Agave Nectar: A Sweetener That is Even Worse Than Sugar

The harmful effects of sugar are among the few things that most health experts agree on.

Everyone knows that sugar is unhealthy and most health conscious people try to avoid it.

Not surprisingly, all sorts of other sweeteners have become popular, both natural and artificial.

One of those is called Agave nectar, a sweetener that is found in various "health foods."

It is claimed to be natural, and marketed as a diabetic-friendly sweetener that doesn't spike blood sugar levels.

However, if you ignore the marketing claims and take a look at what Agave nectar really contains, you will learn that it is actually even worse than plain sugar.

Let me explain why...

What Is Agave?

The Agave plant grows natively in the southern U.S. and South America. It is most commonly associated with Mexico.

Although most Westerners only recently started hearing of Agave, it has been used in Mexico for hundreds (if not thousands) of years.

Back in the day, the Mexicans used it for various purposes and believed it to have medicinal properties.

The Mexicans also used to boil the sap (sugary circulating plant fluid) to produce a sweetener known as miel de agave.

But the most common use of the Agave plant is fermenting the sugars in it to produce the alcoholic beverage called tequila.

In fact, tequila is the most common commercial use of Agave today and one of Mexico's best known export products.

Like many plants in their natural state, Agave probably does have some health benefits.

However, as is so often the case, when the product is processed and refined it tends to lose some (or all) of these beneficial health effects. This appears to be the case with the refined Agave sweetener that people are consuming today.

BOTTOM LINE: Agave is a plant that grows in large amounts in Mexico. It has a long history of use as a medicinal plant, sweetener, and can also be fermented to make tequila.

How Is Agave Nectar Made?

The sweetener commonly sold as Agave nectar would be more accurately labelled as Agave syrup.

The truth is... it has very little in common with the traditional sweetener made by the Mexicans.

The starting process is the same. They take the plant, then cut and press it to extract the sugary circulating fluid.

This fluid is high in sugar, but it also contains healthy compounds like fructans, which are linked to beneficial effects on metabolism and insulin.

However, when processed into a syrup, the manufacturers break the fructans down into fructose by exposing the sugary fluid to heat and/or enzymes.

This process destroys all of the health promoting properties of the Agave plant, but instead produces the concentrated syrup available on store shelves that is falsely claimed to be healthy.

The manufacturing process is similar to how other unhealthy sweeteners are made, such as High Fructose Corn Syrup.

So... the sweetener sold as Agave nectar is NOT truly "nectar" - it is a refined, processed sweetener made from Agave nectar.

BOTTOM LINE: The Agave sweetener sold today is made by treating the sugars with heat and enzymes, which destroys all the beneficial health effects of the Agave plant. The end product is a highly refined, unhealthy syrup.

Agave Nectar Does Not Spike Blood Sugar Much

The Glycemic Index (GI) is a measure of how quickly the sugar in a food enters your bloodstream.

Generally speaking, the higher the GI rating of a food, the greater the blood sugar spike and the worse it is for your health.

Unlike glucose, fructose does not raise blood sugar or insulin levels in the short-term.

This is why high fructose sweeteners are often marketed as "healthy" or "diabetic friendly."

Agave nectar has a very low GI, primarily because almost all of the sugar in it is fructose. It has very little glucose, at least when compared to regular sugar.

A recent study in mice compared the metabolic effects of Agave nectar and sucrose (plain sugar) after 34 days. The mice getting agave nectar gained less weight and had lower blood sugar and insulin levels (8).

This is actually what we would expect in a short-term study, as the glucose in plain sugar elevates both blood sugar and insulin levels, whereas fructose does not.

That being said... the glycemic index is just one of many things to consider when looking at the health effects of sweeteners.

The harmful effects of Agave (and sugar in general) actually have very little to do with the glycemic index but everything to do with the large amounts of fructose... and Agave nectar is very high in fructose.

BOTTOM LINE: Agave nectar is low in glucose and therefore doesn't spike blood sugar levels much. This gives the sweetener a low glycemic index.

Agave Nectar Is Dangerously High in Fructose

Sugar and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contain two simple sugars... about half glucose and half fructose.

Although both glucose and fructose look very similar, they have completely different effects in the body.

Glucose is an incredibly important molecule. It is found in many healthy foods (like carrots and potatoes) and our bodies even produce it to make sure that we always have enough.

In fact, every living cell on the planet has glucose in it... because this molecule is absolutely vital to life.

Whereas every cell in the human body can metabolize glucose, the liver is the only organ that can metabolize fructose in significant amounts.

In the context of a high-carb, high-calorie Western diet, eating a lot of added fructose can wreak havoc on metabolic health.

The liver gets overloaded and starts turning the fructose into fat, which gets shipped out as VLDL particles and raises blood triglycerides. Many researchers even believe that some of the fat can lodge in the liver and cause fatty liver disease.

Although fructose doesn't raise blood sugar levels in the short-term, it can contribute to insulin resistance when consumed in large amounts.

This can cause major increases in long-term blood sugar and insulin levels, strongly raising the risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.

Eating large amounts of fructose can also have various other harmful effects... such as increasing small, dense LDL particles and oxidized LDL (very bad), cause belly fat accumulation, to name a few.

Here's where it gets really interesting... Agave nectar is about 85% fructose, which is much higher than plain sugar.

Keep in mind that none of this applies to whole fruit, which are loaded with fiber and make us feel full quickly. We are well equipped to handle the small amounts of fructose found in fruit.

This "Healthy" Sweetener Is Even Worse Than Regular Sugar

If you must add some extra sweetness to your diet, agave nectar is absolutely not the way to do it.

There are several natural sweeteners out there that are much healthier... including stevia, erythritol and xylitol.

Agave nectar may just be the unhealthiest sweetener in the world. It makes regular sugar look healthy in comparison... and that is saying something.

Joe Leech, MS 

Source: healthline

Thailand - All this sweetness is killing us

There’s too much sugar, plain and simple, in the drinks Thais buy

Sweetness has become bitter in Thailand. The latest survey of our collective health shows just how widespread our addiction to sugary foods has become - and sweet drinks in particular. Obesity is worryingly on the rise, along with the number of diabetes sufferers. How is this for an alarming statistic: Thailand has more obese women than any country in Asia other than China, the world's most populous nation.

Quite apart from the damage we're doing to our health, if our bad habits aren't curbed, our healthcare system is about to be massively burdened.

Thailand has actually become globally notorious for its sweet tooth, ranking ninth in sugar consumption. Women here have long consumed sugar in far more excessive amounts than men. And, in a population of 67 million, 19 million people (28 per cent) are considered overweight and 7.7 million at risk of life-threatening disease such as diabetes.

In its 2014-15 study, the Thai Health Promotion Foundation (ThaiHealth) found some improvements in our overall health. The number of smokers had decreased from 19.9 to 16 per cent since 2009, when it conducted its last survey. Alcohol consumption declined from 7.3 to 3.4 per cent. These are excellent developments, but afford little consolation given the alarming risks we're taking with sugar.

Deputy Prime Minister Admiral Narong Pipatanasai, presiding at the study's unveiling on Monday, attributed the drop in smokers and alcohol drinkers to public-awareness campaigns. If he's right, the campaigners' obvious next target is excessive sugar consumption.

The government has had a start, imposing a tax on sugary beverages. It hikes the price of drinks containing six to 10 grams of sugar per 100 ml by 20 to 25 per cent. We're optimistic it will do some good, but there are health experts who doubt its viability in weaning Thais off sweet beverages, since urbanites tend to care little about extra cost. The experts insist that more is needed to change consumer behaviour.

It's to be hoped that the government spends the revenues earned from its sugar tax on efforts that get to the root of this hazardous behaviour. The price increase alone ought to get people thinking about the amounts they consume, but the government should also be looking at the way such drinks are advertised with worrying success. The manufacturers spend enormous amounts of money promoting their products. Perhaps they can be persuaded to reduce the sugar level.

The Public Health Ministry should consider strengthening its regulations on advertising and consider imposing new rules on labelling, requiring unambiguous health warnings on the packaging.

The sweetened drinks include green tea, iced coffee and soft drinks, all of which are readily available at convenience stores, schools and workplaces. ThaiHealth found that children ages 10 to 14 were drinking more sweet beverages than ever, no doubt because the drinks are always close to hand.

It's become clear that Thais have to start seeing sugar as potentially lethal, just like cigarettes and alcohol. ThaiHealth estimates that, if we don't change our dietary habits, up to 10 per cent of the population will soon be dealing with diabetes. Given the economic pressure Thailand is already facing with its ageing population, it doesn't need the additional burdens that obesity would bring across all age categories.

A sugar tax is fine, and restrictions on advertising would be better, but the best tool would be raising public awareness about the serious risks involved in consuming too much sugar. Alerted to the danger and regularly reminded, people will adapt or change their lifestyles. That's the direction the government has to choose, and hopefully the manufacturers will assist rather than obstruct such efforts.

nationmultimedia

You can find older posts regarding ASEAN politics and economics news at SBC blog, and older posts regarding health and healthcare at IIMS blog. I thank you.

Singapore - Exposing hidden sugar in food

'Added sugars' alert on nutrition labelling helps people make informed food decisions

If you travel to the United States, you might notice a slight difference in the content of nutrition labels in grocery stores there.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in May that new nutrition facts labels will be rolled out "to reflect new scientific information, including the link between diet and chronic diseases".

One key change in the new labelling is a new category called "added sugars".

The FDA said it is including this category in labels as a sub-header under the category "total sugars", in line with recommendations from various health associations which recommend decreasing one's intake of added sugars.

Although added sugars can be part of a healthy diet, consuming added sugars makes it more difficult for people to meet their nutrient needs while staying within caloric requirements.

This is because people may hit their daily calorie limit without consuming other important foods such as those with essential vitamins, fibres and minerals.

The FDA hopes that adding this category will help consumers be aware of the amount of added sugars in their food.

Added sugars are those that are added to food during preparation or processing, for example, white and brown sugar, and syrups, said Ms Rddhi Naidu, a dietitian from Parkway East Hospital.

This is in contrast to natural sugars which are present in foods in their natural state, such as fructose in fruit and honey, and lactose in milk.

She said that all sugars provide the same amount of calories - 4 kcal per gram. Sugar is broken down to glucose and used for energy production or stored in the body if not used. However, there are differences between natural and added sugars.

Ms Bibi Chia, principal dietitian at Raffles Diabetes and Endocrine Centre, said that food high in natural sugars tend to have a lower glycemic index when compared to food that is high in added sugars.

It is healthier to eat food with a lower glycemic index as this raises blood glucose levels by a smaller amount.

Added sugar provides calories without other benefits, unlike food with natural sugars such as fruit, which also provides vitamin C, carotenoids, phytonutrients, antioxidants and fibre.

"When we eat them as whole foods, they are beneficial," said Dr Lim Su Lin, chief dietitian at the National University Hospital.

People should be aware of whether the food they eat is high in natural or added sugars, and not just look at the total sugar content.

Another example is cereals with added dried fruit, said Ms Chia. These are high in sugar content due to the natural sugars in the fruit. However, dried fruit provides fibre and vitamins, compared to cereal sweetened with simple sugars.

Ms Naidu said: "Knowing the difference between the two types can help you identify sources of sugar in the diet and reduce consumption for weight control."

Another thing to be aware of is that sugars are extracted in concentrated form. When this is added to other foods, it will cause them to have higher calories and sugars, which can lead to a higher risk of obesity, said Dr Lim.

This can, in turn, lead to a higher risk of getting diabetes and other chronic diseases, she added.

Dr Lim said that some people mistakenly believe that fructose is healthy, since it is derived from fruit. But studies have shown that fructose as an added sugar is more unhealthy than fructose as a natural sugar. "Sugar has detrimental effects once extracted from its natural sources and taken in large amounts."

The Health Promotion Board (HPB) does not require food manufacturers to use a similar labelling format as the FDA.

Singapore is a largely importing country and imposing requirements for a standardised labelling format would not be practical, said HPB chief executive officer Zee Yoong Kang.

Nutrition labelling in different countries varies. For example, the US requires nutrient labelling for each serving of food product, while the nutrition information panel in the European Union, Australia and New Zealand is per 100g.

Only the US requires "added sugars" to be disclosed on labels, with countries like Canada and Australia encouraging voluntary labelling, said Mr Zee.

"We are closely following the development of food-labelling measures in the global landscape. At the moment, about two-thirds of retail products here have some form of nutrition labelling," he said.

The HPB "would not rule out the possibility" of making nutrition labelling a requirement here in time to come.

Nutrition labelling can be a useful tool, especially as part of a wider effort to educate consumers on making informed food decisions, said Mr Zee.

The HPB recommends that people consume no more than 10 per cent of daily dietary energy from sugars, whether added or natural.

This is equivalent to about 10 teaspoons of sugar - about 50g.

On average, women need about 1,800 calories a day, while men need about 2,200 calories in order to stay healthy, depending on factors such as age, gender, weight and activity levels.

Timothy Goh

straitstimes

You can find older posts regarding ASEAN politics and economics news at SBC blog, and older posts regarding health and healthcare at IIMS blog. I thank you.

Thailand - War on sugar: Can taxman extract Asia's sweet tooth?

More countries proposing a tax on sugary drinks, but F&B industry puts up resistance

On a sweltering evening in downtown Bangkok, thirsty joggers crowd around a drinks kiosk in Sukhumvit Road. Most reach for chilled water, or sweet ready-mixed green tea, each bottle containing almost 90 per cent the daily recommended allowance of sugar.

Thai health advocates are trying to bring this under control. Last month, a junta-appointed reform assembly submitted a proposal to tax packaged drinks according to their sugar content. This could result in beverages like soda, coffee, green tea and energy drinks becoming at least 20 per cent more expensive, and hopefully keep a lid on the incidence of obesity, diabetes and hypertension in the fast ageing country.

Thailand's attempt to wean its people off sugary drinks is part of a growing trend in Asia, where increasingly calorie-rich diets and sedentary lifestyles are producing health complications that threaten national budgets.

Philippine lawmakers last November introduced a Bill to charge a 10 per cent tax on sweetened drinks. India policymakers have proposed a 40 per cent rate. Vietnam mulled over but eventually scrapped a proposed 10 per cent tax in 2014 after commercial pressure, while Indonesia is facing similar opposition over its soda tax plans.

Singapore has no such tax, but the idea was brought up during last month's parliamentary debate.

The Singapore health authorities say that Asians are genetically more predisposed to diabetes than Caucasians.

Dr Annie Ling, director of policy, research and surveillance at Singapore's Health Promotion Board, has said that for the same amount of carbohydrates consumed, the glucose response in the blood of Asians could be as high as double that of Caucasians.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends sugar consumption be limited to 12 teaspoons or about 50g a day, a limit easily reached by drinking one can of soda. Worryingly large numbers of children in Asia are doing this daily.

According to WHO data, 57.7 per cent of Thai children aged between 13 and 15 years consume carbonated soft drinks one or more times per day. In Brunei, the figure is 46.3 per cent; in Cambodia, 45.6 per cent; and in the Philippines, 42.2 per cent.

The overconsumption of sugar is "serious in most - if not all - Asian countries", Dr Katrin Engelhardt, the technical lead for nutrition in the WHO's regional office for the Western Pacific, tells The Sunday Times. "Sugar-sweetened beverages are a key source of sugar consumption in Asia", where its growing economies represent an important market for the food and beverage industry.

Indeed, it is the companies in this industry that put up the stiffest resistance to higher taxes. For instance, the Indian subsidiary of Coca-cola Co, which employs 25,000 staff, warned last year that it would be forced to consider shutting down some of its factories if there was a sharp decline in sales. And Indonesia's bottled tea maker PT Sinar Sosro told the Wall Street Journal last year that the tax may prompt the company to reconsider investment plans.

The consumption of sugar across Asia is steadily rising. According to data by market research firm Euromonitor, Japan topped the list of Asian countries in terms of sugar consumed from packaged food and drink in 2014. That year, each person in Japan consumed 75.2g of sugar every day, compared to 53.59g in Hong Kong, 31.75g in Singapore and 29.81g in Thailand.

But these figures likely understate the actual amount of sugar consumed, as they do not take into account sugar added to freshly prepared food and drink.

Thais, for example, spoon sugar onto their noodles. According to Dr Piyada Prasertsom, the manager of Thailand's Sweet Enough Network, which combats childhood obesity, each Thai person consumed an average of 100g of sugar every day last year.

The WHO says governments should complement fiscal measures by requiring sugar content to be properly displayed on food labels, as well as restricting the marketing of foods and drink high in salt, sugar and fat to children.

Thailand's health ministry has been urging government agencies to downsize snacks served during meetings, as well as offer water instead of soda.

But it is the tax proposals that have ruffled the most feathers. According to media reports, the Thai Beverage Industry Association has questioned the link between obesity and drinking soda.

Shopkeeper Chaiwat Pawanthapong, who sells soda and other drinks in Bangkok, warns that gloomy economic conditions may not be conducive to such a tax. "You don't want to impose a bigger burden on people," he said.

However, Dr Pornpan Bunyaratpan, a key member of the Thai National Reform Steering Assembly who is advocating the tax, points out that it need not be this way.

"If the companies reduce the amount of sugar in their drinks, they make people healthy and they won't be subject to the tax," she said.

Tan Hui Yee 

straitstimes

Malaysia - Rice worse than sugary drinks, says health expert

Asians are more prone to diabetes compared with Caucasians due to the high intake of rice, studies have shown.

KUALA LUMPUR: Quoting health authorities, the Singapore Straits Times reported that consuming white rice is even more potent than sweet soda drinks in causing the disease.

Singapore’s Health Promotion Board chief executive Zee Yoong Kang told the daily that while obesity and sugary drinks are the major causes of diabetes in the west, Asians who are generally not obese yet run a higher risk of contracting the disease.

Quoting a collection of four major studies carried out by the Harvard School of Public Health, involving more than 350,000 people over four to 20 years, and published in the British Medical Journal, Zee said a plate of white rice a day can raise the risk of diabetes by 11% in the overall population.

The Straits Times quoted Zee as saying that starchy white rice can result in an overload in blood sugar, thus heightening the risk of diabetes.

He added that it was still okay to eat rice but for healthier varieties to be added to the daily diet.

He said long grain white rice is better than the short grain variety, and suggested that Asians should try adding at least 20% of brown rice to the daily rice intake, as it could amount to a 16% reduction in the risk of diabetes.

“There is no need to fully replace what they now eat. Just increase the quantity of whole grain and brown rice,” he said, according to the Singapore daily.

freemalaysiatoday