Study from 2014 - Honey helps against cardio vascular deceases?

[eirik]

In Norway, best-selling diet books author Berit Nordstrand, promotes honey as beneficial for all sorts of ailments: For weight loss, against ulcers and against diabetes, to name a few statements I am aware of. She recommends switching regular sugar with honey. For the diabetes, she shows to a single study from 2014:


http://academicjournalscenter.org/index.php/GJMRS/article/view/75

Background: Several studies have shown that honey consumption can have beneficial effects on cardiovascular disease indicators. This study aimed to assess the effect of honey consumption compared with sucrose on fasting blood glucose and blood pressure among young healthy subjects.

Methods: Sixty healthy subjects, aged 18 to 30 years, enrolled to this double blind randomized trial for one month. Participants assigned randomly to honey (received 70 gram honey per day) and sucrose (received 70 gram sucrose per day) groups. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were measured and fasting blood sugar was collected from all participants in the beginning and end of study.

Results: In this trial, the baseline FBS, SBP and DBP were not different between honey and sucrose groups (P > 0.3). We found that consumption of honey can decrease the FBS in healthy young subjects, but intake of sucrose increase it. Moreover, reduction of the FBS in honey group was significant than sucrose group (P < 0.001). Honey and sucrose consumption cannot decrease the SBP and DBP, significantly (P > 0.4). In all of these analyses, confounding variable including age, physical activity and some nutrient intake were adjusted.

Conclusion: Honey consumption can decrease the FBS, but has no effect on SBP and DBP. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

My critical spider sense is tingling.. From what I gathered there has not been much research on this topic, aside from this single small scale study from an Iranian university, printed in an unknown (pay-to-play?) Iranian journal, with an impact factor of about 0,3.

So, I am asking is the study legit? (I am a lawyer, not a scientists) Or am I being overly critical to these scientist? Plus, this probably doesn't cause direct harm?

If nothing else, the science brains on the forum could see this as an opportunity to educate me and others on how to critically read a scientific study All thoughts are welcome.

 

[eirik]

And here's another.. Also from Iran.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2008/961837/abs/

Abstract

It has been found that honey ameliorates cardiovascular risk factors in healthy individuals and in patients with elevated risk factors. The present study investigated the effect of natural honey on total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triacylglycerole, C-reactive protein (CRP), fasting blood glucose (FBG), and body weight in overweight individuals. There were 55 patients, overweight or obese, who were randomly recruited into the study and assigned into two groups: control group (17 subjects) and experimental group (38 subjects). Patients in the control group received 70 g of sucrose daily for a maximum of 30 days and patients in the experimental group received 70 g of natural honey for the same period. In the control and experimental groups, body weight, body mass index, body fat weight, total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C, triacylglycerole, FBG, and CRP were measured before treatment and at day 31 after the commencement of treatment. Results showed that honey caused a mild reduction in body weight (1.3%) and body fat (1.1%). Honey reduced total cholesterol (3%), LDL-C (5.8), triacylglycerole (11%), FBG (4.2%), and CRP (3.2%), and increased HDL-C (3.3%) in subjects with normal values, while in patients with elevated variables, honey caused reduction in total cholesterol by 3.3%, LDL-C by 4.3%, triacylglycerole by 19%, and CRP by 3.3% (p < 0.05). It is our conclusion that consumption of natural honey reduces cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in subjects with elevated risk factors, and it does not increase body weight in overweight or obese subjects.

Is there some Iranian scientific breakthrough in honey going on? Or is the explanation a bit more.. mundane?

 

[MikeG]

You know there is a difference between "deceases" and "diseases", don't you? You may have chosen the wrong one.

 

[casebro]

First study was NOT among diabetics, so is usekess to say honey good for diabetics.

Both studies too small and too short to say much of anything.

 

[eirik]

Sorry, I'll fix that. Not an English speaker

Edit - I don't know how to edit threads. I'll just hope I got my message across..

 

[marplots]

Just as a side issue, the number of calories in honey and sucrose differ by weight. 70 grams of each would give you an extra 58 calories a day for the sugar wing of the study. I wouldn't expect that to make a difference in outcomes, but one wonders why that wasn't taken into consideration?

In other words, you get more sugar with the sugar than with the honey. (This also has to do with the mix of fructose to glucose in the type of honey used.) Seems sloppy to me.

 

[eirik]

Just as a side issue, the number of calories in honey and sucrose differ by weight. 70 grams of each would give you an extra 58 calories a day for the sugar wing of the study. I wouldn't expect that to make a difference in outcomes, but one wonders why that wasn't taken into consideration?

In other words, you get more sugar with the sugar than with the honey. (This also has to do with the mix of fructose to glucose in the type of honey used.) Seems sloppy to me.

That's a good point. Sugar is more energy dense, makes no sense to compare them by weight in such a study.

 

[eirik]

First study was NOT among diabetics, so is usekess to say honey good for diabetics.

Both studies too small and too short to say much of anything.

Thanks!

 

[casebro]

Just as a side issue, the number of calories in honey and sucrose differ by weight. 70 grams of each would give you an extra 58 calories a day for the sugar wing of the study. I wouldn't expect that to make a difference in outcomes, but one wonders why that wasn't taken into consideration?

In other words, you get more sugar with the sugar than with the honey. (This also has to do with the mix of fructose to glucose in the type of honey used.) Seems sloppy to me.

Most of the difference is probably due to the water content of the honey. About 20%.

So sloppy? Or intentional Bad science.

Also, Marplots- The energy density of fructose vs glucose can't be much. They are both the same chemical makeup, just in left handed vs rt handed orientation. Dextrose vs Levulose. The supposed advantage of fructose is that it supposedly takes longer to digest. And it tastes sweeter. But same calories.

 

[marplots]

Most of the difference is probably due to the water content of the honey. About 20%.

So sloppy? Or intentional Bad science.

Also, Marplots- The energy density of fructose vs glucose can't be much. They are both the same chemical makeup, just in left handed vs rt handed orientation. Dextrose vs Levulose. The supposed advantage of fructose is that it supposedly takes longer to digest. And it tastes sweeter. But same calories.

Thanks. I was too lazy to look them up, having forgotten the specifics long ago.

Is there anything in the bond (sucrose being the linked version)?

 

[casebro]

Thanks. I was too lazy to look them up, having forgotten the specifics long ago.

Is there anything in the bond (sucrose being the linked version)?

My knowledge comes from the homebrewing world. I've made "Belgian syrup" by heating sugar water with a pinch of citric acid to break the bond. It makes some very fine bubbles. I was thinking oxygen or such, but when I asked here, somebody said no. So, not much energy to the bond. Any energy +/- might comes from making the enzyme?

Beer brewers hate the thought of using sucrose, but accept Belgian syrup. Snobbery as far as I can tell- winemakers use tons of sucrose without imparting a bad flavor.

eta, barely related: I just looked up the chemical formulas, sucrose vs fructose+glucose. Sucrose needs a molecule of water (two H & one 0) added to get the two monosacharrides. Perhaps the citric acid dissolves some water molecules into H & O ions, and the fine bubbles I see are separate H & O coming out?

 

[CORed]

Most of the difference is probably due to the water content of the honey. About 20%.

So sloppy? Or intentional Bad science.

Also, Marplots- The energy density of fructose vs glucose can't be much. They are both the same chemical makeup, just in left handed vs rt handed orientation. Dextrose vs Levulose. The supposed advantage of fructose is that it supposedly takes longer to digest. And it tastes sweeter. But same calories.

Not entirely correct. Both glucose and fructose are hexoses (six carbon sugars) with an empirical formula of C6H12O6. However, glucose is an aldehyde sugar (carbonyl is on an end carbon of the straight chain form), whereas fructose is a ketone sugar (carbonyl group not on an end carbon of the straight chain form). I think you are probably right that the energy density of the two is very close.

 

[CORed]

My knowledge comes from the homebrewing world. I've made "Belgian syrup" by heating sugar water with a pinch of citric acid to break the bond. It makes some very fine bubbles. I was thinking oxygen or such, but when I asked here, somebody said no. So, not much energy to the bond. Any energy +/- might comes from making the enzyme?

Beer brewers hate the thought of using sucrose, but accept Belgian syrup. Snobbery as far as I can tell- winemakers use tons of sucrose without imparting a bad flavor.

eta, barely related: I just looked up the chemical formulas, sucrose vs fructose+glucose. Sucrose needs a molecule of water (two H & one 0) added to get the two monosacharrides. Perhaps the citric acid dissolves some water molecules into H & O ions, and the fine bubbles I see are separate H & O coming out?

Either acid or base (as well as certain enzymes) will catalyze the hydrolysis of sucrose to glucose and fructose. They will not cause gaseous hydrogen or oxygen to be freed.

I'm not sure where the bubbles come from. My wild guess would be that there is a bit of carbonate or bicarbonate in the water and the acid converts this to CO2.

 

[casebro]

Either acid or base (as well as certain enzymes) will catalyze the hydrolysis of sucrose to glucose and fructose. They will not cause gaseous hydrogen or oxygen to be freed.

I'm not sure where the bubbles come from. My wild guess would be that there is a bit of carbonate or bicarbonate in the water and the acid converts this to CO2.

Correct on the calcium carbonate. Our tap water is very hard. Makes good English style ales though.

But does the residual calcium have any effect? Syrups are supposed to remain liquid-y, but mine will crystallize anew.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Most of the difference is probably due to the water content of the honey. About 20%.

So sloppy? Or intentional Bad science.

Also, Marplots- The energy density of fructose vs glucose can't be much. They are both the same chemical makeup, just in left handed vs rt handed orientation. Dextrose vs Levulose. The supposed advantage of fructose is that it supposedly takes longer to digest. And it tastes sweeter. But same calories.

This right here is where I hit the wall. Beyond this point, I haven't the chemistry chops to hang with this crowd