Welcome to "The York'52 Weight Room" --- last updated on Saturday, May 1, 2010 @ 9:00 pm EDT

York High School The York '52 Weight Room

Go Home Now
Ezekiel Bread
Tree of Life
Junk Food
Participants e-mails
Non-Participants e-mails
Hugh Wang, M.D. e-mails

What follows here below is an on-going series of e-mails between myself and two M.D. friends---Dr. Hugh Wang and Dr. Malcom Ing --- both now in their mid-seventies.  Mal still practices medicine (Ophthalmology), whereas Hugh does not, for Hugh is now retired, yet continues to work full-time as a security guard at a shopping mall in California, where he gets paid a pittance of a salary for walking from 12 to 18-miles a day. 5-days a week--- or as he puts it, "I get paid for the exercise my body already needs."
Check back here regularly for updates in my communications with these Doctors about this diet that is being recommended, should you care to tag along with me, it's a sacrifice you and I must make...but it just might be what we need to stay off medication for diseases that we don't want in these, our waning years of life.  I mean, "What the heck--- what have we got to lose?--- for this is a win-win situation!" 

---e-mails will always be posted here below with the most recent always on top---

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang" <>
To: "H. Bruce Downey" <>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:16 AM
Subject: Safety GRAS of food

> Hi, Bruce:
> GRAS is a designation by the FDA--Let's take this acronym
> apart.  Generally means usually.  Usually means 51%, more than half
> the time is enough to qualify.  Regarded means an opinion of someone
> or some committee.  Safe means not in harm's way.
> So, this is a governmental opinion that is considered by more than
> half of the committee to probably not harm you.
> In the long term or the short term or both?  Do we know
> this?  Probably not because most of these chemical additives are
> newbies to our food chain.  Did our parents ingest them?  No!
> That means that we are the experimental generation.  Are our
> degenerative and disease conditions increasing for some inexplicable
> reason?  Yes!  Do our doctors know the source of this
> increase?  No!  Do our scientists know?  No!
> I contend that we should take a step back in time, rid ourselves of
> these toxins that may be causing the increase in cancer, heart
> disease, Alzheimer's, autism, arthritis, Lupus, asthma, diabetes, Lou
> Gehrig's disease, resistant microbial infections.
> Do you trust the government?  Can you trust this government?  Should
> you? This government wants to control every industry and every aspect
> of our lives.
> This government miscalculated so many things including the virulence
> of the swine flu, wasted so much money buying influenza vaccine they
> are still trying to push onto Americans well after the end of the flu
> season.  They are still trying to get rid of the swine flu vaccine so
> as not to have to eat so much crow.
> If the food item is not GRAS certified, it hopefully will not be
> allowed to reach the public.
> If it is certified GRAS, if still may not be safe.
> Regards, Hugh
----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm Ing, M.D.
To: Bruce Downey
Cc: Hugh Wang ; ingm002@hawaii.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: Aspartame

Hi Bruce,
I think you are on the right track when you ask "Safe for whom?"  If a person is careful about  his /her diet, and maintains a high level of anti-oxidants in the body, then the damage would be minimal. If, however the person was overweight, smoked and ate lots of corn-fed, non-free range beef and were hypertensive and under other excessive stresses, then the damage could be considerable.
The way to think of the effect of these toxic additives is to think of the accumulative effect of radiation. More accumulation of toxic food additives, especially when older, then, the more damage to the mitochondria in our cells.
Good books to read on the subject are:
The Anti-Oxidant Miracle by Lester Packer,PhD
Omega Rx Zone, by Barry Sears, PhD
Inflammation Nation by Chilton
Anti-Cancer-A New Way of Life, by David Servan-Schreiber, MD,PhD
The Biology of Belief, by Bruce Lipton, PhD
Keep sending the dialogue and  share it with Hugh.

From: crow@vt.edu
To: sdowney717@msn.com
Subject: Re: Aspartame
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:38:40 -0400

Thanks Scott. Good points, all.  And like you said, the FDA has approved these products containing MSG and Aspartame--- otherwise they wouldn't be in our food supply.  The FDA considers them to be "generally recognized as safe" or 'GRAS.'  The problem is, safe for whom?--- those that say they drink maybe only one diet drink a day--- and maybe no more than say one Triple Cheeseburger a week at a Fast food restaurant like Burger King or others of that ilk--- maybe they're "safe"--- but how about those that drink up to say 6 diet drinks...every day...or stop-in and eat all they want of the junk food offered by these fast food restaurants and do so every work day of every week for lunch like all the on-the-go tradesmen routinely do in our society?  Are they too, "Safe?" 
How much is too much?  And do our individual "tolerances' vary with the passage of time--- day after day after day--- until a point is reached when our bodies have nothing left in the way of defenses against this daily bombardment of msg, aspartame, and hfcs  that we all seem to choose in the name of convenience?
And of course all the generations who came before us never faced these health issues from what they ate, for there were no "processed foods", no "fast foods", and no "prepared foods".  There was just "food".  I think it was the introduction of Margarine in my time--- what with all its trans-fatty acids and coloring packets for appearance sake--- that started us all down this path.  And I think it was Punky Stevens York '52 who told me recently that margarine was just one molecule away from being "plastic"--- or something like that.
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Downey
To: bruce downey
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: Aspartame

the trouble with chemically altered food supliments is you dont know exactly how yours or anyone elses particular body chemistry will react to them.
All were and are studied and determined to be safe or they would not be allowed for sale. 
We are all slightly different in how we interact with these things, and you take a risk, don't you with everything you do.
I suppose you can look at this as a risk management issue. Lower or eliminate these things in your diet to reduce any possible future problems.

----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm Ing
To: Dan Taft
Cc: crow@vt.edu ; wanghousej@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: Aspartame(Nutrasweet)

 Dan, Aspartame is addictive, and so is junk food I'll send you some evidence  in  Health Treatise designed by Bruce Downey for which .Hugh Wang and I have participated as consultants. As you know, Hugh is the only other  Pun' 52 who chose medicine as career ,and we are both on the same page as far as health advice. Bruce is a former class mate of mine from Harvard who has, unselfishly, made it his mission to educate his friends about health maintenance. Maybe you can get the information also.  I will forward you some of what I have been seeing in e-mail.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Taft
To: 'Malcolm Ing'
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 5:25 AM
Subject: RE: Aspartame(Nutrasweet)

Thanks, Mal.


I shall pass that on to her, for she is STILL using that stuff.

She says that it is hard for her to go cold turkey. I wonder what thatís about?


Good wishes,




----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To: "H. Bruce Downey"
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:19 AM
Subject: Ezekiel bread

> Hi, Bruce:
> In looking up Ezekiel bread, I find that it is Biblical and composed
> of four grains + beans and lentils which in combination and baked
> have high protein value (probably from the beans and
> lentils).   Wheat, barley, millet, spelt, beans, and lentils
> I feel quite sure that not much if any research has been done to
> determine whether insulin or leptin results from eating this.  An
> easy way to tell somewhat although it would only give partial
> information since it doesn't include leptin, is to eat it and test
> your blood sugar before (fasting) and two hours afterward to see how
> much your blood sugar went up.  If it rises 30 mg% or more, you will
> know it causes insulin resistance because sugar does this.  The more
> sugar, the higher the rise.
> I believe that if you don't pig out on bread of any kind, it will
> only raise your I/L resistance a little especially if you eat it with
> a high protein source.  As your weight and especially your omental
> weight drops, the less important a little bread will matter.  The
> more severe a diabetic you are, the more it will matter.
> Aloha, Hugh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To: "H. Bruce Downey"
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 9:16 AM
Subject: For the nutrionists we never were--- it's always been about 'what'
we eat and not 'how much' or 'how little' we eat

> Hi, Bruce:
> You are the marine drill sergeant of nutrition par excellence.  You are
> way tougher than I am.  You are like I was when I was a young doctor,
> evangelical.  I stopped being so insistent when I found it didn't work.
> At least, in the office one-on-one in an oral encounter, it didn't.  It
> was a waste of my time, and in their minds as well.
> What worked was my take-off on "One Minute Manager" if you ever read that
> book.  A quizzical and worried look at their BP or their blood work, a
> thoughtful "hmm", and "you need to... or something ba-aa-d is going to
> happen".  My follow-up would be dependent on their reaction.  The serious
> buyer is going to get a different reaction from me than the tire kicker or
> the window shopper.
> This is not to discourage you from your excellent treatises, because your
> attitudes and perceptions shine through in your writing.  You are a fellow
> traveler on this journey and not an authority figure.  Try to get some
> feedback from your friends.  Ask from time to time about whether you have
> altered any of their perceptions or actions.  If all you get back is what
> I call the bobble-head-response, I'm just going to keep on doing what I've
> been doing, you need to change your approach.  The other phrase that
> typifies the response is, "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead".  Ask if
> they keep going back to your link to see what you have added or changed.
> Now they are different from those who are tired of being tired, tired of
> taking all those pills, tired of chronic pain, tired of dragging all that
> around in their "trunk", tired of hobbling around, tired of impaired
> balance, tired of being unhealthy and unable to ... (you fill in the
> blank) while Mal is surfing competitively, Kit continues to run marathons,
> Fred is a cowboy and competitive roper, Kim hunts Kudu in Africa, Diane
> swims world class competitively, Ced is a competitive race walker, and I
> walk/ run 12-18 miles a day four days a week at my job (all Punahou
> classmates).  If your friends understand what you are saying and are
> working at changing their behaviors (perhaps not being totally
> successful), that's a cat of a different color.
> One misunderstanding is, "Eggs for breakfast or lunch only are OK, but no
> more than 7 eggs total per week.
> []
> NOTE:  Dr. Wang suggests unlimited eggs for those with low cholesterol.
> But if you don't know your cholesterol level, limit yourself to just 7
> eggs total per week.  Another hint:--- when you serve yourself scrambled
> eggs, use two egg yokes but maybe only one egg white.
> It SHOULD be, "ONE yolk (which contains the cholesterol) and two whites".
> You can also do this with hard boiled eggs.  I love eggs, so I will (with
> normal cholesterol) eat two soft boiled eggs and eat all the yolk that
> runs off even though I know it won't make much difference in my
> cholesterol levels as I have told you how to find out for yourself.
> One other point has to do with getting additional eggs in recipes.  You
> aren't going to bake because of grains, but I will cut down on breakfast
> eggs when my wife puts eggs in soup or we have deviled eggs.
> Aloha, and don't watch the TV food channel, Hugh
> p.s. As I said when we first began, I had no idea where the ripples would
> touch the shore, hhw

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To: <Bruce>
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 3:44 PM
Subject: Sweeteners

Hi, Bruce:

As I drink my vegetarian coffee sweetened by
Stevia, I am reminded to speak to you about most
sweeteners being bad for any health conscious
person, the worst of which is aspartame known
under various names.  Here's what one physician
says about it, and it is my opinion as well after
reading many medical papers about it:

Aspartame is the most controversial food additive
in history, and its approval for use in food was
the most contested in FDA history. In the end,
the artificial sweetener was approved, not on
scientific grounds, but rather because of
political and financial pressure. After all,
aspartame was previously listed by the Pentagon
as a biochemical warfare agent!
It's hard to believe such a chemical would be
allowed into the food supply, but it was, and it
has been wreaking silent havoc with people's health for the past 30 years.
The truth is, it should never have been released
onto the market, and allowing it to remain in the
food chain is seriously hurting people - no
matter how many times you rebrand it under fancy new names.

The Deceptive Marketing of Aspartame

Sold commercially under names like NutraSweet,
Canderel, and now AminoSweet, aspartame can be
found in more than 6,000 foods, including soft
drinks, chewing gum, table-top sweeteners, diet
and diabetic foods, breakfast cereals, jams,
sweets, vitamins, prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
Aspartame producer Ajinomoto chose to rebrand it
under the name AminoSweet, to "remind the
industry that aspartame tastes just like sugar,
and that it's made from amino acids - the
building blocks of protein that are abundant in our diet."
This is deception at its finest: Begin with a
shred of truth, and then spin it to fit your own agenda.
In this case, the agenda is to make you believe
that aspartame is somehow a harmless, natural
sweetener made with two amino acids that are
essential for health and present in your diet already.
They want you to believe aspartame delivers all
the benefits of sugar and none of its drawbacks.
But nothing could be further from the truth.

How Aspartame Wreaks Havoc on Your Health

Did you know there have been more reports to the
FDA for aspartame reactions than for all other food additives combined?
In fact, there are over 10,000 official
complaints, but by the FDA's own admission, less
than 1 percent of those who experience a reaction
to a product ever report it. So in all
likelihood, the toxic effects of aspartame may
have affected roughly a million people already.

While a variety of symptoms have been reported,
almost two-thirds of them fall into the
neurological and behavioral category consisting
mostly of headaches, mood alterations, and
hallucinations. The remaining third is mostly gastrointestinal symptoms.
will familiarize you with some of the terrifying
side-effects and health problems you could
encounter if you consume products containing this chemical.
Unfortunately, aspartame toxicity is not
well-known by doctors, despite its frequency.
Diagnosis is also hampered by the fact that it
mimics several other common health conditions, such as:

Multiple sclerosis Parkinson's disease
Alzheimer's disease Fibromyalgia
Arthritis Multiple chemical sensitivity
Chronic fatigue syndrome Attention deficit disorder
Panic disorder Depression and other psychological disorders
Lupus Diabetes and diabetic complications
Birth defects Lymphoma
Lyme disease Hypothyroidism

How Diet Foods and Drinks CAUSE Weight Problems

In recent years, food manufacturers have
increasingly focused on developing low-calorie
foods and drinks to help you maintain a healthy
weight and avoid obesity. Unfortunately, the
science behind these products is so flawed, most
of these products can actually
weight gain!
For example, researchers have discovered that
soda increases your risk of metabolic syndrome,
and may
your risk of obesity - the complete opposite of
the stated intention behind these "zero calorie" drinks.
The sad truth is that diet foods and drinks
your body's ability to count calories, and in
your appetite, thus boosting your inclination to overindulge.

Unfortunately, most public health agencies and
nutritionists in the United States recommend
these toxic artificial sweeteners as an
acceptable alternative to sugar, which is at best
confusing and at worst harming the health of
those who take their misguided advice.

Even More Toxic Dangers of Aspartame

Truly, there is enough evidence showing the
dangers of consuming artificial sweeteners to
fill an entire book -- which is exactly why I
Deception. If you or your loved ones drink diet
beverages or eat diet foods, this book will
explain how you've been deceived about the truth
behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame and
sucralose -- for greed, for profits, and at the expense of your health.
As mentioned earlier, almost two-thirds of all
documented side effects of aspartame consumption are neurological.
One of the reasons for this side effect,
researchers have discovered, is because the
phenylalanine in aspartame dissociates from the
ester bond. While these amino acids are indeed
completely natural and safe, they were never
designed to be ingested as isolated amino acids
in massive quantities, which in and of itself will cause complications.
Additionally this will also increase dopamine
levels in your brain. This can lead to symptoms
of depression because it distorts your
serotonin/dopamine balance. It can also lead to
migraine headaches and brain tumors through a similar mechanism.
The aspartic acid in aspartame is a
Excitotoxins are usually amino acids, such as
glutamate and aspartate. These special amino
acids cause particular brain cells to become
excessively excited, to the point that they die.
Excitotoxins can also cause a loss of brain
synapses and connecting fibers. A review
conducted in 2008 by scientists from the
University of Pretoria and the University of
Limpopo found that consuming a lot of aspartame
may inhibit the ability of enzymes in your brain
to function normally, and may lead to neurodegeneration.
According to the researchers, consuming a lot of aspartame can disturb:
The metabolism of amino acids
Protein structure and metabolism
The integrity of nucleic acids
Neuronal function
Endocrine balances
Furthermore, the ester bond in aspartame breaks
down to formaldehyde and methanol, which are also
toxic in their own right. So it is not surprising
that this popular artificial sweetener has also
to cause cancer.

Bruce, I'm back to talk about Splenda which
itself is not bad.  It was approved by the FDA
which tested it as a natural sweetener which I am
trying to grow in my back yard having ordered it
from a mail-order nursery.  It is struggling, and
I'm not sure if it doesn't like my heavy clay
dirt or if I'm not watering enough or too
much.  It is sweeter than sugar, and fast became
a favorite for diabetics.  A cup of coffee
requires only a twentieth of a teaspoon.  Here's
where the fraud occurs.  After the approval, the
company added sugar to bulk up the packet to a
teaspoon or more, so now what was okay for
diabetics and obese patients with omental baggage
is now causing insulin/leptin resistance and
rises in blood sugar.  The company markets it as
"made from sugar" without the downside of sugar.  Boo!
Stevia has nothing added to it, and you use a
tiny spoon about the size of a quarter of a
little fingernail to equal a teaspoon of
sugar.  It can be found at health food stores and
I think Trader Joe's.  It will not raise your
blood sugar or anyone else's.  You can cook with it.
So much for now, Hugh


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To: <Bruce>
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:24 PM
Subject: fr a doctor=sugar/cancer connection

> It puzzles me why the simple concept "sugar feeds cancer" can be so
> dramatically overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment plan.
> Of the 4 million cancer patients being treated in America today, hardly
> any are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy beyond being
> told to "just eat good foods." Most patients I work with arrive with a
> complete lack of nutritional advice.
> I believe many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their
> outcome if they controlled the supply of cancer's preferred fuel, glucose.
> By slowing the cancer's growth, patients allow their immune systems and
> medical debulking therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery to
> reduce the bulk of the tumor mass -- to catch up to the disease.
> Controlling one's blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements,
> exercise, meditation and prescription drugs when necessary can be one of
> the most crucial components to a cancer recovery program. The sound
> bite -- sugar feeds cancer -- is simple. The explanation is a little more
> complex.
> The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first
> discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy
> metabolism compared to healthy cells.
> The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently exhibit
> an increase in anaerobic glycolysis -- a process whereby glucose is used
> as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic byproduct --
> compared to normal tissues.
> The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose
> from cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of
> glucose to lactate generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues
> as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid buildup. Thus, larger
> tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic pH.
> This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles of
> adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared to 38
> moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose.
> By extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the
> available energy in the food supply and the body's calorie stores, the
> cancer is "wasting" energy, and the patient becomes tired and
> undernourished. This vicious cycle increases body wasting.
> It is one reason why 40 percent of cancer patients die from malnutrition,
> or cachexia. Hence, cancer therapies should encompass regulating
> blood-glucose levels via diet, supplements, non-oral solutions for
> cachectic patients who lose their appetite, medication, exercise, gradual
> weight loss and stress reduction. Professional guidance and patient
> self-discipline are crucial at this point in the cancer process. The quest
> is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates from the diet but rather to
> control blood glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer and
> bolster immune function.
> The glycemic index is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose
> levels, with each food assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating,
> the slower the digestion and absorption process, which provides a
> healthier, more gradual infusion of sugars into the bloodstream.
> Conversely, a high rating means blood-glucose levels are increased
> quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop
> blood-sugar levels. This rapid fluctuation of blood-sugar levels is
> unhealthy because of the stress it places on the body
> Sugar in the Body and Diet
> Sugar is a generic term used to identify simple carbohydrates, which
> includes monosaccharides such as fructose, glucose and galactose; and
> disaccharides such as maltose and sucrose (white table sugar). Think of
> these sugars as different-shaped bricks in a wall.
> When fructose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the
> glycemic index registers as healthier, since this simple sugar is slowly
> absorbed in the gut, then converted to glucose in the liver. This makes
> for "time-release foods," which offer a more gradual rise and fall in
> blood-glucose levels.
> If glucose is the primary monosaccharide brick in the wall, the glycemic
> index will be higher and less healthy for the individual. As the brick
> wall is torn apart in digestion, the glucose is pumped across the
> intestinal wall directly into the bloodstream, rapidly raising
> blood-glucose levels.
> In other words, there is a "window of efficacy" for glucose in the blood:
> levels too low make one feel lethargic and can create clinical
> hypoglycemia; levels too high start creating the rippling effect of
> diabetic health problems.
> The 1997 American Diabetes Association blood-glucose standards consider
> 126 mg glucose/dL blood or greater to be diabetic; 111 to 125 mg/dL is
> impaired glucose tolerance and less than 110 mg/dL is considered normal.
> Meanwhile, the Paleolithic diet of our ancestors, which consisted of lean
> meats, vegetables and small amounts of whole grains, nuts, seeds and
> fruits, is estimated to have generated blood glucose levels between 60 and
> 90 mg/dL.
> Obviously, today's high-sugar diets are having unhealthy effects as far as
> blood-sugar is concerned. Excess blood glucose may initiate yeast
> overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, heart disease and other health
> conditions.
> Understanding and using the glycemic index is an important aspect of diet
> modification for cancer patients. However, there is also evidence that
> sugars may feed cancer more efficiently than starches (comprised of long
> chains of simple sugars), making the index slightly misleading. A study of
> rats fed diets with equal calories from sugars and starches, for example,
> found the animals on the high-sugar diet developed more cases of breast
> cancer.
> The glycemic index is a useful tool in guiding the cancer patient toward a
> healthier diet, but it is not infallible. By using the glycemic index
> alone, one could be led to thinking a cup of white sugar is healthier than
> a baked potato.
> This is because the glycemic index rating of a sugary food may be lower
> than that of a starchy food. To be safe, I recommend less fruit, more
> vegetables, and little to no refined sugars in the diet of cancer
> patients.
> What the Literature Says
> A mouse model of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are
> sensitive to blood-glucose levels. Sixty-eight mice were injected with an
> aggressive strain of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce either high
> blood-sugar (hyperglycemia), normoglycemia or low blood-sugar
> (hypoglycemia).
> There was a dose-dependent response in which the lower the blood glucose,
> the greater the survival rate. After 70 days, 8 of 24 hyperglycemic mice
> survived compared to 16 of 24 normoglycemic and 19 of 20 hypoglycemic.
> This suggests that regulating sugar intake is key to slowing breast tumor
> growth.
> In a human study, 10 healthy people were assessed for fasting
> blood-glucose levels and the phagocytic index of neutrophils, which
> measures immune-cell ability to envelop and destroy invaders such as
> cancer. Eating 100 g carbohydrates from glucose, sucrose, honey and orange
> juice all significantly decreased the capacity of neutrophils to engulf
> bacteria. Starch did not have this effect.
> A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and
> Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract
> cancer patients with 480 controls. Cancer risk associated with the intake
> of sugars, independent of other energy sources, more than doubled for the
> cancer patients.
> Furthermore, an epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep
> track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others)
> revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes to
> higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.
> Limiting sugar consumption may not be the only line of defense. In fact,
> an interesting botanical extract from the avocado plant (Persea americana)
> is showing promise as a new cancer adjunct.
> When a purified avocado extract called mannoheptulose was added to a
> number of tumor cell lines tested in vitro by researchers in the
> Department of Biochemistry at Oxford University in Britain, they found it
> inhibited tumor cell glucose uptake by 25 to 75 percent, and it inhibited
> the enzyme glucokinase responsible for glycolysis. It also inhibited the
> growth rate of the cultured tumor cell lines.
> The same researchers gave lab animals a 1.7 mg/g body weight dose of
> mannoheptulose for five days; it reduced tumors by 65 to 79 percent. Based
> on these studies, there is good reason to believe that avocado extract
> could help cancer patients by limiting glucose to the tumor cells.
> Hi, Bruce:
> If we avoid sugar, a healthy fall out is reducing cancer risk, which is on
> the rise in case you haven't noticed.
> Aloha, Hugh
> Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis,
> Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Cancer Research
> Institute and former U.S. Air Force research physician, surmised that a
> chemical called hydrazine sulfate, used in rocket fuel, could inhibit the
> excessive gluconeogenesis (making sugar from amino acids) that occurs in
> cachectic cancer patients.
> Gold's work demonstrated hydrazine sulfate's ability to slow and reverse
> cachexia in advanced cancer patients. A placebo-controlled trial followed
> 101 cancer patients taking either 6 mg hydrazine sulfate three times/day
> or placebo. After one month, 83 percent of hydrazine sulfate patients
> increased their weight, compared to 53 percent on placebo.
> A similar study by the same principal researchers, partly funded by the
> National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., followed 65 patients. Those
> who took hydrazine sulfate and were in good physical condition before the
> study began lived an average of 17 weeks longer.
> The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and
> its role in tumorigenesis. Consider the million-dollar positive emission
> tomography device, or PET scan, regarded as one of the ultimate
> cancer-detection tools. PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to
> detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. PET scans are used to plot the progress
> of cancer patients and to assess whether present protocols are effective.
> In Europe, the "sugar feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that
> oncologists, or cancer doctors, use the Systemic Cancer Multistep Therapy
> (SCMT) protocol. Conceived by Manfred von Ardenne in Germany in 1965, SCMT
> entails injecting patients with glucose to increase blood-glucose
> concentrations.
> This lowers pH values in cancer tissues via lactic acid formation. In
> turn, this intensifies the thermal sensitivity of the malignant tumors and
> also induces rapid growth of the cancer. Patients are then given
> whole-body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature) to further stress the
> cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or radiation.
> SCMT was tested on 103 patients with metastasized cancer or recurrent
> primary tumors in a clinical phase-I study at the Von Ardenne Institute of
> Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany. Five-year survival rates in
> SCMT-treated patients increased by 25 to 50 percent, and the complete rate
> of tumor regression increased by 30 to 50 percent.
> The protocol induces rapid growth of the cancer, then treats the tumor
> with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in outcome.
> The irrefutable role of glucose in the growth and metastasis of cancer
> cells can enhance many therapies. Some of these include diets designed
> with the glycemic index in mind to regulate increases in blood glucose,
> hence selectively starving the cancer cells; low-glucose TPN solutions;
> avocado extract to inhibit glucose uptake in cancer cells; hydrazine
> sulfate to inhibit gluconeogenesis in cancer cells; and SCMT.
> A female patient in her 50s, with lung cancer, came to our clinic, having
> been given a death sentence by her Florida oncologist. She was cooperative
> and understood the connection between nutrition and cancer. She changed
> her diet considerably, leaving out 90 percent of the sugar she used to
> eat.
> She found that wheat bread and oat cereal now had their own wild
> sweetness, even without added sugar.
> With appropriately restrained medical therapy -- including high-dose
> radiation targeted to tumor sites and fractionated chemotherapy, a
> technique that distributes the normal one large weekly chemo dose into a
> 60-hour infusion lasting days -- a good attitude and an optimal nutrition
> program which included Sam's formula nine times/day, she beat her terminal
> lung cancer.
> I saw her last month, five years later and still disease-free, probably
> looking better than the doctor who told her there was no hope.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang"
To: <Bruce>
Cc: <Mal>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:16 PM
Subject: water

> Hi, Bruce:
> I may not write as regularly as I would wish, or you would wish, but
> I have to write when I think of something to say to you.
> I haven't decided on the best kind of water to drink yet, but I keep
> looking.  I used to think that distilled water was the best because
> it leaves behind heavy metals, pesticides, fluorine, dissolved drugs,
> and isn't polluted by PBA's from plastic bottles.  This is still
> true, but I heard that it's not as perfect a solution as I
> thought.  Oh, well, so I'm still drinking tap water from the city's
> cisterns.  Perhaps you have a solution.  Malcolm's artesian wells in
> HI might be better.  Let's see what he thinks.
> Anyway, what I want to recommend to you is to drink two large glasses
> of water first thing in the morning upon arising.  That hydrates you
> for most of the morning.  Most people are dehydrated, and coffee
> drinkers, alcohol drinkers, and diuretic takers for certain are.
> In fact, the way diuretics work is to reduce fluid intravascular
> volume thus lowering your blood pressure.  In the hours around
> awakening, you are more likely to have a heart attack as your pulse
> rate, BP, and respiratory rate are all low during sleep and you may
> have urinated during the night.  The oxygen level is low in your
> blood and your blood flow is reduced.  Drinking the water pumps up
> your blood volume and everything else as well as dilutes your blood
> sugar, cholesterol, uric acid, reduces clotting by thinning out the
> platelets, pushes blood and oxygen around your heart and brain,
> improves your bowel movements.
> I just thought of another important thing to test, your pH.  You can
> do this without going to your doctor or a lab.  You need pH paper
> that you can get at a health food store.  You can test your serum,
> your spinal fluid, your urine, or your saliva.  Saliva is best unless
> you want to draw your blood, do your spinal tap, or check urine
> that's been sitting in your bladder.  First thing in the morning and
> before you drink your two glasses of water, spit out the saliva in
> your mouth, then wait a few seconds for fresh saliva on your
> tongue.  Run the paper over your tongue and compare with the color
> code, blue is good, around 7.4.  You want it alkaline, because
> slightly alkaline is anti-cancer.  Acidic is not good.  Ask Mal about
> acidosis.  Diabetics get acidotic, not good.  Athletes get lactic
> acidosis, also not good.  They drink a lot of water to dilute the
> acid and remain hydrated, and a good athlete knows to get hydrated
> well in advance of the event.  You probably haven't had a doctor tell
> you to test your salivary pH, unless it was Mal.
> You might have noticed that I'm focusing on the cardiovascular system
> because that kills about 50% of Americans.  About 25% more are killed
> by cancer.  The rest are miscellaneous and are a motley group
> including accidents, war, suicide, other diseases, congenital
> conditions, drug reactions, anaphylaxis and allergic conditions.
> Aloha, Hugh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang" <>
To: "H. Bruce Downey" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:24 AM
Subject: "The York '52 Weight Room" and related matters

>>Hi, again, Bruce:
> Earlier, I didn't examine very closely what you had written, both in
> your email and in the link to your "Weight Room."
> Now that I've had a chance to study them more, here are my comments:
> You should have your 25-hydroxvitamin D tested to decide whether you
> need to cut back or increase your Vit D3 (D3 is absorbed better).  A
> good level is between 50-60 nanograms/L to be immune boosting,
> beneficial to diabetics' blood sugar, and anti-cancer.
> I used to have the idea that a foundation of a daily multivitamin was
> a good idea until I discovered that even the small amount of daily
> Vit A was enough to nullify the benefits of Vit D.  Since cod liver
> oil contains both, we no longer recommend CLO.  A professor at
> Stanford Med Sch spoke at our hospital and said that not only were
> multivitamins overrated in their value, but they don't dissolve well,
> and are a multibillion $$ industry.  Try putting one of your tablets
> in a glass of water to see how many days it takes for it to
> dissolve.  Many of them end up in the toilet.  When you run out of
> your multivit, you can stop it, and depend on your good diet to
> supply your needs.  Your CoQ10 is a good idea, and L-arginine is good
> for the inner lining of your blood vessels and is a source of nitric
> oxide which improves sexual function.
> You interpreted my "Just avoid sugar and grains.  Include fructose
> except in whole fruits" correctly.  i.e. Include fructose as a sugar
> to avoid.  It is a strong stimulant of insulin and leptin resistance,
> hormones that cause internal abdominal omental fat deposition.
> Not knowing your background, if I get too medical, I can couch
> anything in more laymen's terms.  Some of your friends might be
> non-medical as well.
> You went into amazing detail listing all the sources of sugar,
> fructose, and various forms of grains that you could think of.  My
> thinking is that just saying sugar and grains is simpler and is
> inclusive enough for most people to follow the concept as long as
> your friends understand that fructose is 1/2 of the sugar
> molecule.  Alcohol turns to sugar so should be avoided as well to
> prevent insulin and leptin resistance.  Some people will benefit from
> your list of prohibitions, however, since they need very specific
> guidance.  Others will see a list and will look for every chink in
> the armor.  If they find a grain source not listed, they will use it
> as an excuse to eat (or drink) it.
> Your recipe for health and "weight room" is certainly consistent w/
> my thinking, knowledge, and recommendations and is a terrific
> idea.  I love it.  If something falls between the cracks, no matter,
> for all these years they (and you) have been eating and drinking
> whatever and as much as your brain desired.  Just knowing that
> sugar(s) and grains are detrimental is enough so that if they or you
> cut back, it will benefit all.  Ideally, of course, we would love to
> have complete compliance.  But then that is not the real world, is it?
> What I do instead of looking for a grain substitute is to eat more
> different kinds of vegetables.  I used to always have a starch at
> every meal.  This is not true either in every society or way back
> when.  Of course, starch is a grain and turns into sugar.  For me it
> would be noodles, rice, bread, pasta, etc.  Now it is a salad + green
> beans (or cabbage, spinach, chard, carrots, or radishes, celery,
> asparagus, edamame, artichokes, broccoli, eggplant)  Well, you get
> the idea.  I still haven't had the chance to look up Ezekiel Bread
> yet, but I will.
> I notice you limit eggs to seven a week.  I wouldn't  limit it since
> your cholesterol is normal.  Eggs sustain an unborn chick until it
> hatches, so they contain important nutrients.  Two a day is not too
> many.  If you are concerned, have one yolk for every two eggs.  Do
> this experiment, before your next two blood panels, for two months
> eat one egg a day.  Don't change the remainder of your diet.  Then
> before the next blood test, eat two eggs a day.  You will find that
> it will not send your cholesterol spiking skyward.  Mine varied by
> five mg. and stayed in the normal range.
> Aloha, Hugh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang" <>
To: "H. Bruce Downey" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 10:22 PM
Subject: "The York '52 Weight Room" and related matters

> Hi, Bruce:
> I'm impressed with your interest in yourself and your
> friends' health.  Believe it or not, many people are not interested
> enough to pursue good health and long life.  They are content to
> follow their physician's lead, a fifteen minute office visit, and
> take these pills--NEXT!
> That does not begin to change your health.  I think you are beginning
> to understand that.
> You climbed the lighthouse one step at a time until you reached the
> top.  You have already started the steps downward back to health.  In
> fact, you have become interested in your friends' following your
> example.  You're a missionary whether you realize it or not, trying
> to save others.  I am pround of you
> The goal is to get back to the foundation of the lighthouse, off ALL
> your drugs.  Can we help you accomplish that?  Let's try.  You are
> not my first and your friends will not be our last efforts.
> We need allies.  Your friends and you will encourage each other, but
> we need your physician(s) to be accomplices in this, because we need
> their guidance to do it safely.  If they poo-poo your efforts and
> goal, you need a new set of physicians.  Do you think any friend is a
> friend if (s)he sabotages your efforts to reach ANY dream of yours?
> You have already started the weight loss journey with its
> vagaries.  Persistence is the secret of success.  As you see results,
> you will become more determined.  You read me correctly, high
> fructose corn syrup is the biggest sugar culprit other than sugar
> itself.  Since whole fruit is combined with enzymes and fiber, as
> long as you don't overdo it, it is alright to eat it.  Spread it
> out.  Use fruit as a snack or dessert.  Read the labels and you'll be
> amazed at the things that contain HFCS.  More on that later.
> I love bread of any kind, but I guess I'll have to research Ezekiel
> Bread since I've not heard of it.  I don't believe in asking you to
> do something I'm not willing to do.  I eat bread, pasta, cereal,
> noodles in small amounts and only occasionally.  I can get away with
> a little because I have very little fat at 5'11" and 160 lbs.  I'm a
> borderline diabetic and was on metformin 500 mg twice a day.  Since I
> started THE DIET, I've been able to get off the Metformin, titrating
> it down slowly with the help of my doctor until I'm totally off it
> and normal blood sugars.  Why so much metformin in a borderline
> case?  They lowered the normal levels a few years ago so I was no
> longer borderline.  I think it was a conspiracy to sell more drugs,
> have more lab tests, and generate more doctor visits (nah, that can't be true).
> Same thing with my simvastatin for cholesterol and my lisinopril for
> my blood pressure.  I'm off everything that requires a prescription
> now.  I only tell you my personal story so that you know when I tell
> you I know what you are going through, I literally do.  How can
> someone who has never lost a parent tell a patient that he knows what
> he is going through when he has never himself lost a parent?  My
> doctor tells my story to encourage his other overweight diabetics,
> and your doctor will do the same.
> I expect that as you progress, you will tell me that your physicians
> will marvel at what you have helped your body to do to require less
> and fewer drugs.  Your energy level will rise.  You will do more and
> faster.  You will stop snoring.  You will marvel at how much better
> you feel.  You will retain less fluid.  Your circulation will
> improve.  You will not get short of breath so easily with work or
> exercise.  I have had patients' atrial fibrullation resolve to the
> amazement of their cardiologists.  Only time will tell, how much and
> what will return to normal for you.  Start a spread sheet since you
> are so computer facile with your blood test results and drugs (&
> doses), weight, blood pressure, and dates on it.
> Mal and I will hold your hand if you need it.  You will find out what
> you are made of.  The hard work is yours to do, but you can do it,
> and you will find it a worthwhile project.  Your life is worth it, isn't it?
> To your health, Hugh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang" <>
To: "H. Bruce Downey" <>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 12:57 AM
Subject: CRP

> Hi, Bruce:
> Mal wrote me since I sent him a copy of my letter to you and wondered
> what I thought of suggesting that you have a C-reactive Protein level
> (blood test) done.  It is a proxy for generalized inflammation.  I
> think it would be a good test for you to have done to round out your work-up.
> I need to correct my L-arginine discussion.  It increases nitric
> oxide which helps the cardiovascular system, not nitrous oxide.  As
> we age the nitric oxide decreases and the endothelium which responds
> positively to nitric oxide responds less.  There is evidence that
> this improves sexual performance as well as blood flow to the heart and brain.
> Aloha, Hugh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Ing" <>
To: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: Ripples

> Hi Hugh, Thanks for helping  my friend, Bruce, on the Road to Health. I am
> glad  you mentioned the omental(belly) fat, because, as you know,these fat
> cells in the belly act like little endocrine glands and manufacture
> arachidonic acid, the chemical messenger in the body to stimulate
> inflammation. And as you know, inflammation is the final common denominator
> of probably most  or all diseases, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis,
> cancer and Alzheimer's and macular degeneration. Bruce probably should have
> a CRP blood level determination also don't you think?
> Your Buddy, Mal

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeannine and Hugh Wang" <>
To: "H. Bruce Downey" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 5:27 PM
Subject: Ripples

> Hi, Bruce:
> One never knows which shores the ripples from  a skipping rock will touch.
> I am always pleasantly surprised to get feedback from something I've
> written, particularly so when it has positive effects.
> My tome was primarily political.  You picked out the personal
> paragraph that touched your concern.
> Let's attack the important points that I didn't address.
> You can write me back if you need more details.  You know that Mal is
> a competitive surfer, and we are all 76 y/o.  He and I are in better
> shape than you are and more physical.  So you have a little catching
> up to do.  No matter.  It can be done.  Of course, instead of good
> intentions, you must set a course for yourself.  It's more like
> sailing than motorboating.  You decide you want to get from A to
> B.  You could but no one does go in a straight line.  There's a ship
> or hazard in the way and you have to get around it.  The wind blows
> you off course.  You have to tack.  The unseen current forces you to
> reset your sails.  Sounds like I know a lot about sailing?  Not
> true.  I just know myself and human nature.
> At our age, much of the weight is belly weight.  It is omental
> weight.  If you have ever carved into an abdomen, you will notice
> that the belly wall is fat, but even more fat is omental.  That is
> hormonal.  You can lose that without exercise, amazingly enough.  Try
> this.  Don't exercise.  Just avoid sugar and grains.  Include
> fructose except in whole fruits.  Fructose is 1/2 of the sugar
> molecule.  Try not to eat grains.  You'll be amazed.  No calorie
> counting or restricting volume of food.  Your belt size will go
> down.  Of course, if you reduce volume, your results will be even
> better.  After you have satisfied yourself that I am correct, you'll
> wonder what hormones are responsible for this incredible
> result:  insulin resistance and leptin resistance.  If you cheat, the
> sugar will start the insulin/leptin resistance up again.  It takes a
> week or two to get the resistance down.  Not highly publicized and
> not even known by a lot of physicians.
> I'm not against exercise, but that can come later except for some
> toning with light free weights and squats.  Just raising your two
> hundred lbs. with your legs will strengthen your legs.
> Get a book, "Power Yoga", and read it from cover to cover.  At first
> just attempt the easy moves.
> Next tack is to of course see your primary care physician and have a
> stress test to know what a safe pulse rate for you to exercise to,
> get blood tests including a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level.  Many people
> unknowingly are vit D deficient and our old levels are too low to
> support cardiovascular health, be anti-carcinogenic, and be immune
> supportive. Studies show that the level needs to be >50 nanogms/L.  I
> was taking 2500 iu daily for three months and tested at 13, so I
> upped it to 5000 whcih Mal takes.  Take L-arginine over the counter
> to boost your nitrous oxide level and benefit your cardiovascular
> system.  Mal will recommend Omega-3 which I take also.
> Last step is to go aerobic, walk at least 10,000 steps a day.  That's
> a goal.   Slowly and 1/4 mile at first.  Up the pace and the
> distance.  Go around your block.  Go to a park.  Go up a small
> hill.  I work four days a week as a mall guard and get paid (a
> pittance) to walk or run (if there is an incident) a range of 12 to
> 18 miles in eight hours.
> I am proud of your start on this journey.  Just put one foot in front
> of the other, Aloha, Hugh

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: "Your perspective"

Recently Malcolm Ing, MD in Hawaii sent me an e-mail that you wrote on the subject of "Your perspective".  In particular I was interested in what you had to say about obesity in this country, suggesting that if we eat right and controlled our weight we would all be healthier, to wit:--- 
"I have proven to my satisfaction among my patients, friends, and 
acquaintances who are willing to do it, that eating a certain way in 
content and volume will decrease prescription drug need, will reduce much 
debility, will reduce heart disease and cancer which cause 75% of the 
American deaths at an earlier age and with disability.  Not many will do 
it.  They prefer taking diabetic, blood pressure, and heart pills it 
So I looked into this from my own perspective.  I started by buying a new digital scale with a memory chip from Bed Bath & Beyond--- a Taylor "Cal-Max" scale.  After programming into this machine my gender, age, height, and activity level, I discovered that while not obese, I am overweight at 221 lbs when fully clothed except for shoes.  My BMI (Body Mass Index) is 27 whereas it should be no more than 24 @ a desired weight of 197 lbs. based on my gender, age, height, and activity level.  In addition to displaying all this info, my new scale tells me that by eating 2,900 calories a day I will maintain my current weight (221 lbs).  So I must undertake a calorie count program to eat something less than 2,900 calories a day in order to lose weight and get my BMI down to the desired goal of 24 @ 197 lbs.  Even then, it will take me a very long time to get there...but I now have a scale that will "remember" where I once was and how well I'm doing everytime I get on it.
I have no particular plans as to what I will eat, for I plan on starting out by simply reducing the quantity of what I eat at any one sitting.  To this end I plan on keeping track of the calories I eat on a daily basis, for I figure that's the key to success. Snacks will be out for me (Did you know that just 7 Triscuits--- the healthiest cracker one can eat--- add up to 140 calories?  Deserts too will be gone, other than say fruit of some sort.  We also have this new book--- "Eat this, Not that" which I highly recommend to all. 
I know too that before embarking on this less-than-2,900-calorie-per-day diet, you would advise me to see my primary care physician and/or my cardiologist.  In my case at 76 years old it's hard for me to tell which of the two is "primary" anymore.  But I'm still very physically active--- personally doing all the chores of maintaining this place here in Southwest Virginia with its 27-acres, two houses and three horses on this mini-farm of mine.  The most strenuous thing I do is bend over and pick up horse feet to trim and shape their nails using a big, hand-held file in my right hand.  I used to be able to do all 4 feet at one sitting, but can only do 2 feet now--- for tomorrow is another day.  Not everyone would be happy with this way of life, but it's the way I want it until the time comes when I can no longer do any of it anymore. 
I know too that the world is "paved with good intentions" but when you get as old as I am and considering the alternatives that are just around the corner for the likes of people like me, I think I have enough motivation to stick this thing out.  Twenty pounds is a lot to expect, but being "retired" as I am, I figure I've got the time to invest in my own health.  And it's about time that I paid some attention to something I've always just assumed would always be there for me.
And your e-mail that Mal forwarded to me re: "Your perspective" is all the encouragement I need to get started.  And for that,  I thank you, Dr. Wang.