Sweet on Erythritol? Sugar Substitute Linked to Heart Disease
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- The other day my seven-year-old asked me why all the good tasting foods are junky and all the healthy foods are yucky. And that’s the rub, isn’t it? We have evolved to enjoy high-calorie, high-salt, high-sugar containing foods because we evolved in a time of scarcity. And, for the developed world at least, that time is past.
In this time of plenty, where delicious-tasting, if unhealthy foods are ubiquitous, is it any wonder that so much time has been spent trying to find substances that taste good without all the baggage that comes with, say, sugar.
Enter sugar substitutes - a $10 Billion dollar industry. The field is varied - including small molecules and polypeptides, artificial sweeteners and so-called “natural” sugar alternatives.
All brought together by the simple fact that they bind to the sweetness receptors on taste buds.
And it is one of those sweeteners - erythritol - that we are going to talk about today in an ongoing series we should really call: Is this thing that you eat everyday secretly killing you?
Click here to subscribe: www.youtube.co...
Get more medical news analysis at www.methodsman... or www.medscape.com
#erythritol #keto #diet
![ง้อ (ALRIGHT) - FOURTH Prod. by URBOYTJ [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs8ZeV6Dqj8/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm sure the sugar industry is happy about this study since it's making the headlines
maybe it's the big sugar companies who paid for this study
@@marielut7764 Entirely possible - the thought did cross my mind! They promoted fake studies in 70's and 80's promoting sugar as good for health when they already knew otherwise.
On page 13 of the study, there is a heading "Competing Interests". There, the lead researcher of this study reports that he, "recieved research funds from Proctor and Gamble". It does not state whether the funds recieved was specifically for this particular research study, or if it was for other research. Take that for whatever you think it is worth.
No. Sugar lobbyists don't care. They are doing too well all the time in American junk foods.
Okay, let’s all be science deniers. But low-carb followers are generally science deniers. That said, sugar is bad no matter what diet you believe. I have a cast iron stomach yet when I ate Erythritol sweetened products, my stomach got tied up in knots. It is already well-established that diet soda can contribute to weight gain and diabetes. If you’re really serious about your health, man up, stop whining about needing your sweet treats, and give up sugars and fake sugars. Eat some strawberries. You really think sweeteners made in a lab are good for you?
On page 13 of the study, there is a heading "Competing Interests". There, the lead researcher of this study reports that he, "recieved research funds from Proctor and Gamble". It does not state whether the funds recieved was specifically for this particular research study, or if it was for other research. Take that for whatever you think it is worth.
It was a study done with 8 sick people. Come on Doc...
I"m definitely not worried about this "study" and do limit the amount of alternative sweeteners in my diet to occasional baked treats. I can't imagine one or two teaspoons of that in a cup of coffee. YUK! I would think that over consumption would result in visits to the toilet. Is "Big Sugar/Big Food" behind the studies? Probably. Sugar however as well know is extremely toxic to the overall health of our bodies and should be avoided at all costs. Over the past decade, I have been totally disgusted by the amount of sugar that is in so many everyday foods and the reason that I no longer shop at the large chain supermarkets.
Worst "study" ever.
Thanks...as a fact checker, my first query was looking at the dosage, 30 grams is basically 7.5 teaspoons. I use 2 teaspoons a day in coffee, that's it
They used large amounts ,half a cup. 1-2 teaspoon will sweetens a cup of coffee. Do we know if participants had pre existing health issues?? We know table sugar is linked to heart issues.
Uhm, with all due respect, you are wrong. The research paper says they used three servings of 12 grams each per patient.... that equates o .9 tablespoons per serving, for a total of just under 3 tablespoons per day.
@@bostonjackson9384 i weighed it myself . 30 grams is a lot.
Erythritol is found in fruits and veggies. What was their levels before testing?
@@jackieburns5257 Erythitiol is found in certain fruits and veggies in extremely small amounts... not 30 grams per day.... no logical person disputes whether the 30 grams of erythitol affected the serem levels of the research participants.... if that is your argument, it is uneducated, illogical, and straight-up silly. Wwe all know that their serem levels increased by a thousand percent right after they consumed the erythitol, and that it remained that high for 2-3 days..... that's not he debate. The debate is whether that spike is dangerou for normal, healthy people... that's the debate.
As for your measuringg of 36 grams, conversion math doesn't lie.... numbers cannot lie. 10 grams iof erythitol s three-fourths of a tablespoon. The participants consumed 3 servings of 10 grams per day... so 2.25 tablespoons per day. Thta's reality whether you like it or not. We call it "math".
Lastly, in my fist response I said that the participants were given 36 grams per day. My colleague pointed out that the participants only took 30 grams per day (3 servings of 10 grams each). I went back and checked, and my colleage is correct, and I was wrong.
Now, before you reply, you may want to read the actual research. It's always helpful to read the work before responding. Here is a link to the study:
www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02223-9.epdf?sharing_token=G-V9p_P9VF_NrlyxWWbIgtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MTnVt_Yzm2YDkmKtSZJOysYZlROr0ymfAdj9yPHH8bMVWpKjhPzPeMT8zTG9DpNMmnfRfOqNqOH8PhwI2X9sxfHMa-Tpawl-dyIWq9WdTUO2lqDJWIHLoFK3aG5AGi1YhJA9wBG1MP6-JY2bDGUM7uqt1wx64p5HMOZY0cvojnNQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.cnn.com
@Mike Collon Yes, I do agree that the claims that the researchers made in this research paper are 100% true.
Do you even know what they claimed? Here, I'll copy and post for you:
"This study has several limitations. Measurement of erythritol in clinical cohort studies was only performed once as an overnight fasting level at the time of enrollment. Whether serial measures would provide enhanced prognostic value for incident CVD risks remains unknown. Because patients in our observational cohorts were recruited at quaternary referral centers and show a high prevalence of CVD and traditional risk factors, the translatability of our findings to the general population needs to be determined... We also recognize the possibility of unmodelled confounding (for example, diet) that may have (directly or indirectly) impacted our results by factors that are not included in our models. However, our numerous in vitro, ex vivo and preclinical mechanistic studies with erythritol provide evidence that the clinical associations observed arise from an underlying causal connection between erythritol and CVD-relevant phenotypes. We also note that vascular disease and thrombosis are multifactorial phenotypes. The association of circulating erythritol levels with incident CVD event risks and enhanced thrombosis formation in preclinical models may thus involve factors beyond platelet responsiveness."
I’m eating some while watching this 😂
Haha :)
Very good analysis. Definitely subbed
The problem with the study is that their conclusions are "associative" and not "causal." Erythritol is found in many fruits and is also produced normally in the body. Erythritol is natural. People with inflammation and other health conditions, especially cancer, produce higher levels of Erythritol. Higher levels of Erythritol may be an indicator of cancer and other diseases. This process in not widely understood. The study specifically selected individuals suffering from various health conditions. All the Erythiritol levels were from the person's own body producing it. No Erythritol was given to these people. That is, these people were not fed Erythritol. The higher levels detected were from the bodies of these people actually producing Erythritol. A simple metaphor would be like driving your car through your neighborhood. You drive past house after house, and all looks normal. You turn the corner and see a house that is on-fire, with many firemen running about in the yard. You draw the conclusion: The only house that I saw that had firemen is the one that was on-fire -- therefore the firemen must be the cause of the house burning. This is "associative" reasoning, not "causal."
I have a request for those resurgence. Take 40 people that eat sugar I and 40 that eat erytritol. Do a 6 month test. Before you jump to conclusions Take have of each group that claims to be healthy have that already have problems. Then measure the insulin resistance the fat triglycerides glucose on each group; this study is not at all aquret, if we eat sugar we are going to have high insulin obesity hert problems. Using erytritol atles we can lose aur wight meaning meaning if we eat sugar we are going to be fat in we are going to have cardiovascular dises and all that comes with it ,if eat erytritol we don't have wight problems diabetes high insulin or high sugar so!
Get Dr. Wilson's new book. It is great! He is one of the best teachers I've ever been exposed to.
I'll keep using my stevia with erythritol I only use it in my coffee and oatmeal I don't eat desserts made with stevia
I'm sure sugar industry & Big Pharma for diabetes are happy about this. HAHAHA
Paid for
Conspiracy worries will just end up getting you killed.
@@jpintero6330 do your research sheep. HAHAHA
The conclusion is flawed since it doesn't mention the participants didn't exercise. What is wrong with people who don't want to do resistance training along with some type of cardio? Why do y'all dislike exercise so much? That is the question we need an answer to.
It doesn't mention what they ate either.
The data was obtained from a ONE-DAY food questionnaire. That's about as WEAK as it gets regarding credible scientific validation.
I appreciate the skepticism, but having once been over 330lbs as recently as 2017 and presently 227lbs I see the error of my ways: *Bad eating habits, false trust in medical professionals telling the truth, and corporations.* The only thing we can know for sure is that both will do what is best for their bottom line. Cigarette manufacturers debated health risks even a decade after Surgeons General warnings were issued (NY Times, 1994). Because the cost/benefit ratio was still in their favor to "deny, deny, deny."
*Secondly, how many people truly know how much Erythritol they consume?* Most people don't know how many calories they consume in a day; how can we honestly say they know how much Erythritol they consume? Because Erythritol is stuffed into so many goods, it's not as obvious as knowingly drinking a canned drink that says _"Contains Erythritol..."_ vs eating keto snacks loaded with Erythritol *thinking you're being healthy.* So when I hear _"baseline Americans for Erythritol consumption is 15g or less,"_ *baloney.* That's from the Americans who watch everything they consume, and those are in the minority.
Erythritol "might" be harmless...but *if it's made in a lab for profit, I severely doubt it.* I'm phasing it out of my diet and will begin scrutinizing things I ingest with the substance. Because one thing is clear; neither you, big companies will be at my bedside if and when we discover it was as bad as we thought and heeded little caution.
Proverbs 22:3 _"The shrewd one seed the danger and conceals himself, but the inexperienced keep right on going and suffer the consequences."_
There's decent evidence for those with risk factors such as obestity, diabetes, heart conditions etc that erythritol is dangerous and for those groups it's perfectly reasonable to try limit your consumption. Additionally, what bottom line would the paper be serving, if anything it would reduce sales in a lot of these big pharmacies. Being skeptical of pharmacies (especially) and even medical professionals (especially when they try sell something) is justified, but being skeptical doesn't mean assuming the worst in all cases. Also the studies on erythritol consumption most likely are by random sampling populations across the country or states and then asking them at the end of each day to record what they ddrink or eat, they then use dietary information on those substances to estimate erythritol consjmption. It isn't based on some person guessing randomly after a pepsi, and so they're pretty reliable. But once again not perfect hence you have to balance your estimates, with the importance of slight changes in figures. For example even if there was 50% error on how much is consumed, that's not necessarily an issue if it's still at a tenth of what would be needed for the substance to be toxic.
The bottles of BAI and Virgil's Diet soda list 10 mg of erythriotol on their ingredient labels -my favorite drinks once I was diagnosed with diabetes. I am bummed.
The study did not look at all at consumption. The body makes erithrytol from glucose and fructose, and this production can be ramped up in people who are metabolically unhealthy.
Sounds like the author(s) had a preconceived outcome in mind, and "designed" their study to give their desired result.
Could it be morbidly obese people trying to lose weight too late would be using erythritol? I mean, that's what it took Me to start really losing weight.
"The vast majority of erythritol is excreted unchanged in the urine..." So theoretically, I could use my morning urine as a "natural sweetener" for my coffee after having a sweetened tea the night before? Interesting!
No link to the paper, no mention of authors’ conflicts of interest, vague mentions of confounding variables, etc. There is little evidence of anything here.
So is this a study or clinical research? If its a study then i dont trust the out come of it!
I was ready to blast your "findings" based on your click bait title but you did present the highly flawed study in proper context. But it's still unneeded click bait titling and not an appreciated practice.
Also, I stress there is a difference between being "LINKED" and "possibly associated".
I love how the keto people are responsible for the increase in this NNS and no one can see the correlation between their ridiculous food behaviors and the risk of heart attack.