Eating Foods with Xylitol Can Be a Risk to Your Heart
health.clevelandclinic.org
health.clevelandclinic.org
> [C]onsuming foods and beverages sweetened with xylitol can make the platelets in your blood more likely to clot — a recipe for serious heart events.
> In studies performed by Dr Hazen’s team, healthy volunteers were given a drink sweetened with 30 grams of xylitol. That’s similar to the amount found in a single scoop of keto-friendly ice cream or several cookies marketed for people with diabetes.
> In every volunteer studied, platelets were significantly more prone to clot after consuming xylitol.
> “In the presence of xylitol, platelets become much more angry and ready to clot,” Dr. Hazen reports. “It’s as if our platelets have a kind of tastebud receptor for xylitol that makes them go into overdrive. And that’s very significant because enhanced clotting can stop blood flow.”
I do not doubt that there is some connection, but might the risks be elevated with some other aspect of diet, habits, and so on? What would explain the discrepancy between populations?
Would it illuminate much? Seeing that Japan also has much different dietary habbits and much less obesity than the US, so it's not like there's "everything else being equal".
I am surprised to see headlines warning of xylitol, because it is a key component in birch water and other traditional health drinks made from birch trees (Scandanavia, Russia, and other places with birch).
The clotting goes away after a few hours, but perhaps that was viewed as beneficial against injuries for those who drank it?
Maybe only within our society it is viewed as harmful, because people are rarely injured (and when they are, they have access to bandages, stitches, antibiotics, etc) and more commonly have chronic health problems that might be exacerbated by the temporary increase in clotting?
Two of the three are problems with excessive clotting, and cancer can have clot formation as a complication.
It's therefore reasonable to assume that increased platelet activity is likely to be harmful.
It's very possible that xylitol in toothpaste or mouthwash is considered safe because no one has identified those levels as dangerous. That isn't necessarily an indicator that we know it's safe, just that we haven't looked.
This seems like an insane default. What’s the rationale?
You also have to deal with the fact that food processors are fairly powerful and that the number of new foods/additives created a year would swamp the agency and be virtually untestable.
(https://library.weill.cornell.edu/about-us/snake%C2%A0oil%C2...)
Our food supply was totally different in 1938, I can understand why the original legislation didn't include this. Processed foods weren't common, seed oils were even less common, and I assume supplements like we gave today didn't exist though I'm less sure about that one.
While I do think some oversight of food additives is warranted, given the way the FDA currently operates, having them have oversight over them would essentially be tantamount to banning new additives. If the cost was even 1/100th as high as it is to get drug approved it seems likely that there would be no economic payoff worth the hassle.
If I wasn't generally opposed to an ever-growing scope of federal powers, I'd probably support an effective ban or extremely high bar on new additives. If food companies aren't willing to test it they shouldn't bother trying to sell it.
I think you are underestimating the cost of testing a new additive. It's also the case that the risk on additives is not nearly as high as with a drug, which paradoxically both makes the testing less important and also vastly more expensive (since the effect size is smaller). Something like xylitol for instance seems completely safe and we didn't have a huge obvious reason for thinking it was likely to be problematic. In fact previous studies were unable to pick up on the signal of increased stroke risk because they were confounded by the fact that sugar free consumers were vastly more likely to have those anyway.
As an additional point I'll just note that regulating this stuff would then have to deal with the fact that many things (like red meat) are already associated with known health risks. Putting principles aside, even if you want to only ban "additives", you'll start running into issues like we see with nitrates/nitrites, where organic manufacturers add celery juice (extremely high in nitrates), to avoid the label of added nitrates.
Mel Gibson even famously was part of an ad campaign to make sure that nobody COULD regulate supplements and to this day there's basically just about anything in those things you can buy at any convenience store.
Republicans aren't against regulation more than Democrats, each side just wants a different set of regulations. Both parties want some level of restrictions on abortion for example, they just disagree on what the regulation should be.
“Starve the beast” in the context of chevron means that regulatory adjudication moves from administrative law judges in agencies to Federal courts. Supposedly this is to align with constitutional principles, but the reality is the except for the richest companies and individuals, litigation in federal court is prohibitively expensive.
Its totally fair to say they aren't conservative anymore though, much like the Democratic party isn't liberal (at least classic liberal, I'm not a fan of the term having been co-opted and redefined).
More importantly to me, I just don't see much light between the base goals of the Republican and Democratic parties. They have done a hell of pushing voters into diametrically opposed corners, but I don't see the same with the parties. They debate details of most topics, but at the end of the day they both seem to be focused on growing the federal government, locking down our borders, and completely ignoring the concept of a budget.
If anything, both parties appear more to be run by neocons putting on a show of division to keep people distracted from what they're actually doing.
This idea that "they are all the same" is just an entirely bogus farce, the last republican tried to remain a king of america less than four years ago, this argument has no weight anymore.
Even if you don’t agree with the policies, the democratic tent requires people to vote for them.
The reactionary position is getting people to say “no” to third rail policies. Hence the GOP focus on suppressing the vote.
What policies specifically do you consider the Democrats having tried to enshrine voter rights? Or do you mean access to voting, rather than the right to vote itself?
For Trump, do you actually think he attempted to make himself a king? Or is that embellishment when your actual view is that he attempted to vircumvent the electoral process and "win" a second term? I can't stand the man personally and would vote for an empty chair before him, but I also didn't read his attempt to flip the electoral result as an attempted annointment or coup.
I view them as effectively the same due to the huge overlap in policy. Both parties are pro-war, both parties want to lock down our borders, both parties want some kind of gun control, both want to limit access to abortion at some level, and both view the supreme court as a place that needs political appointees rather than the most qualified judges.
They absolutely debate the details, but neither party is for a balanced budget. Neither party supports real privacy laws. Neither party values individual freedoms over federal power. Neither party wants to limit federal powers in favor of state-level powers, though both are happy to make that claim only when it suits their specific law they can't get through at the federal level.
It has seemed to me thst both parties cut regulations selectively. The Democrats, for example, fully embrace big pharma and is happy to let them effectively buy the NIH and FDA. This may fit for the Republicans as well, but that woulf be another item on my list of how the parties seem way to similar in my opinion.
Both parties also attempted to ban TikTok, whether that pans out or not.
I'd personally rather go to the store and assume that most (if not all) the products available are proven to be safe rather than one which can sell anything that no one has yet proven to be unsafe.
Where the US really got off the rails, in my opinion, was holding onto our distaste for regulation while simultaneously providing legal cover for corporstions to become massive and centralize industry so massively.
The FDA shouldn't be necessary at all. I don't need an organization to tell me raw milk from a local dairy is safe. The FDA is only needed for milk because we have a handful of massive, industrial dairies raising animals in terrible conditions and selling their product to everyone through national infrastructure balanced like a house of cards.
And raw milk is one of those things that it's all good and dandy until it's not. I still prefer buying raw milk and doing a LTLT pasteurisation to have the best of both worlds.
I definitely get people's apprehension with raw milk. I very much need to know where it came from, and have a good idea for the health of the animal. We hand milk when our cows are lactating, and occasionallu buy from a local family dairy that we've worked with for years.
A lot of people make a lot of money selling ground up bark and food flavoring.
> In studies performed by Dr Hazen’s team, healthy volunteers were given a drink sweetened with 30 grams of xylitol. That’s similar to the amount found in a single scoop of keto-friendly ice cream or several cookies marketed for people with diabetes.
>
> In every volunteer studied, platelets were significantly more prone to clot after consuming xylitol.
Xylitol gum exists in the EU too. It would almost certainly be banned if consuming even a slightly high amount of gum was linked to health risks.
It's not a lack of regulation problem.
The SAD (standard American diet) is both a modern marvel of how to feed people cheaply at scale, but its downsides are significant in terms of negative health outcomes: metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes and the list goes on.
I'm glad what I was looking for was in the first piece of text.
These sugar alternatives are terrifying. I rather just have regular sugar.
> [Xylitol] is also produced by our own bodies through a process known as the glucuronate pathway, one of the pathways by which we metabolize glucose. So how did the authors ensure they were investigating the relationship between dietary xylitol intake and MACE risk? They didn’t.
> In other words, this study provides no evidence whatsoever that dietary xylitol intake has any association with MACE, yet still the authors insist on linking the two in their conclusions
> First erythritol, now xylitol. This research group followed the same flawed design and ended up with the same flawed conclusions. SSDD – same [study], different day.
Reference to Peter Attia's comment about this: https://peterattiamd.com/xylitol-and-cvd/
...and the HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790358