The funding section is rather…eye opening.
In my opinion, the first study is merely an observational study that shows correlation. People who say they ate the most erythritol had a slightly increased risk of a CardioVascular event. However people who ate the most erythritol are also more likely to be eating more junk food generally. So is it the erythritol that was causing the slightly increased number of cardiovascular event or something else (e.g increased consumption of processed food)
The in-vivo study & in-vitro study claims to show bad stuff happening to blood cells. The point on these studies is to establish a basis to carry out studies in human.
However, they then carry out the studies in humans…and then say they did not measure the impact of erythritol on blood clotting in the human tests? Why not? Wasn’t that the whole point?
Or did the data not match the hypothesis and was therefore excluded? Because I find it hard to believe that such a long drawn out study did not take the time to do something as simple and straightforward as taking the blood samples of 8 people and analysing it after erythritol ingestion, to confirm their claimed in Vivo/vitro outcomes. Are we being Ancel Key-ed again?
This study has not proved that erythritol causes increased risk of heart attacks in humans, as widely misreported.
I’m giving this one a pass and will continue to use erythritol which I only eat once in a while in little quantities anyway. Even if I ate more, this study won’t be the reason I stopped doing so