Agave nectar vs. cane sugar?

[Eva]

Hello....another question from the newbie:

Is agave nectar better to use (health wise) than cane sugar? I am talking about putting it in my coffee.

Thank you!

[Ananas]

Agave would be better. Cane sugar is a refined sugar, it is only different from beet sugar in taste. Sucanat isnt so badly refined either.

[twinkle]

It depends how much you're having, and what your existing health is like. Personally, I use cane sugar for sweetening things because I don't have any obvious reason not to and it's cheaper.

[Eva]

OK, thank you guys! I just use the sugar in the morning in a big cup of coffee - so I would say 1 big tablespoon. Maybe I'll alternate :-)

[missbettie]

i've been using agave in my coffee, its not bad. :)

[airalien]

Hey guys,

Sorry to hijack the thread, I have a question regarding a product: Biona Organic Pineapple Chews.

The ingredients say Corn Syrup*, cane sugar*, corn starch*, citric acid, natural pineapple flavour and apple pectin E440i.
*=organically grown ingredients

I am not sure whether they are safe or not, particularly the cane sugar. It has an * meaning it's organically grown but does that mean it's unrefined and suitable for vegans? I looked on the Biona website and the product says RAW cane sugar and is in a different packet, whereas mine just says cane sugar.

Thanks guys.

[veganosie]

i'm pretty sure i read somewhere that organic sugar is generally unrefined and therefore suitable for vegans. can't remember where though, i was trying to find out if caster sugar was vegan.

[Risker]

As far as I'm aware the non vegan sugar issue is refined to N.America

[leela]

One good thing I do know about agave, is that it has a pretty low GI (glycaemic index)

'Agave is considered to be a low-glycemic sweetener, which means it doesn't spike blood sugar levels the way refined cane sugar does. The syrup is about 90% fructose, the same natural sweetener found in most fruits. Fructose is processed more slowly in the body than is glucose (sugar), providing a gradual, steady supply of energy to the body' (vegfamily website)

Glycaemic Index
The glycaemic index or GI is a useful concept because it measures how rapidly the carbohydrates are absorbed and result in blood glucose and insulin elevations . The GI is not related to whether the carbohydrate is simple or complex. The GI measures the rise in blood sugar levels caused by a measured quantity of a particular food. High GI foods are rapidly absorbed and cause a large rise in blood sugar levels. People with diabetes are used to thinking about glycaemic index, they use it to help control their blood sugar levels, but until now we have not really been aware of its significance for people without diabetes.

Some of the so-called complex carbohydrates advocated, like potatoes and white bread and low amylose rice, are absorbed very quickly and give an undesirable metabolic response. The body tries to bring those blood glucose levels back down by secreting insulin. The high GI foods generate a demand for insulin.
Since hyperinsulinaemia is linked with all facets of the ‘metabolic syndrome’ (insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia, hypertension and visceral obesity) the GI of foods may eventually be linked with all so-called diseases of affluence e.g. heart disease, obesity, diabetes.
Even small physiological increases in insulinaemia for as little as 3-5 days can induce severe insulin resistance in healthy young subjects with normal glucose tolerance and no family history of NIDDM (Del Prato et al., Diabetologia 1994; 37: 1025-35).
Higher day-long insulin levels are believed to promote carbohydrate oxidation at the expense of fatty acid oxidation, thereby promoting fat storage in adipose tissue and triglyceride synthesis in the liver (Friedman, Ma J Clin Nutr 1998; 67:513S-8S).
Thus low GI diets may promote weight control by both enhancing satiety and promoting fat oxidation. A lower insulin level means the body stores less fat and can access existing fat stores more easily than when insulin levels are high
(from healthyeatingclub.com)

[VeganAthlete]

As odd as this might sound, there is also a "Light" version of agave nectar with half the calories. It is produced organically and marketed by the largest grocery store chain in south texas...It's pretty tasty. It is also low glycemic. Low calorie and low glycemic is good...but stevia is my preferred sweetener. It's "calorie free" which means it's under 5 calories per serving in the US and very sweet so very little is required.

[vepurusg]

Agave vs. Cane sugar is a question of Fructose vs. Sucrose (which is a disaccharide molecule made up of Fructose and glucose).

Sucrose is made up of equal amounts of Fructose and Glucose, where Agave has between two to ten times as much Fructose as glucose- so it's really a matter of how much Fructose vs. Glucose you want to eat (and the consequences of eating that much more fructose).

Fructose has pros and cons when compared to glucose:

Pro- it's sweeter than glucose, so you need less of it (very good). This is the best advantage Fructose offers.
However: The higher sweetness is at room temperature; for hotter beverages this effect may not be pronounced

Pro- It's a little more water soluble than sucrose (less stirring?). Kind of trivial. This is irrelevant for a hot drink.

Pro- it's lower glycemic than glucose, so it won't spike your blood sugar as fast (this is particularly important for diabetics, but it's good to eat low glycemic in general)
However: It does ultimately raise blood Glucose about as much as Glucose does in the end; it's just delayed (a more even, but still high, blood sugar level- which makes it useless for diabetics except in so far as it may be easier for them to react to with a time release insulin)

CON- it's metabolized by the liver, and when eaten in excess this is a very bad thing (alcohol is also metabolized by the liver and has similar effects on it- fatty liver disease, etc.).
CON- related to the above; that metabolism increases blood triglyceride levels more so than Glucose and is correlated with obesity and cardiovascular disease.

CON- The metabolism of Fructose produces appetite stimulating compounds which may lead to over-eating (whereas immediate insulin based metabolism contributes to a feeling of fullness and satiation). That is, when eating Fructose, low GI is a double edged sword, because you'll at first feel hungrier, and then only feel full after you've already over-eaten.


It is a misconception that fructose is "fruit sugar". Yes, it is found in fruits, but so is sucrose and free glucose.

In fact, there aren't any natural fruits with so grotesquely high ratios of fructose as are represented in processed (basically, heat cracked) sweeteners like Agave nectar (which itself is no better than extremely high fructose corn syrup). Most fruits have about a 1:1 ratio (50% of each) of Sucrose and Glucose.

I my estimation, Agave nectar is pretty much a dietary abomination ;)
It does taste good on toast though.

If you're using it in very limited amounts in a cold beverage, it might be better than sucrose "table" sugar simply because you can use less of it, but if you eat it in larger amounts the deleterious effects on the liver and metabolism will override any benefit in caloric reduction.

There are superior sweeteners available, like Xylitol, which should be preferred for such uses (which is lower calorie, and has other beneficial qualities). A good case can also be made for Stevia, and other non-caloric sweeteners. And, of course, for moderating your use of sweeteners in general (the less you use, the sweeter it will taste over time).

[vepurusg]

As odd as this might sound, there is also a "Light" version of agave nectar with half the calories.

Unless they added an artificial sweetener or Stevia to make it sweeter, the only reason it has half the calories in it is because it has twice as much water in it.
They do the same thing to coconut milk (if you shake the cans, you can hear the difference)- sure, they add gum and other chemicals to try to make it thicker, but it's not really any use (they're just selling you a can of water).


...but stevia is my preferred sweetener. It's "calorie free" which means it's under 5 calories per serving in the US and very sweet so very little is required.

Yes, and it's not metabolized in such a way to over-stimulate appetite, increase blood triglycerides, and possibly give you the liver of a binge drinker. :)

But watch out for those little packets they sell- only use liquid extracts or the leaves directly.

The packets are bulked up with dextrin, which is more or less identical to glucose by weight. They're selling bags of fluffed up sugar that are just so small they can legally label them calorie free when they really only have around half of the calories per amount of sweetness. Same thing with the "Splenda" stuff- the packets are sugar (you'd have to find it pure or in liquid form).

I'm still waiting to hear more about sucralose (Splenda); it may be a viable option for a healthier sweetener for people who don't like Stevia's bitter hint. Neotame might be a good option too, but it's bitter too, so if you don't like Stevia, you might not like that either. In my opinion, though, there's no reason to eat either of those if you like Stevia.