You Ask, I Answer: Raw Honey

I thought that the claims about honey being an "immune enhancer" were referring primarily to raw/unprocessed honey.

Is there enough difference between processed and unprocessed honey to make a difference?

-- Kristin
Via the blog

The topic of raw honey is quite convoluted.

For one, there is no legal definition of what raw honey is, meaning there is no set of criteria manufacturers must meet to label their honey as "raw."

The consensus among raw honey enthusiasts, however, is that raw honey is completely unfiltered and unheated, and sold as it exists in the beehive (wax and the occasional bee leg included).

Apart from offering a much different taste from the honey sold in conventional supermarkets, advocates claim raw honey is healthier due to the presence of pollen and living enzymes.

This is where the "unheated" part becomes controversial. After all, raw honey crystallizes and must be heated in order to liquify for consumption.

The raw honey crowd claims this is irrelevant, since they make sure not to heat raw honey past the 105 degrees Fahrenheit mark (the "magic number" for raw foodists, since this is the temperature where the enzymes they so desperately crave are killed.)

Let's discuss.

First up, pollen. Raw honey-ers believe the flower pollen found in local raw honey is great for allergy control, as it allows the consumer to create a tolerance -- and not develop allergies to -- local pollen.

However, the vast majority of pollen allergies in humans relate to grass, not flowers.

As far as living enzymes in raw honey, I simply don't see the relevance to human nutrition.

Enzymes creates by bees don't play any role in human physiology or metabolism.

Besides, enzymes are proteins, so they get broken down during digestion anyway.

For what it's worth, this small, 36-subject study published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology in 2002 didn't find any difference between raw honey and a placebo when treating symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Say What?: Sweet (In)justice

Although Top Chef is one of my favorite competition-based reality shows, the two previous seasons have led to blog postings in which I express my frustration at the contestants' and producers' misunderstanding of basic nutrition concepts.

This current season is no exception.

This week's "quickfire challenge" -- a 45 minute challenge that grants the winning contestant immunity at the episode's elimination ceremony -- consisted of making a sugar-free dessert.

Before introducing the challenge, host Padma Lakshmi showed the contestants a cart loaded with the various sugars found in the Top Chef pantry -- white, raw, confectioners', brown, etc. -- which she wheeled out of the kitchen once the challenge began.

"This will be interesting to watch!" I thought.

Well, the first red flag went up when the concept of sugar-free desserts was referenced in the context of producing healthy, low-calorie options.

Really? Because, often times, sugar-free varieties of cakes and pies use higher quantities of fat -- mainly saturated -- to make up for lost texture and taste.

Consequently, it is not at all odd to find that a slice of sugar-free cake has just as many calories -- if not more! -- as the traditional version.

Although "sugar-free" can sometimes be healthier and lower-calorie (i.e.: quick-cooking plain oatmeal is a healthier, lower-calorie alternative to pre-sweetened varieties,) you should never automatically make that connection in your head.

Then, once the challenge was underway, I saw contestants using honey and agave. Oy.

Apparently in Top Chef land, the word "sugar" is taken very literally -- it only refers to a granulated sweetener that comes in large bags.

Honey and agave are forms of sugar.

Yes, it usually takes less agave to match the same level of sweetness of a certain amount of sugar, but a dessert made with agave or honey is NOT sugar-free!

One contestant even used a chocolate coin in her dish. I immediately thought she would be disqualified, since any chocolate product contains sugar. Alas, the judging panel didn't seem to have a problem with that.

Top Chef execs: how about consulting with a Registered Dietitian when creating rules for nutrition-related challenges?

You Ask, I Answer: Honey

I have heard claims that honey is an "immune enhancer" and was wondering what your thoughts are on that.

-- Dennise O'Grady
Bay Head, NJ

Those types of claims bother me because they are so vague.

What, exactly, does the term "immune enhancer" mean? For example, is a fruit drink chock full of sugar but fortified with a day's worth of Vitamin C more of an "immune enhancer" than a fruit containing a quarter of a day's worth of the vitamin?

It is true that, due to its antimicrobial and enzymatic properties, honey can be helpful when dealing with certain conditions, like sore throats.

Similarly, it can be useful -- albeit messy -- for treating external wounds like scrapes and burns.

However, extrapolating that information and claiming honey works wonders for the entire immune system is quite a stretch.

Besides, I take issue with attributing health properties to sweeteners because it encourages their abundant consumption.

I find it very irresponsible when self-proclaimed "nutrition experts" point out that honey contains vitamin C, and forget to mention that to get just three percent of the vitamin C daily value, you need to consume an entire cup of honey.

That's 1,031 calories!

That cup of honey also contains five percent of the daily value of zinc and a measly two percent of the daily magnesium requirement.

Ironically, these are two minerals that many honey-pushing "holistic experts" provide as "proof" that honey is "better" than sugar.

I can't bring myself to get excited over a food that barely delivers two percent of the daily value of most vitamins and minerals in a half cup (515 calories).

In my mind, honey is simply another sweetener. If you like it in your tea in place of sugar, there is no reason why you should stop consuming it.

If you are specifically looking to boost your immune system, though, I suggest you simply focus on the basics -- get enough sleep, be as physically active as you can, and limit nutritionally void junk food.

In The News: Sneaky Sugar

Earlier this week I spoke with Terri Coles of Reuters.com about the prevalence of sugar in the standard U.S. diet.

In essence, my standpoint is as follows: sugar in and of itself in limited quantities is not a problem.

What raises the red flag are the massive amounts being consumed -- i.e.: a single muffin at Starbucks surpasses the daily maximum recommendation -- partially because they contribute nothing but excess empty calories that do not satiate.

It's a simple concept -- the less satiated you are after a meal, the sooner you will feel hungry and want to consume more calories.

Unfortunately, keeping added sugar intake to recommended levels is difficult since food manufacturers like to put it in everything (especially in its ultra cheap form -- high fructose corn syrup).

When consumed in moderate amounts, I don't have a problem with sugar (remember, "sugar" means regular white sugar, brown sugar, honey, evaporated cane juice crystals, or any other fancy synonym).

It is an ingredient that has been consumed for tens of thousands of years.

I definitely consider it safer than Splenda, aspartame, or any other Franken-sweetener concocted in a laboratory.

In fact, I never understood sugar phobia.

The fact that some people refuse to eat fruit (due to the naturally occurring sugars), but have no problem eating a bowl of heavy cream sprinkled with artificial sweetener absolutely blows my mind.

Before I started studying nutrition, I experimented with Atkins.

Their bars -- which use sugar alcohols as sweeteners -- not only taste awful, I also remember the not-so-pleasant gastric side effects.

These days, I'll gladly take three Hershey's kisses over any low carb faux sweet treat.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Bubble Tea

Asian cuisine is often associated with an aura of health and balance. This doesn't strike me as particularly weird, since traditional Asian diets are lower in saturated fat and less processed than those of Western countries.

However, the Americanization of Asian food has resulted in sushi rolls dowsed in mayonnaise and covered in over-sized tempura shrimp as well as Chinese food that often surpasses McDonald's worst offenders in the sodium and saturaed fat categories (If General Tso ate his chicken every day, he probably suffered a massive heart attack at 25).

One "healthy" Asian drink that continues to increase in popularity is boba, affectionately known on these shores as bubble tea.

Quite the rage in Los Angeles and New York, this drink consists of tea, milk, sugar or honey, and 30 or 40 tapioca balls. It is consumed via a thick, colorful straw that allows the sweet, gummy tapioca balls to fly into your mouth and deliver quite a unique sensation.

Bubble tea can be comprised of black, green, or white tea, either plain or flavored in a variety of ways (ie: mango, sesame, coconut, etc.)

Before I understood much about nutrition, I considered this a light, refreshing, exotic treat. In fact, I lived exactly half a block away from an amazing bubble tea "house", which basically turned into my home away from the dorms.

I might as well have visited McDonald's.

Consider a standard 12 ounce serving of bubble tea.

Four ounces of whole milk provide 73 calories
Eight ounces of black tea provide 2 calories
One tablespoon of honey provides 64 calories

Here comes the pearl-clutching shocker.

Each tapioca ball packs in approximately 10 calories. Multiply that by 30 and you get... 300 calories of pure starch!

A little addition brings the total to 439 calories, and approximately 50 grams of sugar -- almost two soda cans' worth!

That's calorically equal to two grande skim caramel macchiatos or two 10 ounce cups of Dunkin' Donuts Hot Chocolate.

Bubble tea is one of my favorite indulgences and I encourage everyone to try it at least once in their lifetime, but consider it a high-calorie, high-sugar treat and not your daily dose of tea antioxidants.