&/or have you found a difference between say, thick/light colour honey versus runny/dark colour honey…which one worked best for you?
Hi Darrin, the honey I first used and have found to be effective since is available at Coles in a 1kg glass jar and is called pure harvest organics – organic honey. It is heated to 45 degrees Celsius. They have a variety that looks exactly the same in the health food store but it says raw, however on the side of the jar it still says its heated so I don’t know what’s going on there. It’s consistency is more runny and it isn’t as dark as the raw variety I use in my tea (which has a much better flavour). The interesting thing is that the raw local variety of honey I was using which wasn’t working as well is also iron bark. Maybe the heating process increases the glycemic index of the honeys. It is thicker and darker. This report ( gives details on the amounts of fructose versus other sugars in different varieties of Australian honey. Iron bark and other pure floral varieties were low GI yet blends were moderate to high GI. Seth posted that he is using a blend, which I haven’t tried yet, I’m testing different honeys to see the effects and quantifying the data.
regarding “…the more pollen and particles there are in the honey, the better the quality”, this could be true & could be ‘healthier’ as well, but whether either of those things is a factor for improving sleep is another matter.
Just looking at the info on the pureharvest/coles honey you mention, which can be found here, As this honey is not listed on the pureharvest web site, i am guessing this must be a ‘supermarket’ version.
I’ve noticed something else on some honey labels which may be relevant here, most honeys label the carb content as all or nearly all sugars, usually 80+ grams per 100g. But a few list sugars as a lesser percentage of carbs, ie. with the coles/pureharvest linked above, sugars 73.6g, carbs 82.4g. & another one i just saw in the local coles express, coles brand 500g organic honey, sugars 69.4g, carbs 87.9g. This could be something to track when testing which honeys work for you.
Seth: Sugar is a low density form of energy. Fat is almost twice as dense. It is unclear that there is an evolutionary desire for “extremely sweet things” separate from a preference for sweetness. The Paleolithic world did not have a lot of extremely sweet things, so perhaps we like extremely sweet things because we like sweet things. High blood sugar is damaging (diabetes), why would we develop a preference for foods that damaged us? If extremely sweet things are so good for us, why do we get sick of them so quickly? (Sweets are generally small.)
Right, but could it be a speed thing? If you’re a zebra about to run briefly from its prey, you’d be better off having a Twix bar than a steak.
Lots of things – in larger quantities than “needed” – can end up being bad for us, right? Excessive porn, excessive exercise, excessive sugar. The problem here is that our pleasure system is hard to modulate perfectly, not that there can’t possibly be an evolutionary reason for liking refined sugars.
Also, I don’t think excessively sweet things are necessarily “good for us” beyond serving their purpose in the short term.