Trying to avoid sugar - is honey OK?

[ashtown]

The subject title says it all really. I'm trying to avoid the so called inflammatory foods like sugar and unrefined carbs, so I wondered if honey is OK because in general I eat quite a lot both on porridge in the morning and throughout the day with various herbal teas.

I just read this report and didn't really know at the end whether honey sounded like a good idea or not with Peyronies. It seems to lower inflammation but also decrease Nitric Oxide if I'm reading this properly. Effects of honey on inflammation ... [Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

[MattFoley]

Honey is a cleaner form of sugar but it's still sugar. It will likely do all the other crap to you that other sugars will do.

[Hawk]

We call refined cane sugar "sugar" but nutritionally sugar can be sucros, glucose, fructose, and comes in the form of molasses, honey, corn syrup, beet sugar, etc.  Some may be slightly slower absorbing but the body treats them all the same (actuall that is wrong as pointed out by George later in this discussion).  I am not an expert on low inflammation diet but I am familiar with glycemic index and I suspect the goal for anti inflammation is a low glycemic index foods (among other things).  You can get glycemic values of foods on the internet.  

My guess is its time to turn to stevia, and maybe a little Agave.  Learn about Glycemic index and Glycemic load.

[ashtown]

It's looking like any perceived benefits that might be derived from honey's anti-inflamatory properties are outweighed by other aspects as far as Peyronies is concerned, so I guess I'll just have to get used to less sweetness in diet. I've recently switched to brown pasta & rice and I've pretty much dropped bread completely.  

[MattFoley]

I agree with Hawk that Stevia is ideal but I usually will use Splenda. It's just easier to get either from the Dollar Store or the 99 cent store. Heck, I even use Equal or Sweet n' Low if I can't get my Splenda. As long as it's not straight sugar, it works for me.

[George999]

The whole issue of sweeteners is very complex.

There are the issues of glycemic index and glycemic load.  Glycemic load is very important because it determines how much serum insulin levels get increased and serum insulin is as inflammatory if not more inflammatory than serum glucose.

There is the issue of glucose v fructose.  Glucose is used directly for energy and modulated by the pancreas via insulin secretion.  Fructose, on the other hand is processed by the liver.  The two each have very different effects on the body and on health.  Sucrose is a combination of fructose and glucose and must be broken down before it can be processed by the body.

There is the issue of payload.  Table sugar is pure empty calories - zero payload.  Things like Agave, Honey, Maple Syrup, etc each carry unique payloads.  The payload of Agave, for instance, has not be shown to be significantly useful.  Honey on the other hand, has specific anti-infectious qualities, among other things, that are somewhat of a "redeeming" factor.  Maple Syrup, as well, has the quality of being anti-diabetic.  That does NOT mean it won't dangerously raise your blood sugar, it just means that it will, at the same time, massage your genes away from diabetes.

There is the issue of fruit.  Fruit, which, of course, contains fructose, also carries a rich payload of nutrients, many of which are extremely anti-inflammatory.  Thus, fruit, in moderation, is a very necessary part of the diet, and is no where near as dangerous as refined sugars.  Different fruits DO however have varying glycemic loads, berries are generally lower and thus more healthy and better tolerated, while bananas occupy the other end of the spectrum.

Then, there is the issue of zero calorie NATURAL sweeteners.  Agave is NOT one of these.  Neither are sugar alcohols.  Stevia is.  Here again, it is important to pay attention to payloads.  Many natural zero calorie sweeteners have not so desirable payloads.  Beware.  You may be paying a price for avoiding the calories.  There are a few reasonably good ones out there, but the tend to be expensive and exotic and it is probably more profitable just to wean off the sweet tooth.

There are, of course, also man made sweeteners like Aspartame and Splenda.  These carry their own payloads.  Many of them are excitotoxins.  That is, they can cause damage by stimulating nerve receptors without very being absorbed into the body.  They can also poison the gut by feeding insidious pathogens, which in turn synthesize toxins within the gut.  They also carry risks of direct toxicity.  One of the more popular ones, for example, contains chlorine molecules within its structure.  There is at least some evidence that those chlorine molecules can come lose from the sweetener and actually be absorbed by the body.  That can not be beneficial to general health.

And in the case of both natural and unnatural zero calorie sweeteners, they STILL trigger the sweet receptors in the mouth AND in the digestive tract.  These receptors set loose a chain reaction of events IN SPITE of the fact that no additional calories are present.  This process can be destructive in its own right.  This is why diet sodas across the board are far from effective in controlling weight gain.

All of these issues are torn by controversy.  But remember, the people marketing these substances have plenty of money at hand to promote them in the marketplace and plenty of influence in regulatory circles to keep challenges at bay.

I have come to the point where I have concluded that natural choices are better choices and that beyond that there are no easy answers.  Everyone has to decide for themselves and for their families what risks they are willing to take and how much resources they are willing to part with in order to obtain a healthier lifestyle.

Like everything else about Peyronie's, when it comes to sweets, there are no easy answers.

[ashtown]

There is clearly no simple answer here but I've felt for a long time that artificial sweeteners like aspartame are a bad idea with bulk standard white sugar not far behind. I think I'm going to take a cave man approach to this and stick with occasional honey but in much lower amounts. It's not the end of the world adapting to tea without sweetener and that's where I'm using it most at present. I've long since cut out all sweets, chocolate and alcohol.

My reason for looking at all of this is that I've noticed the plaque seems to grow and harden following certain food types for a period of time, so I want to minimise those events that are presumably blocking opportunities to heal. I find it curious that my plaque always seems to be at its least inflamed and softest following a good night of sleep, when I haven't eaten and perhaps more pertinently stress levels have fallen for a number of hours.  

[Hawk]

George, thanks for that.  I knew some if not most of that but had forgotten it because it gets so convoluted it is difficult to get a solid handle on.  I tend to use the information to try to adapt it to my life style and a couple years later I can't remember exactly why I am doing it.  I use a little agave, stevia, honey, maple syrup, but no cane sugar, and very rarely any artificial sweeteners.  I do eat a lot of fresh fruit.  I think my theory is none of them are good for you so I prefer a combination through the day than more of one item.

Also, just for the record, all honey is not created equal.  There is a significant difference in glycemic index between honey from different sources.  As you might guess, most commercial honey like clover is the worst.

[pizzaman]

The more research that comes out on stevia, the better it looks. There have been some recent studies that show stevia actually improves insulin sensitivity and has several other possible health benefits.