From a quick read : It was tested in a cell culture, so not in a human or animal. That does change a lot of things.
For the dosage:
> Thereafter, hCMECs were treated116 with regular media or media containing 6 mM erythritol (Sigma Aldrich, Cat #E7500; St. Louis MO), a117 dose equivalent to a typical amount of erythritol [30g] in a single can of commercially available118 artificially sweetened beverage, for 24 hours (N=5 experimental units)
One of the cited studies (Khafagy et al., 2024) directly contradicts such claims. The study explicitly said "we did not find supportive evidence from MR that erythritol increases cardiometabolic disease".
The primary human study they reference (Witkowski et al., 2023) has a few issues:
- All subjects had a "high prevalence of CVD and risk factor burden" and represented the sickest patients in the healthcare system
- Erythritol was measured only once at baseline, despite data which shows that levels fluctuate dramatically with consumption
- It did not differentiate between dietary intake and erythritol produced by the body
- Seeing as they were already sick they the subjects may have been consuming more artificial sweeteners than the general population
There are two more human studies referenced but I didn't read them.
It’s tiring to see these quick dismissals of scientific studies at the top of the comment section. They are more often than not based on technicalities or fallacies. Pitting a two minute reading vs months of work by a team of scientists is not a great move.
In this case, the nature of the study is clearly acknowledged, it does not “change a lot of things”:
> We recognize given the in vitro, isolated single cell nature of this study we cannot make
definitive translational conclusions or assertions regarding erythritol and clinical risk. However, the
markers and mediators of brain microvascular endothelial cell function studied herein have been shown to have strong causative links with the development cerebrovascular dysfunction, neuronal damage and injury, thrombosis and acute ischemic stroke
These findings are a starting point for further understanding, not something to be immediately ranked as true/false.
I think what commenters are looking for is a reason where this study is relevant for them (us) as humans, and they assess whether it is definitive or not. As HN is more of a generic curiosity and engineering related site then these starting point for further understanding are unlikely to get more nuanced discussion than that.
Thus, rather than submitting articles like the current, rather wait until anything more is available. We are tired of clickbait as well.
Typically single one-off studies should be dismissed and shouldn't be cause for concern. Anybody can study anything and it's very, very easy to do wrong.
For most everyday lay people, you should be looking at meta-analysis. We just don't have the context to hone-in on one study and examine how correct it is or what it actually means for our everyday lives.
I tend to read these comments as a quick dismissal of the title moreso than the research. The title implies that a fairly conclusive finding has been made.
This is science, not religion. Nothing is owed to any researcher beyond the truth of the matter as supported by the best available evidence to us. Your pastor can request you go easy on him, your research team may not. (Please don't use this as an excuse to be rude.)
This contradicts several reasonably large high quality studies using a low grade substitute for human testing. The burden of proof is on the researchers making a surprising claim in contrast to existing evidence.
> Pitting a two minute reading vs months of work by a team of scientists is not a great move.
> In this case, the nature of the study is clearly acknowledged, it does not “change a lot of things”:
> These findings are a starting point for further understanding, not something to be immediately ranked as true/false.
Yes I know this and do not dismiss their research at all. I have been in the same boat, having to write at the end of a paper "We have proven a certain link between Y and X in this very limited experiment A, a wider, deeper research would be needed to prove if any such link exists in much larger condition B".
This is normal, and how most scientific advencement is made.
But look, I don't think the average HN user comes to this article and comment section thinking what happened when you put erythritol on a cell culture outside of a living organism. They care about what is the consequences of consuming erythritol on them. So a small clarification comment stating the 2 importants conditions of the experiment (cell culture + dosage) is usually useful if you don't have the time to read the whole study and if you came here just to know if you should stop consuming your favorite sweetened drink right now.
I wonder if the similar molecule Xylitol has the same problem. It seems like so many artificial sweeteners have dangerous health effects, I don't trust any of them. Unless you're diabetic or something, regular sugar seems to be the healthiest choice (in moderation!)
It was also linked to the elevated risk of blood clots in another study a couple of years ago. Even then it instantly looked like an instant "nope" ... and now this.
UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.
This is about sugar alcohols, not simple sugars, and total sugar consumption in the US has been declining since a peak around the turn of the millennium, reverting back to levels on par with the 1970s, yet overweight/obesity rates just kept right on climbing until the recent advent of GLP-1 drugs.
If your calorie intake is higher than your calorie usage, it doesn't matter how little sugar you take. People ingest more calories than ever (relative to their calorie usage) and barely engage in physical activities (relative to their calorie intake). Sure, other factors might worsen this but doesn't change the underlying core
Almost every single other sugar substitute is filled with erythritol as an additive. Monk Fruit products tend to be really bad offenders. Check the labels carefully.
I casually follow the FODMAP diet and avoid sugar alcohols where possible. It's surprising how many sugar substitutes include it, sometimes as the primary ingredient. I've found a pure stevia powder that tastes okay, but it isn't cheap and is only sold in a local health food store.
This I found out the unfortunate way. I used some popular monk fruit sweetener... packets were just monk fruit but the bulk packages were monk fruit/erythritol blend and I didn't pay enough attention to the label. Made lemonade with it.
Aspartame is fine in things like soda, but the reason erythritol is mixed with monk fruit (and perhaps aspartame as well?) is it is closer to the sweetness level of sugar in terms of sweetness per gram, and so it's usually easier to use in recipes that are based on sugar quantities.
"Human cerebral microvascular endothelial cells were cultured and exposed to an amount of erythritol equivalent to consuming a typical beverage. Experimental conditions included five biological replicates per group."
So it needs to cross the blood-brain barrier. From the research paper: "Moreover, it is important to note that erythritol does cross the blood brain barrier and interact with the cerebrovasculature". Unclear what percentage this is.
Always tricky translating cell culture doses to what actually happens in a living person, but it sounds like there's at least a plausible mechanism here.
Readit News
From a quick read : It was tested in a cell culture, so not in a human or animal. That does change a lot of things.
For the dosage:
> Thereafter, hCMECs were treated116 with regular media or media containing 6 mM erythritol (Sigma Aldrich, Cat #E7500; St. Louis MO), a117 dose equivalent to a typical amount of erythritol [30g] in a single can of commercially available118 artificially sweetened beverage, for 24 hours (N=5 experimental units)
The article points out that similar observations have already been made in human subjects:
> Positive associations between circulating erythritol and incidence of heart attack and stroke have been observed in U.S. and European cohorts
The primary human study they reference (Witkowski et al., 2023) has a few issues:
- All subjects had a "high prevalence of CVD and risk factor burden" and represented the sickest patients in the healthcare system
- Erythritol was measured only once at baseline, despite data which shows that levels fluctuate dramatically with consumption
- It did not differentiate between dietary intake and erythritol produced by the body
- Seeing as they were already sick they the subjects may have been consuming more artificial sweeteners than the general population
There are two more human studies referenced but I didn't read them.
In this case, the nature of the study is clearly acknowledged, it does not “change a lot of things”:
> We recognize given the in vitro, isolated single cell nature of this study we cannot make definitive translational conclusions or assertions regarding erythritol and clinical risk. However, the markers and mediators of brain microvascular endothelial cell function studied herein have been shown to have strong causative links with the development cerebrovascular dysfunction, neuronal damage and injury, thrombosis and acute ischemic stroke
These findings are a starting point for further understanding, not something to be immediately ranked as true/false.
Thus, rather than submitting articles like the current, rather wait until anything more is available. We are tired of clickbait as well.
For most everyday lay people, you should be looking at meta-analysis. We just don't have the context to hone-in on one study and examine how correct it is or what it actually means for our everyday lives.
This contradicts several reasonably large high quality studies using a low grade substitute for human testing. The burden of proof is on the researchers making a surprising claim in contrast to existing evidence.
> In this case, the nature of the study is clearly acknowledged, it does not “change a lot of things”:
> These findings are a starting point for further understanding, not something to be immediately ranked as true/false.
Yes I know this and do not dismiss their research at all. I have been in the same boat, having to write at the end of a paper "We have proven a certain link between Y and X in this very limited experiment A, a wider, deeper research would be needed to prove if any such link exists in much larger condition B". This is normal, and how most scientific advencement is made.
But look, I don't think the average HN user comes to this article and comment section thinking what happened when you put erythritol on a cell culture outside of a living organism. They care about what is the consequences of consuming erythritol on them. So a small clarification comment stating the 2 importants conditions of the experiment (cell culture + dosage) is usually useful if you don't have the time to read the whole study and if you came here just to know if you should stop consuming your favorite sweetened drink right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol
Why prefer something that you know is definitely bad for you over something that maybe is but more likely benign?
Oh also it’s super lethal for dogs.
I only chew gum if it has xylitol in it.
https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=75
This is the study that the article is talking about. The complete paper is https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/japplphysiol...
It's based on earlier work that suggests that erythritol consumption is associated with increased risk of stroke or myocardial infarction: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02223-9
Spent the rest of the day on the toilet.
"Human cerebral microvascular endothelial cells were cultured and exposed to an amount of erythritol equivalent to consuming a typical beverage. Experimental conditions included five biological replicates per group."
So it needs to cross the blood-brain barrier. From the research paper: "Moreover, it is important to note that erythritol does cross the blood brain barrier and interact with the cerebrovasculature". Unclear what percentage this is.