Why cannot they just put erythriol in the title?
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
112 points (90.0% liked)
Science
4995 readers
423 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Then you wouldn’t click the link to find out what it was.
Yeah but shit like this makes me not want to read the article at all. I just skim it until I find what the thing is.
Just like some annoying marketing campaigns with ads that you have no fucking idea what they are about (like ".it's coming", "soon" and shit like that) and only find out like a month later when they make a new campaign actually telling you that. I will never engage with that company or buy the product just because I hate ads like that.
Oh, I hate it too, but it’s going to continue happening as long as there are more users that increase website traffic and generate ad revenue by falling for the clickbait than there are that avoid the product entirely because of it.
I never click on clickbait. I refuse to support anyone who engages in that practice.
Skimming the article is the same as reading it in full - they just want to place their cookies, and clicking the link is enough to do that if you don't go through all the settings including turning off all the "legitimate interest" options - and that is often a pain to do.
I have an extension that automatically does cookies for me
So do I, but it doesn't turn off the legitimate interest on a lot of sites. I suspect that the cookie corps are working hard to circumvent it.
Consentomatic? I love that extension.
The one I use is called "I don't give a fuck about cookies".
Then you wouldn’t need to click the link and read 20,000 words and 15 adverts before the buried headline is finally revealed.
Our study adds to the evidence suggesting that non-nutritive sweeteners that have generally been purported to be safe, may not come without negative health consequences,”
No. It adds to research about this sweetener. You can't generalize beyond that.
load more comments
(4 replies)
What’s crazy is that I wasn’t familiar with erythritol, and searched to see what had it as an ingredient. The entire first page of results were almost all the same AI generated cream touting the benefits of erythritol, like they were trying to sell me on it. And no specific foods were listed that had it as an ingredient.
There were a lot of things like “consider the delicious possibilities that erythritol can bring to your table.” Someone is trying to sell it that hard, then that alone tells me I should probably avoid it.
That's the new normal for internet search results, not a concerted effort by big erythritol...
Source that actually names the thing in its title.
Unfortunately it's of course barely readable for laypeople. So is there a safe upper limit? Like if I put a teaspoon of it in my cup of coffee, am I destroying my brain?
Cells were treated with 6 mM erythritol, replicating the concentration found in a typical serving of an artificially sweetened drink, for three hours.
What's "mM"?
Yep. Erythiol has a molecular weight of 122 g/mol, so 6 mM is the same as 0.732 g/liter.
It should be noted that the cells were exposed to the full concentration in the drinks, so the concentration they encountered is much higher than it is when it has been diluted by all the water in our bodies after we drink it.
Ah. I remember that from desperately trying to wrap my head around it in Chemistry class. Thank you, it's impossible to search for.
I mean, this was brain cells directly exposed to it in concentrations far higher than would occur in a human body after metabolism with no secondary carbohydrates that would likely come with eating said food (units you like eating spoonfuls of pure Splenda I suppose).
I think brain cells wouldn't do well exposed directly to many things, like too much oxygen, either.
So I'd say this study should be taken with a grain of ~~salt~~ sugar
Wouldn't using normal sugar, but not a fuckton of it, be better?
That sounds healthy and not profitable in any way. Get out of here with that shit.
/s
Not for diabetics
I found this article that mentions how normal consumption levels are far lower than 6mM. https://www.fda.gov/media/182122/download
Yes exactly. This is an interesting finding that warrants more research, but high concentration in a Petri dish does not reflect what happens in the body.
I have a rule of thumb. If experts and doctors recommend pregnant woman to not eat or drink anything, it's probably better to stay away from it.
I don't know of any guidance about avoiding Erythritol when pregnant, but aside from that, the sentiment is generally reasonable but you'll still end up avoiding foods that would only negatively impact a pregnancy. You can imagine the other side of that coin: are you taking vitamin supplements that are meant to be taken by someone who is pregnant? I would imagine not, but then the question becomes "Why not?". (not trying to be hostile, just making a point)
"Why not"
Because I only have to support my own body instead of growing another. On the other hand, whatever can harm an embryo because it is much smaller than me, will in a way also harm me.
I wont need Vitamin B-12 as much as a pregnant woman, but it wont harm to stay vary of things that might harm the child.
Just to add to my initial comment. There's studies about the most common sweeteners (erythriol not included), and they put the risk at low, but wont recommend anything because the datatset is too small to come to a definite conclusion. So it might not even be problematic. Would you risk it though?
When you say "I don't need X because I'm not pregnant" it looks like a contradiction when you say "I should avoid X even though I'm not pregnant". There are specific reasons purely because of a person being pregnant that they should avoid or consume certain matter, so I see the blanket statement as overly simplistic (but not wildly outrageous).
When we had our recent child we avoided everything that had any chance of a negative impact (and it's easy to do when the pregnant person is a knowledgeable nurse who takes care of pregnant mothers every day). Why take a chance, but it's really "Why should a pregnant person take a chance?".
What does your wife say about this? Is it better to not take those things even when not pregnant?
We're just two laymen arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
Yeah, I'm probably not going to stay away from honey.
There's no recommendation against honey for pregnant women, only for infants. There's some concerns about bad quality honey from unknown sources though. So as long as you eat the good stuff..
Ah, I might be misremembering that. Thanks.
I have some pretty local sources for (afaik) pretty good honey that I like.
Sushi! How can you not?
Mercury
I avoid all seafood for this very reason. With all of the constant deregulations and fines that are paid as the cost of doing business... the water just isn't safe anymore.
"You just need to know where it's coming from." is what I always here. "Do you know that the crab or fish is actually coming from some safe haven of clean water and clean fish food? How can any consumer actually be certain of that when we know that companies will lie about that?"
Some people regularly try to "buy American" just to find out that some part or all of it was made or sourced from somewhere else. A company will lie to save a buck.
Hmm, can't really argue with that
Everything reminds me of her.
Is there a way to view the full paper? I'm curious if they properly isolated for people who are also overweight (the kind of people who would consume this artificial sweetener).