What is a Sugar Cleanse and Do I Need It?

[Carol Ebert]

The Dictionary defines cleanse this way ...

... to rid of impurities; to remove toxins from the body. Body cleanses have been around for centuries. From the Egyptians to the Romans, people have always tried to rid their bodies of toxin build up. And today we live in a toxic soup from exposures to toxic cleaning products, toxic fabrics that touch our bodies all day long and even at night, toxic mattresses, toxic air, toxic "new car smells" (yes that is called off-gassing from chemicals used). And then there are all the toxins on food we eat, whether fresh or packaged.

But what does that have to do with doing a sugar cleanse?

Did you know that sugar is toxic to the body? Maybe it wouldn't be if we ate less of it, but presently we consume on average, 200# of sugar per person per year. Our ancestors consumed about 22 teaspoons per year which was fine for the body to deal with, but today we are overloaded with it to the point that our bodies respond to as a toxic substance. And therefore sets us up for "inflammation" which is now the root cause of nearly all chronic disease.

So how did we get so overloaded with sugar?

Back in the 60's the sugar industry was studying the effects of sugar on the body and noticed a link with heart disease, so of course stopped the study and pivoted over to high cholesterol and high fat being the culprit.

Because of this most major health organizations got on board promoting low fat diets including the healthcare system. And to help out the cause, the food industry then created a myriad of low-fat food options, which coincidently were also high carb which translates into high sugar once it breaks down in the body. So we started a grand experiment of the worst diet for health (high carb, low fat) which has led to skyrocketing rates of obesity, Diabetes, and many other chronic diseases, which we know today are related to inflammation.

So back to sugar as the culprit

We now recognize the link between sugar and heart disease but also to cancer as well. Here is one journal article about this. And yet another.

This is serious! And it is not getting any better since the food industry has upped their game with more sugary snacks on the market that are even bigger than ever. You see it every day - giant sized candy bars, giant muffins, giant bagels, giant bags of chips, etc. In addition if you are a label reader of food packages, you will see sugar has been added to 75% of all packaged foods. A very subtle way to get us to like the taste of a product and so we want more and more.

Yes, most of us are addicted to sugar and can't seem to stop. Why can't you stop eating sugar easily? Because it is 8 times more addicting than cocaine. It actually "hits" the brain at the same location as drugs which causes the release of "feel good" hormones and of course the addiction cycle continues.

So what is a person to do?

It is not easy to just stop or just cut back because of the addictive property of sugar overload. That is where a sugar cleanse becomes useful. It is a process that allows your body to release the hold that sugar has on you by bringing your blood sugar back into control which in turn stops those incessant "carb cravings". It changes your chemistry and gives you back the control you need to resist sugar and appreciate the taste of whole natural foods. And they taste really good once you re-educate your palate.

Here's what a quality sugar cleanse can do for you

• reduces the load of toxins going into your body
• helps speed the process of removing toxins from your body using cleansing foods. removes most inflammatory foods and helps you identify foods that you don't tolerate
• helps heal your gut which is one of the greatest locations for inflammation in the body.
• gives you tools that you can use in your everyday life after the cleanse.
• supplies optimal foods that fuel your body.
• supplies pharmaceutical grade micro-nutrients to combat free-radical buildup
• gives you support and holds you accountable.

What I find interesting is that the healthcare system probably won't recommend this strategy for clearing your body from sugar addiction, probably because it doesn't require using any drugs. So if sugar is an issue for you, why not give a sugar cleanse a try. Of course, beware of any sugar cleanse that is loaded with sugar! So read the labels and make an informed choice, and then go for it. How might this help you with your New Year's Resolutions?

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

It's not necessary to drink shakes or take supplements to "detox" (your word, not a great choice imo) from sugar. Replacing refined carbohydrates with healthy sources of protein, fat, and nonstarchy vegetables is all one needs to do. Sometimes people get dehydrated with sudden withdrawal of carbohydrates, in which case taking in some salty broth and eating foods rich in potassium and magnesium can help. But fake food is not necessary.

[macawake, MSN]

I defined cleanse in the second paragraph as removing toxins from the body. The word cleanse is becoming confusing for this thread but is the language being used today that the general public responds to. As a health educator, I have an obligation to communicate health issues in the language that the general public understands.

You're not here educating the general public. Speaking for myself and perhaps a few other posters as well, I would really appreciate if you used clear medical terminology. No need to dumb it down for us. (By the we way, I'm still wondering which "happy hormones" you were referring to and how it has been determined exactly how addicting cocaine is and how it's been proven that sugar is exactly eight times more addictive than cocaine. I'm not in the least bit convinced that sugar is addictive, certainly not more so than cocaine. And also, what exactly do you mean when you say sugar? That's vague as well).

Vague language and poorly defined terms is really an enemy of science. Scientific research can not be done when terms aren't defined. Using vague language and throwing in a medical term or two, is a good way to disguise that the message one tries to sell actually lacks substance/a scientific foundation. It's a trick that is often used by pseudo-scientists/quacks to convince a gullible public that their stuff works. That's the reason I get a bit pesky when I encounter it on a nursing site. Just to be clear, I don't think that you are deliberately trying to deceive us or the general public for that matter, but I do think that you've fallen for something that has no scientific basis.

Scientific support for the Functional Medicine approach to treatment can be found in a large and rapidly expanding evidence base about the therapeutic effects of nutrition (including both dietary choices and the clinical use of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients such as fish oils)13,15,15; botanicals16,17,18; exercise19 (aerobics, strength training, flexibility); stress management20; detoxification21,22,23; acupuncture24,25,26; manual medicine (massage, manipulation)27,28,29; and mind/body techniques30,31,32 such as meditation, guided imagery, and biofeedback.

UltraWellness Lesson 5: Detoxification - Dr. Mark Hyman

Here is a the first accredited Functional Medicine Hospital in the World who is putting detoxification into medical practice. All physicians are board certified and have specialties in Functional Medicine.

"Functional" "medicine"? I'm not a believer.

The following is a link to a blog, but since we aren't being scientifically rigorous in this thread, I hope it's acceptable. One of the things discussed in the blog is a case study of a elderly women who received both conventional treatment and "functional medicine" treatment for her breast cancer. To me it illustrates quite well how un/pseudoscientific "functional medicine" is.

Functional medicine: The ultimate misnomer in the world of integrative medicine – Science-Based Medicine

The poor woman in the case study was subjected to 97(!) infusions of vitamin C. There's no scientific evidence that show that this is an effective way to treat a cancer patient. What's worse is that there is a potential for it being harmful. Of course there's always a risk of complications whenever something is infused intravenously into the human body, and it should only be done when there is a clear benefit. I also assume that the ninety-seven vitamin C infusions weren't free of charge. So despite there being no proven benefit for these infusions, they probably cost the patient a neat sum of money.

But there's a third danger present. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are proven to be able to treat and sometimes cure cancer. The mechanism of action with which ionizing radiation (radiation therapy) kills tumor cells is that free radicals and reactive oxygen species (ROS) are formed when cells are ionized. (Free radicals are atoms, molecules or ions with unpaired electrons). Since the free radical has a free electron they are chemically unstable and likely to harm/damage covalent bonds of the DNA/cells. This DNA/cell damage can lead to apoptosis. Even if it doesn't lead to apoptosis, it can have the effect that if enough of the DNA is damaged, the damaged cell will not be able to repair itself/replicate. This is a good thing when we're discussing tumor cells. If they can't proliferate or if they become programmed to die, it means that the cancer will be reduced or cured. Since the formation of free radicals is actually part of the mechanism of action in radiation therapy, why would anyone think that high doses of an antioxidant is the way to go? We know what antioxidants do, right? Right? Theoretically, there is a real possibility that antioxidants can actually protect the tumor cells from what we know is an effective treatment modality. Much more research is needed on this. Both for efficacy (not proven so far) and safety when given concomitantly with conventianal treatment (inconclusive results so far regarding interactions).

I have two members of my family who work in oncology, so this is something we discuss from time to time. One is physician; a radiation oncologist. The other is a physicist who works with radiation therapy. Both of them get even more angry than I do (and I get plenty mad), when quack therapies are mentioned.

I agree with the definition offered in the first paragraph on the wikipedia page. Gobbledygook seems about right.

Functional medicine - Wikipedia

I defined cleanse in the second paragraph as removing toxins from the body.

How on earth will a meal supplement remove "toxins" from a person's body? Something in the meal replacement actively combats "toxins"?

Honestly, for as long as I'm healthy and have the ability to chew food and swallow it, I will choose real food over a supplement every time. I think that stopping to eat unhealthy food or significantly reduce the amount of it, is a much better route than buying expensive meal replacement. The replacements won't "cleanse" our bodies, our kidneys and liver does that.

I've been responding to each post as I read it. Are you saying all my responses have been grouped together rather than attached to each post? YIKES!

If every post became attached to the post someone is replying to instead of being posted in chronological order, that would mean that everyone would have to go back to page one of thread (and reread every single page) everytime they looked at it in order not to miss any new replies/posts. That would be extremely cumbersome. This thread is already becoming long, some are even longer. Imagine having to read 20 or 30 pages of a thread everytime you came online.