Though honey is no better in terms of its impact as a sugar, raw, unprocessed honey from the zone where you live does contain small amounts of pollen which can help some people adapt to the pollens they are locally exposed to.I suppose that could enter into whether honey could be considered better if you are going to eat added sugar. However,in Ayurveda there was a prohibition against eating cooked honey, which was said to "clog the subtle pathways" in the body. I have wondered if there might be a good reason for this prohibition like a tendency to form AGEs more easily when cooked.
At the end of the day, isn't it clear that our species has not adapted to all the powerful added sugars in the industrial diet? Do we really need this kind of research? Or do we simply need to knock off eating all the added sugar?
What amazes me about the whipsaw recommendations about what to eat, are the recommendations employees at health food stores are willing to make. Why do so many people take those recommendations so seriously. I doubt the stockers and checkers presuming to make recommendations could even read an article in a scientific journal, much less interpret the validity of the study. And speaking of validity, what the heck are the peer reviewers of these studies doing? Even if the reviewers are doing what is expected of them, do the journalists read that far down in the article, and do they understand it any better than they do the abstract or the conclusions?
1
It seems we need standards for what constitutes a study and what gets published.
I always felt the same with the chocolate studies. Dark chocolate good milk chocolate bad. The problem is they never studied milk chocolate. There was no causative or correlative factors to make a determination about milk chocolate.
I always felt the same with the chocolate studies. Dark chocolate good milk chocolate bad. The problem is they never studied milk chocolate. There was no causative or correlative factors to make a determination about milk chocolate.
1
The problem addressed here affects what gets published in ALL medical journals, not just nutrition-related science. The only way you are going to get better research published is to remove pharmaceutical and food industry influence from the editorial boards of journals and from funding for research.
15
Here's how to handle statistical studies about health. Just as public opinion poll stories in serious media like the NY Times have a small-print paragraph or two on how the poll was taken, every nutrition study in a news story should include such a paragraph as well. Let your readers know who paid for the study, who did the study, how many people or animals were involved, how long the study ran, how the subjects were chosen, if there was a control group, and by what means the key items were measured. And an error-estimate.
14
High-fructose corn syrup is an industrial product. Its carbon footprint alone makes it aa greater health hazard than honey, which requires virtually no processing. Vast tracts of agricultural land are required to produce HFCS; honey is produced with a tiny physical footprint. HFCS is a profit centre for Big Agriculture; honey is produced by independent beekeepers.
16
When my mother made a glass of lemonade (about 8 oz), she added a heaping teaspoon of sugar (at most 32 calories). A lemonade made with HFC may contain as many as 180 calories.
There may be nothing bad about the calories of HFC compared to sugar or honey, but the problem is we consume far too many of them.
There may be nothing bad about the calories of HFC compared to sugar or honey, but the problem is we consume far too many of them.
4
Forget the studies, forget the recommendations. All you have to do is pay attention to how your body/mind reacts when you eat certain foods. Do you get brain fog, do you struggle with digestive issues, do you lack the proper energy to get you through the day? Yes? Well, it could be something you're eating or not eating. Experiment. Only YOU know what feels best.
8
I'm prediabetic and I view honey the same as any other sugar. I eat as little as possible.
I am always surprised when I see articles extolling the relative virtues of honey over other sugars for diabetic diets, since I've never read any solid research supporting that view. Dr. Carroll doesn't cite any either.
It's encouraging to see at least one experimental design study directly on the topic, rather than lots of well-meaning people making up stuff about honey being healthy eating. Why that study is a jumping off point for discussing the flaws in research is puzzling. What it actually shows is how important it is to systematically test lots of myths about diet. My recommendations for the next myths worth testing using the same methods: net carbs and glycemic index. Sure, longer interventions would be better but we live in a time when conservatives dominate public policy and government resources for research in the public interest are scarce.
I am always surprised when I see articles extolling the relative virtues of honey over other sugars for diabetic diets, since I've never read any solid research supporting that view. Dr. Carroll doesn't cite any either.
It's encouraging to see at least one experimental design study directly on the topic, rather than lots of well-meaning people making up stuff about honey being healthy eating. Why that study is a jumping off point for discussing the flaws in research is puzzling. What it actually shows is how important it is to systematically test lots of myths about diet. My recommendations for the next myths worth testing using the same methods: net carbs and glycemic index. Sure, longer interventions would be better but we live in a time when conservatives dominate public policy and government resources for research in the public interest are scarce.
7
If they can't come to reliable conclusions they shouldn't do it at all. This research is only good for their careers.
4
Diabetics should limit all kinds of nutritive sweeteners as well as excess carbohydrate consumption. It doesn't matter much if it is honey or cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup. Perhaps some forever ongoing studies will be able to eek out a small advantage of one over the others, but in the big picture these differences are unimportant compared to overall control of sugar consumption.
3
More dumb, "research" that confuses the public.
Honey has probiotic qualities that aid in proper digestion.
Many ailments begin with poor digestion.
Corn syrup, triggers fat storage and poor digestion.
From a holistic perspective, anyone with a brain would choose to sweeten with honey over corn syrup.
Honey has probiotic qualities that aid in proper digestion.
Many ailments begin with poor digestion.
Corn syrup, triggers fat storage and poor digestion.
From a holistic perspective, anyone with a brain would choose to sweeten with honey over corn syrup.
6
Wow, you have a lot of assertions here, and you don't like the "dumb research" that contradicts it. Please provide me with links to randomized, controlled studies that prove, or at least support, your assertions. I won't be holding my breath.
4
These studies should not be published because create profound disruptions in society, and every 10 years are proven to be faulted. You can remember the controversy whether you should eat eggs and now are saying they are great. About the present studies concerning red meat, just go to Argentine, Brazil or Chile were people eat meat every day and practically with every meal, compare the incidence of cancer of colon with the incidence in the United States, I am almost sure there’re not different. To try to destroy the cattle industry it a serious matter for the people that eat meat and for the cattle industry itself. The media should refrain for publishing these very weak reports before are proven to be corrects.
5
Thank you for a reasoned article on this subject. Our bodies have evolved over generations to make the best use of the food available, which in some areas of the globe isn't always a balanced diet. Incidence rates of certain cancers and other diseases vary widely even among European countries. Yet many studies recruit participants without regard to genetic makeup.
Meanwhile the media acts as an echo chamber for press releases (though sometimes the same study reported in two different papers garners two completely contradictory headlines!) and it isn't long before questionable statistics become facts.
Meanwhile the media acts as an echo chamber for press releases (though sometimes the same study reported in two different papers garners two completely contradictory headlines!) and it isn't long before questionable statistics become facts.
3
Does Honey (I assume raw honey) have any other properties that would make it a more desirable sweetner than others?
Perhaps Vitamins, Minerals, Amino acids, Enzymes?
Perhaps Vitamins, Minerals, Amino acids, Enzymes?
11
Chocolate is bad for you! Chocolate is good for you!
Coffee is bad for you! Coffee is good for you!
Red meat is bad for you! Red meat is good for you!
Food research studies are bad for you! Food research studies are good for you!
Coffee is bad for you! Coffee is good for you!
Red meat is bad for you! Red meat is good for you!
Food research studies are bad for you! Food research studies are good for you!
18
I completely agree that most of the research we have out, not only on nutrition, but even larger drug trials are not that helpful. They really can be interpreted however you like. I know because I've done my own clinical randomized trials and was unimpressed by the results but able to put enough spin to make them interesting. I think Dr. Carroll is a very smart guy who understands research better than the majority of doctors; however I feel the one area where he misses the forest from the trees is in examining the actual outcomes studied. Maybe honey and artificial sweeteners have the same effect on insulin and blood sugar. But I'm more interested in looking at honey intake for a YEAR and seeing if there is some reduction in a more important outcome, like insulin dosing for a diabetic or delayed development of diabetes, or even mortality. This is a huge problem with all the drugs we use as well, which are targeted to surrogates like blood pressure, cholesterol, etc but not to outcomes like death. Pretty numbers are meaningless unless they change outcomes.
3
It takes only a rudimentary understanding of biochemistry and metabolism to understand that there is virtually no difference between the "sugar" provided by honey and the "sugar" provided by table sugar (whether refined or natural), and there are really only two notable differences between these two sweeteners (honey and table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). One is with respect to pharmacokinetics due to the latter not requiring digestion of the sugar prior to absorption. In other words, honey and table sugar require digestion of the glucose-fructose disaccharide to free simple sugars; whereas, they are already in free form in HFCS. Therefore, it is not at all unexpected that the deleterious effects of these three sweeteners at bioavailable dose equivalents would be identical. With respect to sugars in general, current research is demonstrating that fructose is much more harmful than glucose. Therefore, the other difference, specific to the simple sugar ratio of these three sweeteners is worthy of mention. Honey and table sugar are 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS, however, is available in a variety of ratios depending on application and ranges from 42-55% fructose (similar to the 50% in honey and table sugar) in most applications. However, in some applications it may be much higher. We can presume that the higher the fructose content, the worse the sweetener likely is regarding negative health effects (note, watch out for agave syrup in particular).
4
thanks for the parting 'watch out' on Agave Syrup. Any data or studies to back up your litany on sweeteners? Reads like a free Health Food Store analysis, rudimentary indeed..
1
Mr. Murbach says "With respect to sugars in general, current research is demonstrating that fructose is much more harmful than glucose." Doesn't Mr. Carroll's article argue that research on nutrition -- on sweeteners in this case -- is terrible? How can one cite results of this terrible research to make a nutrition point? Read it again.
Honey is golden in many of its colors; it's extraordinarily nuanced.
I discern and value different honeys - whether they are derived from fields of clover, or fields of lavender makes a difference.
How is this essential nuance accounted for in studies of honey vs alternative sweeteners?
I discern and value different honeys - whether they are derived from fields of clover, or fields of lavender makes a difference.
How is this essential nuance accounted for in studies of honey vs alternative sweeteners?
OK, so we'll never get adequate research on nutrition. What do we do instead?
Maybe we could just look around us. Outside of the centers of a few big cities, EVERYONE IS FAT. This was simply not true fifty years ago; I know because I was there. Large, long term, randomized studies would be a great aid to determining why. But until that happens, for better or worse we can only fall back on common sense.
People who drive everywhere and eat large portions of food-like substances pumped full of salt, fat and sugar look disgusting and have more health problems. If they're living longer than they were fifty years ago it's because now the ambulances get there faster.
You know it and I know it.
Maybe we could just look around us. Outside of the centers of a few big cities, EVERYONE IS FAT. This was simply not true fifty years ago; I know because I was there. Large, long term, randomized studies would be a great aid to determining why. But until that happens, for better or worse we can only fall back on common sense.
People who drive everywhere and eat large portions of food-like substances pumped full of salt, fat and sugar look disgusting and have more health problems. If they're living longer than they were fifty years ago it's because now the ambulances get there faster.
You know it and I know it.
27
This is a good day. For more than a few years I (and my wife) have come to realize that there is a plethora of "research" out there written by people (and almost always multiple "authors") that (1) shows they know little to nothing about statistic and statistical methods and (2) who believe that statistical data is justification for sweeping generalization. Unfortunately, there is huge demand put upon academics to publish, publish, publish (especially the tenure-track faculty) so anything that hints of "research" is done, and worse, there is a massive number of "peer-reviewed" journals who publish the rubbish. Add in the media, with little to no training, who "write up" this stuff (again, need to publish stuff), and well, there we are: truth.
And I'll refrain from my reviewer rant, but suffice it to say that when one publishes a (1) article, he/she becomes "qualified" to review. Yes, you are now a peer, an expert, and are qualified to review articles for, hopefully, relevant publications. (I know of papers turned down by reviewers who obviously could not comprehend the research because they were unfamiliar with the theory(s), the method(s), and more, yet they have the power to say "refused"; and since these reviewers are so limited in knowledge, have such a superficial knowledge of their profession, guess what they do pass as "well done!"? Crap.)
Well, so much for avoiding my reviewer rant.
Research in general is in deep doo. Deep. Ignorance prevails.
And I'll refrain from my reviewer rant, but suffice it to say that when one publishes a (1) article, he/she becomes "qualified" to review. Yes, you are now a peer, an expert, and are qualified to review articles for, hopefully, relevant publications. (I know of papers turned down by reviewers who obviously could not comprehend the research because they were unfamiliar with the theory(s), the method(s), and more, yet they have the power to say "refused"; and since these reviewers are so limited in knowledge, have such a superficial knowledge of their profession, guess what they do pass as "well done!"? Crap.)
Well, so much for avoiding my reviewer rant.
Research in general is in deep doo. Deep. Ignorance prevails.
9
The writer speaks of the superiority of randomized controlled trials is a sweeping generalization that fails to take into account that certain epidemilogical studies can be extremely useful in teasing out useful evidence- it depends on the scope and also the very nature of the study.
For instance, comparing non-smoker to smokers this way is virtually a conclusive way to determine the damage of smoking when you are comparing thousands or millions of people.
Another example is a study done by the Dept of Health on licensed sprayers of pesticides whose health records were compared to the general public- several thousand applicators over a period of 7 years.
The fact that the sprayers had less cancer, were healthier and lived longer than the general public was certainly not proof that pesticides are good for you but it lends a great deal of credence to the argument that the danger of pesticide residue in food is overblown.- at least for adults.
For instance, comparing non-smoker to smokers this way is virtually a conclusive way to determine the damage of smoking when you are comparing thousands or millions of people.
Another example is a study done by the Dept of Health on licensed sprayers of pesticides whose health records were compared to the general public- several thousand applicators over a period of 7 years.
The fact that the sprayers had less cancer, were healthier and lived longer than the general public was certainly not proof that pesticides are good for you but it lends a great deal of credence to the argument that the danger of pesticide residue in food is overblown.- at least for adults.
"In food" is quite different from "on food."
4
A well written piece on the state of research. Too often the take-away from studies is the media headline or perhaps the first paragraph of the article reporting the results. Few consumers understand how research is done, it's flaws or just how easy it is for research blindness. How many lay poeple ever read through an entire published study?
All this barely relevant science and yet those who worship scientific method still feel entitled to point fingers and yell "anti-science!" at anyone who dares question their "facts".
All this barely relevant science and yet those who worship scientific method still feel entitled to point fingers and yell "anti-science!" at anyone who dares question their "facts".
5
Although honey may have the same effect on blood sugar, honey is anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory, anti-fungal and the only one of the three (sugar, HFCS, honey) with medicinal properties. Medical grade manuka honey has been heavily researched (see pubmed.gov) and proven to be an effective anti-bacterial even on antibiotic resistant MRSA. Sugar and HFCS have no health benefits to speak of.
11
Honey may be less destructive to the balance of the gut microbiome.
Dr Carroll - Please do an article on breastfeeding. Would like to hear the perspective of a health services researcher after the New York Times published an opinion piece on breastfeeding recently that was based on, in my view, similarly flawed studies.
1
I wouldn't say many nutrition studies are flawed. People, even the researchers themselves sometimes, are just too quick to draw conclusions that aren't supported by the parameters and the data.
3
You can eat all the honey you want and it won't lead to type 2 diabetes. Sugar on the other hand, will and does lead to type 2 diabetes. Mead is in demand.
And you know this how? Please cite randomized, controlled, long-term scientific studies.
9
Nutritional research is almost an oxymoron, as good studies barely exist at all. As a physician, i am shocked at the evidence free medicine practiced by many of my colleagues. The idea that it "makes sense" doesn't make it true ! Practicing "evidenced based" medicine doesn't allow for us to jump into areas without enough research to give advice. It is "makes sense"that has had us lurching from milk and meat good, to milk and meat fatty, bad, back to milk and meat good, followed by meat = cancer. I wish that all physicians and nutritionists would limit advice to "evidence shows", and "many people believe" types of advice should be limited and explained as what they are, beliefs.
8
We have lurched from one nutritional "truth" to another precisely because of "evidence shows".
Commonsense is an underrated skill. What's wrong with a little commonsense dispensed by a physician? Heaven knows the general public could certainly use a dose of it!
Commonsense is an underrated skill. What's wrong with a little commonsense dispensed by a physician? Heaven knows the general public could certainly use a dose of it!
5
Raw (unprocessed) honey is great for treating cuts and sores in and around your mouth because of its natural antibacterial properties. As a sweetener its possibly no better than other forms of sugar.
7
I am a Type1 diabetic and my body reacts equally to the following sugars: honey, pure maple syrup, table sugars, brown sugar, corn syrup, etc. They all quickly raise my blood glucose levels to dangerously high levels. I sincerely doubt any one sugar is better or worse than another and the best decision is avoid them most of the time....except as a treat 1x every month or two......a dessert at a restaurant or a 1 scoop ice cream cone. BTW my A1C stays around 5.2 year round indicating excellent control and my pancreas creates no insulin at all.
12
Actually, the Type 1 diabetic population sounds like a great source of information. Thank you for your comment.
3
And, BTW, the NYT is Exhibit A in the trend of touting little esoteric studies, particularly in its Health section, without any reference to the quality of the study or the robustness of its findings.
21
Even my small neighborhood grocery store carries "True Source" certified honey, ensuring it is genuine, unadulterated and not from China.
Honey is more than just its sugar content. Of course, no one, I hope, is planning to guzzle gallons of it; those micronutrients are still being consumed in small quantities. But it is superior to refined sugar and HFCS.
Honey is more than just its sugar content. Of course, no one, I hope, is planning to guzzle gallons of it; those micronutrients are still being consumed in small quantities. But it is superior to refined sugar and HFCS.
5
"it (honey) is superior to refined sugar and HFCS" And you know this how?
I don't know that you're wrong - but I don't know that you're right, either. That's the point of this article.
I don't know that you're wrong - but I don't know that you're right, either. That's the point of this article.
10
Cool story, Bro. Seems like you missed the entire point of this article, which is that there isn't reliable data to prove one sweetener is "superior" to another
5
First you have to define what "superior" is. There are two different discussions going on in this debate over that term.
The cited studies looked at the insulin response caused by one source or anther and concluded there was no difference.
Those who are arguing that honey is "healthier" are talking about the trace amounts of nutrients that are absent in things like refined white sugar and HFCS.
The cited studies looked at the insulin response caused by one source or anther and concluded there was no difference.
Those who are arguing that honey is "healthier" are talking about the trace amounts of nutrients that are absent in things like refined white sugar and HFCS.
7
Claims that honey was healthier in some way never made any sense to me - sugar (simple carbohydrates) is sugar - same number of calories per ounce, same basic chemical breakdown in the body. Folks get a kick out of the idea that they have superior understanding and are eating healthier. It's all nonsense. I know that there is no scientific proof in that, but really.
5
The relative merits of various forms of sugar is a red herring: in fact all of them are harmful. No small part of our epidemic of metabolic syndrome is the kind of sloppy thinking that Carroll himself seems to suffer from. He declares, “They could find no harms from high fructose corn syrup …” when surely he means no harm relative to other forms of sweeteners.
Carroll wrings his hands and declares that nutrition studies are hard, rather than using his privileged position as a NYT writer to clarify the issues, or demand that the fed funds better studies.
Carroll wrings his hands and declares that nutrition studies are hard, rather than using his privileged position as a NYT writer to clarify the issues, or demand that the fed funds better studies.
8
EVERYTHING we eat (whether carb, protein, fat or alcohol) eventually gets converted in some degree to glucose, necessary for brain fuel or to be converted to glycogen for muscles to burn. NOBODY needs to consume any form of sugar (except perhaps diabetics in or about to go into insulin shock--and small temporary amounts of sugar at that).
1
Actuallly fats don't convert to sugar. They can be used by the brain as ketones. It's true that carbohydrates aren't necessary although it would seem to be a good idea to eat some plant food.
Go workout at a high level for 2+ hours, say cycling, and see how well you do with no sugar ingestion.
I understand your point, but "sugar" is not evil. Misuse and overuse is "evil" (stupid).
I understand your point, but "sugar" is not evil. Misuse and overuse is "evil" (stupid).
1
A small criticism of an article I generally agree with: I think you mean to juxtapose Randomized Control Trials with observational studies, not "epidemiologic" studies. RCTs are a kind of epidemiological study design that we epidemiologists can employ.
4
I'm an organic farmer, vegetarian, and careful eater, which I say to preface an enthusiastic endorsement of Michael Pollan's stance that nutritionism is hooey. Food, not too much, mostly plants - and to add one more: pleasurably, in good company (the foundation of the current official French advice, in lieu of any discussion of nutrition.) Traditional foods and diets need no research to demonstrate that they can sustain a population, and no amount of research, given the limitations cited in the article, on novel food-oids can ever demonstrate the same.
10
It is a little difficult to know what you mean by "traditional diets and foods" but, since you are an organic farmer I will assume that you mean "anything before the agricultural revolution" or before the 1950's in other words.
Starvation, malnutrition and food poisoning were the order of the day for a large proportion of the population back then. If you could afford sufficient food to get fat, then that is what happened.
There is no golden age of rude health, that we can get back to, so please, take your anti-science luddite ways and your high priced, ecologically unsound farming practices back to the dark ages with you.
Starvation, malnutrition and food poisoning were the order of the day for a large proportion of the population back then. If you could afford sufficient food to get fat, then that is what happened.
There is no golden age of rude health, that we can get back to, so please, take your anti-science luddite ways and your high priced, ecologically unsound farming practices back to the dark ages with you.
2
while I don't disagree, i take umbrage to "Traditional foods and diets need no research........"' while understanding that most traditional foods and diets helped humanity live all the way to their old age, rememer that before ww2 , old age was in the mid 50 year old range.
3
Such vitriol that would only come from someone who actually uses the phrase "anti-science"
1
It does not take too much chemistry knowledge here. All products are between 45% and 55% fructose content. That there is little glycemic difference in the human body is not a surprise. There is no reason to pike holes in this study - there just is not a significant difference in the blood sugar effects. I know there is a lot of demoniziation of HFCS and glorification of regional honey. But as a metabolic medical specialist and one who has bees at home - I am clear that the bees are processing fructose instead of a lab - and while I think that's good, I know the blood sugar effects are similar between honey and HFCS. - RM.
10
Given that the chemical structures of three compounds are known, it is very unlikely that they could have a big differences when metabolized. A few people might be enough because there is chemistry to back up the findings.
Many other nutrition studies do not have a similar certainty re underlying chemistry and need much larger samples because there would be more variability between people.
Many other nutrition studies do not have a similar certainty re underlying chemistry and need much larger samples because there would be more variability between people.
3
The Times and the rest of the news media need to accept some responsibility here. Needing to fill column inches, they willingly publish reports of "research" like this with barely a caveat about the small study size, the short duration of the study, let alone a mention of the results being an outlier.
28
And wouldn't it be good to know who pays for the studies the NYT reports, and to see any financial disclosures of the researchers who conduct them?
The author begs the question regarding the veracity and objectivity of industry-sponsored research. His position seems akin to those who maintain that climate change is not a scientific fact because less than 100% of scientists acknowledge its truth.
2
Um, no. Two completely unrelated issues
6
Why would we continue to believe that honey may be better for us than other forms of sugar when the evidence (however small the study) says otherwise? Is it intuition that says it can't be so that honey is no better? Apparently, it's an article of faith that leads us to resist believing the evidence. Given the choice of believing evidence obtained from a small study and an article of faith that says honey must be good for you because it's natural, I'm inclined to lean to the results of the study. It's an epistemology of science over faith.
4
What I have read about processed honey is that it is mainly imported from China and it is impossible to tell if it has been adulterated with other types of sugar and is actually honey at all. Raw local honey might have some health benefits, and certainly tastes better, but is obviously still sugar in either state, so one should not eat too much of it. It is good the article points out that so many food studies are scientifically flawed. It is also pretty obvious that too many nutritionally empty carbs, too much processed meat, and too much fat all make for a unhealthy diet.
4
Am midcareer physician. Great informational article. Thanks.
1
Perhaps too much analysis. Why over analize the obvious.
Since the 70;s HFCS has been promoted in the American diet. It is highly processed. It is nutrition free - .i.e. empty calories.
Since the 70's Americans are less healthy and more obese.
Honey, a natural product with many trace elements, has been around since the dawn of time.
The one thing I agree on, these studies are mostly flawed and mostly not needed.
Since the 70;s HFCS has been promoted in the American diet. It is highly processed. It is nutrition free - .i.e. empty calories.
Since the 70's Americans are less healthy and more obese.
Honey, a natural product with many trace elements, has been around since the dawn of time.
The one thing I agree on, these studies are mostly flawed and mostly not needed.
7
Eating a lot of sugar is not good. It makes little or no difference if that sugar comes from cane, bees, beets, corn, etc.
5
HFCS is probably connected to the obesity epidemic, but not necessarily in the way you represent. Honey costs about $6 a pound, HFCS is closer to $0.30 per pound.
It is much cheaper to use large quantities of it in food products.
It is much cheaper to use large quantities of it in food products.
19
It is not just sugar that is making us unhealthy...it is eating too much and too many processed foods.
1
This article's headline, along with the first two paragraphs, are actually a part of the problem. If you understand that honey, high fructose corn syrup and sugar (sucrose) are absorbed as similar mixtures of their component monosaccharides, glucose and fructose, then you should not be "shocked" by these results because they really are not "unexpected." And rather than being a "flawed" study, it is actually well-designed (it is more correct to point out that every study design has limitations). In particular, unlike previous studies that looked at the unnatural consumption of fructose in isolation against glucose in isolation, which led to the demonization of HFCS, this study looked at consumption of these sweeteners as they would actually exist in the diet.
11
Unlike cane sugar and HFCS, honey is composed of a very small portion of disaccharides, and so contains over 90% monosaccharides like fructose and glucose.
This difference in makeup doesn't concern people who are dealing with diabetes 1, 2 or 3, but it's important to people who are dealing with digestive issues made worse our caused by small-intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). People who are trying to adjust their diets to squeeze out inappropriate bacteria from their small colon are allowed honey because it's completely digested very high up in the alimentary canal and so won't affect SIBO starvation.
This difference in makeup doesn't concern people who are dealing with diabetes 1, 2 or 3, but it's important to people who are dealing with digestive issues made worse our caused by small-intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). People who are trying to adjust their diets to squeeze out inappropriate bacteria from their small colon are allowed honey because it's completely digested very high up in the alimentary canal and so won't affect SIBO starvation.
5
Kathryn Kellison's comment on the difference in impact on gut flora between honey and other sweeteners, does shed light on why way too much is often presumed in interpreting results of studies. The whole story is not in the glucose and insulin levels produced.
It is almost impossible to imagine that we'll get quality data from these type of overarching trials, given the incredible complexity of the "system" we're testing - a human in the real world.
It's a bit like trying to study the impact of two different brands of gasoline by comparing the 0-60 mph times of 30 random cars, taking no account of their age or model. Of course, if you used a million cars, you might see a tiny effect that could be statistically relevant, but with 25 cars, your results depend primarily on which 15 cars happen to be put into each group.
We know this. The scientists know this. But even still, the confirmation bias exists - when we see a result that feels right, we still publish the data as if it were a statistically valid study.
Progress will come from developing a physical and biological model of each part of the human body and testing each aspect precisely. For example, we can run a 24-hour controlled test to measure the impact of a specific food or drug on some aspect of the blood. And then separately, we can study the impact of this change in blood on each organ of the body separately. And so on. It is painstaking, but that's what needs to be done.
It's a bit like trying to study the impact of two different brands of gasoline by comparing the 0-60 mph times of 30 random cars, taking no account of their age or model. Of course, if you used a million cars, you might see a tiny effect that could be statistically relevant, but with 25 cars, your results depend primarily on which 15 cars happen to be put into each group.
We know this. The scientists know this. But even still, the confirmation bias exists - when we see a result that feels right, we still publish the data as if it were a statistically valid study.
Progress will come from developing a physical and biological model of each part of the human body and testing each aspect precisely. For example, we can run a 24-hour controlled test to measure the impact of a specific food or drug on some aspect of the blood. And then separately, we can study the impact of this change in blood on each organ of the body separately. And so on. It is painstaking, but that's what needs to be done.
6
Denis,if we focus on the pieces, then how do we understand the impact on the whole which is made up of many complex systems?
If you get a meaningful portion of your essential nutrients from honey, there is something dramatically wrong with your diet. If you get a tiny proportion of your calories from added sweeteners, there is something right with your diet--regardless of which sweetener you are using. If you must rely on honey to shore up your immune system, you are asking for & expecting specialized medical benefits that fall outside the general category of "nutrition." Given those three essentially undebatable statements, whether honey could indeed be shown to be measurably better (nutritionally speakng), if one were to use exactly the right study design and measurements, is very nearly beside the point.
11
There is quite an interface between medical benefits and medicine. "Food is your best medicine."
Here's a simple way of knowing what to eat: use common sense. End of story.
3
If only it was so. People are addicted to food. Plain and simple. They use it to make them feel better, not for energy or for nourishment.
3
Before reading any study one should know exactly who funded it, and why.
26
I mostly don't read articles on "diet", even those in the NYTimes, as I see them mostly as a place for writers (and commenters) to air their belief systems and/or push product.
Mr. Carroll's pieces are of a different sort, where the validity of claims made are examined from a more scientific and critical perspective. Where the main point is to get at the truth of the matter.
Study type, sample size, study bias - all these are helpful. I try to find Cochrane Reviews of studies on issues I care about personally.
Thanks for an educational article Prof. Carroll.
Mr. Carroll's pieces are of a different sort, where the validity of claims made are examined from a more scientific and critical perspective. Where the main point is to get at the truth of the matter.
Study type, sample size, study bias - all these are helpful. I try to find Cochrane Reviews of studies on issues I care about personally.
Thanks for an educational article Prof. Carroll.
6
As I understand it, a lot of honey IS HFCS. A great deal of "liquid gold" sold as honey has no pollen in it because it's from China and, to hide its origin, has been ultra-filtered. China dilutes its honey, tainted with chemicals and antibiotics and high in heavy metals, with HFCS and sweeteners. Our FDA tests only a very small percent of imported honey.
Read the Food Safety News report of Nov. 7, 2011, "Tests Show Most Store Honey Isn't Honey." Buy from local, trusted sources.
A former neighbor's son from the U.K., then 10, once crowed, "I loved to overdo!"
Don't.
Too much of anything is bad except, as Mark Twain famously quipped, if it's whiskey, in which case too much is barely enough.
Read the Food Safety News report of Nov. 7, 2011, "Tests Show Most Store Honey Isn't Honey." Buy from local, trusted sources.
A former neighbor's son from the U.K., then 10, once crowed, "I loved to overdo!"
Don't.
Too much of anything is bad except, as Mark Twain famously quipped, if it's whiskey, in which case too much is barely enough.
10
Honey is one product where "buy local" makes a lot of sense.
4
Honey is not made of corn. High fructose corn syrup is.
Honey is not made of HFCS, but they both contain a lot of fructose.
Honey is not made of HFCS, but they both contain a lot of fructose.
2
Kathryn - I think Marj understands that real honey comes from bees, not corn cobs. She is referring to Chinese products labeled "honey" that have been so diluted by HFCS that they are, for all practical purposes, honey-flavored corn syrup.
4
Sounds like the logic used when we decided butter and eggs were bad foods..... big mistake.
see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/opinion/when-the-government-tells-you-...
see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/opinion/when-the-government-tells-you-...
4
None of us are getting out of this alive, so eat what you like and a lot of it.
6
As a clinical dietitian in a very well known research hospital, I must respectfully disagree with the many of the opinions stated in this article. Firstly, although you acknowledge that conducting nutrition research is extremely difficult (study participants would basically have to be quarantined), this certainly does not mean that significant nutrition research is not possible.
Perhaps you may want to review the research done by Walter Willett, MD from Harvard and also
Robert Lustig MD on high fructose corn syrup and NAFLD.
Of course there are many horrific nutrition studies out there, but consider how many drugs that were studied for many years, prescribed and the determined to be harmful? Also consider who does these "poor" studies?? Usually not PhDs in nutrition from my experience.
What about the Framingham Heart Study, the Seventh Day Adventists longevity studies? Oops somehow you neglected to mention those...
Perhaps you may want to review the research done by Walter Willett, MD from Harvard and also
Robert Lustig MD on high fructose corn syrup and NAFLD.
Of course there are many horrific nutrition studies out there, but consider how many drugs that were studied for many years, prescribed and the determined to be harmful? Also consider who does these "poor" studies?? Usually not PhDs in nutrition from my experience.
What about the Framingham Heart Study, the Seventh Day Adventists longevity studies? Oops somehow you neglected to mention those...
10
@Concerned Dietician:
The diet data in the Framingham Heart Study was based on self-reported surveys of what people were eating, so "garbage in, garbage out" on that one. What the Framingham Study did reveal is that total cholesterol (TC) and LDL cholesterol are almost meaningless for heart disease risk, especially for women. Among women in this study, the higher the TC, the lower the all-cause mortality. Whoops! But TC and LDL-C sure have been profitable to medicate!
Studies carried out on 7th Day Adventists through Loma Linda, a 7th Day Adventist university, somehow always produce results that confirm the particular religious beliefs of 7th Day Adventists.
The diet data in the Framingham Heart Study was based on self-reported surveys of what people were eating, so "garbage in, garbage out" on that one. What the Framingham Study did reveal is that total cholesterol (TC) and LDL cholesterol are almost meaningless for heart disease risk, especially for women. Among women in this study, the higher the TC, the lower the all-cause mortality. Whoops! But TC and LDL-C sure have been profitable to medicate!
Studies carried out on 7th Day Adventists through Loma Linda, a 7th Day Adventist university, somehow always produce results that confirm the particular religious beliefs of 7th Day Adventists.
1
I agree with most of what you wrote but the two studies you mentioned are epidemiological Those lead to associations that need verification for causality (as do dr willets )
3
Michael Pollan had a good point here: Ignore all "nutritionism" -- considering the effects of one or the other nutritional food component, as in these studies. "Eat food, mostly vegetables, not too much"; "food" is something your great grandmother would recognize as food; Pick the food customs of a long term culture -- Italians, say, or Cajuns -- and follow it. Pick a culture that ate a lot of red meat, if you like. Yeah!
The effects found in these studies sound pretty bad on their face: 18% increase in the chance of colon cancer!!! But that means an increase of .6 people of 100 over 10 years (a typical case) -- completely ignorable. Read the fine print, before you get worried about it. Better yet, ignore. Nutrition research someday will give us a lot of understanding of what we eat, but we'll all be dead by then.
The effects found in these studies sound pretty bad on their face: 18% increase in the chance of colon cancer!!! But that means an increase of .6 people of 100 over 10 years (a typical case) -- completely ignorable. Read the fine print, before you get worried about it. Better yet, ignore. Nutrition research someday will give us a lot of understanding of what we eat, but we'll all be dead by then.
9
We used to think that getting the federal government involved in research would produce more credible and applicable results.
But I favor our using more honey because, after all that vomiting of what they ate, the bees themselves look really fit!
But I favor our using more honey because, after all that vomiting of what they ate, the bees themselves look really fit!
4
These “food studies” are becoming like fashion trends. One day they’re in, and the next out. The difference is that they can influence our health, rather than our whim!
6
Flawed or otherwise, the study is correct. Sugar in bee vomit is not healthier than sugar from a cane. Nothing magical occurs when a bee barfs.
16
I like to refer to honey as "HFBV," High-Fructose Bee Vomit.
1
Common sense is actually quite a good predictor of what does and does not add up. I for one have no doubt that consuming honey rather than artificial sweeteners or high fructose corn syrup is much better for you. So be it!
3
These three sweeteners contain glucose, fructose and sucrose (which is metabolized to fructose and glucose). They could be expected to affect your body in almost identical ways. Perhaps some might expect that the presence of very trace nutrients in honey could make a difference, but one probably gets those nutrients in other ways. Honey tastes better in some foods than sucrose. I like the HFCS 'burn' in commercial ice tea. Pure sugar is the best choice to sprinkle on fruit, I think. But one should avoid too much sugar.
6
Agreed. So much of nutrition research suffers from the fundamental flaw where the substance being tested (a food) or the subjects being tested are inadequately controlled, i.e., the inability to identify and limit the variables. Whether it's honey, a plant or animal food product, processed or unprocessed, you often do not know, (1) the quantity and quality of all ingredients other than the putative active ingredient(s), (2) the quantity of active ingredient(s), (3) the way the test subjects process the ingredient(s) based on genetics, age, gender, etc.
Compare nutrition studies with drug studies where the active ingredient(s), is thoroughly tested for purity, potency, absorption and metabolism and the study subjects are carefully selected based on the intended use.
Perhaps the lay media should be more selective in deciding whether to report on small studies with minimal scientific significance but lots of wow factor.
Compare nutrition studies with drug studies where the active ingredient(s), is thoroughly tested for purity, potency, absorption and metabolism and the study subjects are carefully selected based on the intended use.
Perhaps the lay media should be more selective in deciding whether to report on small studies with minimal scientific significance but lots of wow factor.
3
The journal Frontiers in Nutrition does not have an impact factor and its editor-in-chief is at Nestlé. Thus, I do not think it is valid to cite their studies in comparison to the Journal of Nutrition run by the American Society of Nutrition and with one of the highest impact factors of nutrition research journals of 3.9.
15
John Ioannidis: Towards Truth in Published Research, for example. Better yet, most anything (youtube, etc.) by Ioannidis shows that "peer-reviewed" or not is not the issue; it is bad/poor research.
And "impact factor" only shows citation relationship/frequency. An article with a high 'impact factor' may in fact be cited hundreds of times as an example of bad research, poor argumentation, viz. in a negative way. So impact factor in and of itself is rather meaningless. It is a wonderful example of yet another "statistic" that has been misinterpreted and *knowingly* promoted as a positive and meaningful (IF = Must Be Good!) thing.
Put it another way: back in the mid-70s, a fad came to market, and as with many fads, it's "impact factor" went sky high; it sold into the millions. It was the pet rock. Bad analogy it may be, but my point is: marketing works, regardless of what you are selling. Citation of an article a million times means no more and no less, without further research, than: an article was cited a million times.
And "impact factor" only shows citation relationship/frequency. An article with a high 'impact factor' may in fact be cited hundreds of times as an example of bad research, poor argumentation, viz. in a negative way. So impact factor in and of itself is rather meaningless. It is a wonderful example of yet another "statistic" that has been misinterpreted and *knowingly* promoted as a positive and meaningful (IF = Must Be Good!) thing.
Put it another way: back in the mid-70s, a fad came to market, and as with many fads, it's "impact factor" went sky high; it sold into the millions. It was the pet rock. Bad analogy it may be, but my point is: marketing works, regardless of what you are selling. Citation of an article a million times means no more and no less, without further research, than: an article was cited a million times.
1
Who exactly was shocked by this?
Honey is a mixture of various sugars and water. So is corn syrup. In honey the sugars are typically about 48% fructose, 39% glucose and 12% other sugars (mostly maltose with some sucrose and trace amounts of other sugars). There are two varieties of HFCS in common use. In HFCS 42 the sugars are about 42% Fructose, 53% glucose and 5% other. In HFCS 55, the numbers are about 55%, 42% and 3%.
Table sugar is 100% sucrose which is a disaccharide (sugar made of two smaller sugar units bonded to each other) each molecule of which is made out of one unit of glucose and one of fructose.
It is plausible, although not at all proven, that sucrose could have a different effect on human metabolism and health than honey and HFCS because it must be split into glucose and fructose before it becomes a roughly even mix of fructose and glucose which is not very different from the others. However, there really is no apparent reason, other than the feel-good "green" factor, why honey and HFCS would have notably different impact on glucose or insulin levels.
The study may be flawed and overhyped. It is possible that it is wrong in finding sucrose to have similar effects to the other two, but there is no chemical or biological reason, nor any evidence, to support the assumption that honey is better than table sugar is better than HFCS. That is a faith-based assumption on the theory that natural things are good and man-made ones bad.
Honey is a mixture of various sugars and water. So is corn syrup. In honey the sugars are typically about 48% fructose, 39% glucose and 12% other sugars (mostly maltose with some sucrose and trace amounts of other sugars). There are two varieties of HFCS in common use. In HFCS 42 the sugars are about 42% Fructose, 53% glucose and 5% other. In HFCS 55, the numbers are about 55%, 42% and 3%.
Table sugar is 100% sucrose which is a disaccharide (sugar made of two smaller sugar units bonded to each other) each molecule of which is made out of one unit of glucose and one of fructose.
It is plausible, although not at all proven, that sucrose could have a different effect on human metabolism and health than honey and HFCS because it must be split into glucose and fructose before it becomes a roughly even mix of fructose and glucose which is not very different from the others. However, there really is no apparent reason, other than the feel-good "green" factor, why honey and HFCS would have notably different impact on glucose or insulin levels.
The study may be flawed and overhyped. It is possible that it is wrong in finding sucrose to have similar effects to the other two, but there is no chemical or biological reason, nor any evidence, to support the assumption that honey is better than table sugar is better than HFCS. That is a faith-based assumption on the theory that natural things are good and man-made ones bad.
49
Perhaps honey and HFCS are similar chemically and metabolically, from a macronutrient perspective. This study did not look into the micronutrient benefits of honey over HFCS. There are many vitamins and minerals in honey, many of which have antioxidant properties. The same can't be said for HFCS.
12
There may be "many" vitamins and minerals in honey, but there isn't "much" of any one of them. If you want vitamins and minerals, eat some vegetables, which are also full of antioxidants.
3
Honey and HFCS may not be much different in terms of their fructose/glucose ratios and the nutrient content in honey may be negligible, but unlike HFCS honey comes in thousands & thousands of varieties reflecting the flora of the region from which the nectar was collected by the bees. It's these floral fragrances that gives honey, especially cold-extracted and non-blended, its unique hedonic qualities, which can't be matched by dull and boring HFCS.
3
So many of these small studies seem to be the type of research that is testing to see if a hypothesis should be pursued, rather than valid research upon which to base findings.
But scientists need to publish results. And universities need to issue press releases demonstrating that they are leading research institutions. The media picks up the press release, and we have public science.
But scientists need to publish results. And universities need to issue press releases demonstrating that they are leading research institutions. The media picks up the press release, and we have public science.
13
Who financed the study that concluded honey was no better than high-fructose corn syrup and sugar?
2
From near the end of the article:
"The study on honey I discussed earlier was funded by the National Honey Board, and I’m guessing they weren’t thrilled with the result."
"The study on honey I discussed earlier was funded by the National Honey Board, and I’m guessing they weren’t thrilled with the result."
3
As noted in the article, "The study on honey I discussed earlier was funded by the National Honey Board, and I’m guessing they weren’t thrilled with the result."
Not the answer you were expecting, is it?
Not the answer you were expecting, is it?
4
As stated in the article, The National Honey Board funded the study. The NHB is funded by a tax (1%/pound if I remember correctly) on all honey domestic or imported. This suggests that they aren't messing with results, doesn't it? This is obviously is not the result they would have liked.
That said, the results only speak to what honey does to insulin levels in the body as compared to other sources of sugar. It does not address whether honey has other nutritional qualities not found in cane sugar or HFCS.
That said, the results only speak to what honey does to insulin levels in the body as compared to other sources of sugar. It does not address whether honey has other nutritional qualities not found in cane sugar or HFCS.
Meat bad. Meat good. Meat bad.
Butter bad. Butter good.
Red wine bad. Red wine good.
Honey good. Honey bad.
Science? What science?!
Butter bad. Butter good.
Red wine bad. Red wine good.
Honey good. Honey bad.
Science? What science?!
6
Other than diet gurus concerned only with weight loss, not health, who said a diet high in meat or butter was a good idea? Mainstream dietary advice has always (at least in the last 50 years or so) been to enjoy those in moderation. Red wine may have beneficial effects on circulatory health, but all alcoholic beverages are somewhat carcinogenic and this has also been known for many decades.
You may have just read a report on one particular aspect of the health consequences of a particular food, but the big picture remains that you should go easy on animal fats, alcohol and sugars. Anyone who tells you otherwise, probably has something to sell.
You may have just read a report on one particular aspect of the health consequences of a particular food, but the big picture remains that you should go easy on animal fats, alcohol and sugars. Anyone who tells you otherwise, probably has something to sell.
DCP123, you may want to read Gary Taube's "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Not going to quibble about alcohol and sugars, but there's a growing body of evidence that a) animal fats are not particularly bad for you and b) alternative fats, including corn oil and many vegetable oils, as well as the obvious trans fats, are considerably worse.
The "saturated fats are bad for your heart" meme is exactly that--an article of faith, not based on reliable research.
The "saturated fats are bad for your heart" meme is exactly that--an article of faith, not based on reliable research.
7
And Taubes is a founder of the independent organization NUSI which has collected a lot of funding to do "quality" food research. Their highly controlled "Energy Balance" study to test the "calories in, calories" out hypothesis (which Taubes famously disputes) was scheduled to be concluded this Spring (February, I think.) Anybody seen any results - even preliminary ones?
Best bet: avoid the temptation to be overly dogmatic about very specific nutrition advice. You may or may not be "right."
27
Your kind of fatalism does not serve the public, since hucksters, including big ag, never hesitate to push specific advice. If you have not read Gary Taubes' article "Big Sugar's Sweet Little Lies" I recommend it.
You say fatalism, I say realism.
It is rare to find a study headline, study title, study data, and study conclusions that line up.
There are lots of methodological problems. Researchers generally seek to isolate a single variable, relying on randomization or matching to control all the other variables. Large N studies cost millions. And What You Measure Is What You Find (WYMIWYF).
The well-conducted A-to-Z diet study found the Atkins diet to be effective, but it only measured certain outcomes.
The Army USARIEM study with BCT women (Health, Performance, and Nutritional Status of US Army Women During Basic Combat Training) found the diet significantly malnourished the women.
The later Klesges et al, Lappe et al, and McClung et al studies suggest that the population-level RDA for some nutrients may not be adequate for athletes. One service identifies incoming recruits as having iron anemia (roughly 21% of women and 6% of men).
CDC NHANES data suggests lots of people have some nutritional deficiencies.
Therefore, making assumptions about any "healthy diet" is difficult. Ideally everyone should do a comprehensive blood chemistry test and adjust their diet/supplements accordingly. It is, for example, very difficult to get some micronutrients in sufficient quantities in food (D, boron, iodine).
There are lots of methodological problems. Researchers generally seek to isolate a single variable, relying on randomization or matching to control all the other variables. Large N studies cost millions. And What You Measure Is What You Find (WYMIWYF).
The well-conducted A-to-Z diet study found the Atkins diet to be effective, but it only measured certain outcomes.
The Army USARIEM study with BCT women (Health, Performance, and Nutritional Status of US Army Women During Basic Combat Training) found the diet significantly malnourished the women.
The later Klesges et al, Lappe et al, and McClung et al studies suggest that the population-level RDA for some nutrients may not be adequate for athletes. One service identifies incoming recruits as having iron anemia (roughly 21% of women and 6% of men).
CDC NHANES data suggests lots of people have some nutritional deficiencies.
Therefore, making assumptions about any "healthy diet" is difficult. Ideally everyone should do a comprehensive blood chemistry test and adjust their diet/supplements accordingly. It is, for example, very difficult to get some micronutrients in sufficient quantities in food (D, boron, iodine).
It actually is possible to control the amount of sugar we consume. We simply stop eating processed foods. It isn't so difficult. It is healthier. Eating becomes less hurried and more mindful. My grandparents did it.
14
Except that there are no valid studies to show eating less sugar or processed foods is healthier. You don't know this and should not recommend it despite it is what your grandparents did.
3
"Processed foods" is too vague and often stereotypical. All foods are processed.
2
The reason honey is better than other caloric sweeteners is that it tastes sweeter, and we are therefore likely to use less. Good honey also costs more, which is also a factor in consuming less. These facts could not have been introduced in these studies.
5
HFCS is also sweeter than table sugar. The reason both are sweeter is that fructose is sweeter than sucrose (or glucose). Do people and food companies use less HFCS to sweeten food and beverages than they would if using sucrose?
Really the main components of honey are virtually the same as HFCS. It would be very surprising if they had substantially different effects on blood glucose levels and insulin production. By all means, eat honey (in moderation), but I'd do it because it tastes nice, rather than because I was convinced that it had heath advantages over other sugar mixes used as sweeteners.
Really the main components of honey are virtually the same as HFCS. It would be very surprising if they had substantially different effects on blood glucose levels and insulin production. By all means, eat honey (in moderation), but I'd do it because it tastes nice, rather than because I was convinced that it had heath advantages over other sugar mixes used as sweeteners.
13
Since HFCS is sweeter than sucrose it takes less sweetener to get the same level of sweetness. It's quite logical that food producers will use less HFCS by weight than sucrose (on a weight basis). Logical because it costs less. Benefits for consumers since the same level of sweetness is achieved with les calories.
The best source of physical well-being is your yearly physical. If that isn't as good as you'd like fix it based on the areas that need improvement. It won't take long to figure out that a nutritious diet is trading good calories for empty calories. Create a menu and analyze it.
When I have a sugar craving now, I eat a few nuts or a piece of fruit. Nourishing you body is the best way to control your diet. I don't think studying the effects of prison on the human metabolism is going to tell your that.
The good thing about honey is it helps the environment and food production.
When I have a sugar craving now, I eat a few nuts or a piece of fruit. Nourishing you body is the best way to control your diet. I don't think studying the effects of prison on the human metabolism is going to tell your that.
The good thing about honey is it helps the environment and food production.
3
Not true. Last week the NYT reported on a study that showed the yearly physical does more harm than good. You are making a bad recommendation here.
2
I missed the study but I disagree. Annual physicals led to the diagnosis of a heart condition that eventually led to my pacemaker years before it would have been diagnosed otherwise. I'm in the 5th year of my 2nd pacemaker (the first one lasted 8 years) and I'm doing quite nicely thank you. Statistics on a large population may establish one conclusion but that may not apply to the individual. We are all unique.
4
Even doctors (who make money from doing physicals) don't push the yearly physical any more, unless you're using a medication or have some specific condition that actually needs to be checked annually.
Wow! I had no idea there was so very little real investment or depth of knowledge in these matters. Call me a socialist, but I see a big and necessary role for government, with no axe to grind, to heavily invest in research on these matters. In most advanced countries there is public funding of healthcare, which gives a financial incentive to get into this kind of thing beyond merely serving the public interest, which these days is viewed with such great suspicion - commercial interests funding such suspicions. Big pharma is driven by markets which are morally inert, and so it is appropriate for the government to step in to serve public interest just not being served. In the same way, the public could greatly benefit from greater regulation of big pharma so that no tax deductibility would be offered for investments in drug development to duplicate perfectly good drugs whose patent protection has expired. Beyond that government could participate in research for health problems not seen as being sufficiently commercially attractive to attract investment by the pharmaceutical industry. Too many public needs are going unmet.
19
The problem is that the government is already heavily subsidizing corn, and therefore effectively subsidizing the production of high fructose corn syrup and the vast array of processed foods containing corn-based additives. Unfortunately these subsidies show that the government is already biased toward accepting HFCS as safe and nutritious, rather than filling the role of impartial investigators the American public wishes they were (and even thinks they are).
The FDA has earned billions in "user fees from drug companies. The NIH is full of researchers who are paid consultants to the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The ivory tower--the "pure" research that came out of universities is gone. Now, the major universities fund a lot of their research though the drug companies, and most have offices to determine which discoveries to patent. Universities, and researchers share in the profits. Nobody is interested in discoveries in medicine which are not patentable (therapies which use natural substances), and thus not potential pots of gold.
I knew a genius of a veterinarian who worked nearly 50 years and treated nearly 100,000 animals, who made an amazing discovery, and developed a simple, relatively low-cost treatment protocol. He was a part owner of one of the most sophisticated vet clinics in the US. One of his partners in the clinic was one of the most famous vets in the world.
His clients of 50 years can attest that he worked miracles. But did his discovery generate any interest? No, there was no interest in a therapy which manipulated fundamental biochemistry to prevent disease and heal animals, simply and inexpensively, without a lot of commercial products. Not only was there no interest, despite the fact that around 75,000 blood panels on his patients demonstrated his theory. Instead, he was brutally attacked by the head of the Evidence Based Veterinary Medical Association and accused of "making it all up."
You are going to get a vey angry, profanity-filled, letter from my Lunatic Sister of Rockport, MA; she has been beating on me for decades about honey vs. sugar.
I? No added anything. I'll leave that to the growers, and good ol' Mother Nature. Grapes is a great snack, and oranges, in all its forms, is wonderful in the morning.
I? No added anything. I'll leave that to the growers, and good ol' Mother Nature. Grapes is a great snack, and oranges, in all its forms, is wonderful in the morning.
1
what is the "final" word on honey, which I spoon into my coffee?
If you're going to use concentrated sugar of any kind, honey provides added stuff not present in refined sugars: trace amounts of pollen and other plant substances which add some nutritional value. Honey has been known for centuries as an anti-microbial; in a sealed container it lasts indefinitely; in centuries past it was applied to wounds. Aficionados know that locally-harvested, raw honeys have a taste and fragrance bouquet not found in mass-processed, heated, commercial honeys. If you're going to use concentrated carbs, honey's the best choice.
Plain old sugar is a well known food preservative.
3
My recommendation would be to not sweeten your coffee at all.
4
What bothers me most about all these ridiculous and inconclusive studies is that money is wasted and many animals are tortured to prove nothing.
The animals used in the study in question were humans. They were simply asked to use only one of several possible sweeteners. I don't think they considered themselves tortured.
41
I don't know about you , but squeezing all that honey out of each bee does seem a little cruel to me.
9
It is possible to omit most or even all processed foods from the diet. We can indeed "control intake [of sweeteners] as closely as we need."
5
A very valuable article and it should not be limited to food research. Far too much *research* in the USA and especially that flowing from China, Russia, and India is flawed, if not dishonest.
The role of mass media in publicizing questionable research as if it established truth might be examined and a code of ethics adopted based on the standards of this article.
The role of mass media in publicizing questionable research as if it established truth might be examined and a code of ethics adopted based on the standards of this article.
5
I agree with most of what Carroll says about nutritional research in general, and the fact that we "know" a lot less than we think.
In regards to the honey/sugar study, I fear he makes the same mistake that the Popular Press makes repeatedly -- he misrepresents what the study was about and what its findings mean : " many reports in the news media said proved that honey was no better than sugar as a sweetener, and that high-fructose corn syrup was no worse."
Utter nonsense...better....no worse...better for you... These are not statements that derive from medical or nutritional science. They are statements of some weird misunderstanding about human physiology.
The study was meant to answer this question: "The aim was to compare the effects of the chronic consumption of 3 nutritive sweeteners [honey, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup containing 55% fructose (HFCS55)] on circulating glucose, insulin, lipids, and inflammatory markers; body weight; and blood pressure in individuals with normal glucose tolerance (GT) and those with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). "
What they found was "Daily intake of 50 g carbohydrate from honey, sucrose, or HFCS55 for 14 d resulted in similar effects on measures of glycemia, lipid metabolism, and inflammation. All 3 increased TG concentrations in both GT and IGT individuals and elevated glycemic and inflammatory responses in the latter."
In simple words, type of sugar made no difference in these measures.
In regards to the honey/sugar study, I fear he makes the same mistake that the Popular Press makes repeatedly -- he misrepresents what the study was about and what its findings mean : " many reports in the news media said proved that honey was no better than sugar as a sweetener, and that high-fructose corn syrup was no worse."
Utter nonsense...better....no worse...better for you... These are not statements that derive from medical or nutritional science. They are statements of some weird misunderstanding about human physiology.
The study was meant to answer this question: "The aim was to compare the effects of the chronic consumption of 3 nutritive sweeteners [honey, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup containing 55% fructose (HFCS55)] on circulating glucose, insulin, lipids, and inflammatory markers; body weight; and blood pressure in individuals with normal glucose tolerance (GT) and those with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). "
What they found was "Daily intake of 50 g carbohydrate from honey, sucrose, or HFCS55 for 14 d resulted in similar effects on measures of glycemia, lipid metabolism, and inflammation. All 3 increased TG concentrations in both GT and IGT individuals and elevated glycemic and inflammatory responses in the latter."
In simple words, type of sugar made no difference in these measures.
39
Thank you. That needed to be pointed out.
The answer to the question the study actually set out to answer is also not very surprising.
The answer to the question the study actually set out to answer is also not very surprising.
3
You're still missing Carroll's point about the small study problem. We can't really say that type of sugar made no difference in these measures, as you claim. No doubt the results on those outcomes were not exactly the same - even the authors use the word "similar". A sample of 55 people is pretty small. It's really only enough power to detect statistically large effects with any reliability. Even if there were a meaningful effect of type of sugar on the outcome measures of interest, this study probably would not detected it.
4
Shouldn't the fact that the inflammatory response was elevated by all three tell us to leave the stuff alone? Hasn't excess/chronic inflammation been determined to be a factor in many different diseases, including cancer and cardiovascular disease?
Should we really be concerned about which added sugar is better? Or should we get the message that no added sugar is better?
Very good article -- and true, IMO.
In my emailbox this morning from Tufts:
____________________
"A controversial animal study, with a very small follow-up in humans, suggests that artificial sweeteners [focused on saccharin] may promote glucose intolerance - and therefore diabetes - by changing the bacterial mix in the gut. Published in the journal Nature, the findings have some saying artificial sweeteners should be viewed with suspicion, while other experts dismiss the results.
"Clearly, not all artificial sweeteners will have the same effects,since the effect of one non-digestible chemical on the intestinal florae will not be the same as the effect of a different chemical - and for the most part the sweeteners on the market all have really different chemical compositions. However, the specter has been raised that artificial sweeteners need more scrutiny, and clearly more research is needed on all the sweeteners existing in the marketplace today."
____________________
Health is a "crap-shoot." You just try and make sense of it the best you can -- and monitor your body for bad (and good) changes. Adapt appropriately.
In my emailbox this morning from Tufts:
____________________
"A controversial animal study, with a very small follow-up in humans, suggests that artificial sweeteners [focused on saccharin] may promote glucose intolerance - and therefore diabetes - by changing the bacterial mix in the gut. Published in the journal Nature, the findings have some saying artificial sweeteners should be viewed with suspicion, while other experts dismiss the results.
"Clearly, not all artificial sweeteners will have the same effects,since the effect of one non-digestible chemical on the intestinal florae will not be the same as the effect of a different chemical - and for the most part the sweeteners on the market all have really different chemical compositions. However, the specter has been raised that artificial sweeteners need more scrutiny, and clearly more research is needed on all the sweeteners existing in the marketplace today."
____________________
Health is a "crap-shoot." You just try and make sense of it the best you can -- and monitor your body for bad (and good) changes. Adapt appropriately.
3
This article is about the methods of science -- a very commendable exercise -- and not really the subject at hand, sugars. I agree that what we "know" about human nutrition is highly speculative. When I was younger, fats were poison; now it's sugars. We have also completely reorganized the food pyramid that is meant to help us apportion our food intake. Yikes.
But there is more to science than just sample size and study duration. We have to "see" a problem to begin with, and we often work from first principles.
In this case, a too small, too short study might have been terminated
because, guess what, three sweeteners composed of the same two or three simple sugars are probably seen and treated similarly by the body. Gee.
One is "natural" and two are synthetic. Therein lies the rub.
But there is more to science than just sample size and study duration. We have to "see" a problem to begin with, and we often work from first principles.
In this case, a too small, too short study might have been terminated
because, guess what, three sweeteners composed of the same two or three simple sugars are probably seen and treated similarly by the body. Gee.
One is "natural" and two are synthetic. Therein lies the rub.
7
Bob, some fats are bad for you, the FDA has banned hydrogenated fats. It was proven that they are very dangerous to one's health. About 20 years ago a sugar industry trade group paid some Harvard researchers to do a literature review shifting the blame for cardiovascular disease away from sugar, to fat. It has taken all this time to come back from there. So much for the purity of science. Pure science will not exist as long as human beings are conducting the research.
When I was young, my family switched from butter to "Hollwood Health Margarine" because it was supposed to be that scientific research had determined that it was safer for your cardiovascular system! Beware of the commercial con jobs which masquerade as "science".
I have one rule regarding nutrition and health studies: Ignore them. It seems most are correlating a single input parameter with an outcome. Rarely do they shed light on cause and effect. For a complex system like the human body such an approach is destined to produce non-sensical results.
16
Reply to jzu ==> This is sort of Mr Carroll's point -- but not to ignore the studies themselves, but to ignore the incorrect, false, spin put on them by the popular press.
This study is important....for those who want to know if the type of sugar ingested changes the body's short-term response in regards to these six important physiological measures -- and is it different for Glucose Intolerant patients.
The "popular idiot spin" that tries to characterize the study findings as meaning this or that sugar is "better" or "worse" or "more healthy" or "good for you" or "bad for you" is what makes reading about these studies bad for the general public. They are grossly misinformed, and apparently, haven't the training or the will to discover what the original study actually did or said and what it might mean for them
"What it might mean for us" is the science or medical journalist's job -- and they generally fail totally -- confusing instead of clarifying.
This study is important....for those who want to know if the type of sugar ingested changes the body's short-term response in regards to these six important physiological measures -- and is it different for Glucose Intolerant patients.
The "popular idiot spin" that tries to characterize the study findings as meaning this or that sugar is "better" or "worse" or "more healthy" or "good for you" or "bad for you" is what makes reading about these studies bad for the general public. They are grossly misinformed, and apparently, haven't the training or the will to discover what the original study actually did or said and what it might mean for them
"What it might mean for us" is the science or medical journalist's job -- and they generally fail totally -- confusing instead of clarifying.
5
jzu
Thanks for saying this so well!
Nutrition research today sounds like cancer research decades ago, before researchers had the tools to understand the molecular and cellular triggers and switches that promote or curb cancerous growth.
Nutrition is ultimately a complex interaction with our evolutionary microbiome, which in turn drives much of our immune and stress response and body mass. Beyond this tantalizing glimpse we rarely go, because the big research dollars flow from pharmaceuticals, expensive medical treatments like cardiology, agribusiness and food processors, and not from fresh, minimally processed food.
So don't hold your breath on big nutrition breakthroughs, but do make sure your grocery cart has more colorful food than colorful packaging.
Nutrition is ultimately a complex interaction with our evolutionary microbiome, which in turn drives much of our immune and stress response and body mass. Beyond this tantalizing glimpse we rarely go, because the big research dollars flow from pharmaceuticals, expensive medical treatments like cardiology, agribusiness and food processors, and not from fresh, minimally processed food.
So don't hold your breath on big nutrition breakthroughs, but do make sure your grocery cart has more colorful food than colorful packaging.
37
It is a great point about the small sample size being a flaw, although when one has very controlled outcome measures and limited confounders, such as a vaccine that shows 100% effectiveness, a small sample can be better justified. Unless the honey experiment controlled other carbohydrate consumption, it would have been confounded by that---since carbs generally affect glucose levels. One of the most amazing stories of an over-interpreted small study was by Dean Ornish. on only 41 men, with a number of input factors (diet, yoga, supplements, meditation) and the regular complex confounders of any diet/disease study. http://thebigfatsurprise.com/critique-dean-ornish-op-ed/
6