Nutrition and healthy eating

Free

E-newsletter

Subscribe to Housecall

Our weekly general interest
e-newsletter keeps you up to date on a wide variety of health topics.

• April 9, 2013 12:26 a.m.

  I suffered from extreme dry mouth (extending down my esophagus) for years without any “medical reason”, and every time I question my doctors about it, I was told it was a side effect of my taking Hydrochlorothiazide. However I’ve become sickly and suffer from frequent bouts of the flu or bronchial infections. I decided to take the "scientific approach" and keep a log of my food intake and found that any product which had high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) would cause dry mouth, not only within a few minutes of ingestion, but also at night. I now check the ingredients list of anything I eat and avoid HFCS. My dry mouth problem is now gone!

  - Rafael

• February 11, 2013 8:14 a.m.

  Leave my wallet alone. If you are diabetic sugar and fructose are the same. These products should have a skull and crossbones on the label. I hate it when a restaurants tell you their apple pie is sugar free. It can't be done.

  - Bryan

• November 15, 2012 7:21 p.m.

  This whole article is simply not true. In a recent study done by Princeton University, it was found that rats given a normal healthy diet in addition to water with added table sugar, gained less weight that rats with the same diet in conjunction with a half dosing of HFCS compared to the sugar. This simply disproves that HFCS is a comparable alternative. This garbage should be removed from our shelves immediately.

  - Lantz

• October 20, 2012 8:14 a.m.

  I have a simpler plan. You know all those 5 minute commercials about the wonders of this drug or that drug.If the government is so concerned about our health, how about regulating these commercials and replacing them with informative food choice commercials.Pretty sure that is not about to happen though because the drug companies that get all the air time have thier hands far too deep in the governments pockets.I agree we all need less refined sugar( go honey) in our diets but I do not need a drug pushing government to stand up and pretend they care about my health by regulating the size of drinks I buy. They don't give a rats ass about our health. If they did we would see much stiffer regulations on the marketing of legal over the counter drugs that are making us much sicker than any amount of sugar would.

  - Lynda

• August 7, 2012 9:28 p.m.

  Genetically Modified, ask most people and they don't want it. Almost everyone is ingesting genetically modified corn in the form of High Fructose Corn Syrup, but the FDA says it is fine so we must be safe, right? Sure... of course Monsanto also says it's safe, and want to change the name to corn sugar... I wonder why?

  - Dan

• July 24, 2012 12:45 p.m.

  I agree, I think it can be tricky to allow government too much control in food choices. After all, some people eat healthy majority of the time and may want to treat themselves on occassion, why should they be denied this freedom? On the other hand, when NYC made changes/bans in trans-fat in foods, and the data recently coming out shows improvement in health/labs/studies...that says a lot as well! Portion control would be a safe place to control...but it could lead to more...imposing...restrictions as well.

  - sugar

• July 4, 2012 7:09 p.m.

  I am for the ban. As a retired school employee, I was against the placing of soda and sport drink machines on campus because of the same reason and the kick back the school and/or clubs were receiving seemed like a bribe to place those machines on the campus.

  - Nancy

• June 18, 2012 10:32 a.m.

  To Susie - My intent was not to outrage people - nor be liberal. Perhaps you didn't read to the end of the blog? On the one hand government steps in to ensure truth in labels - yet on the other hand it steps in to control sugar intake of any kind. These events in my opinion both equate to a wake up call to kick our seeming addiction to sugar (whether HFCS or table sugar). It looks like you have kicked your sweet habit - or never had a problem with the sweet stuff. Congratulations!

  - - your blog host, Jennifer

• June 15, 2012 6:44 p.m.

  I definitely agree sugar is bad. We as Americans eat entirely too much of it, but I do not agree with the government telling us what we can and cannot consume.

  - Joyce

• June 15, 2012 3:18 p.m.

  If you want people to lose wt and get healthier, you have to hit them in the pocket book. Money talks and motivates. Allow such things as the airlines charge more for Peopls weighing over say 200 # , allow insurance companies to charge more for health insurance for over wt or obese people, after offering wt loss plans for 6 6o 8 months. After all it costs more to carry overwt people, it inconveniences other people sitting next to them, and over wt.people definitely use more for health dollors that the rest of us pay for.

  - melanie

• June 15, 2012 11:27 a.m.

  yeah , right , sugar causes overweight and obesity. if you want to lose weight then try to avoid drinks which contains sugar , and avoid eating too much sugar .

  - zaini

• June 14, 2012 3:57 p.m.

  So it will be OK for people to buy two 16oz. drinks but not a 32 oz. ? But Please, no government regulations on what I should or should not eat or drink!!!

  - Suzy

• June 14, 2012 9:28 a.m.

  Hi, I disagree with government involvement unless it's with an aggressive and factual educational campaign. And I definitely don't want multi-billion dollar companies telling us what to do through multi-million dollar ad campaigns and celebrities. (Done through a very deliberate choice of words and extremely biased and unrealistic visual images! Adults and consumers in society must do their due diligence on this and all health topics, in order to make informed decisions to maintain our own good health and that of the next generation. WE need to have enough knowledge to keep our governments in line - they do work for us, right? Additionally, if we don't help those companies pad their 'bottom lines' by buying their products, they will soon have to consider another way to advertise. Targeting their most susceptible demographics in order to 'fatten up' their bottom line with no regard for health is irresponsible and unethical!

  - Joan

• June 14, 2012 8:34 a.m.

  I am amazed how different I feel when I cut out sugar (and wheat) but especially sugar. I was diagnosed being allergic to anything sweet, so my options are quite limited and my consequences are usually never worth it, however, exercise is a great help in the battle!

  - Carol

• June 14, 2012 6:21 a.m.

  I too share in your belief that our consumption of sugary products are much higher than our predisesors. Please "make no mistake" that the chemical makeup of HFCS and table sugar are indeed different! Farmers use to use HFCS to fatten up their livestock for slaughter and the toll that sugary items especially chemically modified sugar along with chemically modified foods across the board has taxed our mInds and bodies to a record diseased state. Make no mistake - the human body was designed at attack foreign substacese, and is dying of disease because of being overtaxed. Your write up should have concentrated on either whether we consume too much sugar OR table sugar vs. HFCS. What you posted was deceiving for you own personal view.

  - Jo

• June 14, 2012 2:12 a.m.

  As we shouldn't be fooled by corn sugars, neither should we be fooled by NY's attempt to ban large drinks - it all smacks of a culture that says "if you aren't skinny you are a horrid example of humanity and you should be eradicated. Sounds extreme but what about employers not hiring people who are overweight, or insisting that they do lose weight. Smokers are also excluded, what next, people who wear glasses. No one disputes the fact that our society is not as healthy as we should be. But we need to be careful - discrimination wears many disguises.

  - Kathy

• June 13, 2012 11:30 p.m.

  Hey Jennifer Have you been drinking from the Liberal "Kool-aid" fountain"? I take care of myself I do not expect the government to take care of me---PERIOD. When you do not strive you do not thrive. Keep your liberal thoughts to yourself and I will not let my conservative thoughts slip out. Conflicted about "sweet stuff"---really and you are a diettian. I am shocked to see what you have written on the Mayo site.

  - Susie

• June 13, 2012 9:47 p.m.

  well said jill

  - rich

• June 13, 2012 9:15 p.m.

  I can tell Beverly that the average Briton now weighs 3 stone (40lbs) more than he/she did in the 60's. We used to 'add sugar to taste' but it is now hidden in most processed foods, even the savouries but especially the low fat ones which would otherwise have no flavour. Often it isn't even sugar but corn syrup which is used. It's cheaper, harmful and possibly addictive. We pay a high price for convenience foods when we sacrifice our good health for them.

  - Elisabeth

• June 13, 2012 9:06 p.m.

  Try to reason with your brain and not your emotions or in the not too distant future you will live to regret it. If the government does not assist you when you really need healthcare (such as Medicare) and eventually you will, it won't take that long for you to lose everything you own. As long as healthcare is run like a business it is only interested in its bottom line not your health. Only the top 1% in this country will be able to afford good care. The rest of us will be out of luck. The food and beverage companies know that sugar, fat and salt are addictive. The more you eat or drink the better their bottom line. You, however, are setting yourself and your children up for a future of diseases. Sugar, the wrong fats and salt eaten in excess bring on heart trouble, stroke, kidney, diabetes and cancer as well as other diseases. If you think you will be spared--good luck. Only a very, very few with this behavior manage to escape a health tragedy. At present if there are no changes even those with good habits will suffer because of the cost of treating them. The rest of us have to take a stand. The health system must be overhauled. There is a lot of waste, unnecessary treatment, all sorts of problems and special interests are holding up progress. And why don't all hospitals use Dr. Peter Pronovost's "Check List"? In the hospitals that use it properly there are way less infections and death and annually the hospitals save millions of dollars.

  - Renee'

• June 13, 2012 8:56 p.m.

  I don't like the idea of any government entity telling me what to eat/not eat or how much of it I can have/not have. However, I do like being informed about the consequences of decisions that I may make regarding my food, drink and medication choices. At least then I know what lies ahead of me when I decide what I'm going to do. I don't like the idea of taxpayers carrying the burden of medical care costs for those who have not paid into the system. I'd like to see food assistance programs like food stamps not paying for food items that contribute to poor nutrition and are not necessary for good health. I'd rather subsidize fruit than fruit juices. I'd rather subsidize potatoes than potato chips. I'd rather subsidize oatmeal than cereal bars. I'd like to see mandatory classes in basic scratch cooking from real food ingredients, along with classes in basic nutrition being required before taxpayer subsidized food assistance is given. Maybe through education and regulated choices we might see an improvement in overall health within a generation or two. I'd also like to see life skills classes in middle and high schools where the basic skills of nutritious meal planning and cooking, basic health, cleaning, basic wellness and self-care, and basic financial skills are taught to all students as a graduation requirement. People can do better if they are taught how. If some parents don't know how to teach it, then we need to do it in school so all kids have an equal chance.

  - Jill

• June 13, 2012 8:23 p.m.

  Government bans have not made narcotics vanish and government bans will not make sugary drinks vanish either. I avoid sugar like the plague just as I ban narcotics from my diet...I think both should be legal but if fools want to make themselves sick, no one can stop them. Some might even drink more because the government says not to.

  - warren

• June 13, 2012 8:22 p.m.

  Preventing the epidemic of overweight young mothers and the harm done to their subsequent obese children is our collective social responsibility. As health insurance rate payers and as tax payers supporting the under-insured poor we all have skin in the game. Science demonstrates that most people will eat almost all of what they are served, especially liquids. A fight for portion control leading to less obesity is a humane fight for social justice.

  - joe

• June 13, 2012 5:25 p.m.

  Prices for food and drinks are too cheap . Increase prices 4 folds on all drinks regardless of size . start charging by amount of Liquid .

  - Anil

• June 13, 2012 4:22 p.m.

  This issue really hits home but I wonder if putting the onus on government is appropriate. I have a beautiful 9 year old granddaughter who is unfortunately beginning to follow her parents into some problems with extra weight. When she's with us I try to steer clear of sugar by using subs and wonder if using something like Splenda or Stevia is OK on occasion or is it creating new problems? I really see no other option in this case. Any thoughts please?

  - Susankay