Comments
Wagamaga OP t1_ix3b0vk wrote
Researchers at the University of Toronto have found that honey improves key measures of cardiometabolic health, including blood sugar and cholesterol levels -; especially if the honey is raw and from a single floral source.
The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on honey, and found that it lowered fasting blood glucose, total and LDL or 'bad' cholesterol, triglycerides, and a marker of fatty liver disease; it also increased HDL or 'good' cholesterol, and some markers of inflammation.
Previous research has shown that honey can improve cardiometabolic health, especially in in vitro and animal studies. The current study is the most comprehensive review to date of clinical trials, and it includes the most detailed data on processing and floral source.
The journal Nutrition Reviews published the findings this week.
"The word among public health and nutrition experts has long been that 'a sugar is a sugar,' said John Sievenpiper, principal investigator and an associate professor of nutritional sciences and medicine at U of T, who is also a clinician-scientist at Unity Health Toronto. "These results show that's not the case, and they should give pause to the designation of honey as a free or added sugar in dietary guidelines."
AllanfromWales1 t1_ix3bu3w wrote
21 authors!
Note that the only statistically significant result was the increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. All the others quoted were "low certainty of evidence". Surprised that got through peer review.
[deleted] t1_ix3dwr9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ix3i8rk wrote
[deleted]
LeoIsRude t1_ix3ja4o wrote
So, if I'm understanding correctly, the title is BS and honey basically does nothing for your health?
[deleted] t1_ix3jzd3 wrote
[deleted]
Cynical_Cyanide t1_ix3kr75 wrote
-
What's the difference between 'raw' and ... Not raw honey?
-
Why would a single floral source make any difference?
[deleted] t1_ix3kvzi wrote
[removed]
AllanfromWales1 t1_ix3l661 wrote
Perhaps more accurately, the evidence is not very conclusive on most of the claims.
Cautious_squatter t1_ix3m46s wrote
“And your Lord inspired the bees: “Make ˹your˺ homes in the mountains, the trees, and in what people construct, and feed from ˹the flower of˺ any fruit ˹you please˺ and follow the ways your Lord has made easy for you.” From their bellies comes forth liquid of varying colours, in which there is healing for people. Surely in this is a sign for those who reflect.“ ( Quran 16:68-69)
big_trike t1_ix3mcm0 wrote
Not raw honey is heated above 72C and filtered.
Darth_Face2021 t1_ix3pjuy wrote
What makes it worse is that if you make a lot of claims, it becomes less surprising that one might coincidentally meet some standard for significance.
Cynical_Cyanide t1_ix3scf0 wrote
As in, pasteurised?
toexistispain t1_ix3uvxz wrote
Brought to you by big honey. That’s right, I said it.
Blunt_White_Wolf t1_ix3xqg5 wrote
Raw honey is cold pressed and put in jars. That is about it.
Non-Raw is filtered and heated.
rebuilding-year t1_ix40mli wrote
It even has a name! P-hacking. If you look at 20 different factors, the likelihood that one of them has a statistical significance better than 0.05 is quite high. If you then ignore those that aren't significant and focus only on the one that is, it makes the finding seem more legitimate than it is.
ribnag t1_ix45u6g wrote
That's still a valuable finding, though - Increasing HDL without increasing total cholesterol is actually pretty hard to do. If something as simple as adding a bit of honey to my morning oatmeal can manage that, pass me some o' that yummy bee vomit!
ginrumryeale t1_ix4alim wrote
I don’t find this study to be particularly compelling evidence of anything, but still— the keto crowd and “sugar = cancer fuel” zealots are going to be riled up by this study.
somedave t1_ix4eane wrote
Reviewed by the honey producers of America!
INTP-1 t1_ix4f37u wrote
As long as honey is not as actively harmful as other sugars, it's still a great potential alternative for sweetening food and beverage.
VOIDPCB t1_ix4g8hx wrote
Single floral source is suspicious. Sounds like a monocrop salesmen. Monocrop farming on a large scale is problematic with far reaching effects (disease and pest). Diversity in floral source is healthier for bees without a doubt.
Dietary diversity appears to be healthy for all living organisms. For sure healthier for animals unless a specific food item or combination of items cause inflammation or illness.
AFAIK you stagger the blooming of many types of flowers throughout the season for best results. It's also common knowledge that a wide diversity of flowers is just better for your environment.
Single floral source could potentially be contributing to colony collapse IF done irresponsibly. There may be a legit need for single floral source due to the unique effects (if any) a flower might bestow the honey produced from it.
usefully_useless t1_ix4gguz wrote
This exactly. Assuming the 20 factors are independent and that the true effect of each factor is zero (i.e. none of them actually do anything), then when using a 5% significance level the probability of finding statistical significance in at least one of the factors (at least one false positive) is about 64%.
There’s a reason that we’re facing a replication crisis, and that reason is the prevalence of p-hacking. (There’s an argument that the overwhelming preference for positive results in academic journals and the publication requirements most departments have for tenure are indirectly responsible for this problem as well, but that’s a different discussion.)
SuperNovaEmber t1_ix4mod7 wrote
Yes, that temp would qualify as pasteurized with a duration of 15 seconds.
HammerfestNORD t1_ix4t5ze wrote
Love my local honey. Very yummy. Couldn't care less if it does anything beyond make me happy.
jjsav t1_ix4zpio wrote
A problem rarely addressed in science is that if you run a lot of statistical tests on a lot of variables, then by chance some will come out as significant. That's the point. If you use 0.05 as the cut off, then run 20 tests just by chance one will likely come out as significant.
cygnoids t1_ix57yc6 wrote
But this is why you use posthoc tests, which account for the number of tests and variables
MilesDominic t1_ix59zuh wrote
Increasing HDL has no clinical relevant benefit.
ribnag t1_ix5b9fz wrote
If you're referring to studies like this one, that's not quite what they're saying. You're right, it's not as simple as HDL is "good" cholesterol. As they conclude, though,
> Compared with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), HDL‑C is of secondary importance for cardiovascular risk stratification and the calculation of the LDL-C:HDL‑C ratio is not useful for all patients. Low HDL‑C levels should prompt a search for additional metabolic and inflammatory pathologies. An increase in HDL‑C through lifestyle changes (e.g. smoking cessation and physical exercise) has positive effects and is recommended; however, HDL‑C is currently not a valid target for drug therapy.
UnderdogRising t1_ix5cgs5 wrote
All we need to do to lower blood sugar is eat honey? How does this drivel ever get past scrutiny?
UnderdogRising t1_ix5cvly wrote
Mainly the ludicrous headline that honey can lead to lower blood glucose.
ginrumryeale t1_ix5dqt0 wrote
This study is weak.
Even higher HDL in isolation isn't the good news it's made out to be.
FranticPonE t1_ix5f95d wrote
Ooooh, publication credit pile papers with little evidence, I love these!
Also if you need a sample for proof that "peer review" as it stands today is nigh worthless, here's one.
CelestineCrystal t1_ix5k2kw wrote
please don’t pay for or use things taken from honeybees. unspeakable things are done to them in this industry
Scientific_Methods t1_ix5on5f wrote
Especially if you do no follow-up confirmatory studies.
Publius82 t1_ix5shye wrote
It sounds like the hdl bump might just mask a problem without providing concrete benefit
Parafault t1_ix5v3k7 wrote
I don’t trust “pure data” statistical studies unless they can back it up with a convincing and well-established mechanism. Data alone can tell you whatever you want it to, if you look at it from the right angle.
NotACockroach t1_ix60yxq wrote
Anecdotally as a beekeeper we notice that hives in suburban areas often do well because of the huge variety of plants grown in choosing foraging range.
PieOverToo t1_ix6amly wrote
I don't think you should really draw that conclusion here.
Don't get me wrong, I love honey and would be delighted if these findings were replicated and confirmed, but...I wouldn't hold your breath
moose_tassels t1_ix6bmg8 wrote
Ahaha, right? I realize the anecdotal nature of this but as a type 2 diabetic the ONE thing guaranteed to makes my blood sugar skyrocket is honey. I...have thoughts.
zygote_harlot t1_ix6jl1c wrote
Mmm mmm same! Sometimes I just nibble on a little spoon of honey.
HammerfestNORD t1_ix6kh05 wrote
I literally take a mouthful swig straight from my bottle after I have a bowl of cereal.
[deleted] t1_ix6mlcl wrote
[removed]
icestationlemur t1_ix75rdl wrote
Pure sugar reduces blood sugar okay
silent519 t1_ix7kfug wrote
> All the others quoted were "low certainty of evidence". Surprised that got through peer review.
it would fail peer review, if they would incorrectly value certainty. it's not like they lie about it.
Potential_Limit_9123 t1_ix92ivl wrote
Not to mention, what is the mechanism?
[deleted] t1_ixjiveq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixjiyua wrote
[removed]
sallguud t1_iy44sm2 wrote
Unfortunately, these kinds of studies definitely max my capacity to interpret medical/dietary science data, but what I took away is that its not just ANY single floral source that matters. In the words of the authors: “Honey, especially robinia, clover, and unprocessed raw honey, may improve glycemic control and lipid levels when consumed within a healthy dietary pattern.” That is, particular types of honey have clearer results, and honey isn’t a miracle drug. They continue, saying, “More studies focusing on the floral source and the processing of honey are required to increase certainty of the evidence.” As several responders noted, then, the authors recognize that the studies they reviewed are not complete or conclusive. Oh well. At least they didn’t find anything that suggests I should throw my honey away.
Cynical_Cyanide t1_iy74edl wrote
Right, thanks for the response.
It's a shame that they don't differentiate between 'single floral source', and 'sourced from beneficial floral sources'.
AutoModerator t1_ix3ayc1 wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.