I use artificial sweeteners, one of which is Stevia. According to a new study, Erithrotol, a sweetener added to Stevia causes red cells to clump, doubling the risk of stroke/ heart attack. I try to take things with a grain of salt and consider the risks. Everything seems to kill you. The study only tested ten people who were give the substance and blood tests were given after.

However, records were examined on “thousands” later and a definite doubling link seems to exist. I’ve lived longer than all other men in the family. Had my first angioplasty at 50. At 76, I’ve watched weight, exercised, take cholesterol busters and am under cardiologist’s care. Being married to a cardiac cath lab nurse helps.

I try to stay aware. Thought I’s share this info.
Sorry, don’t have link. Search “Stevia study heart attack risk” or “Stevia red blood cells clumping risk” and it should pop up if you’re interested.

Didn’t seem to involve Stevia itself, but the additive. Now I’m trying to find out if all Stevia foods has this additive.

You posted a "study" with no link, then tell folks to go chasing for info? This is beyond ridiculous.

Yes, sorry, I tried but having trouble on this Ipad. Search CNN 8/8/ 2024 stevia red blood cell link

Here ya go:

Zero calorie sweetener erythritol linked to blood clots and risk of heart disease, study finds

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/08...-wellness/index.html

quote:

Erithrotol, a sweetener added to Stevia causes red cells to clump

I have been using pure stevia extract for over 2 decades. Sounds the headline should be "Erithrotrol
causes red blood cells to clump."

Thank you Baldone!

Fast Forward to 3:05.

I would caution against basing anything on on a single study.
Studies are or can be biased like anything else.
Look for a consensus of studies or look for answers from someone who has the experience to interpret.

I contracted Type 1 Diabetes a couple of years back, which caused me to drastically change my diet after 36 years of eating pretty much whatever I wanted. I never ate or drank "diet" anything. Now that I'm on the other side, I've come to the conclusion that sugar substitutes just aren't worth it. They tend to be expensive, don't taste as good as the real thing, and if you believe the studies most of them will kill you.

I just drink water and eat the stuff that naturally doesn't have a bunch of carbs in it (mostly meat and salads). It's kinda boring, but it keeps me alive and probably healthier than I was before my immune system tried to kill me.

You’ll have to forgive me, but I just can’t trust anything that is written by CNN…..

Curious who funded the study. U.S. Sugar Corp.?

I saw a report on this about a week ago. I don't remember where I saw it but I do remember the study was done by the Cleveland Clinic.

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
I saw a report on this about a week ago. I don't remember where I saw it but I do remember the study was done by the Cleveland Clinic.

With a sample size of ten? While not impossible, I doubt that they'd put their name behind this.

It reminds me of the Wakefield study.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
I saw a report on this about a week ago. I don't remember where I saw it but I do remember the study was done by the Cleveland Clinic.

With a sample size of ten? While not impossible, I doubt that they'd put their name behind this.

It reminds me of the Wakefield study.

No kidding. Calling this a “study” is ridiculous.

But but, it was done by the famed Cleveland Clinic.

Read these and make your own decsions:

https://www.ahajournals.org/do...1/ATVBAHA.124.321019

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01504-6

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I contracted Type 1 Diabetes a couple of years back, which caused me to drastically change my diet after 36 years of eating pretty much whatever I wanted. I never ate or drank "diet" anything. Now that I'm on the other side, I've come to the conclusion that sugar substitutes just aren't worth it. They tend to be expensive, don't taste as good as the real thing, and if you believe the studies most of them will kill you.

I just drink water and eat the stuff that naturally doesn't have a bunch of carbs in it (mostly meat and salads). It's kinda boring, but it keeps me alive and probably healthier than I was before my immune system tried to kill me.

Curious. Do you consume any sugar? My wife who has been Type One for well over sixty years will not touch the stuff if she can help it. She only uses Splenda for a sweetener.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
With a sample size of ten? .

^^
Only journalists could call that a study.

Scientists wouldn't even call that a good start.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
I saw a report on this about a week ago. I don't remember where I saw it but I do remember the study was done by the Cleveland Clinic.

With a sample size of ten? While not impossible, I doubt that they'd put their name behind this.

It reminds me of the Wakefield study.

No kidding. Calling this a “study” is ridiculous.

I have no dog in this fight. But I see 20 people were part of the study. Assuming half was the control and further assuming the subjects were randomly selected other than being healthy, it is significant that all the test subjects that got the dose had measurements of 1000 fold.

That is statistically significant.

Phase 0 Clinical studies which this study appears to parallel are done on only 10 to 15 people and it's to study how the drug behaves in the body. At this stage, it examines the drug's mechanisms of action and interaction with the body.

Phase 1 Clinical trials are also small groups of 20 -80 healthy volunteers to assess the safety, tolerability, and optimal dosing range along with identifying side effects.

Only when it gets to Phase 2 clinical trials are when 100 to 300 patients are involve and the purpose to evaluate whether the drug is effective or not.

Given that this is actually a food supplement and not a drug to treat a condition, the requirements are a lot less than for pharmaceutical drugs designed to treat a medical condition.

These people appears to want to go through the stricter protocol for drugs to discover the actual effects.

Phase 3 is when 1,000 to 3,000 patients are enlisted across the world as a requirement for FDA approval that shows it treats the condition and the side effects are documented and evaluated.

Finally, Phase 4 clinical trials are started after drug approval to monitor long-term effectiveness and side effects.

So, yes, the small number is appropriate. What may be in question is whether the elevated readings they're seeing have been separately established as actually correlating to the bad things they say may happen.

Sugar substitutes and other food supplements do not go through clinical trials. They just go through preclinical studies to determent safety and corollary, potential toxicity. As long as nobody dies, then it's usually approved. It doesn't even have to actually do what it's marketed to do.

For me, I've always avoided substitute anything. If you can't do the real thing, might as well not do it like fake beer, decaf, or sugar substitutes.