Erythritol

(Joey) #1

Not a new topic, but ongoing concerns that the risks of erythritol outweigh the benefits:

#2

Thanks for posting this, I was just about to buy a new packet! Will re-think that…

(Joey) #3

Although this was an in vitro study (not in vivo), I was struck by the fact that the dosages used for the study were not “mega” doses typically applied to lab rats, but reportedly normal doses found in sweetened drinks consumed by humans and the effects were seen in human tissue.

(Ohio ) #4

I took a 6 month break from this forum in 2023? Because the protein bars I was buying, all the sudden added Erythritol. Major seizures. Thought I was going to die. I have nothing but skepticism on any science journal promoting erythritol. (Yes I’m aware this is N=1)

(Joey) #5

Glad you got to the bottom of things. Are you aware of any science journal promoting erythritol?

(Bob M) #6

I’ve switched to allulose, which seems better from this standpoint. I will have erythritol every once in a while, when I buy something. But if I make something, I use allulose.

(Ohio ) #7

Negative. They seemed to pop up on my browser 3 years ago on my Edge browser. I just did a news search and it’s all stroke head lines. Although AI seems to paint a rosey picture.

(Central Florida Bob ) #8

I have nothing but skepticism of any science journal, period. That’s the way science is supposed to work. One of the things we hear about why to trust science is that it’s self-correcting. Why would it be correcting itself if it was always right? As Richard Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” For working scientists “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Which is not to say there’s anything wrong with @Hippie saying you can trace your “major seizures” to erythritol being added to your protein bars, which is pure experimentation - an experiment that was forced on you! It’s wonderful you found out how avoid the seizures and can avoid them.

Several things bother me about articles like this so it adds to my dismissing it. All this study says to me is in another few dozen studies there might be reason to pay attention to it. First off, there’s the thing @SomeGuy said about it being in vitro with no information on whether the same effects at the same doses happen in living people, or any effects. Does sucrose do the same things? What about other sweeteners? What about real sugars like fructose? What about other sugar alcohols? How common is this? There are no numbers for what’s likely to be a safe dose, or if it’s dose related. Is it deadly at 1tsp/day, 1 lb/day or “nobody could eat that much in a day?”

It just strikes me as “searching for headlines” as part of “desperately seeking readers”. Then I recall how the sugar industry paid off researchers in the '60s to say heart attacks came from fat so eat sugar instead and that adds more doubt. Could “big sugar” be feeling enough competition from us “crazy keto people” to be trying to protect their market?

(Joey) #9

Since sweeteners can be artificial, there’s no reason intelligence can’t be also.

(Bob M) #10

AI will parrot what the information on the web is, which will likely be positive. The problem with this is that it’s not possible to figure out what the bias is without looking at the studies.

In my opinion, the in vitro studies are the lowest of the low, and right above them (in terms of being low) are mouse studies. This is similar to saturated fat, where you can find studies indicating certain fatty acids that supposedly cause “inflammation”, but I eat as much saturated fat as I want to eat, and my actual blood markers of inflammation are very low. Whatever that “inflammation” was in that study, it’s not the same in an actual human being.

I try to avoid sweeteners at all, but I do like something sweet periodically. I’ve switched to allulose because it (supposedly) has benefits that other non-sugar sweeteners don’t have: lowers blood glucose; increases the GLP-1 hormone. And it also acts more like sugar, so you can make ice cream, and it won’t be hard as a rock, and it will brown similar to sugar.

When I was fasting 4.5 days a few months ago, I made the mistake of ordering an entire gluten-free and keto set of baking products (I wanted two of them, but there was a sale for a package that wasn’t that much more.) These all use Erythritol. Turns out that I really am not fond of almond flour, which many of these use, but I will make them over time. I don’t seem to be troubled by them, though if I had to do it over, I’d have only ordered the two things I wanted (a “cookie” dough that is used for a pie crust, and coconut macaroons).

(B Creighton) #11

I think there is a reason this study is in vitro rather than in vivo - These studies are often done at the behest of people who don’t want change… ie the powers that be that make tons of money off addictive foods with lots of fructose… I don’t know in this case, but I would certainly be suspicious of it. You can have too much of virtually anything, and the plain truth is that most erythritol you consume is not even absorbed. It goes to the gut where it gets fermented by your microbiome…who don’t seem to mind it BTW. When I went to take care of my dad, I removed all the added sugar from his breakfast in favor of a tablespoon or two of erythritol/monk fruit sweetener. His post breakfast blood sugar fell markedly from the 200s, and he was no longer falling asleep by noon. Instead, he said “I’ve been having lots of gas… I don’t know why…” And I was dain to tell him. His added erythritol was mostly going to his gut where it was getting fermented, and causing gas… much better that than spiked blood sugar and insulin every day. I still use a table spoon of this sweetener in my morning yogurt everyday… unless I see a study showing harmful effects of a tablespoon a day in your food… which I doubt will ever be forthcoming. Personally, I am enjoying the cheaper prices I am getting for the time being. Just last night I bought truvia for buy one get one free…Yay!!!

(Sharon A Peters) #12

I’m with Richard Feynman on this. Science - actual, real science - is always looking for what’s missing in a well-constructed research study. And, once published in a top-tier, peer reviewed journal in the applicable field, its findings are studied, reviewed, and the research, or parts of it, re-run. That which claims to be “science” but is a biased report, or based on cherry-picked data (Ansel Key’s famous SatFat study), or on failure to disclose aspects of the research, such as demographics, including gender and medical history, of participants, length of trial, methodology, etc. (and in rat studies, no fair just adding fat or SatFat to standard, high-carb rat chow, and then concluding that high-fat diets are a huge problem). One of the best aspects of the Keto-Keto Carnivore-Carnivore way of eating is that is does (and should) direct you to whole foods. I here note Benjamin Bikman, PhD. and his oft-repeated advice: nothing in bags or boxes (or bottles! ) with bar codes. With monk fruit and allulose in the world, why any of the sugar alcohols?

What I am working up to is this: that on this site, in these discussions that claims not be made without citing the source of one’s information, much preferably a cite to actual research, or a link to an interview on that particular topic - from highly regarded and preferably highly-trained interviewer and interviewee. And if this is an N=1 trial and report of reaction, that’s great. But make it clear that it is N=1. This hating and distrust of scientific journals is problematic. There are many “scientific journals” out there, masquerading as such, but are anything but. Among the Top-Tier, they can be behind paywalls and even if not - such as POS - they can be tough to wade through at first. Nick Norwitz, MD PhD, devotes a lot of time on his YouTube channel reviewing and critiquing research in comprehensible terms. Norwitz has a number of topical videos, including many on sugar, faux sugars, and monk and allulose - all on YouTube and all free.

So we all can up our game by learning more - from highly trained, well-informed, up to date sources, most of whom got into their fields because they, themselves, had to address metabolic and other health issues through some version of a ketogenic to a carnivore diet.

Cite your sources! Don’t be swept up my half-baked papers masquerading as science.

(Joey) #13

Fully agree. The study cited in the original article above was provided as a link. My comments were based on reading it first …

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

(Ohio ) #14

There’s a large mass people. That don’t debate/engage but instead retort with journals/links. Mainly. This fuels biased science journals, among other things…

(Bob M) #15

Personally, I don’t like Nick Norwitz, especially on Substack. He tends to place emphasis on studies of low quality, say mouse studies, and extrapolate those to people. It was because of him that I (re)tried inulin. No benefit I could see, only detriments (fiber and I don’t get along).

For allulose, there are quite a few studies on it. Using a CGM, I believe it does lower blood glucose, but this seems to be a short-term reduction with a rebound effect (blood glucose goes as high or higher). But I haven’t been able to test taking allulose during the day by itself. Instead, I take it at night, then go to bed. I get a dip, then a rebound. But I can’t verify it’s allulose.

(Joey) #16

I hate to rain on the parade, but here’s a possibility…

If consuming allulose produces a discernible reduction in serum glucose, what is likely happening is that the allulose is causing a spike in the body’s insulin.

The sweet sensation is perhaps producing a cephalic response. Different artificial sweeteners produce varying degrees of cephalic responses in each individual - some not at all.

(Sharon A Peters) #17

“He (Nick Norwitz MD PhD) tends to place emphasis on studies of low quality, say mouse studies, and extrapolate those to people.” Well, well. This is a deceptive statement. Norwitz, whom I have read, listened to, and followed for 3+ years, clearly identifies studies he reviews as being “aimal/rodent” studies as that applies. I guess you’ve missed when he adds either that “there are no available, like studies with humans” or that “there are studies with humans, and they found”. But most frequently he cites animal/rodent studies when it would be unethical at the Mengeleian level, to conduct such studies on human beings, or the study, which theoretically could be conducted with human subjects is literally impossible, e.g.: life-time, longitudinal studies of the impact of a SAD, a vegan, a low-carb, a keto, a ketogenic, and a carnivore diet on long-term health. I have found Norwitz to be scrupulous in reporting studies and providing their proper context for the reader/listener. Further, I must wonder whether you are cognizant of Norwitz’ frequent research side-kick and fellow Oxonian, who is a wizard with statistics analysis of research? Were Nick being sloppy in using rodent studies when more applicable ones were available, he would be advised, kindly, to keep digging. From the sound of it, you seem to immediately discount animal/rodent studies. Sometimes the biochemical processes, especially as it relates to muscle, mitochondria, insulin, glucose, etc. is applicable as a process to other mammals, which does include humans. And sometimes it only gives a best-guess fit. Further, whether this slipper fits or not, it sounds as though you are not so familiar as you might think with reading research, assessing a study’s design, participant selection and demographics, protocol set up e.g.: if the study is about the benefit or efficacy of high-fat diets, what is the diet used? Is it rat chow for the “low” fat and rat chow with added fat for the “high” fat. What specific fat is used? Seed oils? Saturated fats? So you may disdain “rat studies” and diss Norwitz all you want, but you sure as heck had better be highly experienced in analyzing and validly critiquing research before you wade in too deep.

(Joey) #18

@theabroma and @ctviggen I happen to agree with you both … there is a dearth of human-based CRT studies about nutrition (as appropriately noted) and the reasons for this are fairly evident (also appropriately noted).

As such, this is the hand we’re dealt.

Onward we go! :vulcan_salute: