▲ 163 points
back
192 comments
The study : https://journals.physiology.org/doi/epdf/10.1152/japplphysio...
From a quick read : It was tested in a cell culture, so not in a human or animal. That does change a lot of things.
For the dosage:
> Thereafter, hCMECs were treated116 with regular media or media containing 6 mM erythritol (Sigma Aldrich, Cat #E7500; St. Louis MO), a117 dose equivalent to a typical amount of erythritol [30g] in a single can of commercially available118 artificially sweetened beverage, for 24 hours (N=5 experimental units)
> It was tested in a cell culture, so not in a human or animal. That does change a lot of things.
The article points out that similar observations have already been made in human subjects:
> Positive associations between circulating erythritol and incidence of heart attack and stroke have been observed in U.S. and European cohorts
It’s tiring to see these quick dismissals of scientific studies at the top of the comment section. They are more often than not based on technicalities or fallacies. Pitting a two minute reading vs months of work by a team of scientists is not a great move.
In this case, the nature of the study is clearly acknowledged, it does not “change a lot of things”:
> We recognize given the in vitro, isolated single cell nature of this study we cannot make definitive translational conclusions or assertions regarding erythritol and clinical risk. However, the markers and mediators of brain microvascular endothelial cell function studied herein have been shown to have strong causative links with the development cerebrovascular dysfunction, neuronal damage and injury, thrombosis and acute ischemic stroke
These findings are a starting point for further understanding, not something to be immediately ranked as true/false.
Erythritol
I wonder if the similar molecule Xylitol has the same problem. It seems like so many artificial sweeteners have dangerous health effects, I don't trust any of them. Unless you're diabetic or something, regular sugar seems to be the healthiest choice (in moderation!)
It was also linked to the elevated risk of blood clots in another study a couple of years ago. Even then it instantly looked like an instant "nope" ... and now this.
UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.
This is about sugar alcohols, not simple sugars, and total sugar consumption in the US has been declining since a peak around the turn of the millennium, reverting back to levels on par with the 1970s, yet overweight/obesity rates just kept right on climbing until the recent advent of GLP-1 drugs.
Article in Physioliogy https://journals.physiology.org/doi/10.1152/japplphysiol.002...
Thanks.
This is the study that the article is talking about. The complete paper is https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/japplphysiol...
It's based on earlier work that suggests that erythritol consumption is associated with increased risk of stroke or myocardial infarction: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02223-9
In vitro with human cells, at a reasonable concentration, apparently. Looks worrying.
Almost every single other sugar substitute is filled with erythritol as an additive. Monk Fruit products tend to be really bad offenders. Check the labels carefully.
I casually follow the FODMAP diet and avoid sugar alcohols where possible. It's surprising how many sugar substitutes include it, sometimes as the primary ingredient. I've found a pure stevia powder that tastes okay, but it isn't cheap and is only sold in a local health food store.
This I found out the unfortunate way. I used some popular monk fruit sweetener... packets were just monk fruit but the bulk packages were monk fruit/erythritol blend and I didn't pay enough attention to the label. Made lemonade with it.
Spent the rest of the day on the toilet.
Monk fruit products seem to be false advertising. Why are pure monkfruit sweeteners rare?
I can't even consume it. More than about 5g gives me visual auras, migraines. I'm not alone on this.
What about aspartame[sic]?
Is any amount dangerous? Or would you need to drink 6 Bottles of something with Erythritol daily to see the effect?
It's in the article:
"Human cerebral microvascular endothelial cells were cultured and exposed to an amount of erythritol equivalent to consuming a typical beverage. Experimental conditions included five biological replicates per group."
So it needs to cross the blood-brain barrier. From the research paper: "Moreover, it is important to note that erythritol does cross the blood brain barrier and interact with the cerebrovasculature". Unclear what percentage this is.
Why are companies allowed to put this stuff in food before testing to prove safety? Our system is backwards.
Lol at all the people in this thread stressing out about their artificial sweetener consumption while disregarding all the other dangerous shit they do, eat, and drink.
Forest for the trees.
I partially agree with you. But the selling point of artificial sweeteners was that they were a healthier substitute.
It's better to teach people that there is no free lunch, and they should take care about the calories they are consuming, even if that imply reduce frequency of sweet foods, than sugar coating an equally bad alternative to make it sound like it's healthier.
Maybe they have omitted those because the focus is on artificial sweeteners? As for myself I try to avoid anything that could be dangerous, not only what I eat or drink.
It's even funnier when you realize a good chunk of them are still doing low-carb diets like keto or carnivore, gorging on saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium.
Modern health anxiety in a nutshell
Switch to Stevia, but it kind of has a weird taste imo
It seems to be individual and depends on brand. I'm buying Stevia Inulina, it tastes fine for me and it doesn't contain Maltodextrin as do some other sweeteners. The only problem is that it is less popular and hard to find, compared to shelves filled with Xylitol and Erythritol.
Another related article: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-06-major-sugar-substitut...
These sugar alcohols are a scourge. I quit buying my favorite fake crab (Kroger) because it's full of this garbage.
We stopped buying fake crab (made from pollock), after we noticed that the dogs wouldn't eat it. Don't know what was there to cause that, but since there isn't much they won't eat, we wouldn't either. That bar is very, very low.
Test tube study.
> Human cerebral cells were cultured and treated with 6 mM of erythritol, equivalent to a typical amount of erythritol [30g] in an artificially sweetened beverage, for 3 hr.
the cells were in the substance for 3hrs? I'm not reading the whole study now, but that sounds...interesting.
Does this mean it also effects athletic performance due to lowering nitric oxide production?
Surely if you’re concerned about athletic performance then you’d be wanting to consume calories rather than intending to buy sugar substitutes?
I wonder if it would be possible to compare the introduction and adoption of erythritol to stroke rate in the population.
Dang, I think my favorite brand of sugar free ice cream uses erythritol (Rebel)
Easy to make sugar-free ice-cream with a Ninja Creami
It is pretty wild how many "healthy" or "sugar-free" products are loaded with erythritol, and how little long-term data we have on what these sweeteners really do. It feels like we’re repeating the same playbook as with artificial sweeteners in the past: new molecule, quick adoption, unintended side effects turn up years later.
There you go. No artificial sweetener seems to be safe...guess I'll have to get used to making unsweetened protein bars and the occasional drinks and ice cream. Their sugar counterparts are too caloric.
Can't you just use a fraction of the normal sugar amount if you're already considering using no sweetener at all?
> No artificial sweetener seems to be safe
Are we at that point yet?
AFAICT aspartame seems to be pretty safe and well-researched, and the IARC listing it as "possibly carcinogenic" itself seems to be controversial. In that category it is listed along side such things as Aloe Vera, Carpentry, Low-frequency magnetic fields, Traditional asian pickled vegetables, Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and Gingko Biloba extract...
I've been consuming protein bars that has Maltitol, in the ingredients its mentioned as : INS 965(i) . I am not sure how this can impact in the long run , wish there was an easier way to find out
Maltitol is a bit different, because it is actually quite caloric. It just digests slower.
Sounds like stevia is the safer choice
Zero-calorie sugar is on of those things that's just too good to be true. It's either gotta taste awful or give you cancer.
Another allulose fan here. I use it as part of a half-baked, sort-of-keto approach to help me avoid carbs and sugar. Unlike Stevia, I find it has pretty much no distinctive aftertaste - it seems too good to be true. I'm in the UK and buy it mail-order from the US as it is still awaiting regulatory approval in the EU/UK afaik... Does anyone have more background on this process or why it is delayed? Anything I can find via search seems heavily polluted by quack health BS...