Is raw honey bad?

ebayaddict0127

I kept buying those pre-flavored Greek yogurts and they're just loaded with sugar. So I bought plain Greek yogurt and added some raw honey to it. But raw honey is full of sugar too. I am clueless about sugar. Is sugar in raw honey better than other sugars? Or is sugar just sugar? I thought raw honey was a safer alternative.

I said a sugar a whole lot here.. :ohwell:

SugaryLynx

Sugar is sugar and as long as you don't have a medical condition that requires monitoring it, you can ignore it. Sugar is a carb, so you already track it. I replaced sugar for fiber in my diary because I go well over every day.

jayjay12345654321

Sugar is sugar. The advantage to raw honey is only over pasteurized honey. I'm vegan, but I make an exception for raw organic honey, which looks like an opaque paste. It is not pourable or translucent. I scoop out one teaspoon a day, half the serving size recommendation which comes to 30 calories. The reason I eat it is for allergies. My left eye waters all the time and has done so for years. As long as I eat one teaspoon at day, it doesn't water. Whatever it is in the environment that I am allergic to, eating raw organic honey alleviates the symptoms.

IIIIISerenityNowIIIII

Raw honey has a lot of health benefits. An alternative would be stevia.

Achrya

Sugar is sugar.

Sugar is not bad/your enemy. Unless you have a medical condition that you have yet to disclose.

ebayaddict0127

No medical conditions. Just had blood tests and I'm all good except for slightly elevated cholesterol. I just hate eating a lot of sugar.

SugaryLynx

That's up to you. Just know it's not bad I love sugar, so I just choose what foods help me hit my macros and enjoy whatever I wants.

dayone987

According to Mayo Clinic,raw honey is a potential source of botulism spores and so can cause food poisoning.
Especially not recommended for people who are immuno-compromised and infants under the age of one.

Ctrum69

AHD abstract on sugar. No opinion of mine given, but read it.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full

LC458

Sugar is sugar. The advantage to raw honey is only over pasteurized honey. I'm vegan, but I make an exception for raw organic honey, which looks like an opaque paste. It is not pourable or translucent. I scoop out one teaspoon a day, half the serving size recommendation which comes to 30 calories. The reason I eat it is for allergies. My left eye waters all the time and has done so for years. As long as I eat one teaspoon at day, it doesn't water. Whatever it is in the environment that I am allergic to, eating raw organic honey alleviates the symptoms.

Thank you for sharing this ^^ I may just have to look into it

Ophidion

Sugar is sugar. The advantage to raw honey is only over pasteurized honey. I'm vegan, but I make an exception for raw organic honey, which looks like an opaque paste. It is not pourable or translucent. I scoop out one teaspoon a day, half the serving size recommendation which comes to 30 calories. The reason I eat it is for allergies. My left eye waters all the time and has done so for years. As long as I eat one teaspoon at day, it doesn't water. Whatever it is in the environment that I am allergic to, eating raw organic honey alleviates the symptoms.

Great chart but making an exception excludes you from being vegan, I have met people who use terms like Beegan or flexitarian.

ETA:This is not meant to be derivative in anyway of your lifestyle choice because when asked I usually tell people I am primarily vegan because medications contain lactose and are tested on animals, and so are most things (tested) that are consumed by humans eg cigarettes, toxicity of herbicides etc just the act of agriculture harms animals to a degree. So I don't think there is even one true absolute vegan on the planet.
By Definition

The simplest reason why honey isn't vegan is by definition. The term vegan was coined by Donald Watson in 1944 and was defined as follows:

Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals.

We don't, however, need to go back to 1944 to define honey as not vegan. Any definition of veganism would talk about not exploiting animals, and honeybees (Apis mellifera) without a doubt, animals. Honeybees are in the phylum Arthropoda--the same as lobsters and crabs. So in addition to crustaceans, if honeybees don't merit respect, that would also leave earthworms vulnerable to dissection in biology classes. Similarly, iscallops, snails, and oysters would be fair game--they are not as "high up" on the evolutionary scale as bees. James and Carol Gould (respectively, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton and a full-time science writer) point out that "Honey bees are at the top of their part of the evolutionary tree, whereas humans are the most highly evolved species on our branch. To look at honeybees, then, is to see one of the two most elegant solutions to the challenges of life on our planet. More interesting, perhaps, than the many differences are the countless eerie parallels--convergent evolutionary answers to similar problems"

http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

Fishshtick

[/quote]

By Definition

The simplest reason why honey isn't vegan is by definition. The term vegan was coined by Donald Watson in 1944 and was defined as follows:

Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals.

---

[/quote]

In all seriousness, what does someone following this philosophy do about disease carrying or causing invertebrates? Diseases carried by invertebrates have killed and continue to kill more people than all wars put together. Would they support mosquito control programs to prevent malaria despite the death and suffering of billions of mosquitoes? Sure, you can say that you can live somewhere like a city without mosquitoes, but most of those places are mosquitoless because of wholesale eradication of the systems that once supported animal life. Hence that would seem entirely counter to a reverence for the sanctity of life. What would such a person do if they found a Lyme tick in their skin or were diagnosed with an internal parasite? You couldn't remove or treat either without hurting them. Do vegans avoid walking on grass or soil due to the thousands of insects, nematodes and other invertebrates killed or caused to suffer with every step? I'm not being facetious here. I am just wondering how such an extreme aversion to suffering of any animal life can be implemented in a real world context. I live in a very rural area where everyone would probably say they have a very deep reverence for animal life, but they also kill it with a clean conscience so that might also seem like a paradox to many people.

Ophidion

By Definition

The simplest reason why honey isn't vegan is by definition. The term vegan was coined by Donald Watson in 1944 and was defined as follows:

Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals.

---

In all seriousness, what does someone following this philosophy do about disease carrying or causing invertebrates? Diseases carried by invertebrates have killed and continue to kill more people than all wars put together. Would they support mosquito control programs to prevent malaria despite the death and suffering of billions of mosquitoes? Sure, you can say that you can live somewhere like a city without mosquitoes, but most of those places are mosquitoless because of wholesale eradication of the systems that once supported animal life. Hence that would seem entirely counter to a reverence for the sanctity of life. What would such a person do if they found a Lyme tick in their skin or were diagnosed with an internal parasite? You couldn't remove or treat either without hurting them. Do vegans avoid walking on grass or soil due to the thousands of insects, nematodes and other invertebrates killed or caused to suffer with every step? I'm not being facetious here. I am just wondering how such an extreme aversion to suffering of any animal life can be implemented in a real world context. I live in a very rural area where everyone would probably say they have a very deep reverence for animal life, but they also kill it with a clean conscience so that might also seem like a paradox to many people.

I love how you only partially quoted my reply but let me reiterate...

ETA:This is not meant to be derivative in anyway of your lifestyle choice because when asked I usually tell people I am primarily vegan because medications contain lactose and are tested on animals, and so are most things (tested) that are consumed by humans eg cigarettes, toxicity of herbicides etc just the act of agriculture harms animals to a degree. So I don't think there is even one true absolute vegan on the planet.

So complete context would be nice when quoting me.

Veganism is an attempt to minimize harm done to animals.

Vegan does not equate to perfect just a preference.

In context to real life I just try my best and am fortunate enough to have the financial and geographical means to make my own dietary preference.

marilandica

I'm a bee keeper, so I eat a lot of raw honey. Take that raw vs. pasteurized honey comparison chart with a BIG grain of salt. Raw honey is not necessarily "cloudy and viscous" nor is it necessarily better tasting etc. You can get some badly extracted funky nasty raw honey depending on the processor and the nectar flow the girls (bees) were into when they made it. Those are just the most obvious problems with that chart - there are also some problems with the health claims. Again, I love my raw honey and hope you'll support local raw honey producers, but I wouldn't take that list as the end-all, be-all for doing so.

MissBabyJane

Honey is a healthier option than sugar IMO.

WendyTerry420

I kept buying those pre-flavored Greek yogurts and they're just loaded with sugar. So I bought plain Greek yogurt and added some raw honey to it. But raw honey is full of sugar too. I am clueless about sugar. Is sugar in raw honey better than other sugars? Or is sugar just sugar? I thought raw honey was a safer alternative.

I said a sugar a whole lot here.. :ohwell:

The only difference is that the honey will contain some micronutrients not found in the sugar cane.

WendyTerry420

According to Mayo Clinic,raw honey is a potential source of botulism spores and so can cause food poisoning.
Especially not recommended for people who are immuno-compromised and infants under the age of one.

Any food has the potential for bacterial poisoning. I buy local raw honey all the time.

ETA: And that graphic that was posted on raw honey includes several untruths. Grain of salt folks...

explosivedonut

Sugar is sugar. The advantage to raw honey is only over pasteurized honey. I'm vegan, but I make an exception for raw organic honey, which looks like an opaque paste. It is not pourable or translucent. I scoop out one teaspoon a day, half the serving size recommendation which comes to 30 calories. The reason I eat it is for allergies. My left eye waters all the time and has done so for years. As long as I eat one teaspoon at day, it doesn't water. Whatever it is in the environment that I am allergic to, eating raw organic honey alleviates the symptoms.

I love honey as much as the next person, but this chart is just wrong on so many levels. I also only purchase local honey, and most of the time it is raw. Mostly because I prefer the flavor.

Processed honey also anti-viral, fungal and bacterial. It never goes bad. Raw honey doesn't necessarily contain royal honey, and it certainly doesn't prevent cancer or heart disease. Most of the rest of the claims are dubious at best (raising/lowering of cholesterol? Stabilizing blood pressure? etc.)

SarahLangley35

Raw honey is wonderful, it's so good for you and helps your body out in so many ways

murphy612

Sugar is sugar and as long as you don't have a medical condition that requires monitoring it, you can ignore it. Sugar is a carb, so you already track it. I replaced sugar for fiber in my diary because I go well over every day.

That's not exactly true. The molecular structure are the same correct, but how the body processes them is different.

dayone987

According to Mayo Clinic,raw honey is a potential source of botulism spores and so can cause food poisoning.
Especially not recommended for people who are immuno-compromised and infants under the age of one.

Any food has the potential for bacterial poisoning. I buy local raw honey all the time.

ETA: And that graphic that was posted on raw honey includes several untruths. Grain of salt folks...

This is from a Bee Keeper site so probably pro-raw honey:

Why is honey the only food that is singled out for a warning label stating that it should not be fed to infants less than a year old?
September 01, 2009

---

'Do not feed honey to infants under one year of age' or some similar warning is common on honey labels. This is because honey may contain spores of the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. Botulism spores are similar to seeds in that once in a favorable environment they will germinate and grow into their vegetative phase. Infant botulism is caused when enough C. botulinum spores enter their vegetative stage and start growing rapidly in an infants immature digestive tract producing a toxin that impacts the child’s neurological functions. Newborn babies lack the intestinal micro flora that prevent healthy children and adults from getting sick after ingesting C. botulinum. About half of reported cases of infant botulism have occurred in babies less than two months old. While it is believed that by six months of age most infants will have developed their intestinal flora to the point where they become resistant to C. botulinum, an additional six months has been added to the warning by the national Center for Disease Control (CDC) as a safety factor.

I'm going to assume that you are neither immuno-compromised or an infant so likely this warning is less pertinent to you.

FredDoyle

I'm a bee keeper, so I eat a lot of raw honey. Take that raw vs. pasteurized honey comparison chart with a BIG grain of salt. Raw honey is not necessarily "cloudy and viscous" nor is it necessarily better tasting etc. You can get some badly extracted funky nasty raw honey depending on the processor and the nectar flow the girls (bees) were into when they made it. Those are just the most obvious problems with that chart - there are also some problems with the health claims. Again, I love my raw honey and hope you'll support local raw honey producers, but I wouldn't take that list as the end-all, be-all for doing so.

This. The chart is a bunch of unproven nonsense claims and probably from a naturopathic site.
I buy raw honey from the local apiary 10 kg. at a time and it is clear and pourable. There may be a few bee parts still in it but is is beautifully clear.

Fittreelol

I've read that local raw honey can contain traces of pollen from the area and thus can act as a sort of allergy shot by exposing you to an allergen over time. No actual science to back this up, but seems fairly plausible knowing how allergy shots work. Also honey is delicious especially comb honey. Nomnomnom.

positivesky

Sugar is sugar, as mentioned above, and "although increasing the amount of sugar in an isocaloric diet does not directly lead to changes in energy expenditure or weight gain in controlled feeding studies, high-sugar foods, which are sweet and calorie dense, may increase calorie consumption and lead to weight gain. Furthermore, replacement of whole foods with high-sugar foods compromises attainment of adequate dietary vitamin and mineral intake from whole food sources" - http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full

WendyTerry420

Sugar is sugar and as long as you don't have a medical condition that requires monitoring it, you can ignore it. Sugar is a carb, so you already track it. I replaced sugar for fiber in my diary because I go well over every day.

That's not exactly true. The molecular structure are the same correct, but how the body processes them is different.

It all turns to glucose at the end of the day.

WendyTerry420

Sugar is sugar, as mentioned above, and "although increasing the amount of sugar in an isocaloric diet does not directly lead to changes in energy expenditure or weight gain in controlled feeding studies, high-sugar foods, which are sweet and calorie dense, may increase calorie consumption and lead to weight gain. Furthermore, replacement of whole foods with high-sugar foods compromises attainment of adequate dietary vitamin and mineral intake from whole food sources" - http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full

Yeah, I would say the most "dangerous" thing about sugar is that it's easy to eat too much of it.

murphy612

Sugar is sugar and as long as you don't have a medical condition that requires monitoring it, you can ignore it. Sugar is a carb, so you already track it. I replaced sugar for fiber in my diary because I go well over every day.

That's not exactly true. The molecular structure are the same correct, but how the body processes them is different.

It all turns to glucose at the end of the day.

Yes, but when you're a diabetic that is not all that matters. I'm not saying refined sugar is bad, people can choose what they want. But in whole fruit, the sugars are bound up with fiber that slows the absorption of sugar from the intestines and this reduces the rise in blood sugar when you eat it. Fruits are also loaded with antioxidants that help prevent the inflammation that causes insulin resistance. Small amounts of sugar are stored as glycogen in your muscles and liver for future use, but then all left-over sugar is converted to triglycerides, fats that block insulin receptors and cause blood sugar levels to rise even higher. How a body processes the different sugars is important and not as simple as Bad Sugar vs Good sugar debate.

WendyTerry420

Sugar is sugar and as long as you don't have a medical condition that requires monitoring it, you can ignore it. Sugar is a carb, so you already track it. I replaced sugar for fiber in my diary because I go well over every day.

That's not exactly true. The molecular structure are the same correct, but how the body processes them is different.

It all turns to glucose at the end of the day.

Yes, but when you're a diabetic that is not all that matters. I'm not saying refined sugar is bad, people can choose what they want. But in whole fruit, the sugars are bound up with fiber that slows the absorption of sugar from the intestines and this reduces the rise in blood sugar when you eat it. Fruits are also loaded with antioxidants that help prevent the inflammation that causes insulin resistance. Small amounts of sugar are stored as glycogen in your muscles and liver for future use, but then all left-over sugar is converted to triglycerides, fats that block insulin receptors and cause blood sugar levels to rise even higher. How a body processes the different sugars is important and not as simple as Bad Sugar vs Good sugar debate.

If you are not diabetic, then none of it matters. :flowerforyou:

Ctrum69

Sugar is sugar and as long as you don't have a medical condition that requires monitoring it, you can ignore it. Sugar is a carb, so you already track it. I replaced sugar for fiber in my diary because I go well over every day.

That's not exactly true. The molecular structure are the same correct, but how the body processes them is different.

It all turns to glucose at the end of the day.

Yes, but when you're a diabetic that is not all that matters. I'm not saying refined sugar is bad, people can choose what they want. But in whole fruit, the sugars are bound up with fiber that slows the absorption of sugar from the intestines and this reduces the rise in blood sugar when you eat it. Fruits are also loaded with antioxidants that help prevent the inflammation that causes insulin resistance. Small amounts of sugar are stored as glycogen in your muscles and liver for future use, but then all left-over sugar is converted to triglycerides, fats that block insulin receptors and cause blood sugar levels to rise even higher. How a body processes the different sugars is important and not as simple as Bad Sugar vs Good sugar debate.

If you are not diabetic, then none of it matters. :flowerforyou:

Not this again. Sure it matters. In purely sugar for sugar, perhaps not, as far as your body going 'Oh, honey" or "oh table sugar!" and burning it. For other things contained in it it, it surely matters, based on what goals people have with their nutrition and how they want to parcel it.

People say "eat whatever you want" but then when you say "I only want to eat snickers" they go "That's ridiculous! You can't eat ONLY snickers!" so it's clear it DOES matter.

twixlepennie

Sugar is sugar and as long as you don't have a medical condition that requires monitoring it, you can ignore it. Sugar is a carb, so you already track it. I replaced sugar for fiber in my diary because I go well over every day.

This.

dayone987

Sugar is sugar and as long as you don't have a medical condition that requires monitoring it, you can ignore it. Sugar is a carb, so you already track it. I replaced sugar for fiber in my diary because I go well over every day.

That's not exactly true. The molecular structure are the same correct, but how the body processes them is different.

It all turns to glucose at the end of the day.

Yes, but when you're a diabetic that is not all that matters. I'm not saying refined sugar is bad, people can choose what they want. But in whole fruit, the sugars are bound up with fiber that slows the absorption of sugar from the intestines and this reduces the rise in blood sugar when you eat it. Fruits are also loaded with antioxidants that help prevent the inflammation that causes insulin resistance. Small amounts of sugar are stored as glycogen in your muscles and liver for future use, but then all left-over sugar is converted to triglycerides, fats that block insulin receptors and cause blood sugar levels to rise even higher. How a body processes the different sugars is important and not as simple as Bad Sugar vs Good sugar debate.

If you are not diabetic, then none of it matters. :flowerforyou:

Not this again. Sure it matters. In purely sugar for sugar, perhaps not, as far as your body going 'Oh, honey" or "oh table sugar!" and burning it. For other things contained in it it, it surely matters, based on what goals people have with their nutrition and how they want to parcel it.

People say "eat whatever you want" but then when you say "I only want to eat snickers" they go "That's ridiculous! You can't eat ONLY snickers!" so it's clear it DOES matter.

I've not seen people say "eat whatever you want"
More like "eat whatever you want IIFYM"