6 ms·

This is a study done on cell cultures. It should NOT be used to influence behaviors regarding human health. The article linked makes a lot of leaps not supporte

This is a study done on cell cultures. It should NOT be used to influence behaviors regarding human health. The article linked makes a lot of leaps not supported by the study itself. Link to actual study: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00276.2025 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysio...

hollerith 1y ago
>It should NOT be used to influence behaviors regarding human health. It's not like erythritol is hard for a consumer to avoid. P(serious problems like brain cell damage) does not need to get very high for it to start to make sense to avoid it, and it seems to me that studies done on cell culture can raise P high enough.
- Moto7451 1y ago
  The test setup ignores the digestive system. There are going to be a lot of substances you can pour on a culture of brain cells with negative affect that your body produces or happily consumes. That’s the point of the parent. Add milk, an alcoholic beverage, or some lemon juice and those cells are unlikely to survive. Meanwhile the standard path of consumption handles the situation just fine before your brain is ever involved in metabolism.
  - bestouff 1y ago
    Alcoholic beverage, just fine ? I disagree.
    - majkinetor 1y ago
      Learn about hormesis then and don't succumb to the yt's med-bros click-bait hype
      - Esophagus4 1y ago
        Jeez, what a dismissive (and handwaivy) response. Alcohol is a carcinogen, and even small amounts are linked to increased cancer rates[1][2]. The only thing the WHO, CDC, and US Surgeon General have in common with the “YouTuber med bros click bait hype” you try to wholly discredit is that they probably all do have YouTube channels… [1]https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/oash-alcohol-cancer-risk.pdf https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/oash-alcohol-cancer-... [2]https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...
        majkinetor 1y ago
        Jeez, learn to read and learn and stop with this BS already: From your first article: > The amount of alcohol a person drinks affects their risk of cancer. An important factor is the overall amount of alcohol consumed consistently over time. That, sure as hell, means that you can drink small amounts sometimes, not 0, as there is no such thing. Again, read about hormesis. Here it is for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis#Alcohol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis#Alcohol
    - Moto7451 1y ago
      How about Kombucha? Vanilla extract? Sourdough bread? Mouth wash? Oral medicines? There are more sources to alcohol than the bar, including many incidental sources we don’t think about and happily feed to children as soon as they can handle solid foods. Like anything there’s nuance here. I’m not saying being drunk, an alcoholic, or having a single alcoholic beverage will have no negative affects. I’m discussing the difference between a culture (cells on agar) and the entirety of the human body. You are not going to reproduce the same results they had because your digestive tract, kidneys, and liver are inline. This is really important because our food contains so many things naturally including the Erythritol in the original article. Let’s talk about another example. Would you find Fish acceptable? How about mercury? How would you square exposure to mercury due to eating fish?
  - hollerith 1y ago
    OK. Thanks for explaining.
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    To the reader, I strongly urge not listening to some rando on the internet (as opposed to the scientists) who asks you to dismiss a study, simply because the risk-reward calculus here is strongly in favor of not taking the unnecessary risk of brain damage.
- nerdsniper 1y ago
  > It's not like erythritol is hard for a consumer to avoid. How many ingredients with negative effects on the order of erythritol are in my foods, cosmetic products, homecare products, food packaging, etc that I need to be aware of? Not how hard is it to avoid erythritol -- but how hard is it to avoid every substance that is at least similarly bad for me?
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    Well, you're always welcome to be reckless and kill yourself faster if that's your goal. Just don't expect others to be equally reckless. To answer your question, no, it is not hard to avoid the labeled harmful substances that one knows are harmful.
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      Friends who have (genuine, medically diagnosed) health problems with gluten or soy would disagree.
- pull_my_finger 1y ago
  It actually is. If you're shopping low carb/keto marketed stuff, they put it in almost everything. Even other sweeteners like stevia, monkfruit, allulose often are cut with majority erythritol. You have to really scour the packaging to make sure you're buying "stevia" and not a "stevia blend" etc. Erythritol sucks too. It gives a weird cooling sensation on your tongue like menthol, I have no idea why they mix it into everything.
  - asyx 1y ago
    Because it has no calories. Xylitol is nicer but gets metabolized. Erythritol is one of the few sweeteners that are reasonable to use at home (like, you can dose it like sugar unlike aspartame), tastes reasonable on its own (you don’t need the blend you have in coke zero for example) and will not spike glucose levels so diabetics can actually use it. Like, I can bake a cheese cake just like any other cheese cake as long as I replace the flour for the bottom with almond flour and the sugar with erythritol.
    - pull_my_finger 1y ago
      We do a lot of keto cooking here. Erythritol is the bottom of the barrel. They have monkfruit/allulose blends that are very comparable to sugar in taste and how they interact with heat - caramelization or melting in granular or powdered. I've read erythritol is more "immediately" sweet on your tongue, but for it's "potential" health detriment, as well as the overpowering "cooling" effect it's really not worth it. I guess if you're doing low cal as well you need to make additional concessions but most of those that don't get processed, really turn your GI upside down as well.
ethan_smith 1y ago
In vitro studies demonstrate potential mechanisms but cannot establish causality in humans due to differences in metabolism, bioavailability, and the blood-brain barrier's protective effects.
XorNot 1y ago
Aka: https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/ If you poured distilled water on cells in culture they'd also all die.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  Drinking distilled water will also kill oneself, just slowly. This is because it is demineralized and it can become acidic. It also risks leeching and dissolving heavy metals from foods, risking their increased absorption.
casualscience 1y ago
This sounds like a smart comment, but the main reason you shouldn't take in vitro studies as indicative of real medical outcomes is largely due to unknown bio availability when consuming realistic doses. However, this study shows that the concentration of erithritol is well above the concentration where they see negative effects in vitro when consuming a realistic dose. In addition epidemiological studies have found associations between higher plasma erythritol and clotting/cardiovascular events. So, regular disclaimers about difficulty of establishing health science aside, I would disagree this should 'not influence behaviors'.
- esperent 1y ago
  > However, this study shows that the concentration of erithritol is well above the concentration where they see negative effects in vitro when consuming a realistic dose. Are you saying that when you eat a normal/largish amount of erithritol (say 1-10g), the concentration of erithritol in your brain is similar to what they tested on brain cells in vitro here? Also, how can they make a link to stroke when testing in vitro?
  - nerdsniper 1y ago
    The study used a concentration of 6mM erythritol. This would be the mean (“bulk”) concentration found in the body after drinking 2-3 erythritol-sweetened soft drinks. I can find several with 10+ grams of it per bottle/can. Erythritol Concentration: 6 mM (0.006 mol/L) Molar Mass of Erythritol: 122.12 g/mol Water in human body: 42 Liters Calculated Total Mass: 30.77 grams (0.006 * 122.12 * 42)
    - esperent 1y ago
      You're assuming that: A) all of the erithritol consumed ends up in serum (blood) B) is equally distributed throughout all the blood in the body C) entirely bypasses the blood brain barrier These are huge assumptions. A) is certainly wrong.
      - 1y ago
aatd86 1y ago
Because we are not composed of cells, right? (in jest)
OutOfHere 1y ago
To the reader, I strongly urge not listening to some rando on the internet (in opposition to the scientists) who asks you to dismiss a study, because the risk-reward calculus here is strongly in favor of not taking the unnecessary risk of brain damage.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  It's a bit of Pascal's Wager, isn't it?

hollerith 1y ago

>It should NOT be used to influence behaviors regarding human health. It's not like erythritol is hard for a consumer to avoid. P(serious problems like brain cell damage) does not need to get very high for it to start to make sense to avoid it, and it seems to me that studies done on cell culture can raise P high enough.

Moto7451 1y ago
The test setup ignores the digestive system. There are going to be a lot of substances you can pour on a culture of brain cells with negative affect that your body produces or happily consumes. That’s the point of the parent. Add milk, an alcoholic beverage, or some lemon juice and those cells are unlikely to survive. Meanwhile the standard path of consumption handles the situation just fine before your brain is ever involved in metabolism.
- bestouff 1y ago
  Alcoholic beverage, just fine ? I disagree.
  - majkinetor 1y ago
    Learn about hormesis then and don't succumb to the yt's med-bros click-bait hype
    - Esophagus4 1y ago
      Jeez, what a dismissive (and handwaivy) response. Alcohol is a carcinogen, and even small amounts are linked to increased cancer rates[1][2]. The only thing the WHO, CDC, and US Surgeon General have in common with the “YouTuber med bros click bait hype” you try to wholly discredit is that they probably all do have YouTube channels… [1]https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/oash-alcohol-cancer-risk.pdf https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/oash-alcohol-cancer-... [2]https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...
      - majkinetor 1y ago
        Jeez, learn to read and learn and stop with this BS already: From your first article: > The amount of alcohol a person drinks affects their risk of cancer. An important factor is the overall amount of alcohol consumed consistently over time. That, sure as hell, means that you can drink small amounts sometimes, not 0, as there is no such thing. Again, read about hormesis. Here it is for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis#Alcohol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis#Alcohol
  - Moto7451 1y ago
    How about Kombucha? Vanilla extract? Sourdough bread? Mouth wash? Oral medicines? There are more sources to alcohol than the bar, including many incidental sources we don’t think about and happily feed to children as soon as they can handle solid foods. Like anything there’s nuance here. I’m not saying being drunk, an alcoholic, or having a single alcoholic beverage will have no negative affects. I’m discussing the difference between a culture (cells on agar) and the entirety of the human body. You are not going to reproduce the same results they had because your digestive tract, kidneys, and liver are inline. This is really important because our food contains so many things naturally including the Erythritol in the original article. Let’s talk about another example. Would you find Fish acceptable? How about mercury? How would you square exposure to mercury due to eating fish?
- hollerith 1y ago
  OK. Thanks for explaining.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  To the reader, I strongly urge not listening to some rando on the internet (as opposed to the scientists) who asks you to dismiss a study, simply because the risk-reward calculus here is strongly in favor of not taking the unnecessary risk of brain damage.
nerdsniper 1y ago
> It's not like erythritol is hard for a consumer to avoid. How many ingredients with negative effects on the order of erythritol are in my foods, cosmetic products, homecare products, food packaging, etc that I need to be aware of? Not how hard is it to avoid erythritol -- but how hard is it to avoid every substance that is at least similarly bad for me?
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  Well, you're always welcome to be reckless and kill yourself faster if that's your goal. Just don't expect others to be equally reckless. To answer your question, no, it is not hard to avoid the labeled harmful substances that one knows are harmful.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Friends who have (genuine, medically diagnosed) health problems with gluten or soy would disagree.
pull_my_finger 1y ago
It actually is. If you're shopping low carb/keto marketed stuff, they put it in almost everything. Even other sweeteners like stevia, monkfruit, allulose often are cut with majority erythritol. You have to really scour the packaging to make sure you're buying "stevia" and not a "stevia blend" etc. Erythritol sucks too. It gives a weird cooling sensation on your tongue like menthol, I have no idea why they mix it into everything.
- asyx 1y ago
  Because it has no calories. Xylitol is nicer but gets metabolized. Erythritol is one of the few sweeteners that are reasonable to use at home (like, you can dose it like sugar unlike aspartame), tastes reasonable on its own (you don’t need the blend you have in coke zero for example) and will not spike glucose levels so diabetics can actually use it. Like, I can bake a cheese cake just like any other cheese cake as long as I replace the flour for the bottom with almond flour and the sugar with erythritol.
  - pull_my_finger 1y ago
    We do a lot of keto cooking here. Erythritol is the bottom of the barrel. They have monkfruit/allulose blends that are very comparable to sugar in taste and how they interact with heat - caramelization or melting in granular or powdered. I've read erythritol is more "immediately" sweet on your tongue, but for it's "potential" health detriment, as well as the overpowering "cooling" effect it's really not worth it. I guess if you're doing low cal as well you need to make additional concessions but most of those that don't get processed, really turn your GI upside down as well.

ethan_smith 1y ago

In vitro studies demonstrate potential mechanisms but cannot establish causality in humans due to differences in metabolism, bioavailability, and the blood-brain barrier's protective effects.

XorNot 1y ago

Aka: https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/ If you poured distilled water on cells in culture they'd also all die.

OutOfHere 1y ago
Drinking distilled water will also kill oneself, just slowly. This is because it is demineralized and it can become acidic. It also risks leeching and dissolving heavy metals from foods, risking their increased absorption.

casualscience 1y ago

This sounds like a smart comment, but the main reason you shouldn't take in vitro studies as indicative of real medical outcomes is largely due to unknown bio availability when consuming realistic doses. However, this study shows that the concentration of erithritol is well above the concentration where they see negative effects in vitro when consuming a realistic dose. In addition epidemiological studies have found associations between higher plasma erythritol and clotting/cardiovascular events. So, regular disclaimers about difficulty of establishing health science aside, I would disagree this should 'not influence behaviors'.

esperent 1y ago
> However, this study shows that the concentration of erithritol is well above the concentration where they see negative effects in vitro when consuming a realistic dose. Are you saying that when you eat a normal/largish amount of erithritol (say 1-10g), the concentration of erithritol in your brain is similar to what they tested on brain cells in vitro here? Also, how can they make a link to stroke when testing in vitro?
- nerdsniper 1y ago
  The study used a concentration of 6mM erythritol. This would be the mean (“bulk”) concentration found in the body after drinking 2-3 erythritol-sweetened soft drinks. I can find several with 10+ grams of it per bottle/can. Erythritol Concentration: 6 mM (0.006 mol/L) Molar Mass of Erythritol: 122.12 g/mol Water in human body: 42 Liters Calculated Total Mass: 30.77 grams (0.006 * 122.12 * 42)
  - esperent 1y ago
    You're assuming that: A) all of the erithritol consumed ends up in serum (blood) B) is equally distributed throughout all the blood in the body C) entirely bypasses the blood brain barrier These are huge assumptions. A) is certainly wrong.
    - 1y ago

aatd86 1y ago

Because we are not composed of cells, right? (in jest)

OutOfHere 1y ago

To the reader, I strongly urge not listening to some rando on the internet (in opposition to the scientists) who asks you to dismiss a study, because the risk-reward calculus here is strongly in favor of not taking the unnecessary risk of brain damage.

IAmBroom 1y ago
It's a bit of Pascal's Wager, isn't it?