7 ms·
Eating Foods with Xylitol Can Be a Risk to Your Heart
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- moab 2y agoUnfortunately none of these news articles or papers discuss whether consuming ~2--3g of xylitol/day in the form of gum (e.g., Pur) is OK. I'm guessing it's fine, given that the warning is for products that are artificially sweetned with xylitol with a lot more xylitol, and they say that toothpaste/mouthwash with xylitol should be OK.
- _heimdall 2y agoThat is a bit tricky at least in the US, I'm not sure how it's done elsewhere. The FDA has a habit of defaulting of assuming foods and additives are safe unless proven dangerous. They also frequently default to safety recommendations from manufacturers. It's very possible that xylitol in toothpaste or mouthwash is considered safe because no one has identified those levels as dangerous. That isn't necessarily an indicator that we know it's safe, just that we haven't looked.
- voisin 2y ago> The FDA has a habit of defaulting of assuming foods and additives are safe unless proven dangerous This seems like an insane default. What’s the rationale?
- ethan801 2y agoMy assumption is that when the FDA was created there were already a large number of foods and food additives and testing all of those would have been impossible (and would have struck the public as absurd). You also have to deal with the fact that food processors are fairly powerful and that the number of new foods/additives created a year would swamp the agency and be virtually untestable.
- _heimdall 2y agoThat's a reasonable guess, and on the more benign end of the spectrum for reasons it works the way ths title does. We really just have to guess at intent though, the best we can do is look at their output and see if we're okay with the quality of regulation they put in place.
- ethan801 2y agoI mean it appears the explicit answer is due to the 1938 FDC act. Whereby congress explicitly empowered the FDA to enforce the fact that new drugs must be shown safe before selling and advertising can begin. However no such rule was passed for food or supplements as such the regulatory authority in that space is oriented towards preventing "adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious food, drugs, medications, and liquor" (https://library.weill.cornell.edu/about-us/snake%C2%A0oil%C2%A0-social%C2%A0media-drug-advertising-your-health/food-and-drug-administration-continued https://library.weill.cornell.edu/about-us/snake%C2%A0oil%C2...)
- _heimdall 2y agoHaving the legislative mandate definitely helps. Interestingly, the Chevron case would have left the FDA well within their rights to decide that a similar rule was important for food and supplements, they chose not to do that. Our food supply was totally different in 1938, I can understand why the original legislation didn't include this. Processed foods weren't common, seed oils were even less common, and I assume supplements like we gave today didn't exist though I'm less sure about that one.
- ethan801 2y agoWell two of the major reasons for the original act were because of highly unsanitary conditions at slaughter houses (Upton Sinclair's The Jungle) and the use of known unsafe preservatives (e.g formaldehyde, spurred on heavily by Harvey Washington Wiley). While I do think some oversight of food additives is warranted, given the way the FDA currently operates, having them have oversight over them would essentially be tantamount to banning new additives. If the cost was even 1/100th as high as it is to get drug approved it seems likely that there would be no economic payoff worth the hassle.
- hobs 2y agoThe same rationale for the Chevron defense (attacking the root of its power) - there's a large base of republicans who don't want to increase regulation on much of anything, and especially big business. Mel Gibson even famously was part of an ad campaign to make sure that nobody COULD regulate supplements and to this day there's basically just about anything in those things you can buy at any convenience store.
- _heimdall 2y agoThis isn't a party problem, executive agencies have run the same way for decades regardless of who is in charge of the White House or Congress. Republicans aren't against regulation more than Democrats, each side just wants a different set of regulations. Both parties want some level of restrictions on abortion for example, they just disagree on what the regulation should be.
- Spooky23 2y agoRepublicans aren’t republicans anymore, they are populist right wingers. The business dudes who just want to make money are in the back seat. It’s fanatics and reactionaries now. “Starve the beast” in the context of chevron means that regulatory adjudication moves from administrative law judges in agencies to Federal courts. Supposedly this is to align with constitutional principles, but the reality is the except for the richest companies and individuals, litigation in federal court is prohibitively expensive.
- _heimdall 2y agoParty platforms change over time. They're Republicans because that's the name of the party. Its totally fair to say they aren't conservative anymore though, much like the Democratic party isn't liberal (at least classic liberal, I'm not a fan of the term having been co-opted and redefined). More importantly to me, I just don't see much light between the base goals of the Republican and Democratic parties. They have done a hell of pushing voters into diametrically opposed corners, but I don't see the same with the parties. They debate details of most topics, but at the end of the day they both seem to be focused on growing the federal government, locking down our borders, and completely ignoring the concept of a budget. If anything, both parties appear more to be run by neocons putting on a show of division to keep people distracted from what they're actually doing.
- _heimdall 2y agoWish I had a good answer to that. I can only really judge their actions, I don't have any insight into their inner workings or intent behind it.
- xandrius 2y agoI think it's the US beloved default of non-regulation. While it can have its positives, it also creates monstrosity such as the FDA. I'd personally rather go to the store and assume that most (if not all) the products available are proven to be safe rather than one which can sell anything that no one has yet proven to be unsafe.
- _heimdall 2y agoI'd personally rather go to a farmers market or local store and buy food that was all grown and produced locally. Where the US really got off the rails, in my opinion, was holding onto our distaste for regulation while simultaneously providing legal cover for corporstions to become massive and centralize industry so massively. The FDA shouldn't be necessary at all. I don't need an organization to tell me raw milk from a local dairy is safe. The FDA is only needed for milk because we have a handful of massive, industrial dairies raising animals in terrible conditions and selling their product to everyone through national infrastructure balanced like a house of cards.
- xandrius 2y agoEh, I wish that was always the case but it really depends on the individual farmer: I know many small and medium-scale farmers which use pesticides and chemicals. Even many people in their own small allotment don't shy away from using them willy nilly. And raw milk is one of those things that it's all good and dandy until it's not. I still prefer buying raw milk and doing a LTLT pasteurisation to have the best of both worlds.
- _heimdall 2y agoTotally agree on both counts. The benefit of local is that you can know the farmer at all. You'll just never get that with industrial ag. You'll never know how the animals were raised, how they were processed, or who all was involved as the animal likely was shipped all over the country or even overseas before you ate it. I definitely get people's apprehension with raw milk. I very much need to know where it came from, and have a good idea for the health of the animal. We hand milk when our cows are lactating, and occasionallu buy from a local family dairy that we've worked with for years.
- Spooky23 2y agoAdditives and supplements grew into the loophole between food processing and drugs. Those lobbies grew as the US developed a political movement against regulation. A lot of people make a lot of money selling ground up bark and food flavoring.
- iLoveOncall 2y agoThey kind of do: > In studies performed by Dr Hazen’s team, healthy volunteers were given a drink sweetened with 30 grams of xylitol. That’s similar to the amount found in a single scoop of keto-friendly ice cream or several cookies marketed for people with diabetes. > > In every volunteer studied, platelets were significantly more prone to clot after consuming xylitol.
- ricardobeat 2y agoWhat size scoop is that? A normal one has like 70g, that would be unbearably sweet.
- rjh29 2y ago"No serious health risk exists in most humans for normal levels of consumption. The European Food Safety Authority has not set a limit on daily intake of xylitol. Due to the adverse laxative effect that all polyols have on the digestive system in high doses, xylitol is banned from soft drinks in the European Union. Similarly due to a 1985 report, by the E.U. Scientific Committee on Food, stating that "ingesting 50 g a day of xylitol can cause diarrhea", tabletop sweeteners, as well as other products containing xylitol are required to display the warning: "Excessive consumption may induce laxative effects" Xylitol gum exists in the EU too. It would almost certainly be banned if consuming even a slightly high amount of gum was linked to health risks. It's not a lack of regulation problem.
- kragen 2y agoi suspect that a lot of the novel food additives that have become popular in the last 50 years will turn out to be dangerous, though probably not in the sense that they raise your immediate risk of heart attack and stroke, which seems to be what this study is claiming
- carterschonwald 2y agoXylitol in the quantities found in a single piece of gum that uses it as. Sweetener, will kill your cat or dog in like 30 minutes. So I keep xylitol out of my house. ESP since my little dog likes mint!
- failrate 2y agoTheobromines found in a single piece of chocolate can kill a dog. Animal models have limited ability to predict what will happen in humans.
- carterschonwald 2y agoMy understanding is that’s usually meant to mean a bar of milk chocolate or a smaller piece of dark chocolate. Though I could be absolutely wrong.
- philipswood 2y agoI don't think think the concern in this case is any perceived possible human danger, but the actual real danger to the pets.
- legulere 2y agoIt’s important to note that sugar replacements only proven positive effect is in preventing cavities when they replace sugar. They do not help in reducing weight.
- myaccountonhn 2y agoAnother one linked with stroke is Monk fruit sugar, which you find in so damn many "healthy" alternatives. These sugar alternatives are terrifying. I rather just have regular sugar.
- jhanschoo 2y agoluo han guo (monk fruit) is pretty commonly available where I am, so I'm interested if it is as you say linked to stroke. A quick google didn't turn up anything for me. Do you have a link that I can have a look at?
- tmulcahy 2y agoDid you mean erythritol? It's often paired with monk fruit, but it's a completely separate substance. Erythritol has been linked to stroke - e.g. see https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/health/zero-calorie-sweetener-heart-attack-stroke-wellness/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/health/zero-calorie-sweetener... - but I have seen no such links involving monk fruit.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- anonu 2y agoMichael Pollan: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The SAD (standard American diet) is both a modern marvel of how to feed people cheaply at scale, but its downsides are significant in terms of negative health outcomes: metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes and the list goes on.
- beedeebeedee 2y agoXylitol is produced in large quantities by birch trees, and is a main component of birch water and other traditional health drinks made from birch
- anonu 2y agoSure - but do we regularly eat birch in our diet? And if we did, would we get the dosage we do in processed foods?
- beedeebeedee 2y agoI don't, and I'm now unclear if xylitol is in the birch sap or only derived from the birch bark (and therefore, not part of the traditional health drink).
- piva00 2y agoI've been living in Scandinavia for 10+ years, I never heard anyone talking about consuming birch water.
- beedeebeedee 2y agoIt's a traditional drink in areas with birch forests. Just like you would probably not hear anyone talking about consuming sumac tea if you had been living in New York for 10+ years, you would probably need to be more deeply integrated with the older indigenous culture to hear about it.
- piva00 2y ago
- BirAdam 2y agoI would be very interested in a broader study of a human population. It is my understanding that sugar alcohols have been popular in Japan far longer than in the USA and EU, and Japan is the longest living population to my knowledge. I do not doubt that there is some connection, but might the risks be elevated with some other aspect of diet, habits, and so on? What would explain the discrepancy between populations?
- tsol 2y agoWell you wouldn't necessarily expect to see lowered lifespans, as much as increased heart attacks and strokes(both caused by blood clots). Maybe lifespan would be lowered as an average, but that might be hard to separate from other trends
- coldtea 2y ago>It is my understanding that sugar alcohols have been popular in Japan far longer than in the USA and EU, and Japan is the longest living population to my knowledge. Would it illuminate much? Seeing that Japan also has much different dietary habbits and much less obesity than the US, so it's not like there's "everything else being equal".
- beedeebeedee 2y ago> “We had healthy volunteers drink a xylitol-sweetened drink, and we examined blood from before versus after ingestion of the drink. For the next four to six hours xylitol levels remained elevated enough to enhance platelet responses and clotting risk in every person studied,” Dr. Hazen explains. Platelet function returned to normal levels by the next day. I am surprised to see headlines warning of xylitol, because it is a key component in birch water and other traditional health drinks made from birch trees (Scandanavia, Russia, and other places with birch). The clotting goes away after a few hours, but perhaps that was viewed as beneficial against injuries for those who drank it? Maybe only within our society it is viewed as harmful, because people are rarely injured (and when they are, they have access to bandages, stitches, antibiotics, etc) and more commonly have chronic health problems that might be exacerbated by the temporary increase in clotting?
- ferfumarma 2y agoThe top three killers in the US are heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Two of the three are problems with excessive clotting, and cancer can have clot formation as a complication. It's therefore reasonable to assume that increased platelet activity is likely to be harmful.
- OJFord 2y ago'temporary increase in clotting', 'only within our society it is viewed as harmful' - ah yes, transient ischemic attacks, famously a perception problem; refer to psych: the patient merely believes they're having mini-strokes.
- beedeebeedee 2y ago? I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I was referring to the possibility of clotting of injuries being viewed as beneficial in pre-modern societies.
- tsol 2y agoThat would be a much less common occurrence. It might make sense to take it "medicinally" as needed, but most people probably aren't getting cut that often. For the general population the risk of heart attack and stroke are probably more relevant
- canucker2016 2y agoa previous HN post about this : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790214 Reference to Peter Attia's comment about this: https://peterattiamd.com/xylitol-and-cvd/ https://peterattiamd.com/xylitol-and-cvd/ ...and the HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790358
- eYrKEC2 2y agoSee also https://peterattiamd.com/xylitol-and-cvd/ https://peterattiamd.com/xylitol-and-cvd/
- david-gpu 2y agoFrom the article you linked, for the lazy: > [Xylitol] 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. > In other words, this study provides no evidence whatsoever that dietary xylitol intake has any association with MACE, yet still the authors insist on linking the two in their conclusions > First erythritol, now xylitol. This research group followed the same flawed design and ended up with the same flawed conclusions. SSDD – same [study], different day.
- morjom 2y ago"Xylitol in processed food can increase risk of heart attack and stroke — but there’s no danger in xylitol in oral care products" I'm glad what I was looking for was in the first piece of text.
- leobg 2y agoThe relevant section from the article: > [C]onsuming foods and beverages sweetened with xylitol can make the platelets in your blood more likely to clot — a recipe for serious heart events. > In studies performed by Dr Hazen’s team, healthy volunteers were given a drink sweetened with 30 grams of xylitol. That’s similar to the amount found in a single scoop of keto-friendly ice cream or several cookies marketed for people with diabetes. > In every volunteer studied, platelets were significantly more prone to clot after consuming xylitol. > “In the presence of xylitol, platelets become much more angry and ready to clot,” Dr. Hazen reports. “It’s as if our platelets have a kind of tastebud receptor for xylitol that makes them go into overdrive. And that’s very significant because enhanced clotting can stop blood flow.”
- Teknomancer 2y agoDitched Xylitol for Monk Fruit Sugar. No more upset stomach, and it tastes better. Same benefits as Xylitol but none of the risks.
- ilius2 2y agoI have gone keto (no sugar / starch) for a couple of weeks, so I'm looking out for a safe sugar-free chewing gum, with no success finding one so far! I don't care if it's not sweet, as long as it does not taste / feel terrible.