One of the main points of the story is that sugar intake has increased dramatically in America. They talked about the reduction of fat in food, and manufacturers responded by replacing the fat with sugar.
The point being that the average American now consumes sugar at "toxic" quantities (and of course, the word "toxic" was very much link bait). It's hard to deny America has an obesity and diabetes problem.
Some people take the word "sugar" literary and switch to brown sugar, agave syrup, evaporated cane juice and so on, which aren't much better and some are actually worse. The only acceptable form of fructose is the one part of an organic fruit as you get the full complex of phytochemicals, not just the fructose. I'm really mad at the organics industry, which puts so much redundant "healthy" sugars in so many products.
Agave syrup has the benefit of being vegan; normal refined sugar is processed with bone meal. People have various different reasons for wanting 'alternative' sugars. Attempting to move away from refined sugar because it's 'bad' is just one of them.
The original post was lamenting the existence of products such as agave nectar as attempting to falsely lead people astray that are looking for alternatives to sugar, as a more 'healthier' choice. I posited a completely separate motivation that someone might have for choosing/using agave nectar (one that I might add does not necessarily have anything to do with being 'healthy').
The conversation is coming off like:
Original Post: "People might choose agave nectar for
<reason 1>, but it fails to deliver what
they are attempting to do."
Me: "Agave nectar doesn't exist just to satisfy
people with <reason 1>. There are people that might
choose it for <reason 2>."
People seem to be attempting to 'rebut' me with, "BUT <REASON 1>!" I really don't understand it.
You're right and I apologize. I can't stand when people talk "past" each other in discussions/arguments. My comment was about Agave in general and not the particular aspect you spoke of.
Aside 1: I'd heard that Agave wasn't that good nutritionally and did a quick search to clarify. The first piece I read was actually about how many people see Agave nectar as a raw food sweetener when in fact it is cooked at 250+ degrees for many hours to break down the starches into simpler fructose.
Aside 2: To be fair, the original discussion was about health effects not the philosophical/moral considerations our our food choices.
As johan pointed out, agave syrup (I won't use the fancy marketing term "Blue Agave Nectar"), is highly process and a lot more dangerous due to high fructose content. Here's more on the topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jonny-bowden/debunking-the-...
I haven't finished watching this yet so maybe it will be stated, but cancer loves sugar. It's sort of like adding high-octane fuel to a car. It speeds up the process. That's the main reason I would (should, but don't) avoid sugar.
