Saturday, September 16, 2017



Dear readers. I am a diabetic and has been one for the last 40 years. My greatest enemy is sugar although it is very sweet. It is as sweet as BRIM which illusively pampers and kills the spirit of our people. Please read the following selected articles in order to further realize how sweetness kills. I will start with the first article with more to follow from time to time.


Sugar, the New Tobacco
By Helen Signy
It’s a deadly health risk – but the food and beverage industry fends off regulation.

There’s an industry selling a product that is bad for one’s health. A generation ago that industry was tobacco and its product was cigarettes. Today it is the food and beverage industry and its product is sugar – sugar that is being added to food and drink. After 20 years working in tobacco control, Jane Martin, executive manager of the Obesity Policy Coalition, a policy think tank of the Cancer Council Victoria, has taken up the battle against sugar-laden food and drinks. She charges that the food industry has borrowed the corporate playbook of the tobacco industry to fend off regulation.
“The sugar industry has been very similar to the tobacco industry in how they work,” she says. “They fund their own research studies and criticize research they see as harmful. They focus on personal responsibility, saying it’s up to parents and the individual.”
But the parallels don’t stop there. “The tobacco industry pushed self-regulation over legislation. And now we have self-regulation around marketing to children of junk food and drinks, which is exactly what the tobacco industry got away with.”

Added sugar – not natural sugars that exist in fruits and vegetables – is everywhere. One of the largest sources is beverages such as soft drinks, energy drinks and fruit drinks. But a stroll though the supermarket shows that there is added sugar in bread, yoghurt, peanut butter, soup, wine, sausages – indeed, in nearly any processed food. A single tablespoon of tomato sauce can contain a teaspoonful of sugar.
This ‘invisible sugar’ comes under many names. For example, there are more than 40 different names for sugar listed on food labels in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, ranging from ‘agave nectar’ to ‘high-fructose corn syrup’ and ‘molasses’, along with a whole host of names you will have never heard of.
According to Lisa Renn, an accredited practising dietitian, sugar has a range of purposes in food manufacturing. “It’s not only used as a sweetener, it’s used as a colouring for food consistency and as something to hold the ingredients together,” she explains. “Having small amounts of sugar in moderation is OK. But large amounts every day are not good. Soft drinks have become the new water.”
Dr Robert Lustig, a paediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a world leader in the anti-sugar campaign, points out that sugar consumption worldwide has tripled in the past half-century.
“Our food supply now contains so much added sugar that our metabolic (energy-processing) systems just can’t handle it,” he says. “Your body does different things with different types of calories. Fructose (added sugar) in quantities eaten today primarily gets stored as fat. Usually, that fat will go to your belly.”
And the danger to our health is not just obesity: there is evidence linking sugar to liver disease, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay. Nevertheless the food and beverage industry continues to promote sugar with extensive advertising of its sugary products. It also spends large sums of money opposing clearer labelling of its products, as well as fighting increased taxation on sugary foods and drink.
Hundreds of millions of dollars is spent each year promoting unhealthy foods – those high in sugar and/or fat. As well as advertising in conventional media, the industry also invests heavily in sponsoring sports events, product placements on TV shows and Facebook marketing – all the places likely to reach children.

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) reaffirmed its previous recommendation that ideally our intake of sugar – except that naturally occurring in fruits and vegetables – should not exceed ten per cent of total energy intake, and that less than five per cent would bring additional health benefits. The WHO presented strong data linking the consumption of sugar to rates of obesity and, as type 2 diabetes is linked to obesity, to this disease as well.
In the average diet, ten per cent of total energy intake would work out to be about 50 g, or 12 teaspoons of sugar per day. A single 375 ml can of soft drink typically contains around 35 g of added sugar. The Australian Health Survey found that in 2011-2012, Australians were consuming an average of 60 g of sugars each day, or the equivalent of 12 teaspoons of white sugar. Soft drinks, energy and sports drinks, as well as fruit and vegetable juices made up more than a third of these added sugars.
“Sugar-sweetened soft drinks and juices are the dietary version of the cigarette,” says Professor Merlin Thomas, NHMRC Senior Research Fellow at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes
Institute. “They may provide a short-term kick, but in the long term they contribute to a range of diseases and ultimately premature mortality.”
It’s not just that soft drinks represent a major source of unnecessary kilojoules, increasing our risk of diabetes, heart disease and some cancers, Thomas says. “In fact, our expanding waistlines may represent a risk as grave as smoking.”
Thomas points out that sugars in soft drinks are absorbed fast, requiring an equally fast response in the body and putting extra demands on the pancreas, the job of which is to regulate our metabolism. Some studies suggest that regularly drinking soft drinks can thin your bones, and all soft drinks cause tooth decay.
An industry group, the Australian Food & Grocery Council (AFGC), brushed aside the WHO report. “The WHO recommendation relates to dental caries, not weight issues or diabetes,” says AFGC deputy chief executive Dr Geoffrey Annison.
He says the recommendation covers dietary ‘free’ sugars and not ‘added’ sugars, in line with the Australian Dietary Guidelines. “This is consistent with the industry’s view that healthy eating requires moderation, variety and balance.”

Meanwhile, the advertising of sugary foods continues. Overweight and obesity in children, and the amount of sugary food children continue to eat and drink, are of particular concern to health professionals as well as parents. One area where experts see that a difference can be made is in reducing or stopping TV advertising of sugary foods and beverages around children’s programming.
A recent study by the Cancer Council and the National Heart Foundation of Australia found that teenage boys who watched more TV were more likely to eat junk food, and were more likely to be obese.
“We thought obesity was high in people with high TV viewing habits because they may not be as active, but most studies show that it’s about what they are watching and how that’s impacting on the foods they are consuming,” says Kathy Chapman, chair of Cancer Council Australia’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee.
Despite voluntary industry guidelines that say junk food and soft drinks cannot be advertised directly to children, these guidelines are not mandatory and the manufacturers set their own criteria of what they deem to be healthy or unhealthy, Chapman says.
“Advertising works, that’s why these companies spend a lot of money on it. It is up to parents to teach their children about safety, but it doesn’t stop us having a pedestrian crossing.”
The Canadian province of Quebec has been a leader in this regard, restricting such ‘junk food’ TV advertising to children since 1978. Quebec now has substantially lower obesity rates than the rest of Canada. Other countries that have restricted commercials for sugary drinks, cereals and other junk food during times when kids watch TV include Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Mexico and the UK.
Another area of food and beverage advertising that anti-sugar campaigners strongly oppose is the association of products with athletes, a tactic used by the tobacco industry just over 50 years ago when both celebrities and athletes were employed to endorse cigarettes.

Public health advocates say two approaches that worked to reduce smoking – consumer education and taxation – are needed to combat over-consumption of sugar.
A ten per cent tax on sugary drinks was introduced in Mexico in January 2014 and drinks sales there fell by 12 per cent in the first year. In France, a tax on soft drinks introduced in 2012 has resulted in a gradual decline of consumption. Norway has been active in taxing sugary foods and drinks as well as education for many years, with good results.
In Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia, calls for a tax on sugar have come from a range of public health advocates. A recent Australian study found that placing a 20 per cent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could save more than 1600 lives over 25 years and raise at least $400 million a year for health initiatives.
And as obesity continues to rise in Asia, several countries such as India, Indonesia and the Philippines are also considering placing a tax on sugary drinks. In 2013, the Malaysian government removed the subsidy on sugar over health concerns, and it is currently studying whether other measures are necessary to further reduce sugar consumption.
Not surprisingly, a sugar tax is strongly opposed by powerful groups in the food and beverage industry, such as the AFGC.
“Advocates for a tax cannot reconcile that Australia has had a de facto sugar tax for 16 years – it’s called the GST, which is applied to processed food – and obesity has not dropped during this time. In fact, evidence suggests that Australia’s sugar consumption declined significantly (6% for women, 14% for men) from 1995–2011 while obesity continued to rise,” Annison says.
“[Comparing the sugar industry to tobacco] is ill-informed and simply designed to grab a headline. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption and it has absolutely no health benefits. All foods can be incorporated into a healthy diet, and conversely unhealthy diets can also be constructed solely from so-called ‘healthy’ foods.”

Another approach is to inform consumers of the levels of added sugars in food through the health star rating system. In Australia, the system was developed by the government in collaboration with industry, public health and consumer groups. It rates the overall nutritional profile of packaged food and assigns it a rating from half a star to five stars on the front of the pack. The more stars, the healthier the food.
The problem with health star ratings, says Jane Martin, is they still allow many foods that are high in sugar. And they’re still voluntary. “We want to see the health star labelling being mandatory and changes made to the algorithm, so the products are more aligned to Australian Dietary Guidelines,” she says.
The industry disputes this claim, saying that the algorithm is entirely consistent with Australian Dietary Guidelines, and that eating foods with higher star ratings will lead to less intake of energy, saturated fat, sodium(salt) and sugar, and more dietary fibre, fruits, nuts, vegetables and legumes.

The evidence against sugar and its ill effects on our health continues to mount as study after study is published. Dr Kimber Stanhope, a nutritional biologist at the University of California, Davis, completed a five-year investigation in 2015 linking high-fructose corn syrup – a common sweetener in the US – to increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
“People should realise that there are no risks associated with reducing sugar intake,” says Stanhope, “but there are risk factors in continuing to eat high amounts while waiting for more evidence. Parents should wean their kids and themselves off daily sugar consumption and consider it a special occasion food.”
New research also indicates that sugar, like tobacco, may be addictive. Eric Stice, a US neuroscientist, is using MRI brain scans on adolescents that show that “sugar activates the brain in a way that is reminiscent of a drug like cocaine.”
He adds that people build up a tolerance to sugar much the same way smokers and drug users do. “That means the more sugar you eat, the less you feel the reward. The result, you eat more than ever.” Other studies point to sugar being addictive because it activates the brain’s pleasure-generating circuitry.

What can you do to reduce your intake of added sugars? Despite the hype, it’s important not to get too hysterical about sugar, says dietitian Lisa Renn. It’s a non-essential nutrient but small amounts in moderation are fine.
For example, you might be worried that a simmer sauce contains a lot of sugar – but if you’re eating it with lean meat and vegetables, then the meal as a whole is nutritious. The same goes for cereals: the sugar content might be relatively high if they contain dried fruit, but if the rest of the cereal is made of whole grains then don’t discount it just because of the sugar.
“You don’t have to be anxious about tiny bits of sugar that add to the palatability of food. It’s about eating fresh, healthy foods, fruits and vegetables, lean meat and wholegrain cereal, and cooking from scratch. Use common sense when you look at a product and aim for less than 15 g per 100 g, especially if you have diabetes,” she says.
When it comes to soft drinks, Professor Thomas says turning to diet varieties might be a sensible first step, but water is still the best choice.
“But the most important step is personal,” Thomas says.
“When everyone commits to looking after their health, soft drinks will not be on the menu. And the companies will follow your money, wherever it goes, so make it count to better health and a better future.”
Terms that mean 'added sugar'
·         agave nectar
·         molasses
·         beet sugar
·         maple syrup
·         cane juice
·         sucanat
·         rice syrup
·         powdered sugar
·         treacle
·         corn syrup
·         honey
·         gomme
·         galactose
·         date sugar
·         dextrose
·         drimol
·         malt
·         brown rice syrup
·         corn syrup
·         dri sweet
·         dried raisin sweetener
·         edible lactose
·         kona ame
·         sucrovert
·         flo-malt
·         fructose
·         inverted sugar
·         clintose
·         sorghum syrup
·         golden syrup
·         isoglucose
·         mizu ame
Adapted from an article by William Ecenbarger and Mary S.Aikins. Additional research by Nancy Coveney.



In his book entitled GET CONTROL OF SUGAR NOW! Paul McKenna wrote the following passages:


Perhaps you are now thinking what I did when I started this project. I asked myself:

If sugar is really this bad …
and if the science is so clear …
and if the research has been going on since the 1960s …
why haven’t I heard all this before?

More importantly, why is sugar consumption still increasing when the damage it causes is manifest all around us? The answer is devastating. Science and medicine have been subverted by big business. Money triumphed over health.  People are dying all over the world while the corporate fat cats get rich.

It starts with a man called Ancel Keys

In the 1950s an American physiologist named Ancel Keys developed a theory that eating fat caused heart attacks. Keys published the “Seven Countries” study which appeared to show that the more fat people ate, the higher their blood cholesterol levels. He believed high cholesterol led to heart disease.
Ancel Keys’ study started out as a 22-country study but, for some unknown reason, in the end he used data from only seven countries. That produced a nice neat graph apparently showing an exact correlation between fat consumption and cholesterol.

It is strange, however, that he omitted France, Switzerland and West Germany, which had low rates of heart disease and diets high in fat. If the data available from all twenty-two countries is included, the correlation looks like nonsense.

Keys left out data from Crete, where almost 40 per cent of the diet is fat yet the heart-disease deaths were the lowest in the study. The study also ignored data from the Masai (in Africa) who live exclusively on meat and dairy, and Inuit (in North America) who lived on fist and meat for nine months of the year, and yet had the lowest rates of heart disease on the planet.

Professor George Mann of Vanderbilt University, who had studied the Masai, described the notion that fat is the cause of heart disease as ‘the greatest scam in the history of medicine’. Unfortunately, people did not pay attention to Dr Mann. They were listening to Keys.

Professor John Yudkin

While Keys was working in the USA, Professor John Yudkin established the department of nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College, London. Yudkin distrusted Keys’ work and constructed his own research into sugar. Throughout the 1960s he conducted experiments and investigations which demonstrated over and over again the dangers of sugar.

While I was researching this book, I was surprised to find out that my mother knew Professor Yudkin. At that time she was a lecturer training teachers of home economics in Enfield. Her students were expected to attend one of Dr Yudkin’s lectures every term so she met him many times and had a friendly professional relationship with him. She and all her colleagues admired him and were disgusted at how he was treated by the establishment.

Yudkin was mild-mannered and was always both correct and gentlemanly in presenting his findings. Keys was not, and he attacked both Yudkin and his findings, calling one of Yudkin’s papers ‘a mountain of nonsense’.

The attack by the sugar industry

In 1972 Yudkin published Pure, White and Deadly, a summary of his research to date and a powerful warning of the dangers of sugar. The sugar industry immediately tried to discredit him. The World Sugar Research Organisation called his book ‘science fiction’. The British Sugar Research Bureau dismissed his book as ‘emotional assertions’, although the book could not have been more careful, measured and scientific. Yudkin was persistently attacked by sugar industry bodies and their allies in academia. He found that invitations to conferences were withdrawn, and on several occasions when he did present papers at conferences they were not published in the subsequent literature.

The British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) was set up in 1967, funded by the food industry. Very soon it was pressuring Yudkin to stop talking about sugar. The large food companies that sponsored the BNF threatened to withdraw their support if Yudkin was appointed to the body, although he was by far the most appropriate person. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the sugar industry and their stooges continued to attack Yudkin and his theories. Every attempt Yudkin made at constructive discussion was rebuffed or undermined.

Sugar and tobacco

In 1965 the Sugar Research Foundation, backed by the US sugar industry, paid scientists to conduct a literature review published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. It focused on fat as the cause of cardiovascular disease and minimized sugar. This one document misrepresented a whole field of research. It was unforgiveable distortion of science, minimizing health risk to boost corporate profit.

We know about the involvement of the Sugar Research Foundation because of investigations by Cristin Kearns and Stanton Glantz published in 2016. Stanton Glantz is the academic who unearthed the evidence that the tobacco industry deliberately concealed the danger of tobacco for decades.

                Sugar and tobacco have too much in common.

From the 1950s to the 1980s the US food industry had a good friend in Dr Frederick Stare, the head of the department of nutrition at Harvard. Over his career, Stare obtained many millions of dollars of funding from major food and beverage companies for the Harvard School of Public Health and the Nutrition Foundation. He steadfastly defended sugar and in 1975 edited a laughable compilation of pro-sugar arguments that were used to be prolifically by the sugar industry.

A shameful campaign

The campaign against Yudkin and his ideas were long, sustained and disgraceful, but for twenty-five years it was successful. Doctors, researchers and nutritionists more or less ignored sugar. They all focused on reducing fat in diets, and alarmingly many professionals to this day consider that eating fat is the main factor in heart disease and obesity. They are wrong.

A large-scale controlled study in 1993 showed that a low-fat diet had no benefit whatsoever in reducing incidence of heart disease. A Europe-wide study in 2008 showed results directly opposed to the ‘fat makes you sick’ hypothesis. France had the highest intake of saturated fat and the lowest rate of heart disease; Ukraine had the lowest intake of saturated fat and the highest rate of heart disease. A United Nations review in the same year found no link between fat, heart disease and cancer. The science clearly shows that fat is not significant.

The tragedy of Ancel Keys’ legacy is not just that he was wrong, but that his ideas have made things worse. His hypothesis became almost universally accepted. It underpinned the official US government advice to limit intake of dietary fat. In many foods fat has been replaced by sugar. From 1971 to 2006 the percentage of calories from fat in the average American’s diet fell by 3 per cent. During that time obesity doubled and rates of heart diseases and diabetes continued relentlessly upwards, year after year.

The truth about fat

In 2000 a journalist called Nina Teicholz started working as a restaurant reviewer. For the first time in her life she was regularly eating rich, fatty, meaty meals. To her astonishment she lost more and more weight. She was so bewildered that she set out to research the established view that fat makes people fat. She came across Ancel Keys’ study and she soon found the flaws in it. She also found the scientists who disagreed with Keys. Teicholz spend over a decade meticulously researching the whole area and eventually published her findings in a book called The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet.

The book became a New York Times bestseller, but Teicholz came under repeated attack by professionals in the field of nutrition. There are scientists who still cling to the Keys’ hypothesis, despite all the evidence that has accrued to show it is false. It always seems to me that when someone is attack personally, the attackers have run out of legitimate arguments. Like Professor Yudkin, Teicholz has been attacked for speaking an inconvenience truth.

Low-fat, high-sugar

Ancel Keys’ advice was a huge market opportunity for the food industry. From 1960s onwards the industry was expanding massively, selling ready-made ‘convenience’ foods. Now, using industrial processes, they could remove fat from everyday foods and market their new products as healthy ‘low-fat’ options. Of course, they continued to sell high-fat versions as well to cover the whole market.

Unfortunately ‘low-fat’ often means bad taste or no taste at all. Much of the taste of food is carried in the fat. To make up for the lack of taste caused by removing fat, the industry added sugar.

Now their products were not only useless in terms of disease prevention, they were actively damaging. Low-fat became high-sugar. And high-sugar is far, far worse than fat. High-sugar causes the very heart disease low-fat was sold to prevent.

The money-making machine

The world had changed and millions of people were to die over the next thirty years as the food manufacturers got rich. The conditions were perfect for the expansion of diet clubs. Sugar was causing people to get fatter but the truth was being hidden. The clubs sold manufactured low-fat artificial foods that were worse than useless; they were able to keep their members trapped, forever trying to lose weight and forever failing.

 Diet clubs and supermarkets still sell low-fat products loaded up with sugar, and many advisory bodies and health charities still tell people to eat low-fat and make no mention of sugar.

It may be no coincidence that many such advisory bodies have advisors with strong links to food industry. In 2015 the BMJ (British Medical Journal) published a remarkable diagram laying bare the network of relationships between key public health experts and vast sums of money provided by the food industry.

Food and drink manufactures are in business to make money. They do not have a duty to protect public health. They make money by producing what people buy, and people still buy vast quantities of sugary drinks and food with added sugar.

Food is very big business. Just ten companies are behind the brands which make up 90 per cent of all the food in the average supermarket.

Food manufactures can point out that sugar is not only a taste that people like. It is also a very useful ingredient if you want to manufacture food in bulk and keep it palatable for days, weeks or months before it reaches the consumer. It is a traditional ingredient in many dishes. It is a flavor enhancer and a flavor disguiser. It is used to enhance mouthfeel and to help food stay fresh longer. It is used as a preservative. And of course if it only consumed occasionally, it is not dangerous.

But they know sugar is dangerous

Prize-winning reporter Michael Moss uncovered evidence of a meeting in 1999 of the chief executives of the biggest food manufacturers in the United States. They heard a presentation which made an explicit link between the industry and the problem of obesity in the United States. It proposed steps to address the problem. These steps included reducing the amount of sugar, salt and fat in processed foods and embracing a code to limit advertising to children.

The proposals were rejected. One of chief executive stated bluntly that he was providing what the consumer wanted to buy. His company produced foods containing sugar and fat. As long as the consumers were buying, his company would continue to sell.

Big businesses don’t just make a product and then hope people like it. They spend enormous sums of money developing and researching their products. They engineer their food to hit the exact spot where the combination of tastes is as delicious as possible before it becomes overwhelming. Psychologist Howard Moskowitz called it the ‘bliss point’. He built his very successful career with a system of collating and analysing feedback from consumers to build the perfect version of each product. Moskowitz worked on everything from spaghetti sauce to soft drinks and his work has helped to sell billions dollars’ worth of product.

Craving by design

The most delicious taste possible sounds brilliant. It should be making us all deliriously happy, shouldn’t it? Perfect food! But that is not the ultimate goal of big food companies. They don’t want to sell you the perfect food. They want to sell you the food that is most likely to make you want to buy more.

That is why so many processed foods are absolutely delicious when you put them in your mouth but leave you strangely unsatisfied afterwards. That is not an accident. It is deliberate. If a food product had a delicious aftertaste that lingered like a fine wine, people would eat it more slowly. They would eat less of it. They would enjoy that aftertaste and notice more swiftly the signals of the satiety from their stomach.

Technologist in food product design laboratories make sure that the pleasurable part of the taste finishes swiftly but there is enough sugar or salt to keep you salivating and wanting more. They spend huge sums of money creating this food. Snack manufacturers even have machine to measure the crunchiness of crisps to find the perfect breaking point. There is nothing accidental about snacks that make you eat too much and leave you unsatisfied.

When you find you ate more crisps or sweets or pizza than you intended, you probably blamed yourself for being greedy. Stop blaming yourself. If you want to blame anyone, try blaming the manufacturer who undermined your satiety system to keep you eating.

More sugar, more sales

The trio of ingredients that make people want to eat more are sugar, fat and salt, and the worst of the three, by a long, long, long way, is sugar. As we shall see it is also the most effective at creating a desire for more food, and specifically for more sugar.

Sugar is added to 75 per cent of the products in your local supermarket. The more products with added sugar people buy, the more they are likely to buy in the future. No wonder manufacturers like to add sugar to their products. It does their marketing for them.  



Dr Raymond Francis menulis 3 buku :
1. Tdk pernah sakit lagi
2. Tdk pernah lagi takut kanker
3. Tdk pernah gendut lagi

Doktor tsb menulis buku itu stlh meneliti dan sakit yang para dokter pun menyerah dgn penyakitnya

Di usia doktor tsb 75 tahun hanya terkena penyakit flu dan itupun hanya sekali. Yg beliau bicarakan dlm buku tsb adalah :

๐ŸŒฟ Jauhi gula selamanya ditambah berolah raga dan mengatur pola makan secukupnya

๐ŸŒฟ Gula penyebab pilek dan influenza

๐ŸŒฟ Makan sesendok (ukuran sendok teh) gula menurunkan imunitas tubuh 50%

๐ŸŒฟ Minum segelas Cola menurunkan imunitas tubuh 6-8 jam krn cola mengandung banyak gula

๐ŸŒฟ Gula penyebab alzeimer

๐ŸŒฟ Gula merupakan makanan bagi sel kanker dan sbg pencegahan serta penyembuhan nya adalah dgn menghindari gula

๐ŸŒฟ Gula penyebab segala penyakit jantung

๐ŸŒฟ Gula penyebab bertambahnya berat badan

๐ŸŒฟ Gula penyebab penimbunan lemak

๐ŸŒฟ Segala penyebab penyakit manusia ada hubungan dgn gula

๐ŸŒฟ Doktor Raymond berkata : para ayah melarang anak² mereka merokok dan minum alkohol tetapi memberikan manisan² yg lbh berbahaya dari pd rokok dan alkohol

๐ŸŒฟ Intinya tinggalkanlah gula

Doktor Raymond memenangkan karya ilmiah di Univ Frankfurt tentang kesehatan makanan yaitu :

๐ŸŒฟYoghurt merupakan sumber kalsium tertinggi krn kandungan segelas yoghurt 450mg kalsium, maka jadikanlah menu harianmu yoghurt
Dan yg terbaik adalah yoghurt yg rendah lemak

๐ŸŒฟ Daun mint adalah obat utk menguatkan jantung dan sirkulasi darah. Jika meminum daun mint spt teh biasa, dpt melancarkan lambung dan usus, mengurangi penyakit serta menyegarkan bau mulut

๐ŸŒฟ Utk menyembuhkan gastric anacidity, minum segelas rebusan daun mint panas tanpa tambahan gula

๐ŸŒฟ Daun mint bisa menghilangkan gas, menguatkan ginjal, pankreas dan meredakan batuk, menenangkan saraf dan kondisi marah, menghilangkan insomnia, meningkatkan diuretik dan penghancur makanan yg terbaik

๐ŸŒฟ Minuman bergas menambah besar ukuran pinggang wanita walaupun tdk menambah berat badannya

๐ŸŒฟ Minuman bergas menyebabkan : osteoporosis, masalah² jantung dan ginjal, obesitas & penyakit gula dan gigi karies

๐ŸŒฟBahaya kesehatan dgn minuman peningkat energi bagi anak² : mempercepat detak nadi, kejang-kejang, stroke, kematian mendadak

๐ŸŒฟ Teh hijau atau kopi hitam pahit : bagus krn ada antioksidan yg menjaga dari kanker

๐ŸŒฟ Ikan salmon, apel, anggur, ceri, bluberry, bayam merupakan jenis makanan yg menjaga sel otak dan menguatkan ingatan

๐ŸŒฟ Salah besar yg menyebutkan bahwa minum air saat sedang makan dan stlh makan menyebabkan buncit dan menyulitkan proses pencernaan

๐ŸŒฟYg betul: Air tdk menyebabkan buncit dan membantu mencerna lbh baik dari yg lain

๐ŸŒฟ Berjalan selama 30 menit perhari dlm jangka 5 hari perminggu menjagamu dari : penyakit² jantung, penyakit gula, depressi, penyakit² tekanan darah, kolesterol

๐ŸŒฟ Bawang putih: membantu mengurangi peluang terjangkit kanker krn bawang putih mampu meningkatkan imun

๐ŸŒฟ Mengkonsumsi jahe hangat pd sore hari membantu membakar lemak dan mengeluarkan racun dr tubuh

๐ŸŒฟ Upayakan minum segelas air stlh bangun tidur utk mengembalikan cairan yg hilang saat tidur serta utk membersihkan racun di tubuh

๐ŸŒฟ Doktor Raymon berkata Saya telah mengambil manfaat dari ini dan senang bila bermanfaat bagi semuanya

(Utk manfaat lbh banyak dan detil, bisa baca bukunya lsg atau lihat tayangan youtube dgn judul: Never be a sick again


*S U G A R  I S P O I S O N*

  1. First factory to manufacture sugar was established by the British in 1866.
  2. Indians used honey before this and seldom used to fall sick.
  3. To make sugar, sulphur is used, which is used in making fire crackers. Sulphur is an element that, once it enters the body, it cannot be excerted from our body.
  4. Sugar increases cholesterol which is the main reason for heart attack.Sugar increases the weight of the body and thus we become fat.
  5. Sugar increases Blood Pressure. It is also the reason for Brain damaging clots.
  6. The sweetness in sugar is that of Sucrose, and this cannot be digested by human beings.
  7. To make sugar, 23 harmful ingredients / chemicals are used.

Sugar is one of main reasons for getting diabetes.

Sugar is the reason for burning in stomach.

Sugar increases the level of Triglycerides in body.

Sugar is the main reason for causing Paralysis. 

Instead of sugar use HONEY.

Please fwd to all your whatsapp groups. 
It's said that pointing a finger can also be helpful and brings in lots of blessings for all.

If you think this as an educative tip to the people, then pls spread this information.

 *Thank you*

1 comment:

M F Muhammed said...

Sugar is unhealthy it seems. But I and those like me (i.e. the common people) in reality faces financial constraints when trying to be health conscious in our purchasing decisions, which means that we just can't afford to be choosy about the food we purchase and consume. And unfortunately also, the unhealthy foodstuff that are affordable to us contain a lot of sugar (as the article illustrates) which slowly and gradually damages our health. And what is most unfortunate, we are mostly ignorant of such things. Thus, financial constraint is not the only problem. Ignorance is probably the greater evil. And we live in an age and era where economic might of large global corporations in all sectors of industry is built and preserved largely on the campaigns that intentionally deceive the public into buying what in reality are rotten ideas.