Unexpected Honey Study Shows Woes of Nutrition Research
Almost everything we “know” is based on small, flawed studies. The conclusions that can be drawn from them are limited, but often oversold by researchers and the news media. This is true not only of the newer work that we see, but also the older research that forms the basis for much of what we already believe to be true. I’m not ignoring blockbuster studies because I don’t agree with their findings; I’m usually just underwhelmed by what I can meaningfully conclude from them.
h/t meatriarch (who may have a hidden agenda in passing this along)
In my personal experience it doesn’t matter what the research says when it comes to what is approved for human consumption.
For a time I was deeply involved with the UN’s WHO/FAO Codex commission. Mingling with global public health delegates, UN scientists and lobbyists it became apparent early on that commerce and not science was the only interest represented.
What Agri-business (not agriculture), Big Food and big Bio-tech wanted they got…period.
Any nation state delegates foolish enough to put up a spirited defense of common sense and delay approval would simply be deleted from the process the following year…where the contentious product would be approved without dissent.
If you live in a third rate poverty stricken country and you get to attend a global confab and stay in 5 star hotels and network with folks who can get you out of your personal misery you soon learn to toe the line.
In fact the IPCC and codex are brothers from the same mother.
The only study I trust at all is the one that said most studies are crap.
Honey and high fructose corn syrup are fairly close in mix of sugars. I suspect one’s body can’t really tell the bee vomit from the enzymically treated corn.
Good grief. This columnist is so weak.
There is data and then there is interpretation of data. A lot of people are not especially good at interpreting data.
Nutrition and health is complex because biology is complex. Sure honey will have similar effect to high fructose corn syrup on insulin response because the insulin responds to the glucose and fructose and both honey and HFSC are comparable in this respect. Honey has benefits HFCS does not, but there is no data on that in the study. So concluding honey and HFCS are the same for health (and not just blood sugar and insulin response)is bad interpretation.
Fructose is plainly bad. The columnist is either myopic, a nutter or a shill for sugar industry. Lustig just published a study in which obese kids substituted food with added sugar (50/50 glucose/fructose) for other carbs without changing calories (100% glucose no fructose), and in just 10 days there were significant improvements in blood pressure, triglycerides and other metabolic markers. This is consistent with a lot of previous research. The metabolic pathways as to why fructose has these effects are well-known.
Actually, there is a lot of superb research out there for anyone to gain a lot of insight, if they have decent interpretive skills and are not clouded by confirmation bias or political agendas.
Nutritional Nonsense ….. it’s not new AT ALL. At least 100 years of false claims. Probably more, much more.
The problem is made worse by the media but then there are always confused people like Murry above (“Fructose is plainly bad. The columnist is either myopic, a nutter or a shill for sugar industry”) who thinks that cane sugar and/or beet sugar is FRUCTOSE…… not that it really makes much of a difference to your body anyway.
many so called studies are just the usial bunch of nut cases who call themselves scientists like thse claiming red meats bad for you just like with Oat Bran its all has to do with some political agenda or with money nothing to do with real science