4 ms·

Peter Attia had an interesting post about this study - https://peterattiamd.com/xylitol-and-cvd/ https://peterattiamd.com/xylitol-and-cvd/

laweijfmvo 2y ago
Interesting! Both that the study had a flaw (dietary xylitol not being properly isolated) and that the same group "reused" a study from another artificial sweetener. I'm tempted to ask who might be funding this group...
echelon 2y ago
Thank you. This should be the top post. Summary from your article: > xylitol consumption is that diet isn’t the only source of circulating xylitol. This compound is also produced by our own bodies through a process known as the glucuronate pathway, one of the pathways by which we metabolize glucose. So how did the authors ensure they were investigating the relationship between dietary xylitol intake and MACE risk? They didn’t. > This research group followed the same flawed design and ended up with the same flawed conclusions. SSDD – same [study], different day. > At best, this work shows that endogenous xylitol correlates with – but doesn’t necessarily contribute to – cardiovascular risk. Far from condemning xylitol as an ingredient in foods and beverages, these data provide no insight whatsoever on potential negative effects of dietary xylitol intake [...] xylitol may even offer advantages for health. > So in summary, this work should ring a few bells – but there’s no need for it to ring any alarms.
0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
This point jumped out to me as a pretty significant limitation of the study. The investigators did not collect any data on xylitol intake from their human cohort, so we have no way of correlating consumption with MACE risk because we have no way of knowing which participants were regularly consuming xylitol-containing foods. And although xylitol is currently a very common sweetening additive, Witkowski et al. note that the majority of their study participants were enrolled prior to xylitol’s widespread use, suggesting that circulating levels measured in their observational cohort may not be attributable to dietary intake. Alas, as with all human nutrition studies, it is all garbage and mostly funded by Nestle or similar.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  Convincing garbage too. I routinely have an argument with a friend who believes these, and thinks that a whole lot of studies pointing in the same direction is better evidence than only one. I Point out that it’s because those studies are all defined by the same person and run by the same people

laweijfmvo 2y ago

Interesting! Both that the study had a flaw (dietary xylitol not being properly isolated) and that the same group "reused" a study from another artificial sweetener. I'm tempted to ask who might be funding this group...

echelon 2y ago

Thank you. This should be the top post. Summary from your article: > xylitol consumption is that diet isn’t the only source of circulating xylitol. This compound is also produced by our own bodies through a process known as the glucuronate pathway, one of the pathways by which we metabolize glucose. So how did the authors ensure they were investigating the relationship between dietary xylitol intake and MACE risk? They didn’t. > This research group followed the same flawed design and ended up with the same flawed conclusions. SSDD – same [study], different day. > At best, this work shows that endogenous xylitol correlates with – but doesn’t necessarily contribute to – cardiovascular risk. Far from condemning xylitol as an ingredient in foods and beverages, these data provide no insight whatsoever on potential negative effects of dietary xylitol intake [...] xylitol may even offer advantages for health. > So in summary, this work should ring a few bells – but there’s no need for it to ring any alarms.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago

This point jumped out to me as a pretty significant limitation of the study. The investigators did not collect any data on xylitol intake from their human cohort, so we have no way of correlating consumption with MACE risk because we have no way of knowing which participants were regularly consuming xylitol-containing foods. And although xylitol is currently a very common sweetening additive, Witkowski et al. note that the majority of their study participants were enrolled prior to xylitol’s widespread use, suggesting that circulating levels measured in their observational cohort may not be attributable to dietary intake. Alas, as with all human nutrition studies, it is all garbage and mostly funded by Nestle or similar.

mattmaroon 2y ago
Convincing garbage too. I routinely have an argument with a friend who believes these, and thinks that a whole lot of studies pointing in the same direction is better evidence than only one. I Point out that it’s because those studies are all defined by the same person and run by the same people