Study: (Perhaps) Honey isn’t as healthy as we think

[HuckleB]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/11/honey-seemed-like-a-healthier-choice-then-scientists-tested-it-against-high-fructose-corn-syrup/

"Honey has an aura of purity and naturalness. Fresh air, birdsong, forests and meadows.

High-fructose corn sweetener? Not so much.

So you might think that honey is better for you. But a study published this month compared the health effects of honey and the processed sweetener and found no significant differences.

“The effects were essentially the same,” said Susan K. Raatz, a research nutritionist at the USDA who conducted the study with two colleagues.

..."



Interesting. Very interesting.

[peacebird]

1. Yes, but local honey is effective for helping mitigate pollen based allergies, and studies have

Found patients with severe burns heal more quickly, and show less scarring, when honey is used to dress the burns.....


Sage steeped in honey is an amazing sore throat pain reliever.

[HuckleB]

3. The pollen claim is false.

http://www.webmd.com/allergies/features/does-honey-help-prevent-allergies

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/bee-pollen-supplements-not-safe-or-effective/

http://www.livescience.com/45825-myths-about-seasonal-allergies.html

Not that such a premise has anything to do with the OP, much like the fact that your second has validity has nothing to do with the OP.

Honey has been shown to be find for sore throats, and even coughs a bit, but I don't think you need to add the sage.

Again, what does any of that have to do with the OP?

[yeoman6987]

11. Which is why I eat what I want

We always here this is good, this is bad. Oops sorry what was good is now bad. Studies are done by money....who gives the most money towards study wins. That is why I eat foods I like. I typically make my own decisions but many do follow the trendy so I don't blame the studies being done. It's very lucrative.

[Salviati]

14. Granted, there are some things out there that are horrible for you...

... e.g. trans fats, but as far as everything else goes, I aim for the goal of variety and moderation.

[bemildred]

91. I read a study long ago which said, to paraphrase:

That small children, if given choices among unprocessed foods and allowed to feed themselves, did rather well at it, they chose a healthy diet.

On the other hand, if you give them over-processed junk to choose from, they don't do so good.

Now I listen to what my body tells me when I eat something, how does it feel a half hour later?

And I stay far away from factory food and stuff that has been processed into uniform mush.

[pansypoo53219]

36. not true. but it has to be LOCAL honey. when i visited texas. the honey i used for milwaukee only

helped my hay fever a few days, i have not had hay fever symptoms since i started WILDFLOWER honey from A LOCAL bee man. i need to start my hay fever treatment.

[LostOne4Ever]

37. The very first link he gave disproved that

http://www.webmd.com/allergies/features/does-honey-help-prevent-allergies

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Q: Can local honey help my allergies?

A: No. The theory that taking in small amounts of pollen by eating local honey to build up immunity is FALSE.

Here's why: It's generally the pollen blowing in the wind (released by non-flowering trees, weeds, and grasses) that triggers springtime allergies, not the pollen in flowers carried by bees. So even local honey won’t have much, if any, of the type of pollen setting off your allergies.

Studies show bees don’t just bring flower pollen back to their honeycomb. They bring "tree and grass pollen, in addition to mold spores, diesel particles, and other contaminants," says Palumbo. The problem is that it’s difficult to make a honey from just one kind of pollen (say, weeds and not grass). So, save your local honey for your tea and toast, not for your allergy medicine cabinet.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The very premise behind local honey is flawed.

Here is a study proving that honey does nothing more than give a placebo effect.[/font]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/health/10really.html

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Not only that, but IF IT DID work it would require RAW unpasteurized honey from a local farm.

Which is very dangerous.

One can experience anaphylactic shock, food poisoning, and botulism from eating raw honey.[/font]

[peacebird]

40. Perhaps that's why our local honey DOES work for us. It is raw, unprocessed, straight from our hives

Yeah, and cloudy with pollen too! Yummy, awesome, and we no longer need allergy pills.

[LostOne4Ever]

46. Well if it works for you then keep at it

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I look forward to your article detailing your methodologies and statistical break down of results getting published in a respected peer reviewed scientific journal.

Cause if it works, then it can be proven with more than anecdotes. Cause that is all we want is something that can be proven to work [/font]

[HuckleB]

105. And there is no scientific basis for your claim.

[peacebird]

119. Do you work for pharma? Look, we use honey, herbs, exercise and organic foods. We no longer need

Prescription allergy meds, cholestral meds or anything else.

You live your life your way, enjoy. We will happily continue in our path.

[HuckleB]

120. Nope. And use of the shill gambit doesn't support scam claims either.

Organic is one of the biggest scams or our age, for example

You are here making claims that are unsupportable. No one is telling you how to live, but if you can't support your claims with a consensus of science, either don't make them publicly, or accept that your claims will be called out for what they are: baseless.

[REP]

44. If exposure to the pollen that triggers allergies caused immunity ...

I wouldn't still be allergic to trees and grass. I live in a forest. I'm still allergic to trees. Maybe the problem is I'm not eating them.

[Buns_of_Fire]

125. Good news! You don't have to eat trees to obtain immunity!

Bad news: They have to be used as suppositories.

[REP]

132. Aw crap. I live in a redwood forest.

[cheapdate]

59. I've found that one can experience pure joy from eating raw honey.

That seems to be more common than "anaphylactic shock, food poisoning, and botulism" in my experience.

[LostOne4Ever]

62. And it is fun to ride a bike without a helmet

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I find that not getting in crashes that result in head injuries seems to be far more common than the opposite.

But it is still a good idea to wear a helmet.

If you want to eat unpasteurized honey or ride without a helmet it is completely up to you. I hope you remain safe either way [/font]

[cheapdate]

75. I'm a real risk taker.

We keep cats in the house, and around our children! And I'm sure you know the standard advice about that. I've also handled reptiles and aquarium fish! (they can carry very nasty diseases. never handle them is the standard advice.)

And oh my, I eat raw honey -- straight from the comb in the wild (when I can find it), or from one my neighbor's hives.

One can be too safe, or too unsafe. I'm safe enough.

[LostOne4Ever]

77. Then more power to you...though I question the nevers you cite :) (nt)

[cheapdate]

81. Risks are everywhere.

"...The main types of diseases which people can pick up from cats are toxoplasmosis, rabies, cat scratch disease, salmonella, campylobacteria, ..."
- Diseases from cats | Health24

"All reptiles carry a range of germs including bacteria, viruses, parasites and worms. Many of these can be transmitted on to the family of reptile owners."
- Reptiles and Risks of Infectious Diseases - Health Protection Surveillance Centre

"People who keep tropical fish in tanks at home or at work may be at risk from bacterial infections and life-threatening disease, according to a new study."
- Medical Daily

[peacebird]

39. Anecdotally local honey has worked for our family. We no longer need allergy meds.

I was not trying to steal your OP, merely adding some of the ways honey helps.

[HuckleB]

106. And there is no scientific basis for that claim. Anecdotes are meaningless.

[peacebird]

118. Did I say there was scientific basis, no. i said it has worked for us. Snark much?

[HuckleB]

121. In other words, you have met the placebo effect.

Say hi for me!

[peacebird]

127. And I will gladly say goodbye to you!

[HuckleB]

130. You have to make sure that your beliefs are safe from evidence-based challenges!

Yes, you do! Er, wait. Hmm.

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. It totally does get rid of blackheads though...

Good enough for me.

[packman]

4. Jesus, why can't they just let us hold on to our fantasies

Honey is good for you, butter is good for you, and coffee is the gift of the gods.

[Cal Carpenter]

6. Don't forget wine and dark chocolate.

Thankyouverymuch.

[MohRokTah]

5. Not surprising, but honey tastes better than other sweeteners to me. eom

[RadiationTherapy]

7. It is processed - pre-digested - by the bees. I understood it to be a very high glycemic index food.

I don't eat honey to replace sugar.

[Snobblevitch]

8. Why would anyone believe honey to be healthy?

It's sugar.

[cheapdate]

58. Besides sugars,

honey contains proteins, amino acids, enzymes, antioxidants and flavonoids, organic acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. Honey is much more complex than just "sugar".

[Greybnk48]

9. One occurs in nature and HFCS does not.

I'm sure they both cause similar blood sugar spikes, of course, but I don't believe the physiological effects are identical. I'll continue to ban HFCS and restrict honey for health reasons.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. And that's why one 'has an aura of purity and naturalness'

and the other sounds like it came from a lab, because it did. Yes, they're both sugars. One has a distinctive taste, the other tastes like cane sugar.

[Greybnk48]

18. The same can be said for Maple sugar

as honey. But HFCS is fucking poison and is banned in my household.

[Gormy Cuss]

21. I don't know if it's poison but I do know it's not necessary

and there's a growing number of Americans who prefer naturally occurring sweeteners over stuffed that's been processed to death.

All sweeteners need to be used with caution.

[LostOne4Ever]

50. The Evidence Supports Artificial Sweeteners Over Sugar

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/upshot/the-evidence-supports-artificial-sweeteners-over-sugar.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

[Gormy Cuss]

65. It doesn't look like stevia was included in the study.

Last edited Sun Sep 13, 2015, 12:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Natural state stevia does have an off flavor to some but it sweetens without the negative effects of -ose products.

[LostOne4Ever]

80. Totally agree.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]No study (that I know of) has shown any problem with stevia and those that I do know of support the contention that it is safe and much safer than sugar (-ose) products.

The same can be said for aspartame (which is also not an -ose).

Lets here it for the new sweeteners stevia and aspartame!!! [/font]

[Codeine]

13. Arsenic and cyanide occur in nature as well.

All kinds of wildly unhealthy shit occurs in nature. The idea that because it's natural it's healthy is magical thinking at best.

[Greybnk48]

16. I did not say it's necessarily healthy, but it is a food

and arsenic and cyanide are not, so your argument is bogus. Both honey and HFCS are unhealthy for me because I have diabetes, but if I had to choose one I would choose the naturally occurring sugar as opposed to the chemically created one that metabolizes differently. Got it?

[Chan790]

30. Hmm.

Arsenic: sourced from apple seeds. Apples are food.
Cyanide: sourced from cherries and peach pits. Those are food too.

[villager]

33. You eat corn stalks and wood pulp from apple trees?

You are, of course, talking about the "non-food" parts of food plants...

[LostOne4Ever]

52. No those things are found in the edible parts of the apple too

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881688/

[villager]

68. Well sure, "traces" are

Traces of arsenic are found in rice, too, for that matter.

But we're not talking about naturally occurring "traces" in this instance...

[LostOne4Ever]

72. Correct. What we are talking about an appeal to nature fallacy and As is natural and disproves it nt

[villager]

73. Huh?

[LostOne4Ever]

76. The post that spawned this subthread was giving a counter example to the appeal to nature fallacy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7164553

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Arsenic and cyanide occur in nature as well.

All kinds of wildly unhealthy shit occurs in nature. The idea that because it's natural it's healthy is magical thinking at best.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The fact that arsenic can be found in apples (even trace) shows that it is natural and disproves the claim that because something is natural it is healthy.

Even if it is found in trace amounts it does not disprove the counter example.[/font]

[villager]

78. Except that no one is claiming that everything that occurs in nature should be eaten

The actual fallacy is among the industrial food defenders, who insist that because a corporation creates it, it is ipso facto safe, and the absolute equivalent, in terms of safety and health, as anything that occurs naturally.

Some industrial food products are of course safer than others. But many, increasingly -- as we're finding out -- are not. Especially as they become more and more "synthetic."

[LostOne4Ever]

79. I have seen no one make that argument.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Could you please link to and quote the post that says that?

There was a post that said:[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7164371

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]One occurs in nature and HFCS does not.

I'm sure they both cause similar blood sugar spikes, of course, but I don't believe the physiological effects are identical.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The fact that one occurs in nature does not necessitate that it is good for you or better than one that is not made in nature.[/font]

[villager]

82. What industrial/corporate food products -- or their attendant pesticides, antibiotics, etc.

...do you consider worthy of critique?

Or in your estimation is every artificial product made in a lab every bit as safe as any type of naturally grown, or occurring food? (Note: I realize that chemicals and poisons have, by now, insinuated themselves into the "natural" food web, as well...)

[LostOne4Ever]

85. Does sassafrass oil count?

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] As for your second comment, I am having an issue understanding what you are asking. There are very poisonous substances made in labs and there are many very poisonous substances found as food in nature.

Let me put my position this way. There are a ton of poisonous products made in labs nearly everyday. This is why they have testing and the FDA to regulate these things. The ones that are dangerous are USUALLY screened out, but the process is not perfect and one or two possibly make it to market before the dangerous are identified.

Sadly, someone suffers for this but it is the safest system we have and once the product that slips through the cracks is identified it is removed.

Further, even for those that are thoroughly tested not to be dangerous, that does not necessarily mean they are necessarily healthy. All the junk food on the shelves are examples of this.

BUT, I do feel the process does a good job and feel extremely certain that I can go to the store, choose a food product and prepare it by the directions and not fall down dead by the end of the night.[/font]

[villager]

87. Ah, so there's never any conflict of interest, or looking-the-other-way at the FDA.

Got it.

[LostOne4Ever]

88. And where did I say that?

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I didn't.

Conspiracy theories without proof of conspiracy are just wild speculation and poisoning the well. If there is a problem with a particular study then provide evidence. When they do happen their research should be redacted as happened with Andrew Wakefield.

That said, I believe conflicts of interest/looking the other way happen as much at the FDA as with other federal agencies with as much attention and oversight as they have. Rarely.[/font]

[Major Nikon]

92. Arsenic is contained in most of the things you eat and drink

Honey is chemically treated in very much the same way HFCS is chemically treated. Both involve the use of enzymes to convert starches into simpler carbohydrates.

For further reading on bogus arguments, see...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

[Thor_MN]

99. HFCS metabolizes exactly the same as sucrose because it is the same thing

Sucrose is glucose and fructose. HFCS is glucose and fructose. If you are going to claim they are different, you may as well include some type of homeopathy woo and say the glucose and fructose have a "memory" or "waveforms" of their source.

[Major Nikon]

116. They aren't the same!

HFCS is evil! Because....Poison!....Toxifying chemicals!....Monsanto....pictures with skulls and crossbones...and lots of other shit!

Get with the program.

[workinclasszero]

112. No doubt, thanks.

It always gets me when something is touted as "natural" so its automatically good. LOL

At the local gas station they have packets of "natural" raw sugar for coffee like thats a good thing!

I notice the soda companies are using "real sugar" in some of their products now implying that its better than HFCS I suppose.

Its the same damn thing, with the same dangerous effects on your health. So is "natural" maple syrup and honey!

[LanternWaste]

134. Who precisely is stating that as such?

"The idea that because it's natural it's healthy..."

Who precisely is stating that as such? Or are you simply creating your own premise to argue against for our entertainment.

[X_Digger]

17. Ahh, the naturalistic fallacy.

Here, go eat a lump of sulphur, it was just belched up by nature. Hehe.

[Greybnk48]

19. Sulphur is not food. Your argument is a strawman

and a waste of time.

[X_Digger]

20. Here's a natural food.. berries!

They're Atropa Belladonna.

They're 'food', and they're natural, but oh hey, deadly Nightshade!

[Gormy Cuss]

22. Ah, the reductio ad absurdum argument

for those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

[X_Digger]

24. I'm responding at the same level as the poster who thinks 'natural food' = good!

Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it's good.

Capisce?

[Greybnk48]

35. I don't think I'm the simpleton here n.t.

[Gormy Cuss]

67. Oh, I get it.

The problem is the presumption that posters who seek food in its natural state don't understand that natural <> safe or beneficial.

[LanternWaste]

135. Children often predicate their own actions on those of others

" I'm responding at the same level..."

Children and the irrational often predicate their own actions on those of others. Sometimes, those children even believe they're being clever and making a point.

[LostOne4Ever]

54. That is not a reductio ad absurdum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.[1]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The poster did not try to prove something was true by negating anything and giving impossible results as a consequence. They just followed the reasoning to its logical consequence.

Thus it is not an Reductio ad absurdum.

FURTHER:[/font]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]
Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man. For example, any creationist argument that takes the form of "if evolution were real, we'd see fish turning into monkeys and monkeys turning into people all the time" only serves to ridicule itself, since it mischaracterises the theory of evolution to an extreme degree.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The poster used the argument which were actually present and further did not resort to a strawman. Again, it is not an reductio ad absurdum.[/font]

[Gormy Cuss]

66. The argument was citing items contrary to the natural-is-better argument

which satisfies the first definition at your link. Highlighting natural, poisonous berries was an absurd result.

[LostOne4Ever]

71. I must disagree the argument went like this

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The base argument is:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]If natural-> then better

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Negating the argument would mean:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]if Worse -> then not natural

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]So an example of an absurd argument would be Paint is deadly therefore all non-natural products are deadly!!!

The posters actual argument is giving a counter example:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]If natural -> then better

Arsenic is natural -> then it is better

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The above statement is false.

Then another poster (not you) called it a strawman (it wasn't) and said that it was food (moving the goal post). That argument got a further counter example in nightshade.

The posters logic is so sound that the example he gave is used as a proof of why "appeal to nature" arguments are considered fallacies.[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Appeals to nature are often encountered in advocacy for alternative medicine, organic food, general lifestyle woo, anti-vegetarianism, as well as in anti-industrial and anti-technological rhetoric, usually exhibiting themselves as something like:

”Use this 100% natural herbal supplement, not that Big Pharma drug! Artificial chemicals are bad for you!"

This is obviously flawed, as in the following "reasoning": Arsenic is natural, and therefore it is better for you than the unnatural (hence bad) acetaminophen in Tylenol.

[LostOne4Ever]

48. It is found in plenty of food

http://www.livestrong.com/article/289250-list-of-foods-high-in-sulfur/

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Further it is not a strawman as the poster they are referring to DIRECTLY stated, and I quote:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"] One occurs in nature and HFCS does not

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The replying poster gave a direct refutation of the claim. [/font]

[LostOne4Ever]

47. I think you mean an "Appeal to Nature" fallacy.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]A naturalistic fallacy is more based on is-ought arguments.[/font]

[X_Digger]

74. *nod* Keyboard got ahead of my head. Thx. n/t

[Ilsa]

141. There's more to it than that, even.

About ten years ago a study found that HFCS works on the brain differently than regular sugar (or honey). It shuts down production of an enzyme that tells the body that its sweet tooth has been satisfied. HFCS makes you want more.

This was posted here on DU. I don't remember where the study was from. But the corn industry benefits from everyone thinking that HFCS and sugar are the same. Someone buried the research.

[ryan_cats]

12. You can't get fresher or more natural

You can't get fresher or more natural than arsenic why does it get a bad rap?

[Flying Squirrel]

49. How about

Pure natural dessicated mixed grains

(Dried horse manure)

[Person 2713]

15. Another one in regards to insulin response, is bottle down agave touted as a natural

sweetener . Not on only is it a high fructose sweet but it is now processed in a way different method than traditional use
hey folks will say no it's better because it is natural. Well yes a natural sweet as opposed to aspertame , but it is still a sweet . Marketing
http://authoritynutrition.com/agave-nectar-is-even-worse-than-sugar/

Edit to add I had a friend gain a lot of weight in denial of all the sugar they were getting from this natural sweet. I would mention all the sugar he was getting after he started using it in everything but took about 15 lbs him for realize it. Others were telling him too so he stopped . Hard to lose 15 lbs easy to eat agave - it's very sweet!

[bemildred]

23. Bee poop.

Good, however for wounds and burns, although sticky.

The basic point is that sugars in nature are hard to come by, that's why we like them. Is it worth getting attacked by bees to get that sugar rush? Perhaps once in a while.

But when you turn sugars into a concentrate like honey and eat it a lot, it's not good for you any more. A lot of things are like that, good in proper doses, bad if you overdo it.

[X_Digger]

25. Well, more like bee vomit, but yep. n/t

[bemildred]

27. It's been in there and came out again.

[Mojorabbit]

42. I keep bees in my back yard

It is not terribly hard!

[bemildred]

90. I like bees too.

I remember getting stung by them when I was young, but now I pay attention. They don't seem to really be interested in me, the bees. So I leave them alone, and they leave me alone.

But mostly I garden, so that is why I really like bees. I keep bee flowers around to encourge bees to visit.

[daleanime]

26. When I buy locally produced Honey I know what I'm getting....

'high-fructose corn sweetener'? Not so much.

[Major Nikon]

97. And yet whether you know it or not you're getting pretty much the same thing

...and it's even produced in pretty much the same way.

Bees convert the starch from nectar into simpler sugars via enzymatic processes. Factories convert the starch from corn into simpler sugars via enzymatic processes.

If anything one can much more easily know what they are getting from HFCS, because the process, source materials, and end result are clearly defined. Honey? Not so much.

[daleanime]

98. Only if you place the same value on bee's and machine's.....

As far as the ecological world go.

What's the carbon cost of local honey? When I need pick what products I use, I think about more then just my own well fare.

Be as good to yourself as you can.

[Major Nikon]

100. So what is the carbon cost of local honey?

You're the one who claimed to know what you're getting. What exactly is that cost vs the alternative?

[daleanime]

101. Awwww, you got.....

shot between the hull and the waterline, he's going down fast....


I know it's less, that's what I want. Now it you think it might be more, please do try to convince me.

[Major Nikon]

102. How do you know it's less?

You claimed to know and now you can't come up with any figures, but I'm the one that is somehow sinking in some kind of silly metaphorical rhetoric.

[daleanime]

104. Well, first is transportation cost, the closer the better.....

but that's only if we find out that bee's produce more carbon then factory equipment, which seems like a 'silly metaphorical rhetoric' to me. I just wonder why you seem so heavily invested in equaling the two. I'm on a fairly strict diet, I've been cutting sweetener out where ever I can. I consume less then 3 Tb spoons of honey a week. I use it for bread baking and some home made salad dressing. It works for me, take care and have a lovely day.

[Major Nikon]

110. Closer isn't necessarily better, so there's your first mistake

And you've also completely ignored all the materials and upkeep required to produce honey which is produced on a much smaller and obviously less efficient scale. Not to mention you completely ignored the entire context of the OP which concerned any health benefits between the two and not some tangential discussion about carbon which you claim to know, but obviously don't. So yeah the rhetoric is getting kinda silly at this point.

If you want to cut out all or most supplemental sweeteners, more power to you, but the context of this thread is concerned with dispelling the myths of any health advantages of one vs another.

[Orrex]

28. Nothing is better for you than honey because Monsanto is evil

That's why they're killing all of the bees with their GMOs.

[villager]

34. Thank God bee populations are actually healthy and thriving!

What on Earth were we thinking by being concerned!?

[Orrex]

41. I remember when we were blaming cell phones.

Not a lot of buzz in the news about colonies bouncing back, either.

[DavidDvorkin]

43. I still blame cell phones

Last edited Sun Sep 13, 2015, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Damned bees are texting while flying.

[BlueJazz]

55. I'm sorry to inform you..You're going straight to hell for that.

[villager]

70. Evidently, no one and nothing is responsible in your book.

"Die, bees, die!"

[HuckleB]

109. Responsible for what?

The baseless fear mongering about bees?

[villager]

113. Keep on digging, HuckleB

At least you're not pretending to be anything other than what you are. I'll give you that.

[Major Nikon]

115. Why do you hate bees?

[HassleCat]

29. Honey is dangerous for infants

Honey contains a particular strain of botulism that doesn't hurt us, EXCEPT for those of us who are less than a year old. Infant immune systems are not completely developed, not even close, and they cannot fend off the botulism. Babies have died from honey. So all you one year old babies out there, read the label and heed the warning. If your mommy tries to put honey on your binkie, just say, "Geez, mom! You trying to kill me here?"

[Hollingsworth]

32. I just posted this but yours is much more informative. I will delete mine.

Thanks for this. Very important information.

[oneshooter]

38. Neither one is good for me. Diabetes

Diabetes

[Ms. Toad]

45. I posted the basic information the study validated quite a while ago.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=255054

No big surprise that the body responds the same way to both.

Honey tastes better, and we need bees - so it is better, just not for the reasons people beating up HFCS like to cite.

[edhopper]

51. Honey tasste better

And doesn't give baked goods a nasty chemical texture like HFCS

[RobertEarl]

53. Honey has too much GMO in it

The bees can't tell the dif between no GMO and GMO flowers, so their honey has GMO.

[Major Nikon]

94. The vast majority of commercial honey comes from clover

Even if it didn't your assertion wouldn't amount to much.

[cheapdate]

56. All that the study showed,

was that over a two-week period the effect of honey and other sweeteners on "blood sugar, insulin, body weight, cholesterol and blood pressure" was not measurably different.

I'll stick with honey.

[840high]

69. I keep a jar of Manuka honey

at home. Love it.

[cheapdate]

83. Never had any. We love honey in my house.

As is usually the case, there is a world of honey connoisseurs. I learned this talking to a honey seller at our local farmer's market. She told me a lot about the different kinds of honey, their different flavors, colors, etc.

[Marr]

57. Makes sense. Sugar is sugar. The problem with HFCS is that it's in so many things.

The problem with our foods is that they're hypercaloric. HFCS happens to be the most common route they take to being so heavy, but it's nothing particularly special in and of itself.

[awoke_in_2003]

60. And far too salty, too. nt

[SlipperySlope]

142. Sugar is not sugar.

I used to think "sugar is sugar" and that the exact chemical form didn't matter. Then I read more about biochemistry and came to a different conclusion.

Glucose and fructose are both natural sugars but they are metabolized differently. Almost every cell in the human body can use glucose for fuel, and glucose circulates in the bloodstream to provide energy to these cells. Fructose, in contrast, can pretty much be metabolized only by the liver. The primary way the energy in fructose is transferred to the rest of the body is by the liver first converting the fructose to fat and then that fat being carried as lipoproteins in the bloodstream.

I'm not preaching that "fructose is evil" or anything like that, simply that fructose and glucose are not created equal.

[Rex]

61. Everyone knows you hate bees!

I kid! Sup Huck.

[Zorra]

63. Y'all go right on ahead and eat your poison, and I'll stick with my natural diet that has

kept me so healthy all my life. I'm old, and I haven't had a flu since I was 5 yrs old (never had a flu shot), have all my teeth, haven't had a cold in 10 yrs, no allergies, my eyesight is 20/20, and I don't need reading glasses, my blood pressure is usually around 120/80, blood oxygen close to 100, resting heartbeat is 60 bpm, my hormone levels are still those of a 25 yr old woman, I have a great sex life, I can hike 10 to 20 miles a day in rough terrain, my lab tests always come out normal or better, and I'm just a pound or two heavier over what they say is the ideal weight for my height.

So you go on ahead and eat all that posin chemical crap you seem to love so much, but I gotta say, I believe it's wrong to continually try to convince others to buy and eat it that poison crap too, and don't understand what reward you get out of doing that here.

I'll continue to eat my yummy, healthy desert wildflower local honey from hives that are set many miles from any poisoned agricultural endeavors, and will feel sad when all that poison shit you are hawking here inevitably makes you sick from eating it.

[StevieM]

84. I like a little bit of honey in my tea.

At least during the daytime. At night, when I am about to head to sleep, I drink it plain.

I am very impressed by your health. It's hard to imagine hiking 10-20 miles a day. I am curious as to how old you are.

[Major Nikon]

95. I suspect the reward is countering the irrational nonsense of people who call things "poison"

...and "chemical" while simply proving they have no idea what either of those two things mean. I'm also old and at least as healthy as you are and probably more so. The difference is rather than crediting an appeal to nature fallacy, I credit a proper diet and an abundance of exercise which works pretty well for just about everyone whether or not they are chemophobic.

[yuiyoshida]

103. don't kid us, we know you are one of the immortals!!

All of you have lived for thousands of years and hide in the shadows!! I saw it ON STAR TREK!!!

[HuckleB]

108. Pointless anecdotes are hyperbole are so awesome!

[icymist]

64. I'll stick with honey. (no pun intended)

Sugar sticks to my teeth. Honey does not.

[JI7]

86. people thought Honey was Healthy ?

[Major Nikon]

107. Yes

Many people think HFCS is less healthy than alternatives which include honey, which is the same thing as thinking honey is more healthy. So once again the appeal to nature fallacy is proven, and even when provided with this evidence, multiple people in this thread still refuse to believe it. So there's that.

[Mojorabbit]

114. There is so much riding on keeping pesticides

that I will wait for more studies to confirm this one.

[fadedrose]

117. Honey is more healthy

mostly because they don't put it in cakes, cookies, lunchmeat, pancake syrup, chocolate syrup, ice cream, and every candy you can think of or any treat you can think of...

Honey is hardly used - only place I know that serves it is McDonalds with chicken tenders.

I use it occasionally and got a good buy on it and will be searching the web for honey recipes...something other than taking a spoonful and licking it....mmmm.

It's the amount that is healthier than high fructose corn syrup which you can't get away from, so it has a bad reputation for causing weight gain.

[HuckleB]

122. What?

What? Oh, my goodness.

[Major Nikon]

124. I never eat candy bars so that makes them healthier than almonds

...somehow.

[djean111]

89. Seriously, you think people are going to switch from honey to HFCS? bwahahahaha!

I think HFCS has had its run, made its profits, gotten people fatter. Time to go.

I always laughed at that asinine commercial that showed families walking through waving fields of corn, whispering that HFCS has the same nutritional value as sugar. No nutritional value at all.

That's right - NONE. None whatsoever.

It is almost like you would love to have Monsanto-chosen boxes of food delivered to Americans, with a bill, no choice, no grocery stores, just "here is what you will be eating.".

[Major Nikon]

96. "No nutritional value at all"

http://www.google.com/search?q=sucrose+nutritional+value&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8



The idea is providing evidence that one form of sugar is no better, and may be actually worse, simply because it was processed naturally rather than in a factory. And unlike your demonstrably false assertion, the OP contains a cite which supports that idea.

[djean111]

126. There is sucrose for energy. No vitamins, no minerals, nothing that cannot be gotten from

actual food.
Personally, I just use stevia. I have no use for sugar or honey, really, I skip carbs whenever I can, so no processed stuff.

[Major Nikon]

128. Carbohydrates are a macronutrient and half to most of your calories should come from them

So carbohydrates and even supplemental refined sugars most certainly are "actual food" and even more so than vitamins and minerals which are actually micronutrients.

Certainly over consumption of carbohydrates and particularly simple carbohydrates like supplemental sugars can and often are a problem for many people which can and often do contribute to obesity and other health problems.

[djean111]

129. I am almost 70, extremely active. Lately, been walking to the grocery store, almost three miles

round trip, in weather that "feels like" 111, five times a week, my grandson works there, he is great company on a walk. I sweat some, but otherwise feel fine. No medications. Last one was prescription-strength Advil, in 2002. Been low-carbing since I was in my 20's. Sure, I fall off the wagon from time to time, eat some Cuban bread with olive oil and chili flakes, but mostly just skip the carbs. Don't care for sweets.
My last check-up, inside and out, fine. I will stick to my way of eating.

[Major Nikon]

133. Really I could care less if anyone eats road apples

I'm less interested in anecdotal information and more interested in what the recommendations are from the government and the National Academy of Science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake#Macronutrients

Eat whatever you like and I'll wish you good health in your choices.

[HuckleB]

131. In other words, evidence means nothing to you.

And no one told anyone what sugar to eat. The point is that you're not any better off eating honey than HFCS. You can pretend otherwise, but that really doesn't matter.

[gollygee]

93. It's pure sugar

It can be slightly better than other pure sugars and still be bad for you. No one should have a lot of sugar, no matter the source.

[workinclasszero]

111. Honey = sugar

Sugar is as addictive as cocaine. Hit the same parts of your brain. We should avoid all sugar, in all its forms.

This sweet drug kills more people that even cigarettes, yet there are no government warnings on soda, bread, pasta, not to mention candy, that sugar can and will give you type 2 diabetes and kill you in the end.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

[Avalux]

136. Interesting, but a controlled study of people randomized to HFCS or honey would be needed.

People participating would need to use nothing but either of those as sweetener for a long period of time, considering all other variables in health, diet and lifestyle.

I can't read the article since I'm not a subscriber, but something tells me they didn't do that kind of study.

[HuckleB]

137. You mean like the study in the OP?

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/09/02/jn.115.218016.abstract

[Avalux]

138. Thank you.

It might be a good idea to put this link in your OP (a little late I know), since I couldn't access the WP link and others may not be able to either.

So there is no difference in the three sugars tested, according to the study (like what I described), in both normal and glucose intolerant subjects. The subjects consumed 50 g of sugar daily, and they were testing chronic sugar consumption.

So honey is sugar, and sugar isn't good for us no matter what form.

[HuckleB]

139. Moderation is always the key.

Or extreme moderation, as is the case in here.

We get plenty of sugars even with whole fruits, and just the start. Still, eat your whole fruits. Or don't.

Mmmm. Berries.

Now I'm in trouble again.

[Avalux]

140. Whole fruits over anything else, any day.

I don't have a sugar bowl; don't add sugar to anything. But I love my fruit, blueberries especially.

[Dorian Gray]

143. Equal amounts will cause equal problems,

I am sure. But the prolific nature of HFCS in processed foods is the problem. A teaspoon of honey in tea once in awhile isn't going to cause much damage. Eating a diet filled with breads, ketchup, sodas, boxed foods, etc... you're going to get the 100 times the amount of HFCS.

[HuckleB]

144. Moderation of either would be fine.

If honey was cheap, it would be in all those cheap products. It doesn't really matter which one is there, and there are people who put in honey in everything, thinking it's better for them. It's not.

[Dorian Gray]

145. That's essentially what I said...

moderation of sugar, in any form, is important for health.