chapter of Suicide by Sugar to soft drinks and other similar sugary drinks.

In 2005, the average American was estimated to drink 35.5 gallons of just regular soda, which when the other categories of sugary drinks are added in comes out to the equivalent of 637 cans of soda per person per year.[iii] We cited a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics made in 2004 that said that all members should advocate for the removal of all sugary drinks from schools. The primary reason was to prevent obesity in children and to make sure that sugar didn’t replace healthy nutrients in children’s diets.[iv]

The Heart Association has come out for sugar reductions and we applaud. But, we find it interesting that the bulk of the recommendations fall against the easy culprits in our sweet diets: soda, ice cream, cake, pie, but not some others that may in the long run be more useful. We understand about birthday parties and the social reasons we eat sugar, even though we assume many people will act like addicts and lose the ability to say “no more today.” But, shouldn’t sugar reductions fall against all sugar producers equally?

As of this writing, Mr. Jacobs holds a Heinz ketchup bottle in his hands with this ingredient list: tomato concentrate, distilled vinegar, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CORN SYRUP, salt, spice, onion powder, natural flavoring. He also pulled out a can of his generic brand chili where SUGAR and MODFIED CORN STARCH are listed together about in the middle of the list. So far, there is no call on the part of the Heart Association to question the sugar that is in regular processed food that doesn’t need to be there from the point of view of taste.

Mr. Jacobs admits to making compromises with some sugar-laden foods for convenience. He refuses to boil beans and simmer down meat and spices to make his own chili, a recipe that he was never taught, because he already spends too much time in the kitchen some days. He is trying to wean himself off of ketchup as a base for marinara sauce in favor of steamed tomatoes. He reports mixed results. But, these foods aren’t supposed to taste sweet; yet, we see sugar in all of its many names on the labels.

We would suggest to the Heart Association to take a look at the sugar in these processed foods and see if advocating for cans of chili without sugar added would help reduce sugar consumption without being so draconian about the obvious sugar sources. Yes, in a perfect world whole fruit with a tiny bit of cream for the lactose tolerant would replace the fudge sundae, but the short term comfort of these foods is very powerful.

Instead of denying the occasional fall off the wagon doesn’t it make more sense to start with foods that the sugar taste is practically overwhelmed by all the other spices as to be tasteless? Sugar is not a preservative and canned meat is vacuum-sealed, so preservation isn’t the reason for this practice. We hope it isn’t because sugar is addictive, another of our common rants.

Sugar upsets body chemistry and helps cause heart disease, diabetes, obesity and many other maladies. Doctor Appleton has said this for more than 30 years and we feel good that other health groups are now catching on. It is a good day.



[i] Appleton, N. Lick the Sugar Habit. (New York: Avery Penguin Putnam, 1988) Pg 13.

[ii] University of California, Berkley Wellness Letter 6, No. 3 December 1989, pp 4-5

[iii] U.S. Department of Agriculture “Food Availabilty: Custom Queries.” www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/FoodAvailQueriable.aspx

[iv] Taras, H.L., et al. “Policy Statement” Pediatrics. Jan 2004; 113; 1: 152-154.

Read Full Post »

Nancy Appleton PhD and G.N. Jacobs

Authors of Suicide by Sugar

© 2009 Nancy Appleton Books



Can your thoughts and perceptions about your world, your body and your genetics affect how you get sick or, more importantly, well? Considering the number of articles dealing with alternate approaches to cancer and other diseases the answer is yes.

Most of this new research has been lumped into a field called epigenetics, which means Above Genetics in science speak. The term refers to heritable changes in gene expression that occur without changing the underlying DNA sequence. Do our genes control our lives or does our environment have a role to play? Until recently, DNA was destiny.

Epigenetic inheritance has been documented many times by Israeli researchers in many types of animals, whether fruit flies growing protrusions on eyes in response to chemicals or giraffes growing their necks by stretching out for food. These researchers spent most of their time explaining one of these processes – DNA methylation in which methyls act as a switch that turns genes on and off, changing gene expression but not the genes. One example of this process occurs during tissue differentiation where an organism begins with one jack-of-all-trades cell and finishes with muscles, nerves, skin and other organs. If changes happen in this process, then the genetic expressions can be permanent and be passed onto future generations.[i]

The primary epigenetic statement is that your environment affects your genes and by extension, your health. Your diet is clearly part of this environment. Dr. Appleton’s own nutritional research, that essentially says SUGAR KILLS, shows that people get sick in high-sugar environments and that genes only determine how we get sick. Someone with cancer in the family will get cancer when they put themselves in a get sick environment.[ii] We also stated that the reverse is true, the person in a get healthy environment will be healthy regardless of his or her genes.

Since we come to the debate from the nutrition corner, we couldn’t resist another dig at our modern diet courtesy of researchers at Newcastle University. They say in their conclusions to research on dietary effects on fetal epigenetic programming that “There is now proof of principle that maternal diet can have a profound impact on the epigenome (combined genetic and epigenetic state of a cell) and so determine gene expression patterns and health throughout the life-course.”[iii]

We really like beating sugar into the ground. An international study on diabetes found that high sugar conditions cause epigenetic changes in patients that last for quite some time after blood sugar levels returned to normal.[iv]

We must write of Francis Pottenger, Jr., MD, who researched 3 generations of cats between 1932 and 1942. Pottenger fed cats 2/3rd raw meat, 1/3 raw milk and cod liver oil over three generations and saw healthy cats that could reproduce healthy liters. From generation to generation they maintained a regular, broad face, broad dental arches and regular teeth fully developed internal organs, fur of good quality with little shedding, were all similar in size and happy cats.

Cats that were fed 2/3 cooked meat, 1/3 raw milk and cod liver old reproduced kittens of indifferent sizes in the same litter.  These kittens had heart problems, nearsightedness and farsightedness, underactivity or inflammation of the thyroid gland, inflammation in the joints and many other irregularities.  By the time the third deficient generation is born, the cats are so physiologically bankrupt that none survive beyond the sixth month of life, thereby terminating the strain.

When the cats of the first and second generation cooked meat fed groups were returned to a raw meat diet, they are classified as regenerating animals of the first and second orders. Their progeny were then maintained on an optimum diet to measure the time needed to rebuild their health to that of the normal cats. It required approximately four generations for either order to regenerate to a state of normal health.[v]

In another Pottenger experiment, cats were fed condensed milk, which of course has sugar in it. This sweetened condensed milk developed much heavier fat deposits and exhibited severe skeletal deformities in the cats. They showed extreme irritability and paced back and forth in their pens nervously. A recent review of the cat study based on subsequent similar studies pinpoint a deficiency in the amino acid taurine, which seems to respond badly to overheating, as an explanation of what Dr. Pottenger found in the original experiments.[vi]

These long-term studies certainly show that diet over generations plays an immense role in the health of newborns and in adult cats. The term epigenetics had not been coined when Pottenger was doing his research, but the follow up studies published recently do fit into epigentics because they describe various environmental factors like amino acid deficiencies as affecting health.

Another common arena for epigenetic changes to happen is a mother’s womb. A recent study at the University of Utah shows that poor nutrition on the part of the mother affects the offspring to favor such diseases like diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease. The researchers studied two groups of rats, a control group and a reduced fetal nutrition group that mirrored what human mothers experience when diagnosed with a condition called Preeclampsia.

Preeclampsia occurs during pregnancy and immediately after birth and is characterized by such symptoms as high blood pressure, edema, various pains, headaches nausea, vision changes and shortness of breath. Preeclampsia kills quite a few women (76,000) and babies (500,000) every year. Common remedies for a pregnant woman include bed rest, regular prenatal checkups and better nutrition to include no sugar, few processed foods, no caffeine and no alcohol.[vii]

So, it seems that the Preeclampsia advocacy groups have artfully skirted the direct statement that these elements of our bad diet cause the condition to avoid excessive interference from Big Sugar. But, getting back to the rat study, the nutritional conditions of the rodent fetuses were meant to mimic the conditions of a human mother and child with the disorder where nutrients are cut off to the fetus. The offspring of the bad nutrition group were smaller at birth and far more susceptible to disease throughout their lives. This was explained with the mechanism of the IGF-1 protein, which wasn’t significantly present in the small, diseased rats, a permanent genetic change.[viii]

“The jury’s in and, yes, expectant moms really are eating for two,” says Gerald Weissmann, MD, Editor-in-Chief of the journal publishing the article.

Now many articles about epigenetics don’t include studies that specifically state thoughts heal. These articles are mostly about the interplay of genes, environmental factors and diet that affects which genes are expressed as healthy traits and which are simply a major malady waiting to happen. But, some do speak to the effects of the mind on health; typically we call this a placebo effect.

Placebos in normal medical usage are sugar pills given to some participants of medical trials in order to test the new medicine against doing nothing. But, doctors have noticed that in these trials some patients taking the placebo improve as well. The patient who is not told that he or she is in the control group believes the smiling doctor in the lab coat and gets better. Could this effect explain spontaneous remission of cancer? Is there an opposite to the placebo that kills us? It’s called a nocebo and recent research says that such negative thoughts and beliefs can kill.

According to the recent works of Bruce Lipton, the answer to all of the above is yes. In a series of YouTube videos, Dr. Lipton demonstrates that life results from proteins reacting to external stimuli. He states that the placebo is our positive beliefs and the nocebo is our negative thoughts. He also shows that we have perception filters that sit between what really happens in the environment and how we perceive them. Thus regardless of what really happened a person with a negative response will go into Fight or Flight mode, which shuts down the growth and reproduction systems in favor of protection systems. This is the same when deciding to run from a tiger or yell at the blockhead boss who ruined our weekend with a stack of work. A stressor will then choose genetic expressions that make the most sense in the here and now and some of these can make us sick.[ix]

What this means for your health is this, you become responsible. We bought the gene theory and we became victims. We stopped looking for environmental causes whether it was our diet changing the sugar content of our cells or our thoughts and beliefs getting in the way of our health. We program ourselves to be victims. Perception becomes belief and cells react to these changes in the same way it would react to less sunlight, by changing genes. Curiously the beliefs of others are also part of the problem; negativity around us also affects our environment, because our beliefs form in response to those around us. According to Dr. Lipton the only limitations are on the environment, which limits perception.

Dr. Appleton has always included the psychological as part of her health plan. People who need to get well are given a food plan and told to evaluate how they reacted to the stress that is naturally part of life. Many do not want to hear this.  They want to hear about nutrition.   What food you put into your mouth, what words come out of your mouth, what you think and what you feel are all important.  It is a holistic approach.

We would like to paraphrase something Bruce Pacetti DDS said to us, “If you’re a Nazi, you’d better darn well live with other Nazis, because your views will be wildly divergent from anyone else and this stress may make you ill.”



[i] Jablonka et al. “Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: Prevalence, Mechanisms, and Implications for the Study of Heredity and Evolution.” The Quarterly Review of Biology, 2009; 84 (2): 131

[ii] Appleton, Nancy Lick the Sugar Habit (1996 Avery Press, New York)

[iii] Mathers JC, McKay JA “Epignetics – Potential Contribution to Fetal Programming” Adv Exp Med Biol. 2009;646:119-23.

[iv] El-Osta, A et al. “Transient high glucose causes persistent epigenetic changes and altered gene expression during subsequent normoglycemia” J. Exp. Med. 205 (10) 2409-2417.

[v] Pottenger, F. M. Jr.  Pottenger’s Cats, (1983, Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, La Mesa CA.).

[vi] Beyond Vegetarianism.  “Lesson of the Pottenger’s Cats

Experiment: Cats are not Humans.”  http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml. Viewed  July 10, 2009.

[vii] http://www.preeclampsia.org/about.asp viewed 8/13/09

[viii] Qi Fu, et al. “Epigenetics: intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) modifies the histone code along the rat hepatic IGF-1 gene.” FASEB 2009 J. doi:10.1096/fj.08-124768 http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/fj.08-124768v1

[ix] Lipton, Bruce “Biology of Perception Pts. 1-7” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLZ7GqWpEqM&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuJdVdArDgc&NR=1






Read Full Post »