(no subject)
For the second time, I have run across a purported sugar free cookie recipe, only to find that it contains honey. The blogs that post these recipes are all excited about their innovation: “So good you won’t even miss the sugar!” Well, of course I won’t. Because I’m NOT. Because HONEY IS A FORM OF SUGAR (fructose and glucose).
Naturally, I assume when these bloggers think of sugar, they think of granulated white sugar, not the basic carbohydrate units of fructose, glucose, and galactose, which are monosaccharides, or of maltose and lactose, which, along with sucrose, are disaccharides. But the fact remains that ALL these forms are sugars. Agave syrup, honey, maple syrup, molasses, and fruit-based sweeteners (purees, pastes, syrups) all contain these basic units, and while they aren’t the maligned Great White Demon Sugar, they share similar molecular structures and are broken down in a similar fashion in the body.
Today’s hit was a sugar cookie recipe at a blog called My Years Without Sugar. The author took a New Year’s resolution in 2008 to cut refined white sugar and corn syrup out of her diet, and seems to have continued on with this to some extent since. I admire her resolve to improve her diet by cutting out refined sweeteners; most people, including myself, could probably stand to back off their intake of that stuff. But - here’s where I’m a bitchy stickler - she is by no means going completely without sugar. It does appear that she massively cut down on her intake by omitting refined sugar and instead embracing alternatives like honey and fruit sweeteners, and I’m sure that had a positive effect. But the blog isn’t called My Years of Swapping Refined Sugar for Somewhat More Wholesome Alternatives with an Overall Decrease in Consumption of Sweet Stuff.
It’s just not scientific enough for me - but what could I expect from a blogger who became guilt-ridden by eating a few grams of marinara made with some sugar, then reasoned that she probably incidentally ingested more than that from kissing her chocoholic husband. In any case, there are more variables in play than simply “no sugar.” The imperfection of it makes me wonder: Would one be eating just as badly if one consumed their simple sugars in the form of maple syrup and prunes rather than spoonfuls of table sugar? Can one eat just as WELL by simply reducing their refined sugar intake, rather that swapping it for “natural” alternative(s)? Is incidental sugar, like the small quantities present in bread or pasta sauce, as bad as some seem to think? I can hardly countenance that having 1/4 teaspoon's worth of sugar in my piece of homemade whole wheat bread is going to cause irreparable damages to my health, whereas a 1/4 teaspoon's worth of honey will keep me hale and hearty.
I suppose I can take some solace in the fact that this blog appears to have very modest readership, but it still reflects a rather basic misunderstanding of nutritional science that seems common in many faddish diet plans, books, etc. If a person can eat nothing but sugary junk for a month and lose weight, it does not stand to reason that sugar is as bad as many paint it to be.
Naturally, I assume when these bloggers think of sugar, they think of granulated white sugar, not the basic carbohydrate units of fructose, glucose, and galactose, which are monosaccharides, or of maltose and lactose, which, along with sucrose, are disaccharides. But the fact remains that ALL these forms are sugars. Agave syrup, honey, maple syrup, molasses, and fruit-based sweeteners (purees, pastes, syrups) all contain these basic units, and while they aren’t the maligned Great White Demon Sugar, they share similar molecular structures and are broken down in a similar fashion in the body.
Today’s hit was a sugar cookie recipe at a blog called My Years Without Sugar. The author took a New Year’s resolution in 2008 to cut refined white sugar and corn syrup out of her diet, and seems to have continued on with this to some extent since. I admire her resolve to improve her diet by cutting out refined sweeteners; most people, including myself, could probably stand to back off their intake of that stuff. But - here’s where I’m a bitchy stickler - she is by no means going completely without sugar. It does appear that she massively cut down on her intake by omitting refined sugar and instead embracing alternatives like honey and fruit sweeteners, and I’m sure that had a positive effect. But the blog isn’t called My Years of Swapping Refined Sugar for Somewhat More Wholesome Alternatives with an Overall Decrease in Consumption of Sweet Stuff.
It’s just not scientific enough for me - but what could I expect from a blogger who became guilt-ridden by eating a few grams of marinara made with some sugar, then reasoned that she probably incidentally ingested more than that from kissing her chocoholic husband. In any case, there are more variables in play than simply “no sugar.” The imperfection of it makes me wonder: Would one be eating just as badly if one consumed their simple sugars in the form of maple syrup and prunes rather than spoonfuls of table sugar? Can one eat just as WELL by simply reducing their refined sugar intake, rather that swapping it for “natural” alternative(s)? Is incidental sugar, like the small quantities present in bread or pasta sauce, as bad as some seem to think? I can hardly countenance that having 1/4 teaspoon's worth of sugar in my piece of homemade whole wheat bread is going to cause irreparable damages to my health, whereas a 1/4 teaspoon's worth of honey will keep me hale and hearty.
I suppose I can take some solace in the fact that this blog appears to have very modest readership, but it still reflects a rather basic misunderstanding of nutritional science that seems common in many faddish diet plans, books, etc. If a person can eat nothing but sugary junk for a month and lose weight, it does not stand to reason that sugar is as bad as many paint it to be.