Thanks, Chris, for the link.

Masterjohn’s main beef with the Erythritol study is, in his own words: “I find it extremely suspicious that they added erythritol to blood they took from volunteers to test the pro-clotting effects and did not report trying the same experiment on the volunteers they fed erythritol, even though they had to take blood from them anyway to show that it was very high in erythritol. I find it likely they did try that and did not get the results they wanted.”

There is nothing suspicious about the researchers’ choice of experiment. And Masterjohn’s suggestion that they “did try that and did not get the results they wanted” is unfounded. In fact, the researchers pre-specified their design when they registered their study at clinicaltrials.gov prior to conducting it:

“With this study the investigators wish to examine whether the postprandial levels are capable of altering platelet function in vitro. The investigators hypothesize that postprandial polyol concentrations following ingestion increase platelet aggregation in the blood”.

Most importantly, in the xylitol study, the researchers used the volunteers’ blood samples to investigate the platelet aggregation response following ingestion of xylitol (the very experiment that Masterjohn claimed was missing in the erythritol study). The results clearly indicate an increased clotting response.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to belittle Masterjohn’s post, which is otherwise an excellent piece. His conclusion that erythritol is benign is entirely his choice to make. However, I respectfully disagree with translating his conclusion to the xylitol study. Oh, and yes, I fully agree with your suggestion that more research is warranted.