3 ms·

> Now, there have been studies that showed that erythritol is apparently toxic to fruit flies. In fruit flies. Totally irrelevant, and it's stunning the autho

> Now, there have been studies that showed that erythritol is apparently toxic to fruit flies. In fruit flies. Totally irrelevant, and it's stunning the author thinks they can use this to suggest anything about human physiology. Even mammal models of other species can't definitely tell us anything about humans. > But we seem to have spotted a toxic effect now. seem != does > In initial untargeted metabolomics studies in patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment Unfortunately, these are studies evaluating patients who have preexisting cardiovascular conditions, so at most we have correlation and perhaps some causative data specifically for those already at risk for cardiovascular events. Maybe there's something to this, but the tone of this article isn't scientific. > if your clotting behavior is normal to start with, you really, really, do not want to go around activating your platelets. That depends on the degree. Alcohol affects blood clotting, so I guess we'd better not have one sip ever under any circumstance. > That seems to be a risk under normal erythritol consumption, as determined by separate blood level measurements Seems, for those who are already at risk of CVD. It may very well turn out that erythritol increases risk of CVD events in otherwise healthy people, but that's not what any of the data mentioned actually indicates. The only exception may be how erythritol has been observed to affect patelet activation in vitro, but there are many things that seem significant in vitro that aren't medically relevant in vivo.

legerdemain 4y ago
I don't understand your facetious and, frankly, spurious attempt to dismiss this report from Derek Lowe. Lowe has spent decades informing lay audiences about pharmacology and biochemistry. A facile dismissal of his reporting as "not scientific" is not a credible counterargument. The core finding, which is what you are ultimately trying to find fault with, is this: In 1,157 patients volunteers undergoing three-year longitudinal evaluation, the patients in the highest quartile of plasma erythritol concentration were very strong outliers for CV events. That correlation holds up after controlling for all sorts of other dietary and physical variables (weight, age, gender, known cardiovascular risk factors, and more). And on top of that, the authors demonstrate a surprising but extremely plausible explanation for these findings: erythritol, in both in vitro and in vivo assays, enhances platelet aggregation.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  > Lowe has spent decades informing lay audiences about pharmacology and biochemistry. So? Why should I care whether a report is written by David Lowe? This guy has already drawn a conclusion about erythritol despite how inadequate the evidence is for how harmful it is to those without CVD, and is even willing to tease the reader with some data on fruit flies as if that matters. It doesn't matter what his background is; I don't find this article becoming of someone in the field of research. > A facile dismissal Yet all you did was cite the fact the article was written by David Lowe and paste an excerpt as if you think I hadn't already read it. Facetious, because I chose to read beyond that piece of abstract? Because I pointed out that invertebrate physiology is a nonsequitor as to whether a substance is medically relevant to human being? Because I don't agree that correlation of data in a study with inherent confounders can be so easily used to interpret risk in healthy individuals? There's a difference between correlation and causation, and especially in regards to judging medically relevant risk. If I was being facile and facetious, I'd be claiming there's no problem with erythritol. That's not what I'm saying at all. There's no good reason people should be consuming artificial sweeteners or sugar. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily a meaningful cardiovascular risk.
  - legerdemain 4y ago
    Your dismissal is facile because you focused on parts of the report that are a part of the background, but you instead presented as germane to the report's overall credibility. As one example, you started by dismissing the finding of adverse effect in fruit flies, as if the author was presenting it as being relevant to humans. In reality, Lowe writes that the fruit fly result is a curiosity. The specific finding from human medicine that he is actually reporting on is far more relevant and concerning. I posted Lowe's summary of the abstract because you preferred to focus on tangential minutia and ignored what is actually the novel and significant finding here. I care that the report is by Derek Lowe because he has spent literally years convincing me of his scientific expertise, industry experience, and journalistic bona fides. You have done nothing to show that you have any of these, and your choice of what you focused on makes me think the opposite.
xupybd 4y ago
>Totally irrelevant, and it's stunning the author thinks they can use this to suggest anything about human physiology The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical. It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology. The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  > The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical. In either case, it's still misleading and irrelevant. Whether people think a chemical is inert doesn't say anything about whether a chemical is dangerous to humans. If one wrote an equivalent article with the thesis that water bottles should no longer be sold, and the author points to the curiosity that thousands of people drown every year, that only serves to persuade gullible readers into believing that drinking a bottle of Aquafina and drowning in a pool are connected in a way that is relevant. If Derek Lowe's point truly was that people should not see erythritol as biologically inert, he should have said something explicit stating as such. The fact that he didn't communicates that his goal was to lead the reader to the conclusion that he's made quite clear in his final paragraph. > It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology. It's irrelevant to the point that he is explicitly making, and is no different than an article about weight loss telling people to stop eating so much chocolate and, oh by the way, did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs?! Gee whiz! And you thought chocolate was a harmless treat! > The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read. So you read articles for the factoids? I guess there's nothing wrong with that in isolation, but the insertion of factoids into articles is often misleading to those whom are less scientifically minded, which is a problem when an author is acting as a science communicator. There's no reason a site called Science.com can't have articles that are written to both fit the parameters of science and be interesting to read.
BoorishBears 4y ago
Starting off with a textbook contextomy is always a sign of a well balanced reply... > Now, there have been studies that showed that erythritol is apparently toxic to fruit flies. [...] That last effect may have partly been due to starvation, honestly, and it is also believed to cause osmotic imbalance in them. But nothing like that had ever been seen with humans; it has no such effects even in honeybees. It was mentioned specifically to be dismissed, and the opposite of what you're claiming is what was suggested. The rest of your comment doesn't really improve from there.

legerdemain 4y ago

I don't understand your facetious and, frankly, spurious attempt to dismiss this report from Derek Lowe. Lowe has spent decades informing lay audiences about pharmacology and biochemistry. A facile dismissal of his reporting as "not scientific" is not a credible counterargument. The core finding, which is what you are ultimately trying to find fault with, is this: In 1,157 patients volunteers undergoing three-year longitudinal evaluation, the patients in the highest quartile of plasma erythritol concentration were very strong outliers for CV events. That correlation holds up after controlling for all sorts of other dietary and physical variables (weight, age, gender, known cardiovascular risk factors, and more). And on top of that, the authors demonstrate a surprising but extremely plausible explanation for these findings: erythritol, in both in vitro and in vivo assays, enhances platelet aggregation.

ravenstine 4y ago
> Lowe has spent decades informing lay audiences about pharmacology and biochemistry. So? Why should I care whether a report is written by David Lowe? This guy has already drawn a conclusion about erythritol despite how inadequate the evidence is for how harmful it is to those without CVD, and is even willing to tease the reader with some data on fruit flies as if that matters. It doesn't matter what his background is; I don't find this article becoming of someone in the field of research. > A facile dismissal Yet all you did was cite the fact the article was written by David Lowe and paste an excerpt as if you think I hadn't already read it. Facetious, because I chose to read beyond that piece of abstract? Because I pointed out that invertebrate physiology is a nonsequitor as to whether a substance is medically relevant to human being? Because I don't agree that correlation of data in a study with inherent confounders can be so easily used to interpret risk in healthy individuals? There's a difference between correlation and causation, and especially in regards to judging medically relevant risk. If I was being facile and facetious, I'd be claiming there's no problem with erythritol. That's not what I'm saying at all. There's no good reason people should be consuming artificial sweeteners or sugar. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily a meaningful cardiovascular risk.
- legerdemain 4y ago
  Your dismissal is facile because you focused on parts of the report that are a part of the background, but you instead presented as germane to the report's overall credibility. As one example, you started by dismissing the finding of adverse effect in fruit flies, as if the author was presenting it as being relevant to humans. In reality, Lowe writes that the fruit fly result is a curiosity. The specific finding from human medicine that he is actually reporting on is far more relevant and concerning. I posted Lowe's summary of the abstract because you preferred to focus on tangential minutia and ignored what is actually the novel and significant finding here. I care that the report is by Derek Lowe because he has spent literally years convincing me of his scientific expertise, industry experience, and journalistic bona fides. You have done nothing to show that you have any of these, and your choice of what you focused on makes me think the opposite.

xupybd 4y ago

>Totally irrelevant, and it's stunning the author thinks they can use this to suggest anything about human physiology The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical. It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology. The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read.

ravenstine 4y ago
> The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical. In either case, it's still misleading and irrelevant. Whether people think a chemical is inert doesn't say anything about whether a chemical is dangerous to humans. If one wrote an equivalent article with the thesis that water bottles should no longer be sold, and the author points to the curiosity that thousands of people drown every year, that only serves to persuade gullible readers into believing that drinking a bottle of Aquafina and drowning in a pool are connected in a way that is relevant. If Derek Lowe's point truly was that people should not see erythritol as biologically inert, he should have said something explicit stating as such. The fact that he didn't communicates that his goal was to lead the reader to the conclusion that he's made quite clear in his final paragraph. > It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology. It's irrelevant to the point that he is explicitly making, and is no different than an article about weight loss telling people to stop eating so much chocolate and, oh by the way, did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs?! Gee whiz! And you thought chocolate was a harmless treat! > The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read. So you read articles for the factoids? I guess there's nothing wrong with that in isolation, but the insertion of factoids into articles is often misleading to those whom are less scientifically minded, which is a problem when an author is acting as a science communicator. There's no reason a site called Science.com can't have articles that are written to both fit the parameters of science and be interesting to read.

BoorishBears 4y ago

Starting off with a textbook contextomy is always a sign of a well balanced reply... > Now, there have been studies that showed that erythritol is apparently toxic to fruit flies. [...] That last effect may have partly been due to starvation, honestly, and it is also believed to cause osmotic imbalance in them. But nothing like that had ever been seen with humans; it has no such effects even in honeybees. It was mentioned specifically to be dismissed, and the opposite of what you're claiming is what was suggested. The rest of your comment doesn't really improve from there.