Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Re: Sugar - harmless, no - deadly, yes Message-ID: <328@baylor.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 06:58:36 EDT Article-I.D.: baylor.328 Posted: Mon Aug 5 06:58:36 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 23:43:19 EDT References: <1053@cbdkc1.UUCP> <40@unc.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria Lines: 24 > >> Is there an alternative? Use small amounts of raw honey (not cooked, not > >> pasturized, not anything but raw). Honey is unrefined and therefore does not > >> pass into the blood stream with the speed of sugar, nor does it stop passing > >> into the blood stream with the abruptness of sugar. > > In article peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes: > >This sounds like balderdash to me. Honey *is* sugar. All unrefined honey > >has in it that refined doesn't is dead bees. > > Honey does NOT contain sucrose, despite what you say. Or do you maintain > that the body reacts identically to ALL different sugars? What is the > basis for this belief? I do agree, however, that the refinement of sucrose > is not the issue. Raw cane sugar is just as useless and potentially harmful > as when purified. I didn't know honey didn't contain sucrose (what sugars does it contain?). I was objecting to the phrase "not cooked, not pasteurised, not anything but raw". As you say, refinement of x-ose is not the issue. All refined x-ose has in it that unrefined doesn't is dirt, burned leaves (in the case of cane sugar), insect feces, and insect cadavers. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076