Depends on how many total things they measured.

Hillarious. The study that says honey good got support from honey.com

Ethical approval was not required for this research."

What is so hilarious about this? A site that advocates for a product supports anyone who can prove them right, that is just common sense. Would it be equally hilarious if the White House supported a study to show democracy was great? "Oh look, a "democracy" state funded this study, so surely it's all bogus!" Please, think for yourselves, don't just imitate.

And this also brings out another interesting point about the world we live in today. We have so many resources at our fingertips. I don't consider myself an average consumer, but there is not a day, where I don't find something new about the world and how it operates. It is genuinely hard and time-consuming to dig into details for every single little thing. You have to be able to defer to some level of authority ( and verification of data ), because you will not be able to complete any other relevant work.

This underscores it that point. Most people will start buying more honey. People on HN will tear the paper apart.

If you believe honey has good properties, and you even go into the honey business because you believe in it so much, do you just need to wait around until an independent researcher gets the idea to study honey to find out about it?

How about this: can you point to any part of the study which is improper or wrong or looks like this bias may have affected it?

This argument reminds me of back in the day how republicans lambasted al gore for both caring about climate change, and being invested in solar panel companies. Maybe the reason he invested in the companies is exactly because he cares about the issue.

Great comment.

>How about this: can you point to any part of the study which is improper or wrong or looks like this bias may have affected it?

The comment that I commented on did exactly this; did you expect me to recite that part? I get your criticism if I directly commented on the article, but I merely commented on the additional detail already presented in a comment. (or are you suggesting that a requirement for finding something hilarious is a thoroughly analyzed rebuttal on top of an existing criticism?)

Also, again, I didn't make any argument, but a comment of a quote (observation) presented in the source material linked by parent comment.

so I'd suggest take a step back, read the two comments, ask yourself "what context am I willfully ignoring and putting word in to the commenters mouth"

Thanks for your opinion though, interesting fact about politics and al gore

If your assertion is that GPs criticism is about the confidence intervals and the prevalence of "low certainty" - that is the conclusion of the paper. The researchers can't really know the conclusions until they do the research. So would it be better if they didn't publish their paper since the results weren't a glowing endorsement of honey? Isn't it a good thing they published results and called out the fact that they are low certainty?

yes, through the public research funds allocated from taxes

Non-government entities: - Canadian Foundation for Innovation - Ontario Research Fund - Diabetes Canada - PSI Foundation - Banting and Best Diabetes Centre - American Society for Nutrition (ASN) - International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation (INC) - National Dried Fruit Trade Association - National Honey Board - Pulse Canada - Quaker Oats Center of Excellence - United Soybean Board - Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto - Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto - Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto - Almond Board of California - California Walnut Commission - Peanut Institute - Barilla - Unilever/Upfield - Unico/Primo - Loblaw Companies - Quaker - Kellogg Canada - WhiteWave Foods/Danone - Nutrartis - FoodMinds LLC - International Sweeteners Association - Nestlé - Canadian Society for Endocrinology and Metabolism - GI Foundation - Abbott - General Mills - Biofortis - Northern Ontario School of Medicine - INC Nutrition Research & Education Foundation - European Food Safety Authority - Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre (CEFS) - Nutrition Communications - International Food Information Council - Calorie Control Council - Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine - Perkins Coie LLP - Tate & Lyle - Wirtschaftliche Vereinigung Zucker e.V. - Danone - Inquis Clinical Research - European Fruit Juice Association Scientific Expert Panel - Soy Nutrition Institute Scientific Advisory Committee - Advanced Food Materials Network - International Tree Nut Council Research and Education Foundation - Paramount Farms - Sun-Maid - International Pasta Organization - Lantmannen - Nutrition Foundation of Italy - Oldways Preservation Trust - International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium - Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Foundation - AB InBev - Canola Council of Canada

Government Entities: - Province of Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science - Canadian Institutes of Health Research - US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Honey Checkoff program - US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soy Checkoff program - Alberta Pulse Growers - World Health Organization - Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism, and Diabetes - Health Canada - University of Toronto - European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) - Canadian Cardiovascular Society - Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons - ILSI North America - Food, Nutrition, and Safety Program - Technical Committee on Carbohydrates of ILSI North America - Nutrition Science Advisory Committee to Health Canada (Government of Canada) - Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) Subgroup on the Framework for the Evaluation of Evidence (Public Health England) - Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada

Entities for which you cannot determine, or do not know, if they are government funded or not: - Helderleigh Foundation (Canada)

Well, aren't we overselling.

> “The takeaway is more about replacement — if you’re using table sugar, syrup or another sweetener, switching those sugars for honey might lower cardiometabolic risks.”

It is well-known that all currently available non-caloric sweeteners increase cardiometabolic risks. I wonder if their results hold if they eliminate all study participants that reduced their intake of such sweeteners.

I'd honestly like to hear more about this, thank you in advance.

Ive drank a coke zero almost every other day for a year. Maybe at first you will feel this but it's your body adjusting for what it expected.

Calories in, calories out.

If there are any questions about my state / behaviors let me know!

The sweet taste seems to stimulate appetite and feeding beyond normal needs. It’s not hard to see how American obesity keeps increasing given even this one simple experiment.

However, the fructose has to be processed by your liver, just like alcohol. And too much can lead to fatty liver disease, just like alcohol, and all of the problems that come from that. So eliminating sweeteners in general (if you already have metabolic disorder) is going to be a better choice than switching from one to another.

It's a pity you ruined an otherwise interesting comment with this flippant remark. Aside from being against HN rules, it just grates, like you finished your comment by calling everyone else idiots.

(HN rules also say to ignore the lowest quality part of comments and focus on the higher quality part, so here I am breaking the rules too BTW.)

Dietary news of terrible quality gets often shared on here and I get annoyed when I enter a comment thread and, judging by how many were saying "yeah, I knew honey was good", no one had bothered to read the paper itself, but were reacting on the headline.

And so perpetuates the bad science and the bad dietary advice everyone is fond of sharing.