# Honey Bad for health???



## Jesus_the_only_way (Mar 17, 2006)

Just found this article on a health and healing website. Is any of this true..I hope not. Sounds like crap to me!

"Honey is a simple sugar

There are 4 classes of simple sugars which are regarded by most nutritionists as "harmful" to optimal health when prolonged consumption in amounts above 15% of the carbohydrate calories are ingested: Sucrose, fructose, honey, and malts.
Some of you may be surprised to find honey here. Although honey is a natural sweetener, it is considered a refined sugar because 96% of dry matter are simple sugars: fructose, glucose and sucrose. It is little wonder that the honey bear is the only animal found in nature with a problem with tooth-decay (honey decays teeth faster than table sugar). Honey has the highest calorie content of all sugars with 65 calories/tablespoon, compared to the 48 calories/tablespoon found in table sugar. The increased calories are bound to cause increased blood serum fatty acids, as well as weight gain, on top of the risk of more cavities."

Tom


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

Tom,

The big hype these days is that all sugar is bad for you...........last decade was carbs, and before that fats.........

Pretty soon they will be suggesting that we only eat thick slabs of raw beef.

the internet is not a library.......so read at your own risk.

Honey, starches, fats.........everything in moderation. 

The most obvious is the most overlooked, and its sad that nutritionists blame the obscure rather than the fact that theres a McDonalds on every corner and people forgot long ago what a hard days work was. 

Honey is perfectly fine in a balanced diet, except for babies and probably diabetics. *Edited* Honey IS much better than processed sugar, diabetic or not......didnt want to imply that diabetics can't have honey, just within their guidelines for any sugars.*

Eat pound cake dipped in honey all day and thats another story.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

>>>Honey is perfectly fine in a balanced diet, except for babies and *probably diabetics.*<<<

I have MANY customers who are diabetic and cannot tolerate refined sugar but can ingest honey. 
Sheri


----------



## mistergil (May 24, 2007)

I use the Biblical dietary food guidelines. They've been tested for a couple thousand years and if followed, I believe, should enhance one's health and life in general. There's no prohibition there on honey but each person has specific needs and foods they should avoid. Everything is not right for everyone and excess kills as well. White sugar is that because it is processed using burned cattle bones. Remember the mad cow prion thing? Those prions are not destroyed by any conventional means. Not saying there is any connection but honey seems a better way to sweeten. Anyway, just my two cents.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

>>>White sugar is that because it is processed using burned cattle bones.<<<
Really?
Sheri


----------



## mistergil (May 24, 2007)

Yeah. They're used to bleach the sugar and make it whiter. Too bad but it's true. We're pretty much all vegetarians in this family. Call us whackos but prevention needs to start somewhere. These diseases take years to develop and the jury is still out.

Here's a good article:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/sweeping42302.cfm

Products made from cattle:
http://www.rense.com/general6/cow.htm


----------



## Jesus_the_only_way (Mar 17, 2006)

Dang mistergil, that's some scary stuff!
Tom


----------



## kenpkr (Apr 6, 2004)

That article Mistergil posted is pretty scary, if true. I found this about how refined sugar is processed at this website-
http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj97mar/973sugar.htm

"Almost all cane sugar refineries require the use of a specific filter to decolorise the sugar and absorb inorganic material from it. This whitening process occurs towards the end of the sugar refining procedure. The filter may be either bone char, granulated carbon, or an ion exchange system. The granular carbon has a wood or coal base, and the ion exchange does not require the use of any animal products (2). 
Bones from cows are the only type used to make bone char. According to the Sugar Association and several large sugar producers, all of the cows have died of "natural causes" and do not come from the U.S. meat industry. Bone char cannot be produced or bought in the United States (3). 
Bone char is derived from the bones of cattle from Afghanistan, Argentina, India and Pakistan. The sun-bleached bones are bought by Scottish, Brazilian, and Egyptian marketers, who sell them to the U.S. sugar industry after the bones are first used by the gelatin industry (4).


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

kenpkr said:


> That article Mistergil posted is pretty scary, if true. I found this about how refined sugar is processed at this website-
> http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj97mar/973sugar.htm
> 
> "Almost all cane sugar refineries require the use of a specific filter to decolorise the sugar and absorb inorganic material from it. This whitening process occurs towards the end of the sugar refining procedure. The filter may be either bone char, granulated carbon, or an ion exchange system. The granular carbon has a wood or coal base, and the ion exchange does not require the use of any animal products (2).
> ...


What a load of bunk.

Bone char is produced, bought, and sold in the US every day. 
It's just more misinformation from people who want to scare you or shame you into eating from their menu and nothing else. 
Bone char is simply "charcoal" made from bones instead of wood. They use it because it holds up better than wood charcoal in certain processes. You're no more likely to find some evil organism in it than you are to find a live termite inside a charcoal briquet.


Now I've got the urge for a big fat sugar-cured ham.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

"It is little wonder that the honey bear is the only animal found in nature with a problem with tooth-decay (honey decays teeth faster than table sugar)."

I suspect this is bunk too. No time tonight to look much further, but every reference I found used the exact same verbiage; "It is little wonder...". That's always a red flag that someone thought it sounded good and simply repeated it.

I'd like to see the original source if anyone has it.


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

"It is little wonder that the honey bear is the only animal found in nature with a problem with tooth-decay (honey decays teeth faster than table sugar)."

Then why does my vet keep expounding upon the need to brush cats' and dogs' teeth?


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Here is a link about honey and tooth decay, putting forth that it helps protect against decay and peridontal disease.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?id=40235-honey-fights-tooth
Sheri


----------



## ScadsOBees (Oct 2, 2003)

I don't think that bears really eat very much honey...only the lucky few who manage to find an unprotected apiary. 
They eat:
* Horsetails & grasses
* Berries: chokecherry, huckleberry, & buffaloberry are favorites forbs (broad-leaned plants)
* Aquatic plants such as lilies
* Elk & Moose calves,
* Deer fawns
* Ground squirrels & other small rodents
* Ants,
* Wasps,
* Bees (adults & larvae)
* Carrion

The berries and carrion probably does the worst to their teeth....but I have teeth problems and haven't tried carrion yet. 

All things being equal, honey is still better than table sugar...it is still bad for you if you eat as much honey as most people to soft drinks.

Rick


----------



## Church (May 31, 2007)

*honey is much sweeter than sugar*

OOOPs, sorry Sheri,

*Edited* Honey IS much better than processed sugar, for diabetics or not......didnt want to imply that diabetics can't have honey, just within their guidelines for any sugars.*

Also honey is MUCH sweeter than sugar so you end up using much less........so NET calorie wise you win with honey.


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

I think the reference to "honey bears" is about two species that live around S.E. Asia, India; the "Sun bear" and "Sloth bear". They are considered omnivorous and eat bees and other insects. The link that Johnk and Sheri gave seems most plausible to me. Some "vegetarian" [internet] information of course is "slanted" to their "agenda". {I have NO problem with vegetarians!!}; love them! It looks [scientific "papers"] like it is written "professionally/scientifically but on further "unbiased" examination and perhaps a few "hours" doing some research it is really "BUNK": coyote. Even P.E.T.A. derides honey because honey bees are "unnaturally" confined or "managed". The thing that bothers me the most on the internet [I am 2 years NEW here] is seeing stuff written that appears to be "professional AND scientific" but......................?????? I have a college degree; a little "old"; but this "information" just upsets me sometimes.


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

Mostly about the cattle bones!


----------



## papar (Apr 10, 2007)

*honey's good stuff*

I incorporate my honey sales into a whole foods co-op that I manage. From what my research tells me is that if you are eating a healthy diet of whole foods that have not been heavily processed with tons of refined carbs and you don't add lots of table sugar to your cooking etc.. Then using a bit of raw honey every day is a good thing. Over the past 2 years I lost 80 lbs when switching to a whole foods diet and guess what I ate every day, 2 tbls of honey or more.
The old addage, everything in moderation work here


----------



## John Smith (Jan 31, 2006)

*Scientific Honey*

Good on you, Papar!

If the average American eats 150 lbs of 'sugars' per annum, and only one or two pounds of that is honey, no wonder diabetes and obesity are in plague mode.

I can tell you from experience, that one cannot eat 150 pounds of honey in one year. When I abandoned all forms of sugar except honey and fruit (after reading 'The Hibernation Diet') my appetite for all sugars diminished remarkably, including my appetite for honey. In other words honey is not nearly as addictive as manufactured sugars.

So whilst it is probably true that one can OD on honey, it sounds like 150 pounds of sugar a year is getting mighty close to an OD dosage for the masses too. 

Never mind what science says, unless it suits your own belief system. Scientist can pose a question in such a way as to influence the answer, and don't be too keen to assume that the conclusions scientist jump to are any more suitable to your needs than the ones we might jump to via our religion. Both scientist and priests will enslave you so as to do your thinking for you if you let them. Think for yourself and enjoy the best of both worlds.

Do you know any scientist who agree? What about priests? 

Science is now proving just how good honey is for those suffering with both diabetes and obesity. 

The big crime honey has always committed is that of being too difficult to patent, control and make money out of. It is free in the back yard to the keen householder so has always been bad-mouthed by big food and medicine merchandisers who are usually the ones who funded those ever so well educated scientist. In concert 'they' also manage to tout any research decrying honey whilst at the same time suppressing (or at least failing to acknowledge) any research showing beneficial effects arising from its use.

I am a frequent user of all the beehive products for both food and medicine, and do not pay for medical insurance and require almost no medical services. They say I am lucky. I say they are stupid.

It works for me.

Cheers,


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

> Never mind what science says, unless it suits your own belief system.





> Both scientist and priests will enslave you so as to do your thinking for you if you let them.





> Do you know any scientist who agree?





> Science is now proving just how good honey is for those suffering with both diabetes and obesity.


hmmmm.....


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

March issue of American Bee Journal had a very good article on honey and health, the research looks sound, dig up an issue and read. Honey is one of the perfect food, that’s why people have been eating it since the days of Adam and Eve.


----------



## CAbeek (May 9, 2008)

Common sense would tell you that sugar is in reality a preservative (used since ancient times to preserve food), and what actually "rots teeth" is foodstuffs such as milk, for instance, which quickly turns rancid when unrefrigerated.

Any kind of natural sugar such as honey (and even processed cane sugar) is worlds better for you than the majority of sugar 'substitutes' currently on the market.
There are some indications that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame may actually be hazardous to your health, particularly if consumed in large quantities such as in 'diet' soft drinks.

Now, keep in mind that I'm not a doctor.....but I once stayed at a Holiday Inn


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

There are a lot of things that are bad for you to ingest but honey isn’t one of them.
Honey bad for you?? Bolderdash!!


----------



## pcelar (Oct 5, 2007)

Jesus_the_only_way said:


> Although honey is a natural sweetener, it is considered a refined sugar because 96% of dry matter are simple sugars: fructose, glucose and sucrose.


Tom there is no sucrose in honey.


----------



## pcelar (Oct 5, 2007)

Brent Bean said:


> There are a lot of things that are bad for you to ingest but honey isn’t one of them.
> Honey bad for you?? Bolderdash!!


Yeah probably Monsanto would like you to eat NutraSweet, Aspartame and Neotame.


----------



## John Smith (Jan 31, 2006)

*Honey is GOOD*

Saying that honey (being pure sugars) is bad for you, is like saying that it is the gas that ruins your automobile. We cannot live without food, and that includes sugars. It is the quality and quantity of sugars that we have to address.

Just because some big factory tells us glucose from corn is better for us, does not necessarily make it so. Stick with the tried and true, and that means HONEY.

Honey nurtures and promotes good health. It does not stimulate a hunger for more like most manufactured sugars do. So that means it is not habit forming, or dependency forming. Honey does not promote storage as fat like manufactured sugars do either. 

If you want to know who is telling you the truth, consider what they have to gain by the story line they ply. One can believe anything if he has enough to gain by it, and that implicates us honey buffs too, if we are beekeepers, but a million beekeepers cannot be persuaded to lie as readily as one scientist!


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

Reminds me of a political cartoon I saw decades ago that said something to the effect of "Rats develop cancer after ingesting the equivalent amount of saccharin in 30 gallons of soda per day" ...next frame..."Rats explode after eating the equivalent of 10,000 lbs of cheese per day." 

Anything in excess can be harmful. Meaning also that sometimes experimental data can tell you whatever you want to hear.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

some of what is being said here is less than completely accurate. 

http://www.solorb.com/mead/honeydef.txt

Begin Edit:
btw, i grew up on a dairy farm. have you ever asked a dairy farmer about cholesteral studies and milk? you'll get an ear full if you do....

i keep bees and eat a fair amount of honey, but i like to consider myself to be open minded. others may disagree about that. 
End Edit


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

CAbeek said:


> Common sense would tell you that sugar is in reality a preservative (used since ancient times to preserve food), and what actually "rots teeth" is foodstuffs such as milk, for instance, which quickly turns rancid when unrefrigerated.


Common sense would be incorrect in this case. Anything that allows the production of acids by placque bacteria will "rot" teeth. Honey would qualify easily. Pure honey that is not dilute no, but honey + saliva . . . see where this is going?



> Any kind of natural sugar such as honey (and even processed cane sugar) is worlds better for you than the majority of sugar 'substitutes' currently on the market.


I would not generally disagree, but this is not true from every POV>




> There are some indications that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame may actually be hazardous to your health, particularly if consumed in large quantities such as in 'diet' soft drinks.


The same could be said for glucose, sucrose, fructose etc.

Moderation is the Key.



> Now, keep in mind that I'm not a doctor.....but I once stayed at a Holiday Inn


I have one of those doctorate thingies, but I have also staying in a Holiday Inn. Neither of which is necessary to understand simple nutrition and dental health.

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

pcelar said:


> Tom there is no sucrose in honey.


Nope - but you do know what sucrose is right? (truth be told there is often a little)

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

John Smith said:


> Saying that honey (being pure sugars) is bad for you, is like saying that it is the gas that ruins your automobile.


No it is not, in fact the analogy is exceedingly poor.



> We cannot live without food, and that includes sugars. It is the quality and quantity of sugars that we have to address.


Indeed. And when talking simple sugars, in the developed world the detrements of quantity far outstrip any qualitative difference.


> Just because some big factory tells us glucose from corn is better for us, does not necessarily make it so.


I don't think they ever said that. I think they are saying it is cheaper and not much different. Let us not play with straw men, they tend to burst into flames.



> Stick with the tried and true, and that means HONEY.


Amongst other things.



> Honey nurtures and promotes good health.


When used in moderation. Zealots may disagree.


> It does not stimulate a hunger for more like most manufactured sugars do.
> So that means it is not habit forming, or dependency forming.


Interesting - one might argue that you have a honey habit . . . 



> Honey does not promote storage as fat like manufactured sugars do either.


Kinda sorta. Fructose and sucrose appear to promote obesity more strongly than equivalent amounts of starch or glucose. The jury is still largely out on that and I would not assume that you are on that particular jurist panel.



> If you want to know who is telling you the truth, consider what they have to gain by the story line they ply.


Hold that thought.



> One can believe anything if he has enough to gain by it, and that implicates us honey buffs too,


"zactly - the more ardent "honey si the perfect food" people I know are beekeepers. Whodathunkit?



> but a million beekeepers cannot be persuaded to lie as readily as one scientist!


A) If they wanted to believe it, they could very easily be persuaded to lie, or at least spread self serving and yet factually inaccurate statements. Humans do it all the time. If it sounds too good to be true, it prolly is, especially when it comes from your own two lips.
B) there is not a single scientist.

Keith

PS: For the record I like honey, a lot, I just don't think it is magic.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

no sucrose in honey? ahh, but there is. apparently no one bothered to read the url i posted. oh, well......

“The percentage of sucrose in honey has a larger range than might be expected. Citrus honey from Florida has been rejected in some international markets because of its relatively high sucrose content, which is also thought to promote crystallization.”


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

One would think that before modern medicine arrived on the scene along with dentists that no one would have a tooth in their heads. But it's a little funny that tooth decay was actually a very minor problem it seems according to the fossil remains unearthed prior to our ability to make and use processed foods, namely sugar. Also funny that honey was likely the most predominant sweetener if not the only one present for thousands of years. Obesity didn't seem to be a problem either, except for Royalty that deemed it to be a sign of wealth. But even that came after the invention of processed grains.

Sounds like another agenda being met to me?!


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Bizzybee said:


> Also funny that honey was likely the most predominant sweetener if not the only one present for thousands of years.


True - but people didn't use it by the bucket load like folks use sugar and HFCS nowadays. It would have been a far smaller percentage of the overall caloric intake.



> Obesity didn't seem to be a problem either,


People were getting way more exercise, fat was less prevalent in the diet, more fiber, leaner meats, and that sparingly. Grains were different too.

In the end though it all comes down to quantity. We eat way more calories now than ever before: http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2007/02/21/the_foods_that_made_america_fat.php



> except for Royalty that deemed it to be a sign of wealth. But even that came after the invention of processed grains.


I don't think people were eating honey in the quantities we eat modern simple sugars. You almost cannot avoid HFCS.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56589




> Sounds like another agenda being met to me?!


Of the . . . . ?

Keith "and another conspiracy theory is born" Benson

PS: From the 156 lbs of sugar that the average American consumes, guess at the calory content.


----------



## John Smith (Jan 31, 2006)

*Scientist vs Priest*

OK, Guys, so all scientist are not cheats and all priests are not pedophiles! This we all understand. It is the good ones in both camps that keep the world ticking over. I guess the 'bad' ones have some part to play that is essential too. However, this link (medicinenet) you posted, Keith, is a good example of how science is used to hood-wink the gullible public. 

This site is supposedly (? Is anything on the www what it proposes to be?) coming straight from the inner sanctum of Scientific Medicine, and yet here are two excerpts that I find distressing:



> So what's so bad about all this sugar? After all, sugar can certainly be part of a healthy diet. And while it can cause cavities, there's no firm evidence that it's directly linked to diabetes or other serious health problem.


And further down that page:



> "It's really the extra calories from sugar in our diet that causes health problems like
> diabetes and obesity, not anything inherently unhealthy about sugar itself," says Jule
> Anne Henstenberg, RD, director of the Nutrition Program at La Salle University in
> Philadelphia.


Now whether or not Jule Anne is being quoted out of context, or whether or not she is a scientist of good repute is not the point. The point is, these two (separate, they are) quotes are very convincingly used to defend manufactured sugars of all persuasions.

Without researching now to find you some links, allow me to say that there is overpowering evidence in the scientific literature to show that these sugars are bringing Western Nations to their knees thanks to all the diseases mentioned. 

Keywords in the two quotes include:
(First quote): Firm, Serious and Directly.
(Second quote) Inherently.

So who is determining what 'firm' means? How 'direct' must a substance be? Is diabetes not all that serious? Of course sugar does not use a set of brick laying tools to DIRECTLY build a fat cell. This first statement is direct SPIN. It might as well be classed as direct and firm lies, seriously! Such information as dished up here is easily manipulated even by scientist of good intention, especially as they mostly use University students for the human trials. Young people can tolerate a very great deal more poison of any type than old people. 

If white table sugar had to make its debut on the market today and be classified by the Food and Drug administrations of this world, it would have to be sold as a drug! It gets by on its grandfather status, which may be true of honey too, but at least the human race has had far more centuries to adapt and accommodate honey than in the case of refined cane sugar, and certainly than HFCS. 

So science has become the stock in trade of the new Religion, which it now is. It has become the den of iniquity that religion becomes once it has been thoroughly embedded into a population, yet taken over by administrators and managers (institutionalized).

What all these manufactured sugars do is "HOOK" us on sweets, something honey doesn't seem to do. Sure, we can blame it on the over consumption, but I dare any self respecting scientist to do some genuine research on how two humans (plus a control, of course) would fare if one was given an unlimited supply of honey to eat and the other was given an unlimited supply of manufactured sugars to eat. Obviously this wouldn't be quite that simple to set up, but with a controlled diet of simple fruits, grains, vegies, oils and meats, unprocessed, to be supplied to each to mix with their respective sugars, I am sure the person eating the honey would not only consume far less food overall, he/she would also be healthier and happier after the test was completed.

Ms. Henstenberg as well as admits that it is the sugar that causes the diabetes and obesity once it is over consumed. She might also be able to prove that honey, when over consumed also causes cancer.......... which it well might do if force fed, but when the critters consuming these test are left to their free will to determine how much sweetener they would use, be they rats, or elephants, the honey eaters will be slim and energised, whilst the sugar eaters will be fat and sick (assuming the test ran long enough). Maybe with food shortages looming, Ms. Henstenberg would recommend that sugar be dispensed on prescription to prevent anyone from over consuming it?

According to Mike and Stuart McInnes (Authors of 'The Hibernation Diet') honeybees do not die of diabetes. Here in Australia we have a whole family of birds called "Honey Eaters," whose diet is dominated by nectar from the eucalypt flowers. They are all beautiful creatures when compared with the average American. Admittedly, they all eventually die! Even Australia's 'honey ants' seem to be able to live with enormous volumes of nectar in their bodies, and few animals eat themselves out of existence quite like humans do.

Mind you, no funds are likely to be put forward to allow a scientist who wants to get paid for his work to carry out this experiment. And even, should one volunteer his/her services, and some University published the results, I can tell you now, the Media and the WHO and all the other powers that be would ignore it, shun it, ban it, decry it, challenge it and generally close ranks against it. They all have already proven they can do that with the teeming millions of good scientific projects that have been carried out for centuries on the products of the apiary. It is true that the economy of the world would crash if everyone was healthy, so lets not get too embroiled in reasoning why all this has happened.

But you devoted scientist ban just keep on being the party faithful if you wish. Get as fat as you like and spend yourself silly on medicine if that is what keeps you happy. I can do my own scientific test with my own diet and there is no real need to publish the results. You can laugh at the poor few beekeepers remaining and tick us off as simply wanting to believe in our own product, but soon, as the availability of pollinators fails you, your technological food chain is going to collapse and you will be feasting on the beautifully marbleized flesh of each other! Yes, I know, that word soon is SPIN. But it never need happen at all! You too can enjoy the bounties of life just as easily as the beekeepers do, you just may have to come down out of your ivory tower and touch the earth now and then.

You are quite on target, Keith, when you speak of quantity over quality, but you need to quit trying to manage the planet and start worrying about your own carcass. We need a few to survive to start the process off again, and it would be nice if some of them carried the seeds of our own enlightened culture and not just some cave man, red neck or silver-back in the mountains somewhere.

The best question anyone can ask themselves about their diet is: "Is it working for me?"

Stay Sweet! 

John


----------

