3 ms·

This depends on the sweetener. There have been recent articles linking bad health effects to erythritol and sucralose that I am aware of.

unethical_ban 3y ago
Damn, I thought erythritol was downside-free. Looks like it is associated with a nontrivial risk of heart attack and stroke https://www.realsimple.com/study-links-stevia-and-monk-fruit-sweeteners-with-heart-disease-7152629 https://www.realsimple.com/study-links-stevia-and-monk-fruit...
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  On the positive side, while researching my comment, apparently that old boogieman of artificial sweeteners, saccharine, may be fine for humans (as the cancer-causing in rats is because of a unique rat feature that humans don't share).
  - orwin 3y ago
    I heard it was because the species of rat they used tend to get cancers anyway when they got older, and shouldn't be used in any long-term study. I love scientists, loved working with them, best clients i ever had (if you're a devops or automate dev/scientists tools, and have to regularly explain stuff to scientists and to other devs, we don't compare advantageously at all), but sometimes there is too much noise.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      This is what I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_addition_and_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_additi... > However, in 2000, the warning labels were removed because scientists learned that rodents, unlike humans, have a unique combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein levels in their urine.[34][35] One or more of the proteins that are more prevalent in male rats combine with calcium phosphate and saccharin to produce microcrystals that damage the lining of the bladder. Over time, the rat's bladder responds to this damage by overproducing cells to repair the damage, which leads to tumor formation. Since this does not occur in humans, there is no elevated risk of bladder cancer.[36] I work in the biosciences (in a role between lab tech and actual scientist). So many things are provisionally accepted simply because you don't have the time or resources to verify them. Which is not too different from any other job, it just seems weird in the context of the sciences.
- uranium 3y ago
  Let's wait for the news cycle and science to settle: https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol-and-cardiovascular-risk/ https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol...

unethical_ban 3y ago

Damn, I thought erythritol was downside-free. Looks like it is associated with a nontrivial risk of heart attack and stroke https://www.realsimple.com/study-links-stevia-and-monk-fruit-sweeteners-with-heart-disease-7152629 https://www.realsimple.com/study-links-stevia-and-monk-fruit...

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
On the positive side, while researching my comment, apparently that old boogieman of artificial sweeteners, saccharine, may be fine for humans (as the cancer-causing in rats is because of a unique rat feature that humans don't share).
- orwin 3y ago
  I heard it was because the species of rat they used tend to get cancers anyway when they got older, and shouldn't be used in any long-term study. I love scientists, loved working with them, best clients i ever had (if you're a devops or automate dev/scientists tools, and have to regularly explain stuff to scientists and to other devs, we don't compare advantageously at all), but sometimes there is too much noise.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    This is what I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_addition_and_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_additi... > However, in 2000, the warning labels were removed because scientists learned that rodents, unlike humans, have a unique combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein levels in their urine.[34][35] One or more of the proteins that are more prevalent in male rats combine with calcium phosphate and saccharin to produce microcrystals that damage the lining of the bladder. Over time, the rat's bladder responds to this damage by overproducing cells to repair the damage, which leads to tumor formation. Since this does not occur in humans, there is no elevated risk of bladder cancer.[36] I work in the biosciences (in a role between lab tech and actual scientist). So many things are provisionally accepted simply because you don't have the time or resources to verify them. Which is not too different from any other job, it just seems weird in the context of the sciences.
uranium 3y ago
Let's wait for the news cycle and science to settle: https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol-and-cardiovascular-risk/ https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol...