Is agave nectar (agave syrup) healthy?
Short answer: not particularly. Certainly not any healthier than sugar or the vilified high-fructose corn syrup, which, incidentally is almost its equivalent with respect to its composition.
Agave Nectar (also more prosaically, and more correctly, called Agave Syrup) is made from the processed nectar of the agave plant, that wondrous Central American plant that gave us tequila, which is made of fermented agave nectar. Agave nectar has become enormously popular among vegans and, strangely (I’ll explain in a bit), raw foodists.
So why is agave touted as “good for you”, “healthier”, and “gentle on the body” (all taken from product labels I saw in my local natural grocer)? Because usually those making those claims have absolutely no understanding of science, and invent quackery on the fly. Remember, these are the same folks who told us that chocolate/cocoa was deadly, for decades, and that we should eat assy-tasting carob instead, when it turns out chocolate is actually quite good for you. There are plenty of reasons to be more than a little skeptical.
Let’s take a look at what agave nectar really is, before we think it’s healthy just because it came from a plant (as do sugar and HFCS.):
- agave nectar is primarily composed of inulin, a polysaccharide that acts like fiber in the system
- inulin is not really sweet so it must be processed (usually by heat) to convert it into fructose, primarily, which is sweet
- it must be boiled down, regardless of how the inulin is converted to fructose, in order to reduce a thin nectar into a thicker syrup (so it is most certainly not a “raw”/”live” food product)
- agave nectar is 56-92% fructose, with the rest mostly glucose
- HFCS, vilified as much as agave nectar is worshipped, is 55% fructose, the rest glucose. Yes, almost the same exact composition as some agave syrup.
But HFCS is processed! So is agave nectar. But agave nectar has a lower glycemic index than sugar! So does HFCS. I mean, they’re pretty much the exact same thing, except agave is made from a Mayan polysaccharide feedstock, and HFCS is made from an American one.
So, the biggest difference, except for the fact that agave nectar is imported from a much longer distance so as to incur a much larger carbon footprint, is that agave can have a higher percentage of fructose than glucose.
If you’re a diabetic, that’s good, because that means its glycemic index is lower.
If you’re not a diabetic, its lower glycemic index is not nearly as important, and there’s even greater cause for concern than with HFCS or table sugar. Fructose has a few problems over glucose:
- it doesn’t induce the same level of satiety as glucose, so people drink/eat more of foods that are sweetened with fructose
- fructose creates more than double the advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs), harmful chemical species that age (no pun intended) the human body, in the bloodstream than glucose
- fructose raises blood triglyceride levels, a marker for heart disease, higher than glucose does
- in mice, fructose induced obesity, and it has been suspected to do the same in humans, in addition to increasing the likelihood of metabolic syndrome
More here on the health effects of fructose.
What’s more, sucrose, rebranded recently as “evaporated cane juice” (to somehow hide the fact that it’s the same C&H stuff we’ve been consuming for decades), is almost identical to both the supposedly deadly HFCS and the purportedly salubrious agave nectar: it’s a disaccharide (made of two sugars), composed of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Sound familiar?
What all this boils down to is that these 3 sugars – sucrose, HFCS, and agave – are almost identical from a health perspective. The fact that Mayans cultivate the agave does not make it a magically healthy alternative to table sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, it’s produced almost identically to the latter.
If you want something sweet, go ahead – just don’t try to delude yourself that Mexican processed sugar is any healthier than the American variety, regardless of whether that American sugar comes from cane or corn.
- Excited
- Fascinated
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
Hi JM,
My HFCS google alert picked up your article.
Interesting information about agave nectar. Sucrose
is different from HFCS. Sucrose, a disaccharide, is
one molecule of glucose linked to one molecule of
fructose. Sucrose requires sucrase to cleave the
sugars. HFCS is only a mixture of glucose and
fructose. Simply described, pure glucose is enzymatically isomerized to about 90% fructose and
then blended back with more glucose to yield the
desired ratio. All national brands of soft drinks contain
HFCS 55 = 55% fructose:45% glucose. The Corn
Refiners Assoc., preaches that a gram of sugar and HFCS contain 4 calories, and that the ratios of sugars are essentially similar. This is true, but the their metabolism is patently different. Because sucrose requires an enzyme for metabolism and absorption into the bood stream there is also catalytic regulation at the site of the reaction. In the case of HFCS, the free glucose and fructose are shunted directly into the blood stream, bypassing not only enzymatic control but hormonal controls as well.
I am on a personal campaign to alert everyone I know about the treachery of HFCS.
Take care.
Comment by Cynthia1770 — June 4, 2008 @ 2:22 am
Thank you Cynthia. Do you know how much sucrase rate-limits the reaction that yields glucose & sucrose? My impression was that there was enough in the body, and that it worked quickly enough, so that ingesting sucrose was effectively the same as ingesting equal parts glucose and fructose. Would love to see information about sucrose metabolism rates.
Comment by JM — June 4, 2008 @ 5:02 am
Basically, you are correct in that there is no appreciable difference between sucrose, glucose and fructose on satiety, uric acid, and food intake at a subsequent meal. I try and tell people this.For instance, in my product at Life by Chocolate, we use organic sugar, sucrose, to sweeten the chocolate and agave nectar or HFCS for other reasons. I have these conversations all the time. “We don’t eat sugar. We only use Agave Syrup.” And I try to explain to people that agave syrup IS sugar. Now, if people want to be smart about this here is the reason you should not eat HFCS. Most corn is genetically modified. This at least a semi-intelligent argument. However, since we’ve been breeding and genetically modifying our plants and animals for thousands of years, most plants are genetically modified.For vegans, here is the reason you need. Much of the non-organic cane sugar is whitened with bone char. That is a reasonable argument.Honey, HFCS and agave nectar are basically the same chemically. If you get a high-fructose honey, tupelo, and a high-fructose corn syrup it’s pretty much the same as agave nectar. So, whatever treachery the corn industry is pulling, so are the honey and the agave nectar people. Without sugar, you’re dead. And the only reason high fructose products are low on the glycemic index is because the glycemic index only measures glucose.
Comment by Mark by Chocolate — January 1, 2009 @ 11:51 am
[...] you are more interested in the composition of agave nectar and such, click here or here or here or here. [...]
Pingback by This Week for Dinner - Weekly Meal Plans, Dinner Ideas, Recipes and More!: Agave Nectar — March 31, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Im no expert on agave, but claiming that fructose – one of the three important dietary monosaccharides – harms your health… give me a break!
Fructose is a natural sugar you can find almost everywhere. Are you saying eating a lot of fruits and greens was poisoned by mother-nature?
E.g. honey, tree fruits, berries, melons, and some root vegetables, such as beets, sweet potatoes, parsnips, and onions – all containing fructose. How did humanity survive to this day i wonder?
Thanks god, now we have all the junk food that will save us!
Finally american scientists found out the root of all evil! Nature conspired against us by putting the malicious element in almost any food we eat! Surely, who trusts nature these days, in scientists we trust!
Comment by Irina — May 3, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Irina – I am not inventing information about fructose. Its metabolism is well understood, and yes, if you eat a lot of fruit, it will tax your liver.
Humans only need to live until childbearing age in order for the species to survive. I did not say fructose was poison.
Stop reacting, you dumb Russian luddite, and read what I wrote, instead of what you wanted to read.
Comment by JM — May 4, 2009 @ 6:59 am
Let’s stick to facts, “Irina”.
-Claiming fruits tax your liver is true. Fructose taxes your liver.
-Honey is considered natural, because the polysaccharides drawn from the plants are broken down to monosaccharides by an enzyme in the liver. Agave syrup produced CORRECTLY uses enzymes by another organism to do the same, making it natural. Also, the raw variety is NOT heated above 118F at ANY time, unless it is mislabeled. Unfortunately, mislabeling happens all the time when it comes to “raw” foods so you’re probably right here.
-Fructose causes less satiety BECAUSE of it’s lack of influence on the glycemic index. If you just wait a couple hours, and eat based off of nutrition rather than primal instincts (hunger), eating more foods because it’s higher in fructose can be avoided, assuming we have free will that is.
All sugars have negative health effects when used out of moderation, but fructose not absorbed in the small intestine moves to the large intestine, where the gut flora feed on it directly. In MODERATION, this increases gut flora number and activity, which has numerous implications. Immune system boost, improved digestion, lowered cholesterol and TRIGLYCERIDES, etc. Excessive use contributes to gas, loose stool, malabsorption in extreme cases, but not insulin resistance, contrary to popular belief.
-The glycemic index is a bit misleading. Even though the conversion is a bit slower and therefore favorable to health, fructose ingested in an equal amount to glucose provides a blood glucose rise 2/3 – 3/4 that of pure glucose itself.
Conclusion: Agave syrup is almost identical to other sugars in nutritional content and effect on blood sugar. It IS raw when manufactured correctly (admittedly rarely), and fits the standard (haha! as if there were one) for a raw and natural food, although the combination of organisms are drastically different than that of honey and would never come together ordinarily. Still, how natural is it for ANY organism to waltz into a perfectly normally functioning beehive because it’s “hungry”? Ouch.
No response necessary as I’ll not be checking for one. Finals and such.
Comment by Jason — May 10, 2009 @ 3:18 am
Paragraph 1, sentence 2 of the last post should read “-Honey is considered natural, because the polysaccharides drawn from the plants are broken down to monosaccharides by an enzyme in the STOMACHS OF BEES.
Comment by Jason — May 10, 2009 @ 3:21 am
My two year old grand daugher has Disaccharide intolerance or absence of the enzymes sucrase and isomaltase. This enzyme complex assists in the breakdown of sugars
I am looking for a sweetner that she can process. I could not tell from your post if this is a good option.
Comment by Regina — August 20, 2009 @ 8:19 am
Corn syrup can be dangerous.
“The use of mercury-contaminated caustic soda in the production of HFCS is common.”
Sugar is not vegan.
“Bone char, made from the bones of cows, is at times used to whiten sugar.”
Comment by Ben — August 21, 2009 @ 9:54 am
great article. However, there is one question that I am still unclear about, and that is whether the fructose/sucrose in agave syrup is chemically slightly different and perhaps metabolized differently than the fructose/sucrose in HFCS.
As Cynthia points out, in HFCS, we have a mixture of free glucose and fructose. These molecules don’t need to be broken down and can go directly into the bloodstream. As a diabetic, I can tell you that this is a very fast process — my measured blood sugar spikes extraordinarily when I eat foods with small amounts of HFCS (not so much with ordinary table sugar). A mixture of highly processed white flour and HFCS seems particularly potent in the form of white bread, which my blood glucose meter tells me to avoid like the plague!
What is at issue with HFCS seems to be not the fact that it contains sugars but that those sugars are so quickly processed by the body. The speed at which they enter the blood stream is problematic not just for diabetics but for everyone, since rapid fluctuations in blood sugar can lead to significant metabolic changes, increased triglicerides, worsened cardiovascular profile, fatty liver, and even be a cause of T2 diabetes (rather than the other way around).
Let me return to my original question and perhaps phrase it more clearly: does agave syrup contain a mix of free glucose and fructose like that in HFCS? Or does it contain something else that needs more processing by our bodies, like a fructose/sucrose blend? I think the latter, but I am not completely sure. Perhaps you or someone else who has commented will know for sure!
I have some agave syrup sitting in my kitchen and I’ve been a bit afraid to try it out, in part because I am not clear about whether it will act just like HFCS. I’m sure it will not be blood sugar neutral, but I’m curious as to whether I might handle it better than table sugar, for example.
Comment by rt — September 22, 2009 @ 11:31 am
rt: From what you described in your experience with HFCS vs sucrose, it looks like the sucrase (the enzyme that breaks indigestible sucrose into digestible glucose and fructose) is a bit of a rate-limiter for you, which is good.
However, agave syrup is very much like HFCS, although the ratio of fructose to glucose might be (but is not necessarily) higher. It does not contain sucrose.
If your main sensitivity is to glucose, and HFCS is problematic for you, I would frankly suggest avoiding agave syrup. Its sugar profile is likely to be very, very similar to that of HFCS.
Comment by JM — September 24, 2009 @ 9:57 am
I watched a youtube movie last night that clears up all of the questions that you might have about the “differences” between fructose, glucose and sucrose. If you go to http://www.cookusinterruptus.com and click on the link in the box to the top right of the screen (“The Bitter Truth”). It’s an hour and a half video of a seminar given by an MD who works with obese children. It was worth the time. Very informative. Basically, if you eat a whole apple (fructose), nature has taken care of the problem by combining it with fiber. Apple juice, on the other hand, is a problem. Watch the movie!!
Comment by Linda — February 8, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Linda: Thanks for mentioning Dr Lustig’s research into fructose and obesity. A direct link to the blog post with the embedded video is:
http://www.cookusinterruptus.com/blog/?p=1072
I do think fresh fruit is relatively safe, but in reasonable quantities. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, too: when there was a fruit harvest, it was a very short period with an enormous bounty of fruit. It would make sense to gorge and fatten up, presumably because the bounty wouldn’t last long.
Nowadays, when fructose is plentiful and ubiquitous, our instinct to gorge and fatten is never turned off.
Comment by JM — February 9, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
HFCS wreaks havoc.
We know that, but please people, don’t go hating on fruit.
Fruit sugar is buffered by the fiber and water content + fruit contains a myriad of essential micronutrients + the organic acids contained within; acetic, citric, malic, oxalic, etc naturally renders fruit (not fructose) lower on the glycaemic charts.
If you eat too much of ANY nutrient, the excess will be stored as fat. Even though fructose is converted to fat more efficiently than glucose, these fat stores are just as readily mobilized when the energy is needed. When it comes to weight maintenance, ones energy input should equal their energy output.
Comment by Leelee — February 23, 2010 @ 3:54 am
In response to a comment on your post, genetically modifying organisms at the level of DNA is quite different than traditional plant or animal breeding that has been taking place for thousands of years.
For example, there is no way to cross breed an arctic fish gene into a tomato through traditional breeding practices.
GMO’s are radical and unprecedented experiments and we do well to not only avoid them for our health, but to shrink the market for them for the sake of the ecosystem.
At the same time, I believe a lot of conventional sugar is derived from GMO beets. Best to go organic which excludes GMO’s.
Comment by Aimee — April 17, 2010 @ 2:41 am
All interesting info. this is making me wonder about alcohol, which i assume being a highly refined sugar also goes into bloodstream too quickly, and is not good for those who need to lose weight or are diabetic. So, following that logic, if an alcoholic beverage contained some type of fibers or nutrients in it, would it be less poisonous to our systems?
Comment by MP — October 13, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
thanks for the info! although it might sound strange, i have to read everything the opposite way that most people do… my daughter has a condition where she cannot break down sucrose (congenital sucrase-isomaltase deficiency) as well as lactose. so agave and hfcs is something she CAN have. otherwise, the sugars just ferment in her stomach and she is left with agonizing pain… etc… no fun at all. that which everyone is trying to avoid and vilify, we are looking for. she’s 5’4″ and 100 lbs, barely, and would welcome a little adipose!
@MP btw, alcohol kills brain cells and the liver. it will always be poison. but it’s my favorite poison…
moderation ya’ll.
Comment by jen — December 15, 2010 @ 9:12 am
Agave is used by vegans as a substitute for honey because honey is an animal product and agave is not.
Comment by Kim — January 23, 2011 @ 12:56 pm
There’s an article in the New York Times that discusses the work of Robert Lustig and the effects of sugars on the body. It addresses many of the facts and opinions in the responses to your blog here.
The link is http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
The edition is April 17, 2011.
Comment by Michael — April 20, 2011 @ 7:55 pm
To Jim: I lost all respect to you with your “Stop reacting, you dumb Russian luddite, and read what I wrote, instead of what you wanted to read.”
Much the same way you wanted her to respect your writting you should have respected her opinion instead of “reacting” in a much harsh and rude way. It is a fact that every time we do or say something there will be people who will agree, people who won’t, and people who will remain neutral or on the fence. More professionalism please!
Comment by Liz — August 3, 2011 @ 9:18 am
I have internal sensors for fructose. I have fructose malapsorption so you don’t even have to tell me of there is high fructose in something (natual or added) my stomach does… I start to bloat within a minute or so of eating it and feel lots of pain and discomfort. I just did a search for agave nectar and fructose because I had some agave nectar in the cupboard that I never used and today decided to make myself some flavored water with about a teaspoon of that and some fresh lemon. I’m in pain now. I didn’t stir it so it mostly sunk to the bottom. It hit me when I got to the bottom of the cup. I will be throwing the stuff out.
Comment by Nef — September 10, 2011 @ 3:44 pm