I was permanently banned from the Reddit sub without recourse for posting this despite not breaking any rules. I’m slowly making the migration over thanks to such encouragement.
I was permanently banned from the Reddit sub without recourse for posting this despite not breaking any rules. I’m slowly making the migration over thanks to such encouragement.
Healthy and unhealthy are composite binary terms that aren’t useful. Specific, contextualized terms are more useful and allow for people to make better choices for the situation.
Maple syrup has considerable benefits as an alternative to HFCS. First, it’s glycemic index is lower which results in a decrease in blood glucose levels. On top of that, it appears that it promotes insulation secretion.
As a whole, in order to reduce ones propensity to diabetes, reduce sugar intake. Then, if further steps are needed and reduction is no longer an option, find appropriate substitutes. From the abstract:
And the final sentence:
I could get into the complexities of when and where maple syrup may be more or less harmful, but that’s a bit of effort for a nested lemmy thread that’s been downvoted so far as to not matter. Point is, in the context of western industrialized societies, the majority of people would see benefits from abstaining from refined sources of sweeteners, including maple. There might be some unique compounds in it, but when you look at the percentages of what’s in the stuff, it’s basically 98% just sugar.
Also I would suggest reading Marion Nestle’s, Food Politics. It gives an inside view of the corruption in nutrition science. One of the things she said that stuck with me was when she said that she gets suspicious any time anyone is doing studies on a single food item.