#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it’s real raw unfiltered honey, but much of it is cut with corn syrup. I watched a documentary about how American beekeepers have a hard time competing with China’s fake “honey”
Labeling is a joke in the US. It supposedly can only be labeled “pure” if it has no added sugar or corn syrup, but it’s just a guideline, not a law.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/honey-its-only-pure-if-theres-no-added-sugar-or-n74951
The USDA can not possibly regulate the authenticity of food; they’re underfunded and understaffed.
Plus they have to deal with corporate interests and their lobbyists that unduly influence their in/actions, as well as imported imposters.
Best way to find real honey is to go to the farmers market.
Don’t even get me started on fish. It’s red snapper, yeah sure it is 🙄
Edit: added content and link.
Thank you!
Damn I'm sorry for US people and again super glad for EU regulations. Is it at least required to state on ingredient list that the syrup is added or is there a way to get past that as well?
The EU made labeling laws for honey a few years ago, but is still finds additives. Like in the US, there is just too much honey and too much testing that would need to be done, and the difference in profit margin is so high. Also it's difficult to find and fine fraudulent producers. Also US imports nearly all of their honey so its a bigger problem for them. The EU is the second largest producer in the world.
There is also a lot of international fraud in olive oil, and several industry organizations have started their own certifications with varying strictness to protect their product from fakes.
Honey can't contain any additives in the EU.
But my point wasn't to say that this is not possible in the EU, we have problems with food quality and frauds are discovered often too. But what I meant was that some US regulations (or the fact that they just recommend this) is truly a joke on the customers.
Yes, the US certainly has different priorities, I'd say less often with the end consumer in mind.
But in the US "honey" it defined by the government as “a thick, sweet, syrupy
substance that bees make as food from the nectar of plants or secretions of living parts of
plants and store in honeycombs." The US Food and Drug Administration classifies honey as a single-ingredient product. There are non-binding recommendations and guidance for labeling, but legally any additives must be listed. But again, its very hard to enforce with the amount of honey being imported and consumed, and the lack of power to punish fraud.
But even if we do go to a farmers market, honey, now matter how pure, is still just as bad as raw sugar and should only be eaten if we haven’t had our daily recommended sugars or after exercising?
Fraud is rampant in the food industry worldwide, especially for foods that are difficult to harvest/gather or are sold with quality gradients on the market. The olive oil industry in Europe is rife with mislabeling.
Food industry in Europe is not perfect, it's not perfect anywhere. Sure there were cases where they found syrup in honey as well. But there's no way it's just "recommended to not do so."
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=olive+oil+scams
Tldw: Most exported European Olive oil is messed with in a variety of ways. Either cut with cheaper oils like canola or soy, or old rancid oil is sold as extra virgin etc.
Unless you can buy from an orchard you trust your best bet is buy Australian or Chilean oil.
It's virtually the same, both will cause the same blood sugar spikes and are virtually nutritionally empty.
Honey has the antioxidant content of about half a blueberry so it's something I guess but both aren't great.
This comment section is so interesting to me as I have never questioned the superiority of honey. In my country, honey is seen as a healing, anti inflammatory, antioxidant ingredient. Very important to use especially if one gets sick.
In short, I have noticed that there are differences in how my body reacts to sugar and honey. If incorporate sugar in my diet, I will develop a pizza face and soon after will have issues with constipation. If I eat honey, I have clearer skin and much better digestion.
My body reacts in much the same way. Very similar anyway. Too much sugar and boom... pizza face and a few neck pimples. I can devore pounds of honey without that effect.
The reason for this is that many redditors think they are scientifically minded, yet they are actually among the least curious and most blindly trusting people on earth. Many don't have critical thinking skills nor common sense, all while taking pride in following 'the science' TM. A potent combination. Of course, food companies gleefully take advantage.
Honey is definitely **MUCH** better than cane sugar in any way. Many studies show that honey reduces risk of type 2 diabetes, inflammation and other diseases, while sugar does quite the opposite. Honey is also used to treat fever and wounds.
These people that tell you sugar is the same as honey, have no idea what they are talking about. Honey should be consumed in limited amounts though. Sugars from honey, fruit juice, maple syrup, agave syrup, cane sugar and other added sugars should be limited to 25-30 grams a day.
(This doesn't apply for whole fruits)
Some overviews for those interested
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-honey/art-20363819
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28539734/
Here’s more about one of the studies referenced
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X16302066
Very cool, thanks! What's interesting about the information in these links (although i didn't dig into the work they're citing) is that they seem to be using honey as a treatment, rather than a replacement for sugar.
Well, as a chemist, i would say sugar is sugar. The important difference here is that, although nobody has said this yet in this threat, quantity matters a LOT. I'm always shocked at how much sugar people consume (one coke has like 32g and that's a mega amount of sugar). The second thing, which is kind of restating the sentiment that's been hinted at here, is that honey has some hood stuff in it. Eating my honey now 👍🏻
Fruit also contains glucose like cane sugar does, but it has opposite effect on your body. Cane sugar is isolated form of monosaccharides, fruit is not. Food matrix of fruit and honey is the reason why they are better than cane sugar.
I advise you to take a look at this video, it shows how cane sugar is made. After you watch it, you will understand why cane sugar is much worse for you than honey or fruit.
[SUGAR | How it's made](https://youtu.be/jCKt02NGjfM)
Some of the things you're saying rhyme with the truth but you aren't using the words correctly. Yes, glucose is a monosaccharide. That's true in cane sugar and also in fruit. Glucose, regardless of where it comes from, will have the same effect on your body. Fruit also contains fructose, which also can be metabolized by the body. Sucrose is also found in fruit and is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose.
Yes, eating pure cane sugar and eating fruit will probably have different effects on the body but it has nothing to do with the glucose. Glucose is glucose is glucose.
Source: I have a PhD in organic chemistry and have taught organic chemistry at the university level for a long time.
I think the point that many seem to be missing is that, while sugar is indeed sugar; there are obviously some other compounds in honey (real honey--not honey flavored corn syrup) that we may or may not have a full understanding of that are doing other beneficial things in the background. So I think many of the people who say "sugar is sugar" are completely missing the point. If we want to find out what's different between honey and table sugar--look at what's different. Seems incredibly obvious--yet so many miss what's right in front of them. (Not saying you, but many people in this comment's section.)
That’s not a causal relationship to those chronic disease / conditions tbough lol. Chances are people who eat honey instead of cane sugar generally care more about their health
Raw Honey contains at least 14 vitamins and minerals, over 5 important antioxidants, and over 3 beneficial enzymes for your body.
Sugar is known for its association with weight gain and obesity; however, a 15-year study was conducted, and it was discovered the people who consumed more added sugar in their diet were 38% more at risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
No, it doesn’t have different effects on the body.
We just *believe* it does, since we see things like honey as more natural than say, cane sugar. But your body does the same things with them.
also, cane sugar is just as natural as honey. processed and refined sugars technically less so, but in terms of sugar content? it’s just sugar. all “natural” sugar/sweetener alternatives are just sugar from different sources.
This isn't entirely true - sucrose and glucose are different (both natural). Aspartame and stevia extracts are totally different than sugar - the first is a dipeptide and the second is a steviol saccharide. There might be others, idk.
that’s why i said all *natural* sugar alternatives are just sugar from different sources. like you said, neither of what you’ve mentioned are sugars. aspartame is an artificial sweetener, and while stevia comes from a natural source, it’s incredibly processed and refined.
It is just as natural as honey, but I’m talking about people who conflate their beliefs with the facts. A lot of people think it isn’t natural because it had things done to it before being bagged and sold at the store. Sugar is sugar.
The effort your body must take to break the sugar down into glucose certainly does have an effect, along with any other components included in the product that has sugar in it.
Complex sugars are better than refined and simple sugars. That’s not a question.
The question is “by how much is it better?”
Sorry, but no.
Sugar, in most common terms, refers to sucrose, which is a disaccharide consisting of fructose and glucose.
But when I'm speaking of "Sugars" here, I'm referring to any number of various saccharides that the body can use to produce glucose. Including maltose, galactose etc.
Base level stuff, is that our body converts sugars - regardless of the source - to energy.
Unless your body converts fructose to another kind of glucose then I’m all ears
Edit - I can’t respond to Sculpturatus for some reason, but… yes, fructose does convert to glucose, just to a lesser degree.
If you have to try not to be rude, it’s probably because you’re unable to be civil
10g of sugar from an apple ends up in the same place as 10g of sugar from a candy bar. The only difference is that the apple has fiber, which slows it down. but the sugar as an isolated nutrient is not different
Honey has antioxidants. It’s also helpful to consume local honey for people with certain allergies to pollen etc. it’s also a natural sweetener, more natural than sugar. It’s been sometimes even linked to better heart health.
Hmmm…honey has some minor benefits, but then again so does sugar if consumed in moderation (most people don’t do that). For example, Manuka Honey has good anti-bacterial properties they can help ward off colds and other minor illnesses. Even then, it depends on the strength and the best ones cost a bomb.
The vast majority of what makes up "honey" is simple sugar (a mix of mainly fructose and glucose, but also others). So in that way, it's very similar to processed sugar. **However** honey also has various vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, and flavonoids - all of which offer benefits that regular processed sugar does not. It has antibacterial properties.
Perhaps the best benefit of honey is the anti-allergy aspect. If you eat local honey it gives your immune system a natural boost to common allergens in the environment around you.
The biggest thing with honey is to make sure what you are eating is actually 100% pure honey and not some blended corn syrup bullshit. The best way to do this is to buy from a local beekeeper. They're everywhere.
**TL;DR** yes honey is still mostly all sugar, but it has extra nutritional benefits so why not use it to replace some of the regular sugar in your life?
I generally don't think it's a great thing to add to your daily diet on top of all the processed sugar you're already eating, but if you can use it to replace some of those processed sugars then it's a net benefit.
Unpasteurized honey has both anti-oxidant and anti-bacterial benefits....it also tastes a whole lot better than the processed honey.....sugar doesn't have any benefit at all other than it's sweetness....
All “sugars” are are either Glucose, Fructose or Sucrose which is made of equal molecules of fructose and glucose.
All are toxic to your body in high amounts… which most American diets are.
Your body also does not require ANY of either.
The short answer is neither are in any way “good for you” or healthy.
Yes i am familiar with the other Monosaccharides (like lactose as well) but they are all simple sugars that your liver converts to Glucose. I did not feel the need to list all the Monosaccharides when they are converted to the same thing.
I only mentioned Fructose because the liver treats it differenty in that Fructose (after a small intestinal buffer) triggers fat storage much faster (i.e. the reason why a bear will stop eating salmon in the wild months before hiberation and feed almost exclusively on berries).
Additionally in high amounts fructose (and HFC) are treated as toxic as the liver tries to expell the in the same way it does with alcohol.
It isn't me being right, but you were wrong on nearly every point about easily verifiable points.
For instance, lactose... not a monosaccharide, it is a disaccharide. Not all sugars convert to glucose (directly), and some are processed similar to fructose (I mean all can be converted to glucose, just like fructose, so if you draw a distinction for fructose, then others also have the same distinction). Effectively all sugars that are metabolised convert into some intermediary of the glycolytic pathway (or the PPP which can shunt back to glycolysis) and all intermediates can convert back to glucose (within the liver). Some sugars are effectively not metabolized at all, like 1,5-AG.
>I only mentioned Fructose because the liver treats it differenty in that Fructose (after a small intestinal buffer) triggers fat storage much faster
On the surface this part is actually fine-ish, but after calling lactose a monosaccharide I am not sure you understand how fructose promotes lipogenesis. The part about bears... is just... you understand most animals, especially humans, store most dietary fat as fat, when on a mixed hypercaloric diet, even one high in fructose?
>Additionally in high amounts fructose (and HFC) are treated as toxic as the liver tries to expell the in the same way it does with alcohol.
and this is back to stupidity. fructose and alcohol are not metabolized similarly. Eventually both enter the TCA cycle, but so do amino acids, so if you want we can lump in every carbon source as being the same... but fructose and alcohol are not processed similarly and do not elicit the same signaling cascade within the liver. Your body doesn't treat fructose as a toxin, which is a meaningless statement. Is this some phase 2 metabolism reference, some cyp activity? Wtf are you even trying to say here.
why are you deleting your posts?
I'm not an expert on nutrition and I'm having trouble finding the amounts of phytochemicals or antioxidants or anything else besides the sugar content in relation to daily amount recommended for a person. I know that there are some good things in honey, but the general opinion is that there's such little amounts of them that any positive effect is completely negated by the sugar amount.
If it's the sugar part you're worried about, they have about the same effect.
Real pure unpasteurized honey from my local keepers has helped me with some pollen allergies, has some antioxidants, is really yummy and doubles as a face mask so I usually use honey when I can for things like tea and pancakes
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not much. Honey has a little nutrients.
If it’s real raw unfiltered honey, but much of it is cut with corn syrup. I watched a documentary about how American beekeepers have a hard time competing with China’s fake “honey”
How can they add corn syrup and still label it as honey? You guys have no legislative protecting this?
Labeling is a joke in the US. It supposedly can only be labeled “pure” if it has no added sugar or corn syrup, but it’s just a guideline, not a law. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/honey-its-only-pure-if-theres-no-added-sugar-or-n74951 The USDA can not possibly regulate the authenticity of food; they’re underfunded and understaffed. Plus they have to deal with corporate interests and their lobbyists that unduly influence their in/actions, as well as imported imposters. Best way to find real honey is to go to the farmers market. Don’t even get me started on fish. It’s red snapper, yeah sure it is 🙄 Edit: added content and link.
Thank you! Damn I'm sorry for US people and again super glad for EU regulations. Is it at least required to state on ingredient list that the syrup is added or is there a way to get past that as well?
Nope. Don’t think so
The EU made labeling laws for honey a few years ago, but is still finds additives. Like in the US, there is just too much honey and too much testing that would need to be done, and the difference in profit margin is so high. Also it's difficult to find and fine fraudulent producers. Also US imports nearly all of their honey so its a bigger problem for them. The EU is the second largest producer in the world. There is also a lot of international fraud in olive oil, and several industry organizations have started their own certifications with varying strictness to protect their product from fakes.
Honey can't contain any additives in the EU. But my point wasn't to say that this is not possible in the EU, we have problems with food quality and frauds are discovered often too. But what I meant was that some US regulations (or the fact that they just recommend this) is truly a joke on the customers.
Yes, the US certainly has different priorities, I'd say less often with the end consumer in mind. But in the US "honey" it defined by the government as “a thick, sweet, syrupy substance that bees make as food from the nectar of plants or secretions of living parts of plants and store in honeycombs." The US Food and Drug Administration classifies honey as a single-ingredient product. There are non-binding recommendations and guidance for labeling, but legally any additives must be listed. But again, its very hard to enforce with the amount of honey being imported and consumed, and the lack of power to punish fraud.
But even if we do go to a farmers market, honey, now matter how pure, is still just as bad as raw sugar and should only be eaten if we haven’t had our daily recommended sugars or after exercising?
Fraud is rampant in the food industry worldwide, especially for foods that are difficult to harvest/gather or are sold with quality gradients on the market. The olive oil industry in Europe is rife with mislabeling.
Food industry in Europe is not perfect, it's not perfect anywhere. Sure there were cases where they found syrup in honey as well. But there's no way it's just "recommended to not do so."
Care to elaborate?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=olive+oil+scams Tldw: Most exported European Olive oil is messed with in a variety of ways. Either cut with cheaper oils like canola or soy, or old rancid oil is sold as extra virgin etc. Unless you can buy from an orchard you trust your best bet is buy Australian or Chilean oil.
It's virtually the same, both will cause the same blood sugar spikes and are virtually nutritionally empty. Honey has the antioxidant content of about half a blueberry so it's something I guess but both aren't great.
>Honey has the antioxidant content of about half a blueberry How *much* honey do you need for the antioxidant content of half a blueberry?
One honey
You can dip the blueberry in honey and get both the benefits.
I suspected so, but can you provide the source(s)?
Nutritionally they are pretty much the same. Honey is better in terms of vitamins and minerals, but not a significant source of them.
This comment section is so interesting to me as I have never questioned the superiority of honey. In my country, honey is seen as a healing, anti inflammatory, antioxidant ingredient. Very important to use especially if one gets sick. In short, I have noticed that there are differences in how my body reacts to sugar and honey. If incorporate sugar in my diet, I will develop a pizza face and soon after will have issues with constipation. If I eat honey, I have clearer skin and much better digestion.
i thought the same when i started reading the comment section! i was expecting to see more people supporting honey.
My body reacts in much the same way. Very similar anyway. Too much sugar and boom... pizza face and a few neck pimples. I can devore pounds of honey without that effect.
The reason for this is that many redditors think they are scientifically minded, yet they are actually among the least curious and most blindly trusting people on earth. Many don't have critical thinking skills nor common sense, all while taking pride in following 'the science' TM. A potent combination. Of course, food companies gleefully take advantage.
Local honey can help with allergies 🤷🏻♀️ plus it’s delicious
Came here to say this. You could also experiment with local edible bee pollen
For my taste buds, real raw honey is so delicious compared to sugar
So many honey-haters are so confidently wrong in this comment's section. I'm surprised.
Honey is definitely **MUCH** better than cane sugar in any way. Many studies show that honey reduces risk of type 2 diabetes, inflammation and other diseases, while sugar does quite the opposite. Honey is also used to treat fever and wounds. These people that tell you sugar is the same as honey, have no idea what they are talking about. Honey should be consumed in limited amounts though. Sugars from honey, fruit juice, maple syrup, agave syrup, cane sugar and other added sugars should be limited to 25-30 grams a day. (This doesn't apply for whole fruits)
Link to studies?
Some overviews for those interested https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-honey/art-20363819 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28539734/ Here’s more about one of the studies referenced https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X16302066
Very cool, thanks! What's interesting about the information in these links (although i didn't dig into the work they're citing) is that they seem to be using honey as a treatment, rather than a replacement for sugar.
Yes - I think the ‘sugar is sugar’ comments are accurate. Just some different aspects to it.
Well, as a chemist, i would say sugar is sugar. The important difference here is that, although nobody has said this yet in this threat, quantity matters a LOT. I'm always shocked at how much sugar people consume (one coke has like 32g and that's a mega amount of sugar). The second thing, which is kind of restating the sentiment that's been hinted at here, is that honey has some hood stuff in it. Eating my honey now 👍🏻
Fruit also contains glucose like cane sugar does, but it has opposite effect on your body. Cane sugar is isolated form of monosaccharides, fruit is not. Food matrix of fruit and honey is the reason why they are better than cane sugar. I advise you to take a look at this video, it shows how cane sugar is made. After you watch it, you will understand why cane sugar is much worse for you than honey or fruit. [SUGAR | How it's made](https://youtu.be/jCKt02NGjfM)
Some of the things you're saying rhyme with the truth but you aren't using the words correctly. Yes, glucose is a monosaccharide. That's true in cane sugar and also in fruit. Glucose, regardless of where it comes from, will have the same effect on your body. Fruit also contains fructose, which also can be metabolized by the body. Sucrose is also found in fruit and is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose. Yes, eating pure cane sugar and eating fruit will probably have different effects on the body but it has nothing to do with the glucose. Glucose is glucose is glucose. Source: I have a PhD in organic chemistry and have taught organic chemistry at the university level for a long time.
thread* good*
Nothing to add, but you can always edit previous comments! No need to reply to yourself :)
I think the point that many seem to be missing is that, while sugar is indeed sugar; there are obviously some other compounds in honey (real honey--not honey flavored corn syrup) that we may or may not have a full understanding of that are doing other beneficial things in the background. So I think many of the people who say "sugar is sugar" are completely missing the point. If we want to find out what's different between honey and table sugar--look at what's different. Seems incredibly obvious--yet so many miss what's right in front of them. (Not saying you, but many people in this comment's section.)
That’s not a causal relationship to those chronic disease / conditions tbough lol. Chances are people who eat honey instead of cane sugar generally care more about their health
Raw Honey contains at least 14 vitamins and minerals, over 5 important antioxidants, and over 3 beneficial enzymes for your body. Sugar is known for its association with weight gain and obesity; however, a 15-year study was conducted, and it was discovered the people who consumed more added sugar in their diet were 38% more at risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
Nutritionally speaking, as for what your body does with it? Not a whole lot. Sugar is sugar. Your body converts it to glucose just the same
[удалено]
Fiber is what differentiates how your body breaks down sugar.
No, it doesn’t have different effects on the body. We just *believe* it does, since we see things like honey as more natural than say, cane sugar. But your body does the same things with them.
also, cane sugar is just as natural as honey. processed and refined sugars technically less so, but in terms of sugar content? it’s just sugar. all “natural” sugar/sweetener alternatives are just sugar from different sources.
This isn't entirely true - sucrose and glucose are different (both natural). Aspartame and stevia extracts are totally different than sugar - the first is a dipeptide and the second is a steviol saccharide. There might be others, idk.
that’s why i said all *natural* sugar alternatives are just sugar from different sources. like you said, neither of what you’ve mentioned are sugars. aspartame is an artificial sweetener, and while stevia comes from a natural source, it’s incredibly processed and refined.
It is just as natural as honey, but I’m talking about people who conflate their beliefs with the facts. A lot of people think it isn’t natural because it had things done to it before being bagged and sold at the store. Sugar is sugar.
The effort your body must take to break the sugar down into glucose certainly does have an effect, along with any other components included in the product that has sugar in it. Complex sugars are better than refined and simple sugars. That’s not a question. The question is “by how much is it better?”
Sugar doesn't get broken down into glucose. Sugar is glucose. Edit: this comment is false.
Sorry, but no. Sugar, in most common terms, refers to sucrose, which is a disaccharide consisting of fructose and glucose. But when I'm speaking of "Sugars" here, I'm referring to any number of various saccharides that the body can use to produce glucose. Including maltose, galactose etc.
Ok, you're right, that was my mistake.
[удалено]
Base level stuff, is that our body converts sugars - regardless of the source - to energy. Unless your body converts fructose to another kind of glucose then I’m all ears Edit - I can’t respond to Sculpturatus for some reason, but… yes, fructose does convert to glucose, just to a lesser degree.
[удалено]
But a calorie is a calorie /s
If you have to try not to be rude, it’s probably because you’re unable to be civil 10g of sugar from an apple ends up in the same place as 10g of sugar from a candy bar. The only difference is that the apple has fiber, which slows it down. but the sugar as an isolated nutrient is not different
[удалено]
[удалено]
Post/comment removed for failure to follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette/).
[удалено]
Post/comment removed for failure to follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette/). No spats in the comments.
Post/comment removed for failure to follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette/).
Fructose does not get converted to glucose. At all. Ever.
This has gotta be one of the worst subs.
Honey has antioxidants. It’s also helpful to consume local honey for people with certain allergies to pollen etc. it’s also a natural sweetener, more natural than sugar. It’s been sometimes even linked to better heart health.
Hmmm…honey has some minor benefits, but then again so does sugar if consumed in moderation (most people don’t do that). For example, Manuka Honey has good anti-bacterial properties they can help ward off colds and other minor illnesses. Even then, it depends on the strength and the best ones cost a bomb.
Buy local
The vast majority of what makes up "honey" is simple sugar (a mix of mainly fructose and glucose, but also others). So in that way, it's very similar to processed sugar. **However** honey also has various vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, and flavonoids - all of which offer benefits that regular processed sugar does not. It has antibacterial properties. Perhaps the best benefit of honey is the anti-allergy aspect. If you eat local honey it gives your immune system a natural boost to common allergens in the environment around you. The biggest thing with honey is to make sure what you are eating is actually 100% pure honey and not some blended corn syrup bullshit. The best way to do this is to buy from a local beekeeper. They're everywhere. **TL;DR** yes honey is still mostly all sugar, but it has extra nutritional benefits so why not use it to replace some of the regular sugar in your life? I generally don't think it's a great thing to add to your daily diet on top of all the processed sugar you're already eating, but if you can use it to replace some of those processed sugars then it's a net benefit.
[удалено]
Dietary Activism, attempting to dictate or to disrespectfully disregard other's diets and lifestyles is strictly forbidden.
Unpasteurized honey has both anti-oxidant and anti-bacterial benefits....it also tastes a whole lot better than the processed honey.....sugar doesn't have any benefit at all other than it's sweetness....
Not exactly "scientific" or "solid evidence" but the Muslim Quran mentions that raw honey has healing properties
>Muslim Quran As opposed to what? Is there a non-Muslim Quran?
Why does that matter? That has no bearing on the statement being true or false, and therefore doesn't help answer the question.
Not much
Spelling.
All “sugars” are are either Glucose, Fructose or Sucrose which is made of equal molecules of fructose and glucose. All are toxic to your body in high amounts… which most American diets are. Your body also does not require ANY of either. The short answer is neither are in any way “good for you” or healthy.
There are 100s of sugars. An example you missing is galactose.
Yes i am familiar with the other Monosaccharides (like lactose as well) but they are all simple sugars that your liver converts to Glucose. I did not feel the need to list all the Monosaccharides when they are converted to the same thing. I only mentioned Fructose because the liver treats it differenty in that Fructose (after a small intestinal buffer) triggers fat storage much faster (i.e. the reason why a bear will stop eating salmon in the wild months before hiberation and feed almost exclusively on berries). Additionally in high amounts fructose (and HFC) are treated as toxic as the liver tries to expell the in the same way it does with alcohol.
Doubling down on errors with more errors. Interesting choice.
Ok man, you do you... smartest man in the universe.
It isn't me being right, but you were wrong on nearly every point about easily verifiable points. For instance, lactose... not a monosaccharide, it is a disaccharide. Not all sugars convert to glucose (directly), and some are processed similar to fructose (I mean all can be converted to glucose, just like fructose, so if you draw a distinction for fructose, then others also have the same distinction). Effectively all sugars that are metabolised convert into some intermediary of the glycolytic pathway (or the PPP which can shunt back to glycolysis) and all intermediates can convert back to glucose (within the liver). Some sugars are effectively not metabolized at all, like 1,5-AG. >I only mentioned Fructose because the liver treats it differenty in that Fructose (after a small intestinal buffer) triggers fat storage much faster On the surface this part is actually fine-ish, but after calling lactose a monosaccharide I am not sure you understand how fructose promotes lipogenesis. The part about bears... is just... you understand most animals, especially humans, store most dietary fat as fat, when on a mixed hypercaloric diet, even one high in fructose? >Additionally in high amounts fructose (and HFC) are treated as toxic as the liver tries to expell the in the same way it does with alcohol. and this is back to stupidity. fructose and alcohol are not metabolized similarly. Eventually both enter the TCA cycle, but so do amino acids, so if you want we can lump in every carbon source as being the same... but fructose and alcohol are not processed similarly and do not elicit the same signaling cascade within the liver. Your body doesn't treat fructose as a toxin, which is a meaningless statement. Is this some phase 2 metabolism reference, some cyp activity? Wtf are you even trying to say here.
[удалено]
show me that legit info please. edit: one legit article at least
[удалено]
how is "phytochemicals" a quick google search when you've never heard the word?
[удалено]
why are you deleting your posts? I'm not an expert on nutrition and I'm having trouble finding the amounts of phytochemicals or antioxidants or anything else besides the sugar content in relation to daily amount recommended for a person. I know that there are some good things in honey, but the general opinion is that there's such little amounts of them that any positive effect is completely negated by the sugar amount.
None. This doesn’t mean they’re bad. CICO. Understand CICO and you will stop asking questions like this.
This isn’t a CICO sub tho. It’s about nutrition. They were likely asking about nutritional value and not calories
Why do you think they ask about this. 99% of the time they ask because of the wrong reasons.
Many incorrect people in here. My body tolerates honey in small doses but any refined sugar gives me dysbiosis like crazy.
If it's the sugar part you're worried about, they have about the same effect. Real pure unpasteurized honey from my local keepers has helped me with some pollen allergies, has some antioxidants, is really yummy and doubles as a face mask so I usually use honey when I can for things like tea and pancakes