Sweeteners: Good and Bad

« WellTellMe • Forum • Natural Health • Nutrition & Food • Sugars & Sweeteners • Sweeteners: Good and Bad »

(Read 15823 times) 1 2 [3] 4 5

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #60 on: September 07, 2007, 04:08:13 PM » by SC

Quote from: healthyinOhio on September 07, 2007, 11:46:44 AM

Could someone please tell me when the whole "sugar is bad, you should only use honey" movement began? Just curious.

The moment a man took a look at the sweet plant in its original form and decided that he could produce a more concentrated, processed product that (in his opinion) was better than what nature could produce by removing all fiber, coloring and nutrients. Wink

I nearly dropped the telephone one day when someone said to me, "But sugar (meaning the stuff you buy in a bag from the store) IS natural isn't it? Why did God make it?" Shocked

I composed myself and explained that the stuff she buys off of the shelf isn't even a distant relative of anything God placed on earth for our nourishment.

The properties of bagged sugar (even brown sugar) is such that it requires your body to draw from it's stores of nutrients just to digest it. In other words, the reason sugar contributes to cavities is because it literally robs your teeth of the calcium they need to remain healthy and fend off disease. Between the HRT that women are taking and the sugar they consume, it's a wonder that anyone over 60 isn't 6 inches shorter than she was in her 40s.

Okay, that last statement was just my opinion. Grin

Can you tell I'm biased?

« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 09:21:01 PM by SC »
Logged

I'm no doctor . . . I'm not even a Post hole Digger! Wink

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #61 on: September 07, 2007, 06:17:02 PM » by wyomama3

I just read the inquiries on beet sugar. Sugar beets are grown heavily in this area. We have 2 factories w/in 45 miles, and after the first freeze the beets will be dug, and there will be massive piles at dump sites to move them to the factory. Beet sugar is processed and then bagged as plain ol' sugar. We find it here labeled as 'Holly Sugar', and as 'GW' brand (Great Western). The store brand sugar is likely to be beet sugar too. The great part about having the sugar factories is during the winter, when you drive by, the air smells like beets cooking. I love that smell!
BTW - a sugar beet is HUGE, and not dark like a garden beet. It is brown on the outside, and usually white fleshed. Our kids love it when one falls from a truck and we get it off the road and bring it home. We don't do anything with it, just look at it - kid prize. Even the thinest slice is disgustinly sweet! I have toured a factory, but it was 9 years ago, on the 4th of July, over 100 degrees, LOTS and lots of stairs, I did it because I was hoping it would put me into labor (baby was born 2 weeks later).

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2007, 04:22:03 AM » by healthyinOhio

Quote from: SC on September 07, 2007, 04:08:13 PM

I appreciate your analogy, SC, but I really don't think it has answered my question. I believe there has been a more recent movement against the use of sugar. I wasn't sure if it was immediately after the inventing of "processed" sugar(white) in 1813, if it was in the 1950's, the rebellious 70's, or is more recent.
Personally, from the research I have done, sugar does not affect the body, harmfully, if it is in its most natural form(raw).
Sugar that does the body harm, actually causes your insulin level to rise, which in effect your body releases hormones to over compensate. I think most of us all know this. But the vitamins and minerals found in the raw cane sugar do not affect the body as the previous kind.
Raw, cane, molasses sugar, whatever one may call it, is what our forefathers brought, used, consumed, ate, baked with. Cancer was rare in those days, although, not nonexistent.
I guess I was hoping someone knew off the top of their head a time frame of when people started to not use sugar at all.
I am starting to wonder if this is one of those issues that started within the church? Any thoughts?

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2007, 05:27:47 AM » by diaperswyper

Very interesting, HIO. I tend to agree with you about the raw sugar.

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2007, 07:37:25 AM » by SC

Quote from: healthyinOhio on September 08, 2007, 04:22:03 AM

I believe there has been a more recent movement against the use of sugar. I wasn't sure if it was immediately after the inventing of "processed" sugar(white) in 1813, if it was in the 1950's, the rebellious 70's, or is more recent.
Personally, from the research I have done, sugar does not affect the body, harmfully, if it is in its most natural form(raw).

. . . Raw, cane, molasses sugar, whatever one may call it, is what our forefathers brought, used, consumed, ate, baked with. Cancer was rare in those days, although, not nonexistent.
I guess I was hoping someone knew off the top of their head a time frame of when people started to not use sugar at all.

Well, from a historical perspective, what our forefathers knew as raw sugar and what we purchase isn't the same thing. Yes, today's 'raw' sugar is LESS processed, but it is still refined and stripped of its beneficial properties to a large extent (fiber and nutrients). In the mid-early 1800's and before, the processing of sugar was such a labor intensive (not as automated and mechanized) task that their refined sugar (what we today call raw sugar) was an expensive and not easily obtained luxury. So, even those families that consumed this form of sugar consumed a GREAT deal less of it, AND when sugar was consumed, it was also consumed with other fermented and non-processed foods which were harvested without the chemicals used in the mass production of foods today. So, the combination of less sugar and more nutrients went a LONG ways towards fending off auto-immune problems like cancer, IMO.

I think the NO SUGAR movement has been in large part a response to the over-processing of all foods (sugar being one of them) and the resultant onslaught of rampant diabetes, cancer, and other diseases. Today, even young children are dealing with chronic disease as we cram them full of calories which have no nutritive value. When you add to this mix processed sugars which rob the body's depleted stores (from not getting whole, organic foods), it is simply a matter of time before disease and sickness finds a foothold in the body.

So, is NO SUGAR the answer? No, but I think it is part of it. It must be part of a lifestyle that seeks to incorporate more nutrient dense forms of organic and fermented foods. Our bodies just weren't designed to obtain the building blocks of health and growth from stop-gap measures like supplements (to counter the effects of an otherwise questionable diet).

Does this mean we must NEVER have sweet foods? NOT AT ALL! Nature provides a myriad of delectable, sweet foods from fruits, honey, nectars, herbs, syrups and more that can be used in a variety of ways -- not to mention the ability to be able to TASTE the sweetness of a food once the taste buds have recovered from the man-made sweetness of processed sugar. Organic foods don't have the bitterness that foods grown with chemicals have.

All of that verbiage was to say that just because you find a product in the health food store that has a label saying "natural" or "raw" sugar, that DOESN'T mean that you've found the most healthful, natural way to sweeten your foods.

There are lots of expensive products that you can purchase in health food stores (and on the web) that use labels (even "organic") which are devoid of nutrients because of the processing involved. This is the reason many families consume so few organic foods, because finding and purchasing the organic equivalent to their normal diet of packaged and processed foods IS expensive. The key to saving $ and upping the nutrient value is in changing the types of foods consumed and learning to utilize the basic ingredients to produce a healthy diet.

AND the benefit of all of this? IF my kids happen to get a piece of candy and/or other sugary sweet treat at some social gathering, they really don't enjoy it that much (because they know what the good stuff tastes like in comparison), AND they don't suffer the same ill effects as if they didn't have an otherwise healthy diet. It's been amazing to see them enjoying foods that I wouldn't have bothered with at their age because of the difference in my diet and theirs as children.

Logged

I'm no doctor . . . I'm not even a Post hole Digger! Wink

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2007, 06:00:09 AM » by healthyinOhio

Quote from: SC on September 08, 2007, 07:37:25 AM

How does one know about this? How has it been proved so? I would like to see for myself, if you don't mind, the book or site that one may read this in. Thank you, SC.
And if what you are saying is true, then sugar is considered "unhealthy" and "unnatural" because it has been stripped of it's fiber. Right? Then, using todays "raw and organic" sugar is no worse than drinking organic juice. Juice in a jar is just as void of fiber.
The only reason I am questioning these things is I have never been able to find for myself in a book or on the internet why sugar is "so terribly detrimental". I have only heard it hearsay and watched others follow suit without questioning. I am not saying that it can't be proved, because I have yet to see the evidence, but I want to encourage people to research out a matter, not just blindly follow anyone that says: "This is what you should do". KWIM?

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2007, 10:02:37 AM » by smithzonian

There's a site a friend refers to often by Dr Mercola. He does lots of research on things. I happened to find an article about 76 reasons sugar is bad for you. http://www.mercola.com/article/sugar/dangers_of_sugar.htm I too have wondered as you do about sugar, so perhaps by your example, it's time to do some digging in and a readin'. I'll start with this site and see if it suffices my curiosity.

Happy researching!! Grin

Logged

Wife to Patrick
Mother to Karina, Keenan, Kyra, Kainos, and Kemuel
My blog www.xanga.com/smithzonian
www.xanga.com/prayforKemuel

I HAVE A BREATHTAKING VIEW OF HIS GRACE

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2007, 02:15:36 PM » by SC

Quote from: healthyinOhio on September 09, 2007, 06:00:09 AM

Quote from: SC on September 08, 2007, 07:37:25 AM

The short and simple answer is that one knows this because the automation process by which sugar (as we know it today) is made was not invented or widely used before the mid-1800s. Here are a FEW of my sources for the information. As to being stripped of fiber like fruit juices, I agree that the original fruit is better nutritionally than the juice. However, even the juice of the fruit (organic) has some nutrient value. Refined sugar does not because it has been bleached with various chemicals (among other things) in the processing.

MEAN PEOPLE DON’T WANT ME TO EAT SUGAR!
(My sarcastic humor showing here Roll Eyes

)

From the book Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon (revised 2nd Edition), page 21:
“Only during the last century has man’s diet included a high percentage of refined carbohydrates. Our ancestors ate fruits and grains in their whole, unrefined state. In nature, sugars and carbohydrates – the energy providers – are linked together with vitamins, minerals, enzymes, protein, fat and fiber – the bodybuilding and digestion-regulating components of the diet. In whole form, sugars and starches support life, but refined carbohydrates are inimical to life because they are devoid of bodybuilding elements. Digestion of refined carbohydrates calls on the body’s own store of vitamins, minerals and enzymes for proper metabolization. When B vitamins are absent, for example, the breakdown of carbohydrates cannot take place, yet most B vitamins are removed during the refining process.
“The refining process strips grains, vegetables and fruits of both their vitamin and mineral components. Refined carbohydrates have been called ‘empty’ calories. ‘Negative’ calories is a more appropriate term because consumption of refined calories depletes the body’s precious reserves. Consumption of sugar and white flour may be likened to drawing on a savings account. If continued withdrawals are made faster than new funds are put in, the account will eventually become depleted. Some people may go longer than others without overt suffering, but eventually all will feel the effects of this inexorable law. If you were fortunate enough to be born with an excellent constitution, you may be able to eat unlimited quantities of sugar with relative impunity, but your children’s or your grandchildren’s inheritance will be one of impoverished reserves.”

History of sugar processing
(http://mimi.essortment.com/historyofsugar_rzow.htm):
“The very first refinery was built in New York City around 1690; the industry was established by the 1830s. Earlier attempts to create a successful industry in the U.S. did not fare well; from the late 1830s, when the first factory was built, until 1872, sugar factories closed down almost as quickly as they had opened. It was 1872 before a factory, built in California, was finally able to successfully produce sugar in a profitable manner. At the end of that century, more than thirty factories were in operation in the U.S.”

Role of technology on sugar production (in Ireland):
http://www.irish-sugar.ie/noframes/nf-pages/nf-hist/nf-hist.htm
“Demand for sugar increased with the growing world population, and even faster, perhaps because improving technology made its production cheaper. In the 1830's when the world population was 1,000 million, recorded sugar production was 800,000 tonnes a year. By 1900 it was 8 million tonnes. By the mid-1970's with a world population in excess of 4,000 million, world production of sugar was about 80 million tonnes, almost equally divided between sugar cane and beet. Today annual production stands at 115,000,000 tonnes.”

How is sugar made?
http://www.irish-sugar.ie/noframes/nf-pages/nf-hist/nf-hist.htm
By the breaking up of sugar cane and boiling until sugar crystals form. The sugar beet was not used as a commercial source of sugar until the second half of the eighteenth century, when Margraf, working in Berlin, discovered a technique for extracting sugar from the beet.

For greater detail on the modern processes which produce table sugar see this site which includes diagrams of a processing plant and an illustration of which parts of the plant are used. http://home.wlu.edu/~powc/intr132/sugar.html

Sugar’s effects on health and nutrition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar
“Many doctors argue that health authorities should classify sugar and high-fructose corn-syrup as food-additives.[4] Some go so far as to call refined sugar a poison.[5]
The anthropologist and dentist Weston A. Price, writing in 1939,[6] correlated the use of refined sugar (and refined grains) with malnutrition in pregnant women, malformation of the palate and jaw in their children, followed by cramping of teeth in adolescence (leading to crooked teeth and the removal of "wisdom teeth" molars).[citation needed] Price correlated other ailments and the impaired function of the pituitary or master gland with consumption of refined sugar, as well as rates of infant mortality, subnormal intelligence, delinquency, and incarceration. He also correlated the underdevelopment of the pelvis which in women would lead to complications (pain, death, etc.) in childbirth.
Virtually all of these symptoms became the norm in modern populations consuming typical amounts of refined sugar and other "modern foods of commerce".[citation needed] Besides the rotting of teeth, interruptable or resumable merely by removing or reintroducing white sugar into a diet,[citation needed] the correlations with consumption of refined sugar may relate less to the consumption of refined sugar itself than to the absence of the consumption of "nourishment",[original research?] a category in which Price did not include refined sugar.
Sugar-cane in its natural form provides a rich source of vitamins and minerals, but refined sugar lacks many nutrients.”

What about today’s “raw sugar?” Sadly, it’s still stripped of nutrients of the processing.
“So-called raw sugars comprise yellow to brown sugars made by clarifying the source syrup by boiling and drying with heat, until it becomes a crystalline solid, with minimal chemical processing. Raw beet sugars result from the processing of sugar-beet juice, but only as intermediates en route to white sugar. Types of raw sugar include demerara, muscovado, and turbinado. Mauritius and Malawi export significant quantities of such specialty sugars. Manufacturers sometimes prepare raw sugar as loaves rather than as a crystalline powder, by pouring sugar and molasses together into molds and allowing the mixture to dry. This results in sugar-cakes or loaves, called jaggery or gur in India, pingbian tang in China, and panela, panocha, pile, piloncillo and pão-de-açúcar in various parts of Latin America. In South America, truly raw sugar, unheated and made from sugar-cane grown on farms, does not have a large market-share.”

What’s the difference in the sugar they ate before refining plants and what we eat today?:
http://www.marketmanila.com/archives/sugar-cane
“It is generally believed that we were crudely refining sugar cane to the rough equivalent of very raw brown sugar by the early 1700’s in home kitchens using wood fires.”
“. . . Prior to the 1850’s we probably had palm sugar and very dark brown sugars that at best flavored rice flour based desserts, etc.”

How was sugar refined before automation?
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/special/exhibits/sugar/contents.html
“The method of producing cane sugar in early 19th-century Louisiana was largely derived from the 18th-century European sugar colonies in the Caribbean. Each cane plantation in Louisiana had its own sugarhouse. The cane was crushed using an animal-powered three-roller mill. The extracted cane juice was heated, clarified, and evaporated in a set of large open kettles of decreasing size which were enclosed in brickwork over a furnace. Lime was the substance most often used to clarify the cane juice, and the impurities that rose to the surface were skimmed off. After a syrup resulted from the evaporation of the juice, the sugarmaker, using rule-of-thumb techniques, determined when sugar crystals had formed. This was called a "strike" and was the point at which the concentrated syrup was turned out into shallow wooden tanks and left to cool. The crystallized mass was then placed in large barrels (hogsheads), each of which had several holes at the bottom that allowed the molasses to drain out. Molasses was collected in cisterns and later packed into separate barrels for market.”

The transition from manual processing to automated processing:
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/special/exhibits/sugar/contents.html
“Aids for loading, unloading, and lifting cut cane--slings and derricks--were also first used in the late 19th century. Milling and processing began taking place on a larger scale with the introduction of new mill designs and improved methods for cane juice extraction and clarification. Many of the advances in process equipment during this period originated in Germany's beet-sugar industry. German ideas introduced into Louisiana during the late 19th century included detailed record-keeping techniques and the application of chemical science to sugar production. Sugarhouse chemists initially faced considerable opposition from sugar boilers and other mill workers who employed only traditional methods handed down on the job, but ultimately chemical control completely transformed business practices in the Louisiana sugar industry.”

Basically, the use of chemicals were introduced to increase the shelf life of the product and further refine sugar (read that strip it of any remaining nutrients).

What are my options for natural sweeteners?
Raw Honey: This is honey that has not been heated over 117 degrees. It’s nutrients include amylases (which helps digest grains), enzymes, and various nutrients found in plant pollens. This has a lower impact of blood sugar levels than refined sugar, but it does have an impact. I found a local beekeeper that sells me raw honey.

Maple Syrup: The concentrated sap of deciduous trees. This syrup is rich in trace minerals brought up from below the ground by the roots of the tree and made bio-available by the processes in the plant which turn them into food. Good for use in baked goods and cream-based deserts. However, formaldehyde is used in the production of most commercial maple syrups. I choose Grade B, organic maple syrup for my family.

Rapadura: Dehydrated cane sugar juice. Rich in minerals, especially silica. Closely mimics sugar. Has the ability to upset the body’s chemical processes like sugar. Best used in cookies & cakes, but with restraint. We don’t use rapadura in our home to avoid yeast problems.

Stevia Powder: Sweet powder of a South American herb that is safe for use by those sensitive to elevated blood sugar levels and fighting Candida overgrowth. A pinch (about 1/8 tsp) of this powder is equal to a spoonful of sugar. It does not add bulk and can be difficult to convert into use in baked goods. Great for sweetening beverages, pie crusts, and I add it to main dishes to cut acid or add interest to spicy dishes. This is a staple sweetener at our house. I use it a lot in conjunction with Agave Nectar.

Agave Nectar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agave_syrup
“Agave syrup consists primarily of fructose and glucose. One source[4] gives 92% fructose and 8% glucose; another[5] gives 56% fructose and 20% glucose. These differences presumably reflect variation from one vendor of agave syrup to another.
As a sweetener, Agave syrup is notable in that its glycemic index and glycemic load are apparently lower than most if not all other natural sweeteners on the market [6].
Culinary use
Agave syrup may be substituted for sugar in recipes.
* Use 1/3 cup of agave syrup for every 1 cup of sugar in the original recipe.
* The quantity of liquids in the original recipe must be reduced due to the moisture included in the syrup.
* Some chefs also reduce the oven temperature by 25°F in recipes requiring baking.”
I often mix Stevia and Agave nectar to produce a more full spectrum sweetness – especially I baked goods and as a topping for salads or desserts. However, for everyday needs, I use Stevia alone.

Dried Dates: Some people use date sugar made from dehydrated dates, but I find that having dried dates on hand also provides the kids with a sweet snack/treat on occasion. It’s not that difficult to simply chop up a few dates and toss them into the mix. A high speed will grind them into your recipe quite well – however, it doesn’t actually dissolve all of the way (neither does the date sugar). This has a high tryptophan content which is an amino acid that has a calming effect. Very good with hot cereals and other warm, sweet dishes.

Molasses: Only worth the purchase if extracted from sugar cane grown in well fertilized (not with chemicals) soils. In this way, it can have many minerals like iron, calcium, zinc copper and chromium. This is a by-product left over from the refinement of sugar. We don’t use this sweetener at my house because I haven’t found a trusted source and have other things that work better IMO. It has a nasty tang, IMO, so our poor jar sits unused in the pantry.

Malted Grain syrups: Made most often from malted barley. Sprouted grains are dried, the rootlets removed and then ground and dipped into an acid solution. Then they are heated with water to form a syrup. Malt syrup is about 65% maltose and only small amounts of nutrients – although they are low in fructose (which can be more harmful than glucose). We don’t bother with this at my house either.

Sorghum Syrup: At the risk of being disowned by my heritage, YUCK!!! The sorghum grain is related to millet and grows on woody stalks to about 15 feet. Sorghum sap is boiled to a concentrate. It takes 8 to 12 gallons of sap to yield 1 gallon of syrup. It contains B vitamins & minerals such as iron, calcium and phosphorus. We don’t use this either at my house.

For our family, we try to stay with sweeteners that have a low blood sugar impact. This means that we use primarily Stevia with occasional use of Agave nectar, raw honey, dried dates and vegetable glycerine (for tinctures and/or cosmetics).

What about Fructose, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Concentrated Fruit Juices, Raw, Natural, Turbinado, Sucanat Sugars and Florida Crystals?
Fructose & High Fructose Corn Syrups are highly refined products that have mostly fructose which causes deleterious effects most especially in growing children.
Concentrated Fruit Juices are boiled down and consist of mostly fructose.
“Raw,” “Natural,” Turbinado, Sucanat Sugars and Florida Crystals are all refined sugars stripped of nutrients. In some cases, small amounts of molasses are added back in to give it a light brown color.

Most of the information on natural sweeteners came from the book Nourishing Traditions, pages 536 and 537. I recommend her book as it has extensive footnoting for anyone who wants to do follow-up research.

« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 01:06:07 PM by healthybratt »
Logged

I'm no doctor . . . I'm not even a Post hole Digger! Wink

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2007, 04:36:45 PM » by Mrs. B

Quote from: SC on September 09, 2007, 02:15:36 PM

Sorghum Syrup: At the risk of being disowned by my heritage, YUCK!!! The sorghum grain is related to millet and grows on woody stalks to about 15 feet. Sorghum sap is boiled to a concentrate. It takes 8 to 12 gallons of sap to yield 1 gallon of syrup. It contains B vitamins & minerals such as iron, calcium and phosphorus. We don’t use this either at my house.

Maybe I'm a redneck, but I love sorghum syrup on a hot, buttered biscuit!!! Tongue

Just to add my opinion on this issue...
I realize that the process by which sugar is made is very different now than in generations before, and that sugar is a very processed and chemically treated substance that I do try to avoid.
The point I haven't seen in this discussion is the quantity that we as Americans, and even as ones who may eat healthier than most, consume on average each day. When we think of our ancestors a hundred or two hundred years ago, they weren't consuming the amounts we do. I think I could justify eating white sugar if I were eating the same amounts that they were.
Thinking back to reading the Little House series as a perspective on pioneer life... they didn't use sugar or honey at every meal or even every day....It was not a practical use of their resources. In our modern society we have such a cheap, easy access to sugar and sugar-sweetened products and they become such a habit. I think that while eating white sugar from the store is an unhealthy and potentially dangerous thing, but more importantly we should also look at the amounts we consume on a daily basis and at the habits we have developed that are a part of our lifestyles.

Logged

Pain is mandatory; suffering is optional...
My Blog:
See The Blue Sky...

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #69 on: September 09, 2007, 05:03:36 PM » by cecac

One can make oneself a guinne pig. If you go on a no sugar diet for about a year you find out just how much the poison does to you. I guess that would be a REALLY MEAN PERSON! Grin

My organic sugar from Costco states this:

"is a blond, delicious,natural sweetener.......made from freshly squeezed Organic Sugar Cane Juice, which is evaporated and crystallized on the same day it is harvested."

I guess in my mind I was thinking that the organic sugar could be used in things occasionally and not be outright toxic due to the minimal processing.

IMO, when something has sugar in it, it does not have full nutritional value. When something has chems/preserves/sugars/ in it then it's at the bottom of the list as far as nutritional value. Anything at the bottom of the list is a toxin to the body. That means, our bodies won't accept it as something to aid in building cells and growth, but as a toxin to be removed.

Our family does not go around baking goodies and thinking it's healthy because we use Organic Sugar, but anyway, organic sugar made me feel a little better about cakes and ice cream (both homemade for birthdays).

Now I'm not so sure, since what SC posted says that these sugars are stripped of nutrients with a tiny bit of molasses added back in for color. >: Huh

So, I would want to be very careful, maybe more careful than I am right now as far as feeding it to the family.

Cara

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #70 on: September 09, 2007, 05:09:34 PM » by kamom

Maybe I'm the redneck Roll Eyes

I love mollasses! Mmmm Shoefly pie with blackstrap mollasses and a good lick while the jar is open. Shocked

[/quote]Maybe I'm a redneck, but I love sorghum syrup on a hot, buttered biscuit!!! Tongue

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #71 on: September 15, 2007, 06:58:09 AM » by healthyinOhio

Quote from: smithzonian on September 09, 2007, 10:02:37 AM

I like a lot of what mercola has to say. I have read most of those "why sugar is bad", and I DO agree.(white sugar does it) But what I don't like is the references don't say if it is processed white bleached sugar that causes this. Surely, someone did some double testing to make sure?! Undecided

For example, you can go on the internet and find a bunch of sites that say milk will: cause excess mucous production, is already dead with no health benefits, etc. yet all those studies are based on pasteurized and homogenized milk, not raw milk.
You have to really look and question health studies. They can be tricky! Wink

Now, all I have to do is research the processing methods of sugar compared to the 1800's. This is how I will be able to see if sugar is really bad or not. I plan on doing this full study after our open house. Thanks, SC for the links! You are a blessing! Wink

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #72 on: September 15, 2007, 09:00:18 AM » by lotsaboys

Quote from: healthyinOhio on September 15, 2007, 06:58:09 AM

Looking forward to hearing the results of your study. Cheesy

I'd love to do that myself- hmm, maybe I will if I get time...

I think the biggest difference in our ancestors eating sugar a hundred years ago and us eating it now is 1) the process in which it is/was made and 2) the amounts in which we/they eat it.

Logged

My WTM Intro

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #73 on: September 15, 2007, 12:03:46 PM » by healthyinOhio

SC,

I found this paragraph out of one of the links that you provided:

"The method of producing cane sugar in early 19th-century Louisiana was largely derived from the 18th-century European sugar colonies in the Caribbean. Each cane plantation in Louisiana had its own sugarhouse. The cane was crushed using an animal-powered three-roller mill. The extracted cane juice was heated, clarified, and evaporated in a set of large open kettles of decreasing size which were enclosed in brickwork over a furnace. Lime was the substance most often used to clarify the cane juice, and the impurities that rose to the surface were skimmed off. After a syrup resulted from the evaporation of the juice, the sugarmaker, using rule-of-thumb techniques, determined when sugar crystals had formed. This was called a "strike" and was the point at which the concentrated syrup was turned out into shallow wooden tanks and left to cool. The crystallized mass was then placed in large barrels (hogsheads), each of which had several holes at the bottom that allowed the molasses to drain out. Molasses was collected in cisterns and later packed into separate barrels for market. The cane grinding season, or roulaison, was a festive time on most plantations. Social gatherings, dances, and candy pullings took place after the cane was ground, and visitors to plantation sugarhouses were often treated to "hot punch," a drink made of partially boiled cane juice and French brandy."
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/special/exhibits/sugar/contents.html

This is what I found on Wipikedia:

Since the 6th century BCE cane-sugar producers have crushed the harvested vegetable material from sugar-cane in order to collect and filter the juice. They then treat the liquid (often with lime (calcium oxide)) to remove impurities and then neutralize it. Boiling the juice then allows the sediment to settle to the bottom for dredging out, while the scum rises to the surface for skimming off. In cooling, the liquid crystallizes, usually in the process of stirring, to produce sugar crystals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Production

Perhaps, I am reading it wrong, but from what I have found cane sugar(raw) is processed the same way as it was in the 1800's.(well, minus the "animal powered" roller!) Cheesy

You may have to go to Amish country to see that! Wink

The amount, yes, is always up for debate. I believe that moderation is always the key for everything. That is just our opinion.
I approximated our families intake of sugar per pounds per year and it comes to about 12 pounds, divided by four, which is approx. 3 pounds in the home(not counting birthday cakes, ice cream, treats, etc.) I found on-line that they believed that our forefathers consumed anywhere from 5-20 lbs. a year. So, comparing myself with your "average" American, who consumes 50-70 lbs. a year, we are doing great.

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #74 on: September 15, 2007, 06:54:29 PM » by lotsaboys

'Nother thought I had- Its notable that even if they ate sugar (in whatever form) hundreds of years ago, however much or little, they would've eaten it WITH good animal fats. AND their entire diet in general was tons better than the SAD!

Logged

My WTM Intro

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #75 on: September 15, 2007, 07:14:10 PM » by mdessy

Quote

I approximated our families intake of sugar per pounds per year and it comes to about 12 pounds, divided by four, which is approx. 3 pounds in the home(not counting birthday cakes, ice cream, treats, etc.) I found on-line that they believed that our forefathers consumed anywhere from 5-20 lbs. a year. So, comparing myself with your "average" American, who consumes 50-70 lbs. a year, we are doing great.

Wow, what an interesting exercise. And what a huge difference. I'm going to have to try to figure out our consumption just out of curiousity. Although we've switched to a lot of honey, agave, maple syrup for things we do still use sucanat. Thanks for the thought wrinkle.

Logged

web: http://www.grainsandmore.com
blog: http://grainsandmore.blogspot.com
columns: http://bit.ly/2GSAqP, http://bit.ly/pSWlI
twitter: http://twitter.com/grainsnmore
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/miradessy

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #76 on: September 16, 2007, 12:41:27 PM » by SC

A Few Thoughts
on Adjusting to the taste of Natural Sweetness

I had an interesting discussion yesterday with some friends. We have been without processed sugar for so long at my home, that I had forgotten that there is an adjustment to the pallet of someone who is used to the sticky, coating/sweetness of processed sugar.

For myself, I had given up all processed sugar AND sugar substitutes for some time before I reintroduced natural sweetening agents back into my diet, so I didn't notice it as much as someone who is going straight from processed sugar to naturally sweetened foods. BUT there IS a difference in the spectrum of sweet in different herbs, foods, honey, nectars, etc. Even a green bean can taste sweet if you have finally gotten the processed toxins and sugars out of your system. Your pallet needs time to adjust to the difference. A natural herbal sweetener will not leave you with the sticky coating that lingers after eating. Your mouth will still feel clean and fresh.

This effect can remind people that have been using chemical alternative artificial sweeteners of that same state. Some people call it an aftertaste, it is actually a LACK of aftertaste (IMO). If you have developed a healthy aversion to artificial sweeteners and have recently stopped using them, this can be a surprise -- in regards to things like stevia or and/or xylitol.

I have also observed that there is a difference in the taste (aftertaste) of such things as stevia depending on what brand and/or form is used. For instance, the stevia packets of sweetener can have rice and/or rice maltodextrin and/or silica in them. I don't like these additives Tongue

, and I think it adds to a yucky taste. The stevia tablets have additives that help form them into tablets and (to me) have a chemical taste. I have found only the powdered form of stevia as pure herb without additives. I hesitated to purchase it at first as you can spend more than $10 for a single ounce Shocked

. Then I realized that this concentrated form of stevia would meet all of our needs (family of 4) for approximately 3 1/2 to 4 weeks.

If you think of sweetness as a range or spectrum of flavor, you start to understand that using processed sugar can so overpower the taste receptors in your mouth that you become unable to distinguish the subtlety of flavor and it's range. As you remove this processed stimulus, you regain your ability to detect and appreciate these different levels of flavor. As this happens, you will notice that some sweet flavors emphasize one trait of sweetness over others -- as in the case of stevia and xylitol which have more of a vegetable-type sweetness that doesn't coat or linger. Then there are syrups, nectars and honey sweetness that does give a sticky coating that is more intense, but in various ways with differing effects on the body chemistry. For a more full spectrum of sweetness, I like to sometimes blend these items.

So, the fault doesn't always lie with the natural sweetener itself. It may be that your pallet needs a little time and patience to adjust to the different flavors. You will likely also find that as you get the processed sugars out of your system, you actually need less of these natural alternatives to provide you with the flavor you crave. Sometimes, the unsatisfactory results stem from using too much of the natural in place of the processed. In other cases, it has to do with the brand of sweetener or the form you are using.

« Last Edit: September 16, 2007, 01:35:55 PM by SC »
Logged

I'm no doctor . . . I'm not even a Post hole Digger! Wink

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #77 on: September 16, 2007, 01:47:39 PM » by lotsaboys

Quote from: SC on September 16, 2007, 12:41:27 PM

So, the fault doesn't always lie with the natural sweetener itself. It may be that your pallet needs a little time and patience to adjust to the different flavors. You will likely also find that as you get the processed sugars out of your system, you actually need less of these natural alternatives to provide you with the flavor you crave.

Once again, SC, you have pointed out a very good point. Cool

And we can attest to this very thing in our experience of eliminating processed sweeteners from our diet and using only natural.

Logged

My WTM Intro

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #78 on: September 16, 2007, 02:45:19 PM » by ArmyWife

At the commissary where I shop, they started carrying Organic Maple Syrup by Maple Grove Farms. It was a little bit more than the regular pure m.s., but I couldn't find anything on the bottle or website as to what made it organic. So, I emailed the company, and asked if the Organic was formaldehyde free (b/c of what I'd read in NT), and the reply was that all pure maple syrup is formaldehyde free, as the US and Canada banned the use of it about 9 yrs. ago. What made the one type organic was that the trees don't have any chemical sprays, there are fewer taps put in, and the equipment used is cleaned with water and not with any chemical cleaners.

About raw honey, we buy ours locally from L.L. Laniers. It is tupelo honey, and pure tupelo honey will never granulate. It is delicious, and much cheaper than buying raw honey from health food stores, at least when I've compared the price. The price went up a little this year b/c it was SO dry in NW FL this past spring and summer, but hopefully next year it will be a better crop and the price will come down some. I don't know how much it costs for S&H, but if you're in the NW FL panhandle area you can buy it directly from their house. This family has been in the honey business for a long time.
You can find more info at their website - www.LLtupelohoney.com

« Last Edit: September 16, 2007, 07:17:30 PM by ArmyWife »
Logged

Feel free to visit our family blogspot! http://toddandannakirkland.blogspot.com

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #79 on: September 17, 2007, 01:14:14 PM » by healthyinOhio

I wrote a letter to Wilderness Family to ask about their Muscovado sugar. This is the response that they sent to me:

"So How is Muscovado different?
Muscovado is pure whole, unrefined, non-centrifugal cane sugar. It is also
called 'poor peoples sugar'.

Muscovado retains all of the natural ingredients of sugar cane, making it
wholesome and healthy. Only pure bee's honey can compare to Muscovado for
natural goodness.

The nutritional qualities alone are quite exceptional and can be compared
with honey.

Muscovado is a natural high energy food source that quickly replaces lost
vigor.

Muscovado (from the Spanish mascabado, meaning unrefined) in South Asia is
also known as gur, jaggery, and khandsari. In Latin America it is known as
rapadura, pamela or piloncillo. In Colombia is it called chancaca. Whatever
name you may know if by, this product is unrefined, non-centrifugal cane
sugar with a high molasses (mineral) content. Although commonly used in
Latin America and south east Asia, these products are relatively difficult
to find in the US.
Back to Top

**THIS IS HOW MUSCAVADO SUGAR IS MADE**
Our Muscovado is made the old fashioned way with Kalmansi (a tiny native
lime similar to Key Limes in Florida) and fresh coconut milk. First the
sugar cane is cut/harvested (by hand). It is washed and then chopped, soaked
and pressed to extract the juice from the sugar cane. This juice is heated
with a little lime juice added. They also cut coconuts off the trees, grate
the coconut meat and press out fresh coconut milk, which is sprinkled into
the heating cane juice. This keeps the juice from foaming as it heats. The
resulting Muscovado is actually about 0.2% coconut milk.

Once this cane juice becomes thick, it is poured into cups where it finishes
by sun drying. The dried cane juice is then pounded to yield a natural,
unprocessed sugar, very high in minerals. It is not uniform in color or
texture. It is more "raw" or unprocessed than any other sugar we have found.

This "unrefined" sugar is darker in color than "refined" sugar because it
contains what sugar producers call "impurities." But these so-called
impurities are essential minerals such as calcium, potassium, magnesium,
copper, and iron, as well as small amounts of fluorine and selenium. So
"refined" sugar has zero nutritional value, while "unrefined" sugar has
significant nutritional value."

The reason I wanted to do this study was because I felt that in my own circle of friends and family members, abstaining from sugar was something done out of "following the crowd" and not out of research. If one did the research, they would see that all the detrimental effects that sugar has on the body is from processed WHITE sugar and not the organic evaporated cane juice type. This article proves that honey is not necessarily a better choice over sugar, but just equal to it. Now, this leaves for personal choice, which is fine. If one family prefers the taste of honey over sugar, that is great. But if you are abstaining from it because you think it is evil and will cause great damage, perhaps you have been lied to?

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #80 on: September 17, 2007, 11:02:06 PM » by SC

If it is helpful, here's a post I made over a year ago in regards to how I determine which sources to believe:
http://www.welltellme.com/discuss/index.php/topic,1592.msg12727.html#msg12727

Logged

I'm no doctor . . . I'm not even a Post hole Digger! Wink

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #81 on: October 29, 2007, 06:07:31 PM » by bakermom

For baking sugar, what kind should I buy? Sucanat? Natural cane sugar? I know there are other names. I was just wondering what the healthiest one is besides eating no sugar at all.

Logged

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #82 on: October 29, 2007, 07:07:48 PM » by lotsaboys

I like sucanat or Rapadura because you can use the same volume as white sugar in a recipe. I think both of them are considered natural cane sugar and are processed the same so one is pretty much as healthy as the other. The raw sugars you can buy at Wal-Mart or a grocery store have been through too much processing and aren't much better than white sugar.
~~Much more info here: http://www.welltellme.com/discuss/index.php/topic,2119.0.html~~

topic merged

« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 11:46:53 AM by healthybratt »
Logged

My WTM Intro

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #83 on: February 28, 2008, 02:07:00 PM » by westernmama

This is an overwhelming thread, ladies! Undecided

I would like to make a change of cutting back on our sugar intake and also using a better/healthier form of sugar when possible. I have access through our co-op and bulk food store to turbinado sugar and succanat. I also have honey, but don't really prefer the taste of honey except in bread or on toast. Can you taste honey in a chocolate chip cookie recipe?

Some sites say that turbinado and succanat are not as healthy as first believed. I'm rather confused. I never do good when I have too many options on the menu. Roll Eyes

Logged

"The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." Job 1:21b

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #84 on: February 29, 2008, 01:43:47 PM » by lotsaboys

Bumping for westernmama

Logged

My WTM Intro

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #85 on: March 02, 2008, 11:28:50 AM » by Whiterock

bump

Logged

Who Needs God?

My Blog - Yarb d'Farb Knarb Check out the Wellness Wednesday tag for your health-related blog posts!

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #86 on: March 02, 2008, 03:46:13 PM » by lotsaboys

Now that I have a little more time, I did some research. Here is a quote from the Weston A Price website on sucanat:

"Q. I’m confused as to which type of sugar is better, Sucanat or Rapadura?

A. Both are fine; both are made by dehydrating cane sugar juice. For a while Sucanat changed the way they made it and were using white sugar, so we stopped recommending the product. But they are now making Sucanat the old fashioned way, so we can recommend it again."

And from what I understand of turbinado its actually a refined sugar that's had the nutrients removed but some molasses put in for a brownish color. Its a sugar cane extract whereas sucanat or Rapadura is pure dried cane juice. So turbinado isn't truly "raw" or "natural" as often claimed on the package. Wikipedia says its more or less like refined sugar except for its golden color and slight molasses flavor. So it would probably do the same thing to your body that white sugar does.

That's what I found and hope it helps!

Logged

My WTM Intro

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #87 on: March 02, 2008, 06:29:58 PM » by 4myhoonie

i'm sad hearing that turbinado is bad, cuz i've been using it for 3 years and really like it. i tried evaporated cane juice sugar and it just didn't have as good of flavor in my tea. so for those of you who have switched from it to Sucanat or Rapadura, which has a better flavor for tea/coffee drinking? i also would really like to use Stevia for this, but didn't like the kind i got before. HB says powder, is there a certain brand to buy that is good? where is good to get it online?

Logged

"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #88 on: March 02, 2008, 07:45:25 PM » by westernmama

Thanks, lotsaboys, for that research. Dh is home and has the comp most of the time or I could do a little more research. Wink

I went to Costco and was curious to see what they had. They sell "evaporated cane juice organic sugar". From what I can tell it looks like regular white sugar although a little darker. Says they don't use any chemicals, bleach, etc. in the process. Also has the Fair Trade mark on it. Anybody know anything about it? The "evaporated cane juice" label on the package confused me a bit.

BTW, I did the "ultimate sugar" baking test yesterday. I made my ooiest-gooiest brownies with whole wheat flour from my Nutrimill and also with succanat. My husband and kids loved them!! Grin

They were a bit dry because I put a little too much flour in, but still yummy nonetheless. Tons of cocoa in them! I also made 100% ww bread yesterday with my Nutrimill and honey in place of sugar. (Can you tell I was in an experimental baking mood? Cheesy

) Dh declared the bread a success - even fluffier than his mom's!! Now that's success. Wink

« Last Edit: March 02, 2008, 08:02:04 PM by westernmama »
Logged

"The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." Job 1:21b

Re: Sweeteners: Good and Bad
« Reply #89 on: March 02, 2008, 08:08:03 PM » by lotsaboys

Quote from: westernmama on March 02, 2008, 07:45:25 PM

From what I read the processing done for turbinado is steaming so therefore the "evaporated". I'd like to know more about that though... and sucanat is dried sugar cane juice. So there's obviously a difference in the processing, I'm just not sure on any more specifics.

Logged

My WTM Intro

(Read 15823 times) 1 2 [3] 4 5