"Could you just tell me what Ray Peat says?" How many times have you read that? Ray Peat's papers are clear to anyone who will take the time to read them.
But sometimes it's not an aspiration to be seriously unengaged that is at work, but illness of exactly the type that RP is trying to help people with. This post is for that: getting a start until you can push your own orange up the hill.
The following monster is a version of Ray Peat’s article, Sugar Issues I have rewritten in my own words. I have a background in doing this when reading complex texts in order to make them part of me or to show them to others. I hadn’t done this before with RP’s articles but I had seen requests to have his ideas available in terms that people who do not do what Paul Goodman called, “reading for art” could read. To some people this will sound simply patronizing. That is not my real intention.
Normally, I think this is a bad idea. I have no ambition to do this as a project for RP’s work. He is a living, straightforward writer. He conveys his thoughts clearly, and treats a concatenation of physiological, historical, cultural, and technical developments that cause the truth about life to be obscured in favor of powerful economic tyrannies. His writing conveys a sense of urgency about communicating this. He’s right about that.
In his lifetime, and mine, the health of even younger people and children has deteriorated with the adulteration of the food supply and socio-economic imperatives. So the faculties of thinking and caring have also deteriorated. If people can no longer read seriously, then there is no reason to hide the books pointing to the truth. And, anyway, the truth keeps its own gate sometimes.
With this in mind, I recognize that there are persons who could improve their health and their other faculties if only they could find a foothold to understand what to do with themselves. To "perceive, think, act," in that order.
With this in mind I have rewritten this article in a style that is more like me talking, more like vernacular, and compresses, reforms, extends, and rebuilds the material for an audience that is not trained in biology, and not accustomed to serious reading, and doesn’t recognize writing from, “back in the 20th century” as I was recently reminded.
This kind of translation is risky. By accepting what I have done here as a legitimate version of RP’s article, you are trusting my judgment in these things. I believe that most people could do what I have done here if they just persevered. It is part of the work of rehabilitating your health to do so. I'm mainly doing it to make sure I understand it myself.
Non-biologists note: understanding RP’s thoughts on physical biology in a conceptual way is not as hard as people think it is. It is made up of basic comparisons of more/less, attraction/repulsion, stable/unstable, differentiated/dedifferentiated, and development over time. Politically, you’d need to be open to how truth and power are likely to interact over time.
Also, because RP is pulling together facts from history, biology, technology, economics, power, he has to pull threads that seem unrelated at first. A new paragraph introduces a new thread, the relevance of which doesn’t show up until a few paragraphs later. Be patient.
Ray Peat has not authorized this treatment. The change in emphases is my own. All mistakes are my own. I have left out the references. Another person would do this differently.
It is my hope that this treatment will make readers curious enough [or annoyed] about the fidelity of my translation to go read Ray Peat’s article yourself. But, I admit, I am often surprised by reality.
The first section is a long version.
Go down to the milk carton for the 1-page version.
The original observation is complex enough that to shorten it to something like, “Sugar is good because people are greedy and also don’t pay attention,” is true but misleading.
Also, I now see why Ray Peat doesn’t take time trying to make this "easier."
****************
Diabetes has always been misunderstood, either because technology hadn’t developed enough to know the facts, or because the facts that were known were ignored.
Ancient curious persons observed that ants were attracted to the urine of diabetics because it is sweet. Based only on that fact it was assumed that people with sweet urine were excreting sugar because they were eating too much sugar. A sort of sugar-in/sugar-out assumption.
This was not the fact; they just didn’t know better. But even when the facts became better understood, the incorrect thinking that eating sugar contributes to diabetes persisted. It’s harder to change people’s thinking than you think it would be.
You’d think this misinterpretation of the facts about sugar excretion would have been cleared up when blood testing became available [1951], but the opposite happened: it was discovered that fat persons often had higher blood sugar numbers. Even though the people with sweet urine, who were wasting sugar were also wasting their body tissues until they died [they became thin and emaciated] were called “diabetic,” fat persons with high blood sugar began to be called a special kind of “diabetic,” too, “Type 2 Diabetic.”
And since both thin people wasting sugar and dying, and fat people with high blood sugar numbers were both called, “diabetic,” this association between the two conditions has persisted, even though it’s not clear how these 2 conditions are the same or different. Even physicians can’t really tell you this. [T1D probably understand this best.]
Related to this, in disease states, people with Cushing’s Syndrome have not only high blood sugar [like all diabetics], but also obesity [like T2D], HBP, and high cortisol. This collection of symptoms is now used to symptomatically define what is today called “metabolic syndrome.” A growing number of people have metabolic syndrome or will develop it.
Doctors, and also people at large and the media, say the obese-type of diabetes [T2D] is caused by eating too much sugar [especially “sugary drinks,” now the subject of possible taxation, and table sugar]. Fructose and also fruit get the most blame. Obesity is associated not only with high blood sugar [also called “insulin resistance”] but also with heart disease, inflammation, arthritis, depression, dementia, and cancer.
There is a lot of agreement by doctors and the public about what the symptoms of diabetes, Cushing’s, metabolic syndrome, and these other, related degenerative diseases are, which is good. But it’s very strange that there is no agreement on what causes them or how to treat or prevent them from developing.
It’s as if everyone were to look at a broken arm and say, “Yes, that’s a broken arm all right. But we have no idea how to treat it or what causes it.” While more and more people break their arms. This metaphor is only a mild exaggeration.
Even so, there are cases of diabetes that have been cured. Interestingly, they were cured by adding sugar to the diet, exactly the opposite of what experts say to do. [Here Peat says there were 2 cases: the P.A. Piorry case in 1864 Paris, and William Budd c. 1850 in England.] They used ordinary table sugar.
Table sugar is not exactly the same as the sugar being measured in the blood, but they are related: blood sugar is glucose; table sugar is half glucose and half fructose, the kind of sugar found in fruit.
Around the same time, in 1874, a guy in Germany named E. Kulz found that diabetics could metabolize fructose better than glucose. They wasted less glucose in their urine when eating fructose, meaning they became a little bit less diabetic [less insulin resistant] when eating fructose.
These were important facts and they could have led to a simple metabolic rehabilitation, except for one thing: insulin was discovered in 1922. It was then assumed that insulin would be a good medicine for diabetics. If you are thinking in terms of one disease-one pharmaceutical, like modern medicine does, then this seems like progress.
But it neglects the fact that diabetes might be reversible under certain conditions. Rehabilitating glucose metabolism with diet would be cheaper and easier. But the idea of doing so was abandoned. Biologically, fatty acid oxidation in place of sugar oxidation was accepted as the best metabolism diabetics could aspire to. Pharmaceutically, insulin was a money-maker.
A little later, in the 1950s, fructose became easier and cheaper to manufacture. Because of this, some people talked about dietary rehabilitation of diabetes again. Fructose had a small revival in health food groups and in hospital treatment. Health food stores started to sell fructose for this, mainly in the 1960s and 70s.
But this simpler, cheaper dietary treatment for diabetes was again sidelined when the diet-heart hypothesis was developed. The diet-heart hypothesis says that eating saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease. This view has been disputed by a guy named Uffe Ravnskov, who has looked at the research and found no evidence for it. Even though the diet-heart hypothesis has been disproven, it is widely still believed to be true by experts and the general public.
One person who didn’t ever believe it was true is a physician named Broda Barnes.
Also in the 1950s another guy, named John Yudkin [England], also didn’t accept that eating fat and cholesterol caused heart disease. He did think that high blood fats [lipids] cause heart disease, but he didn’t think that eating fat and cholesterol caused this. He thought eating sugar caused high blood fats. He especially blamed fructose. Yudkin wasn’t a biologist.
Today’s terrific cultural hostility toward sugar is cult-like and similar to Yudkin’s blame of it for heart disease and death. Sugar is now portrayed as addictive to the brain and physiology, just like opioids or cocaine. This attitude makes out fat persons to be like dissipated drug addicts with moral problems.
The blame of sugar, saturated fat, and cholesterol for metabolic syndrome and heart disease became more complicated and the truth about this obscured even more. This happened when petroleum products started to be used as the raw material for commercial paints and cosmetics. Paint and cosmetics manufacturers started buying silicone as the base of their oily products instead of what they used up until then: seed oils [polyunsaturated oils, PUFA].
So, now [1970s] what will seed oil manufacturers do with their seed oils? Basically, now they were garbage. Unless they could be sold as something else.
Conveniently, it had become mistakenly believed that PUFA oils were essential to human health, meaning it was assumed that the body and brain could not be healthy without eating these.
This mistake comes from a willfully bad interpretation of the facts of rat experiments by a guy named George Burr. Burr wasn’t thorough in considering other experiments that found that his conclusions could not be right.
But the seed oil industry really needed a guy like George Burr. They could use his bad assumptions that PUFA are essential to human health to re-brand their seed oils [PUFA] and switch their market share out of paint and cosmetics and into food production. By saying that seed oils were physiologically essential to human health—and that they had to be eaten—George Burr’s view was exactly the savior that the seed oil manufacturers needed.
PUFA then became introduced into the food supply as essential to health and as a healthy alternative to saturated fat and cholesterol. PUFA became “heart healthy” and a dietary supplement “essential” to growth and development, especially in children. None of this was true.
Coincidentally, it is also true that eating seed oils does cause blood lipid numbers to go down a little. This agrees with the diet-heart hypothesis. But it is misleading because PUFA actually are slowing the metabolism. Since there are only 2 directions blood test numbers can go in, a reductive, only-good-or-bad view isn’t complete.
This set of complex views: health research, plus competitive markets, plus hostile views of sugar, combined in an extraordinarily powerful way to create biologically incorrect assumptions about what is “healthy” and “unhealthy” to eat.
It didn’t matter that there was research that showed that eating PUFA/seed oils resulted in more heart disease and cancer because the power and money, the professional reputations, the markets for raw materials in consumer goods, the training of medical professionals, and the creation of new drugs was too much for the truth about sugar, saturated fat, diabetes, heart disease, and PUFA to overcome.
The truth was at first willfully ignored, then neglected, then obscured. It became harder and harder to find especially for younger people who never had a first-hand memory that it existed.
The idea that eating saturated fat, cholesterol, and sugar were addictive and caused heart disease, plus the idea that PUFA are not only healthy, but also essential for life became an almost unbreakable chain of false assumptions.
None of it was rational or really scientific. All of the necessary information to understand correctly existed and was available to anyone to read. But no one was looking for it. It was ignored because it was too simple, too cheap, and didn’t help anyone get awards or promotions.
[Peat here explains Burr’s experiments and conclusions carefully in order to show how Burr came to his mistaken conclusions. It is good to see how results can be misinterpreted. Peat shows what information was available and not available to Burr at the time. This can help us to think better than George Burr did.]
Returning to disease biology for a moment, one of the effects of diabetes is that diabetics don’t use oxygen at as high a rate as non-diabetics. They also don’t produce as much CO2. The measure of this is called the “respiratory quotient.” A diabetic has a lower respiratory quotient than a non-diabetic, meaning they don’t use as much O2 and don’t excrete as much CO2.
Diabetics just aren’t respiring as effectively as non-diabetics. Breathing [respiring] is closely connected to mitochondrial metabolism because the lungs inhale one of the major raw materials for mito metabolism [O2] and exhale one of the major bi-products [CO2]. Metabolism is a combination of O2 and glucose in the mitochondria.
When the respiratory quotient is high it means that the mito are using O2 to metabolize sugar [glucose] more than fatty acids. The resp quotient measurement works like this: a resp quotient of 1 = the mito are burning only sugar and no fatty acids. Since diabetics have a lower resp quotient [say, .7], they are burning a greater proportion of fatty acids than when burning only sugar. When you burn less sugar, your basal metabolic rate [BMR] is lower.
There was still something interesting about Burr’s experiments besides that he interpreted his findings wrong: he measure the respiratory quotient of the guy who was his subject in the PUFA-are-essential experiment. He found that when his subject ate no PUFA, his resp quotient was not only at the maximum for burning only glucose [1] but that it even exceeded 1 [uncoupling, I’m thinking, otherwise I don’t know how this is possible].
Peat points out here that with only this information Burr could have figured out that the opposite of what his subject was doing [he was eating no PUFA] would have caused the respiratory quotient to look just like that of a person with a little bit of diabetes. Meaning, if he had eaten PUFA, he could be expected to have the resp quotient less than 1.
So, George Burr is notable for not using the info available to him, and also having the info that showed that eating PUFA interferes with mitro metabolism of sugar, slowing the rate of metabolism, developing diabetes and other, related degenerative diseases.
Also, it was already known in the 1920s that low thyroid caused high cholesterol and low O2 consumption, like diabetes.
To look at these facts more generally, aging and degenerative diseases appear as the metabolic rate slows down. Young people and young animals metabolize sugar more and better than old people, usually. In fact, old people metabolize fat just as well as young people. To think that they don’t is a myth.
But because their metabolic rates are slower, they use less O2, they don’t burn sugar as well, they tend to get fatter. Fat bodies and older bodies both metabolize sugar less and less effectively.
In a related way, when a person is starving [famine, say] the body shifts from burning sugar to burning fat. This slows the metabolism. If food is not available and you are starving, then a slowed metabolism is a good way to just live until more food is available. This is a metabolic adaptation that slows the destruction of muscle and tissue for energy.
Notice that this means that a function that is good in the context of starvation and stress, is not good in a context where food is available and stress can be less.
A starving person and a diabetic are similar because they either do not have glucose available or cannot make use of the glucose that is available. However, both can metabolize fructose. In a starving body this is the usual path of the metabolism of fruit, which is also not at present available. In a diabetic this is an alternate sugar that can be used when the mitochondria are blockaded from the use of glucose by the presence of PUFA.
Diabetics have been shown to have high blood glucose, but low fructose. A fructose deficiency could be remedied by. . .eating fructose.
Fructose also has physiological functions specific to it that cannot be done by glucose. In reproductive biology it is shown that in all the stages of development of an embryo and fetus fructose has special functions that cannot be done by glucose.
When it comes to stress in general, and not just starvation or diabetes, stress and poisons produce free radicals in the body. Free radicals are molecules that are chemically hyper-reactive because they have “extra” electrons that too easily attract and bond with other molecules. What these other molecules are, and the new molecules they produce, are unpredictable and cause chemical destruction in body tissues and functions.
This hyper-reactivity of free radicals is called collectively, “oxidative damage” or “oxidative stress.” In this condition, orphan electrons accumulate and the tissues of the body start to have a very easy potential to be destroyed, to change their form without much action. They are unstable. They are vulnerable to losing their structure and function without much stress. They are doing what aging and diseased tissue does.
Fructose has a good capacity to stabilize cells when they are oxidatively stressed and damaged by too many orphaned electrons. This is also why “antioxidant” supplements can have an unpredictable effect. You don’t know how or how much oxidative stress your tissues are in. You don’t know how many orphaned electrons you have.
Fructose stabilizes the organism against oxidative stress by keeping the metabolic rate high, keeping the cells using more O2 [preventing the production of orphaned, hyper-reactive electrons], producing more CO2, keeping the tissues in a stabilized state of resisting dissipation and destruction.
One kind of physiological stress a lot of people have chronically is an intestine-colon that loses its structural integrity and re-admits undigested matter back into the blood stream. This state-symptom-process is called “endotoxin.” Endotoxin causes a lot of free radical damage. Fructose is probably even more protective than glucose against endotoxin.
When it comes to cancer, the cell physiology loses its ability to use glucose completely [by using O2 and producing water and CO2; using glycolysis instead, effectively using some glucose to metabolize a lot of fatty acids], similar to diabetes. And diabetics do get cancer more often than non-diabetics.
Cells that are oxidatively damaged by free radicals are likely to revert to a more primitive way of producing energy, and start to reproduce a lot. That’s cancerizing development. This is good if all life is primitive and the overriding need is to produce more mere life, but life that functions in only primitive ways—using energy to grow. We are talking life before bodies, before brains, before species.
This kind of life won’t be able to become specialized tissues that help a body do a lot of different functions all at the same time, like move fluids, carry gases, make different tissue types, carry electricity, etc. You could imagine it as just a lump of cells that has a very basic metabolism. Otto Warburg discovered this. It was important but no one paid attention to him because his ideas didn’t fit their ideas about enhancing their reputations.
When cells grow rapidly, unable to use oxygen even when it is present, but cannot become special tissues, this is called cancer. In a human body this is a kind of developmental regression instead of progress. Of course, the context makes it a bad development instead of a good one.
Cancer is a metabolic disease. In fact, it is such a metabolic disease that it is known that a drug that reactivates metabolic enzymes [making glucose/sugar oxidation possible and complete again, or more so] works to slow the growth of cancer. This action is probably helping cancer cells burn glucose completely, use up electrons, become less hyper-reactive, to stabilize, and to become specialized cells again. This drug is dichloroacetate, DCA.
You know what else does what DCA does? Thyroid hormone, insulin, and fructose. The enzymes that are missing in cancer metabolism, and re-activated by DCA, thyroid, fructose, are the same enzymes that are blockaded by fatty acids in the metabolic stream.
These are also the same enzymes that no longer work in the metabolism of people suffering from too much fatty acid oxidation in aging, during stress [starvation], diabetes, and other degenerative diseases. Also, Alzheimer’s. Niacinamide helps stressed cells metabolize glucose completely again, if glucose is available.
[Peat here treats the specific effect PUFA has on cell metabolism by introducing a tendency toward chemically increased wetness in the cell by making the cytochrome C enzyme more chemically hyper-reactive. Fructose stabilizes this tendency, so protects against the metabolically impairing effects of PUFA. A high fructose diet cannot absolutely protect against effects of dietary PUFA, but there is a general tendency toward stabilization under its influence.]
You shouldn’t be afraid to eat sugar when it comes to gaining weight because research has shown that starch has a greater tendency to do this than sugar. Fructose has been found to increase the metabolic rate, heat production, CO2 production of obese people as much as normal weight people but glucose doesn’t do that as well.
These results are important not only for T2D and other degenerative diseases, but also for the treatment of shock, surgery recovery, and infection.
It is actually starches [which contain glucose, but no fructose] that produce the bad effects [weight gain, high blood sugar], which is attributed—by people who should know better—to sugar. Fructose even outperforms glucose in positive effects.
[At this point Peat presents research demonstrating the effects of starches compared to glucose and fructose in animal and human studies.]
When compared with starches and glucose, fructose performed the best in stabilizing blood sugar and not causing inflammatory stress. Moreover, fructose and/or sucrose depresses serum phosphate, which probably is good because it probably protects against some types of cancer. Serum phosphate is increased in osteoporosis. Phosphate is also lower in people living at higher altitude or taking a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, both of which make the body retain more CO2.
Fructose even causes the body to retain minerals, which is essential for robust metabolism. Even so, the wrong idea that “sugar leaches minerals” from the body persists, even in published biological research.
Experiments on animals show that while it is true of the effect of glucose on bone retention of phosphorus and calcium, it is not true for fructose.
Peat reports that people have told him that it is nearly impossible to find medical research online [PubMed] about the good effects of fructose. All they find is medical research that says that fructose has bad effects on mineral retention.
He explains this 2 ways: PubMed is specifically medical research and doesn’t pay attention to studies in general biology or physiology that conflict with it; and because the medical profession is authoritarian and conformist, if research contains observations inconsistent with the prevailing medical narrative about what causes degenerative disease, the articles that have this will be rebranded [the title and emphasis will be shifted] to focus on some aspect of the experiment that incidentally doesn’t distract from the status quo medical opinion. Since research is complex, this isn’t hard to do.
For example, when the “glycemic index” was being popularized by licensed nutritionists it was already known that starches were much higher in glycemic activity [insulin production] than fructose or sucrose. But the glycemic index is still used to say, “sugar makes you fat and is dangerous to health.”
It is actually the consumption of PUFA, especially with starch or glucose [inhibiting glucose metabolism] that produces more fat than fructose in the absence of PUFA.
Animal experiments bear this out. They also show that fructose is protective against the sometimes harmful effects of insulin.
High fructose corn syrup gets a lot of hate as dangerous because it is assumed that it is only fructose and sucrose. But lab tests on it show that there is more carbohydrate in HFCS than fructose and sucrose, which is not listed in labeling. The remainder carbs are starch.
What accounts dietarily, then for the rise in obesity?
Food consumption studies show that the rise in obesity correlates with the rise in eating starches and PUFA since 1970. This is completely consistent with the idea that PUFA poison the enzyme necessary for sugar metabolism, causing the metabolism rate to slow.
But PUFA in food is probably not the only contributor to obesity, in general. For example, in Cushing’s Syndrome cortisol is chronically high. Cushing’s people almost always have obesity and diabetes, among other things. Cortisol probably contributes to obesity as well as the consumption of PUFA. Animal studies show that when the diet is mainly fruit, that cortisol is low. When the animals [wild monkeys] eat less sugar their cortisol rises.
Studies show that sugar suppresses stress hormones and that stress promotes sugar and fat consumption.
“Stress seems to be perceived as a need for sugar.”
Stress hormones inhibit the metabolism of sugar.
It is sugar, and not PUFA, that is essential for brain development.
Sugar also protects against developmental stress in one body at one time and cross-generationally.
Fructose does not “leach minerals” from bone, though glucose does cause some loss of phosphorus. But Americans tend to get too much phosphorus in the SAD.
Honey has a long history of being used against illness and inflammation. Low blood sugar intensifies inflammation. Sugar can reduce inflammation, pain, and histamine reactions.
Even with all this understanding of the good effects of sugar on health and well-being, the basic connection of these facts to the eating of sugar has never been adequately investigated.
To get the benefits of all these good effects of sugar it is simple, inexpensive, and effective to add fructose to the diet in the following forms daily: 2 quarts of milk, 1 quart of OJ. You can use purified table sugar, but because it doesn’t have the other nutrients that fruit has it should be used mainly when good, ripe fruit or honey are not available or are allergenic.
© Celise Schneider 2019
Sisyphus' Orange image: ©Celise Schneider
Mito photo credit: Sergei Golyshev (AFK during workdays) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/29225114@N08/29442188161">Science Daily #55: 1 mkm smiley face</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">(license)</a>
In My Own Words: Sugar Issues [True-but-misleading-because-incomplete version.]
T2D has always been misunderstood. Most people say that T2D shouldn’t eat sugar because “sugar causes diabetes.” Even people who should know better say this.
The truth about what diabetes is eventually existed. It is the inability of the mitochondria to completely metabolize glucose. But it was at first ignored because pharmaceutical intervention became available [Rx insulin].
Most people agree on what the symptoms of diabetes and metabolic syndrome are. But there is no agreement on what causes these. This would be like saying, “Yes, that’s a broken arm. Everyone knows that’s a broken arm. But no one knows what causes broken arms or how to fix or prevent them.”
Diabetes was even cured and the cures were recorded as experiments a few times. Adding fructose to the diet has reversed the development of diabetes.
But this truth was buried under a very powerful pile of profit- & reputation-making motives: the discovery of insulin that could be used as an Rx; the shifting of PUFA from the paint and cosmetics industries into the food industry; the promotion of the incorrect diet-heart hypothesis [eating SFA and cholesterol cause heart disease]; and a non-scientific view that sugar causes high blood-fat; and a willfully mistaken interpretation of diet experiments claiming PUFA are essential to human health.
The truth was not forbidden, but it was willfully ignored and so neglected that it became threatening; an unbreakable chain of false, but profitable, assumptions.
Other kinds of stress are like having “a little bit of diabetes.” In diabetes, O2 and sugar are not used as much [and water] and CO2 are not excreted as much. The diabetic body isn't respiring as much. Aging, degenerative diseases, diabetes, even starvation are all similar in this way.
Cancer is a metabolic disease because it is a case of cells returning to a more primitive life process, where growing fast using a primitive metabolic process [without O2] is more important than growing into specialized tissue. Thyroid hormone, fructose [which accelerates the metabolism], and dichloroacetate [a drug, DCA] slow the growth of cancer by activating the enzymes that allows this to happen. DCA activates sugar-metabolizing.
PUFA does the opposite: it poisons the enzyme needed for the mitochondria to metabolize sugar completely.
It isn’t sugar that makes you fat, starches tend to do this more, especially under the influence of PUFA.
The real problem with HFCS isn’t the fructose or sucrose, it is the unreported starch that it contains [when it isn’t fully processed, which would be cheaper].
Besides PUFA cortisol is most probably a big contributor to obesity, especially in Cushing’s and diabetes.
“Stress seems to be perceived as a need for sugar.”
The truth and facts about sugar’s good effects has never been connected to the eating of sugar. This connection has never been investigated.
To get all the benefits of sugar for stabilizing the tissue structure and functions, to protect against stress and diabetes, to mitigate shock and injury, to avoid gaining weight, it would be easy and cheap to add the following to the diet daily: 2q milk, 1q OJ. You can use purified table sugar, but it does not contain nutrients important to health that can be found in fruit. It should be used when good, ripe fruit or honey are not usable.
© Celise Schneider 2019