Honey Vs Sucrose Vs No Sugar In Rats

[nomoreketones]

The long-term effects of feeding honey compared with sucrose and a sugar-free diet on weight gain, lipid profiles, and DEXA measurements in rats. - PubMed - NCBI

The long-term effects of feeding honey compared with sucrose and a sugar-free diet on weight gain, lipid profiles, and DEXA measurements in rats.
Chepulis L1, Starkey N.

Abstract
To determine whether honey and sucrose would have differential effects on weight gain during long-term feeding, 45 2-mo-old Sprague Dawley rats were fed a powdered diet that was either sugar-free or contained 7.9% sucrose or 10% honey ad libitum for 52 wk (honey is 21% water). Weight gain was assessed every 1 to 2 wk and food intake was measured every 2 mo. At the completion of the study blood samples were removed for measurement of blood sugar (HbA1c) and a fasting lipid profile. DEXA analyses were then performed to determine body composition and bone mineral densities. Overall weight gain and body fat levels were significantly higher in sucrose-fed rats and similar for those fed honey or a sugar-free diet. HbA1c levels were significantly reduced, and HDL-cholesterol significantly increased, in honey-fed compared with rats fed sucrose or a sugar free diet, but no other differences in lipid profiles were found. No differences in bone mineral density were observed between honey- and sucrose-fed rats, although it was significantly increased in honey-fed rats compared with those fed the sugar-free diet.

 

[nomoreketones]

So sucrose made the rats more fat. The honey fed rats were at the same fat level as the sugar free rats.

Anyone know why?

 

[DaveFoster]

So sucrose made the rats more fat. The honey fed rats were at the same fat level as the sugar free rats.

Anyone know why?

Honey may be a more suitable molecule? It's processed a little bit differently due to its structure.

http://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1577.pdf

 

[Hugh Johnson]

So sucrose made the rats more fat. The honey fed rats were at the same fat level as the sugar free rats.

Anyone know why?

Shortage of micronutrients would be my starting hypothesis.

 

[paymanz]

nice study,the bone results are really interesting.

 

[paymanz]

So sucrose made the rats more fat. The honey fed rats were at the same fat level as the sugar free rats.

Anyone know why?

maybe the sweetness of food made animals eat more food on sugary diet and their calculated calorie intake is faulty.

for example the honey they mentioned 21percent water,according to nutrition data its 17percnt water,but they measured it themself.

i dont know maybe the study has some fault and maybe not!

 

[XPlus]

What else did they eat.

 

[Peater Piper]

There was also a study where sugar increased fatty liver, but honey didn't. Chris Masterjohn talked about it. Honey's more than sugar.

 

[XPlus]

There was also a study where sugar increased fatty liver, but honey didn't. Chris Masterjohn talked about it. Honey's more than sugar.

Sugar could be problematic in my experience when it isn't balanced out with vitamin and mineral supplementation.

 

[Giraffe]

Here is the full text link.

In the sugar-free diet they used amylose (a resistant starch). The honey they used (honeydew honey) has a higher mineral content and more "antioxidants" than regular honey. The rest of the diet consisted of skim milk powder, casein, used oil (to enhance oxidative damage), starch, mineral mix, vitamin mix, water and lots of cellulose. The non-honey groups got some extra water.

The food intake in the three groups was practically identical which I find strange. In ad libitum fed rats I would expect a bit more deviation. (I am no expert in statistics though.)

Figure 1 looks like the weight of the sucrose group was already higher at baseline.

It would be interesting to know how much undigested stuff the feces of the rats contained. I couldn't find information on that. The authors seem to have focused on the benefits of honey. I found another publication from that study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19296910

The study was funded by Fonterra Brands Ltd. New Zealand.

 

[Luming Zhou]

Did the sucrose group ate crystalline sucrose or sucrose that is completely dissolved in water? If they ate crystalline sucrose, that may be the reason for the bad metabolic profile for the sucrose fed rats. Crystalline sucrose is hard to digest and could feed bacteria.

If you look at the table of what the rats were fed, they have only 76 grams of water. 76 grams of water is not enough to dissolve all of the sucrose combined with the other nutrients.



Many other animal studies comparing starch vs. sucrose might have also used crystalline sucrose. Their conclusions may be invalid because of this. Crystalline sucrose is not found anywhere in nature.

 

[NewACC]

Sugar could be problematic in my experience when it isn't balanced out with vitamin and mineral supplementation.

by the way, often all supporters of keto and the harm of carbohydrates just need to try a dose of thiamine or biotin with a fair dose of carbohydrates, which makes them shock how this poison can be SO WONDERFUL