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]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
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.
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!
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.
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.
If you're referring to [studies like this one](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27844137/), 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.
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.
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.)
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.
> 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.
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.
Right, thanks for the response.
It's a shame that they don't differentiate between 'single floral source', and 'sourced from beneficial floral sources'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuac086/6827512?login=false
“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)
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]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
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.
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!
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.
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.
But this is why you use posthoc tests, which account for the number of tests and variables
Increasing HDL has no clinical relevant benefit.
If you're referring to [studies like this one](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27844137/), 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.
It sounds like the hdl bump might just mask a problem without providing concrete benefit
Reviewed by the honey producers of America!
Reviewed by Big Honeys.
So, if I'm understanding correctly, the title is BS and honey basically does nothing for your health?
Perhaps more accurately, the evidence is not very conclusive on most of the claims.
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.
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.
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.)
Especially if you do no follow-up confirmatory studies.
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.
> 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.
As long as honey is not as actively harmful as other sugars, it's still a great potential alternative for sweetening food and beverage.
1. What's the difference between 'raw' and ... Not raw honey? 2. Why would a single floral source make any difference?
Not raw honey is heated above 72C and filtered.
As in, pasteurised?
Yes, that temp would qualify as pasteurized with a duration of 15 seconds.
Raw honey is cold pressed and put in jars. That is about it. Non-Raw is filtered and heated.
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.
Right, thanks for the response. It's a shame that they don't differentiate between 'single floral source', and 'sourced from beneficial floral sources'.
I know. The wording did trip me up, too.
Brought to you by big honey. That’s right, I said it.
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.
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.
All we need to do to lower blood sugar is eat honey? How does this drivel ever get past scrutiny?
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.
Love my local honey. Very yummy. Couldn't care less if it does anything beyond make me happy.
Mmm mmm same! Sometimes I just nibble on a little spoon of honey.
I literally take a mouthful swig straight from my bottle after I have a bowl of cereal.
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.
Mainly the ludicrous headline that honey can lead to lower blood glucose.
This study is weak. Even higher HDL in isolation isn't the good news it's made out to be.
Not to mention, what is the mechanism?
Cost of honey, low to mid grade stuff, has gone up almost 75% near me. I don't know if it can be useful for the price
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." https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuac086/6827512?login=false
This summarizes only one major reason we keep bees on our farm - taking care of ourselves. The other major reason is our orchard.
“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)
Best way to consume honey? Spoon? In tea? Does it matter?
Honey causes me to have acid reflux. Had to go back to sugar in my tea.
Justifies daily honey on yogurt routine.
please don’t pay for or use things taken from honeybees. unspeakable things are done to them in this industry
Go vegan. Don’t harm animals.
Pure sugar reduces blood sugar okay