all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 32 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

From the actual study[0]

Human cerebral microvascular endothelial cells (hCMECs) were cultured and treated with 6 mM erythritol, equivalent to a typical amount of erythritol (30 g) in an artificially sweetened beverage, for 3 h.

Am I reading this right? They basically soaked brain cells in diet soda for three hours?

[0] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00276.2025

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago
    [–] 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    “…The researchers did not yet test this in people. They went straight to the cells that line your brain’s blood vessels…”

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I was expecting yet another aspartame-bashing article, but it's an erythritol-bashing one this time.

    Look, it's really simple: all those sweeteners have been in widespread use for a long time. Wanna know if they're harmful? Do some stats correlating release dates in several countries and occurrence of this-or-that disease and death records. If you can't find a statistically-significant correlation, well... it doesn't prove the stuff is harmless, but chances are it is.

    That's assuming there aren't already a kajillion inconclusive studies on the particular molecule you're interested in, as with aspartame.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Compare it to sugar while at it. It doesn’t need to be harmless, it needs to be less harmful than sugar.

    And that’s a fairly low bar to cross.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    Sugar is like water and air: it's fine in reasonable quantities 🙂

    As the saying goes, the dose makes the poison.

    And the same goes for all sweeteners too. In fact, I know for a fact that consuming aspartame in large quantities is harmful, because I used to consume entirely too much of it every day by mistake, and I very much felt the effects when I quit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I don't need to do hours of graduate level health polling and statistics if I only eat what my great grandparents would have recognized as food. Rules of thumb aren't perfect but they're good enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    I don’t mean to be argumentative but this is a logical fallacy called “appeal to tradition” where something is argued to be correct because it has been historically accepted.

    For example, your great grandparents could have had a diet heavy in saturated fats (bacon, etc) and died prematurely from cardiovascular disease, albeit not before they had children. So just because they recognized it as food doesn’t mean it’s a healthy choice for people seeking a healthy, long life.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Regardless of the methodology used for this study, I’ve switched to pure stevia now. I hate that a lot of stevia products actually use erythritol and just list it in small font.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I've been swapping half of my sugar in my morning coffee with a few drops pure liquid monk fruit. No idea if that's better or worse than erythritol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Whatever it does, it makes me feel like shit, so I avoid it.

  • source