Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Men's Leather Watches Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon The Suffers All-New Amazon Fire TV Beauty V-Day Valentine's Day Cards Bring a little greenery into your home Amazon Gift Card Offer jstfd6 jstfd6 jstfd6  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Lisa Loeb AMO Winter Sports on Amazon.com SnS
Customer Discussions > Health forum

Agave nectar; Good or Bad?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 251-275 of 281 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 9:35:22 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
DAW Your words:
"This has been my point all along, but I feel people are still advising to avoid fructose even as part of a healthy diet."
But, indeed you are right- there is no point in this debate. I am not here to change your opinion only to expose your fallacies.

Posted on Aug 2, 2010 9:35:59 AM PDT
"I learned today that 'added' soluble fibre also contributes to fructose caused fatty acid absorption due to intestinal bacteria digesting it .. thats going to upset someone.."

Short chain fatty acids....and they are used for energy immediately......unlike medium and long chain fatty acids which contribute to the bulk of triglycerides. Soluble fiber is very important to gut flora.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 9:38:39 AM PDT
" am not here to change your opinion only to expose your fallacies."

Ahh, yes the "I'm right and you're wrong" argument. Well, you have yet to do that....and it will be hard reading studies from 1970.....especially after Matthew said most of our fructose catabolism studies/knowledge has been recent.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 9:50:27 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
No not honestly.. at all. If you have all those creds then you are able to google it just like me. It is all out there. Further as a health educator then you have more reason not to be a fence sitter.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 9:52:14 AM PDT
you should go to the website Xagave.com
Not all agave is heated. Agave salmiana (white agave) is not heated it is made with enzymes. and i would say that agave is most comparable to maple syrup. coparing agave to HF corn syrup is like comparing coconut oil to partially hydrogynated oil!.. There are somecompanies that probably make an over heated 'burnt' agave but you shouldn't lump all of them together.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:01:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 2, 2010 10:02:12 AM PDT
Agave is not under any circumstances comparable to maple syrup becuase the maple sugar is predominantly disaccharide sucrose like cane sugar wheras agave no matter how it is made is the monosaccharide fructose and glucose
Like HFCS. Agave contains no disaccharide sucrose no matter how it is made
There are indications free mono fructose glucose mixes are substantually more virulent though the disaccharided is not harmless

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:01:57 AM PDT
Google is often not the best source for credible information. Too many personal web pages, blogs, and commercial sites with unsubstantiated testimonials passed off as studies are in the mix. ProQuest, JSTOR, or other peer-reviewed scholarly journal engine will provide more topical and relevant information. NIH or PubMed are two public sites people can access.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:02:12 AM PDT
sodas are made with HFCS..so according to what you said earlier it should act the same as agave.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:03:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 2, 2010 10:04:13 AM PDT
It all depends on the amount and the form of ingestion. A small amount of HFCS in solid form is less dangerous then concentrated agave in liquid form as in agave lemonade

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:04:01 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
I thought so too and apart from a high intake of fruit and vegetables, and have added psyllium husk to a glass water for years. I am uncertain if this was an unwise practise so will discontinue until further info. Can you assist? Does it also cause the friendly bacteria to produce unwanted calories which must be competing with circulating glucose if used immediately? My reading is that added purified/manufactured soluable fibre does not confer the benefit that is found if in a whole state natural product eg an apple.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:05:51 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
did he? I think I have said that...

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:06:45 AM PDT
i was refering to how agave is made! you don't just cook down corn to get HFCS. Agave is made like Maple syrup or honey depending on what type of agave is used.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:11:24 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
Margaret if you go back to start of this thread you will see this point has been covered already. The important thing is to compare the effects in the body not as they are on the shelves.Fructose whether produced from heating or from enzymes is still fructose and is still contributing to development of Diabetes 2 etc. All syrups are high in fructose. Avoid them for health reasons.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:13:06 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
nih pubmeb
go for it..

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:14:18 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
Please see earlier discussions

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:17:56 AM PDT
"Does it also cause the friendly bacteria to produce unwanted calories which must be competing with circulating glucose if used immediately?"

The advantages conferred with the consumption of soluble (fermentable) fiber far out-weighs any 'caloric production'. The bacteria cannot generate calories that were not there is the first place.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2010 10:18:15 AM PDT
I was talking about chemical composition which is what determines biologic effects not how it is made. You can wind up with the same chemical composition from things made differently. The chemical composition of agave is much closer to HFCS than it is to maple sugar regardless of how it is made. And both agave andHFCS are probably more hazardous then maple sugar

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2010 8:05:28 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
Perhaps they were ill chosen words from me!
But these bacteria do in fact liberate calories by producing ST fatty acids by fermenting the 'indigestible' soluble fibre. You Are right about the calories that were "there in the first place", but they were not there according to the satiety regulatory hormones (leptin and ghrelin which monitor for glucose or glucose/fructose combination, but not fermented fructans which liberates fructose outside 'human' digestion) to them it was inert carbs just passing through!

The point was that they contribute to unmeasured energy entering the body. The further point is that although one would expect this to be small quantity, it is the daily total fructose (promoting fatty acids) from all sources to be considered. Also, it is the amount of unseen fibre added to products to market 'healthful functions' is increasing its ingestion. (At recommended 30g fibre /day, even @ half soluble and 30 % becomes available- that is still a significant contribution to fructose where limits are ~20-25g/day and a good reason to avoid the added variety.

Finally the logic is that "advantages conferred" are unnecessary when an appropriate diet is regularly ingested.(Oh I am so idealistic!) A fructose loaded diet has been shown by a variety of research methods to point to a causative role in the development of metabolic diseases: it becomes nonsensical to me to promote fructans etc as preventative for what is becoming recognised as fructose induced symptoms.eg high cholesterol

Yep am aware the greater jury is still out on this one BUT I have self-interest here - impaired liver function - I cannot afford not to take this new research seriously.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2010 9:10:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 8, 2010 9:11:09 AM PDT
I got The Sugar Fix but havn't had much time to more than browse through it. I'd have to see the research about this uric acid stuff myself

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2010 8:15:22 PM PDT
S. zelei says:
Basically, it's bad. It has a very high percentage of fructose v/s glucose - something like 80%, whereas sugar and honey are 50% and high fructose corn syrup is 55%.

Fructose is linked to certain health risks compared to glucose, including taxing the liver and bypassing the body's metabolic regulation - read more about that on wikipedia for instance.

Basically, all forms of sugar and sugar substitutes have some unwanted effects. Stevia is linked to abnormal cell changes and may be carcinogenic - because of this it's not approved by the FDA as a safe food, and can only be marketed as a "supplement" (for whatever reason, the regulations are more lax for supplements.)

Just use unbleached beet or cane sugar in moderate amounts.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2010 5:56:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 9, 2010 5:56:34 AM PDT
Where did you get this information that Stevia is "linked to abnormal cell changes and may be carcinogenic"? I have not found any evidence anywhere in the medical literature that Stevia is harmful in any way

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 9:58:36 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
If you dont have IR or D2 and 'need to have a sweetener', manufactured glucose (dextrose)powder, is currently recommended by David Gillespie "Sweet poison" with conversion recipes included on his sites. It has less sweetening value but i found that once you stop eating a high fructose diet, taste adjusts and suddenly you taste all sweet flavour VERY acutely. Except in moderate use, whole food state - fruit, sweetening is best reserved for special occasions, not as an every day 'habit'.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 10:47:41 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
MOJo
p 122-125 re- your previous ? _ fructose enzymes

p78 - what is uric acid
( one source: generated from burning ATP )

Also the chart that was with the johnson et al paper reference previously
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2647706/
may give you better insight . See third page of the pdf version- free d/load

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 12:58:40 PM PDT
I am interested in Ayurveda. So Agave is not harmful?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012 7:57:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 13, 2012 8:00:46 AM PDT
EarthGirl says:
Yes please Mak follow up this view ... First be sure what 'agave' is referring to. As I stated 2 years ago MOST agave syrup is boiled down and bacterially fermented agave fibrous 'stalks' which yields an exceptionally sweet product containing high level of free fructose. The harm comes from its contribution to a diet already high in fructose which the human body has not evolved to handle, other than to convert any concentrated amount it receives (such as from processed sweet foods) directly into fat. Regular excess fructose contributes directly to 'metabolic syndrome' of organ diseases such as kidney, liver and heart. Agave, honey, maple, corn, fruit and cane sugar syrups are all processed sugars which deliver fructose in excess. They have all been extracted from natural products which may be part of a healthy diet when consumed in their whole state but cause problems when consumed in concentrated forms regularly. Sweetness is a major marketing tool trouble is the western diet is way too sweet. Agave is not a better health alternative than sugar and its fructose sweetness no less addictive. It is the total fructose quantity across the daily sugar consumption that is the problem, and agave is part of that problem not a solution to it!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Health forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  33
Total posts:  281
Initial post:  Jun 27, 2010
Latest post:  Feb 18, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions