This shows a brain.
In a new study, researchers treated human cerebral microvascular endothelial cells—cells from the tiny blood vessels in the brain—with erythritol. Credit: Neuroscience News

Sugar Substitute May Harm Brain, Blood Vessel Health

Summary: New research suggests that erythritol, a popular low-calorie sweetener, may impair blood vessel health by disrupting the brain’s production of nitric oxide. Cells exposed to typical erythritol levels showed increased oxidative stress and reduced nitric oxide, potentially impairing blood flow.

This mechanism could help explain previous links between erythritol consumption and higher risks of heart attack and stroke. While marketed as a healthier sugar alternative, experts caution that more research is needed to fully understand erythritol’s long-term vascular effects.

Key Facts:

  • Oxidative Stress Trigger: Erythritol exposure increases oxidative stress in brain blood vessel cells.
  • Reduced Nitric Oxide: The sweetener lowers nitric oxide production, impairing blood vessel dilation and blood flow.
  • Health Concerns: Findings support earlier studies linking erythritol to increased risk of cardiac events.

Source: American Physiology Summit

Erythritol, a commonly used sugar substitute often marketed as “healthy,” may impair blood vessel health by disrupting the brain’s ability to produce a critical compound, according to new research.

Scientists will present their findings at the 2025 American Physiology Summit in Baltimore. The Summit is the flagship annual meeting of the American Physiological Society (APS).

Credit: Neuroscience News

Erythritol is a low-calorie sugar substitute found in many sugar-free products, including energy drinks, snack foods and protein bars. Like other sugar alcohols, erythritol is popular because it does not affect blood glucose and insulin levels as much as sugar.

However, previous research links consumption of erythritol to a higher risk of adverse cardiac events, including stroke.

In a new study, researchers treated human cerebral microvascular endothelial cells—cells from the tiny blood vessels in the brain—with erythritol. They found that the cells exposed to the amount of sweetener in one beverage serving had higher levels of oxidative (cellular) stress.

In addition, the cells produced less nitric oxide, a compound that helps blood vessels dilate. Reduced nitric oxide levels can impair vasodilation, impair blood flow, and may increase the risk of heart attack and stroke.

“While erythritol is widely used in sugar-free products marketed as healthier alternatives, more research is needed to fully understand its impact on vascular health,” said Auburn Berry, a graduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder and first author of the study.

“In general, people should be conscious of the amount of erythritol they are consuming on a daily basis.”

About this diet and brain health research news

Author: Erica Roth
Source: American Physiology Summit
Contact: Erica Roth – American Physiology Summit
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News

Original Research: The findings will be presented at the American Physiology Summit 2025

Join our Newsletter
I agree to have my personal information transferred to AWeber for Neuroscience Newsletter ( more information )
Sign up to receive our recent neuroscience headlines and summaries sent to your email once a day, totally free.
We hate spam and only use your email to contact you about newsletters. You can cancel your subscription any time.
  1. This was interesting I never thought this could be bad. What would be interesting is the other substitutes and what they do to our bodies.
    I will keep watch to see if there will be a reply.

  2. How about a link to the actual report so we can read it for ourselves and see the statistics generated by the study? While “May”, “might”, “could”, etc., can be interpreted as vague or fear-mongering, providing the actual report enables us to judge for ourselves whether these results are of real concern or not. Summaries are interesting but far too often leave out important details in the service of brevity.

  3. I found it evasive that good things something like rent a tall without even mentioning the worst substance aspartame and suralose which is absolutely been confirmed to be devastating to the health no mention at all imagine that who paid for this study the pharmaceutical companies?

  4. I don’t use or take these products, but I suffer extremely bad migraines. Any information would be appreciated. Thank you. My daughter drinks a lot of energy drinks and she is in her 20s and works a high pressure job.

  5. Is there a law suite against this company yet? I have been consuming this product for years and I had a massive heart attack and a stroke and have had veins removed from my legs due to them collapsing and losing blood flow.

  6. This is absolutely irresponsible to print. It’s vague non specific, misleading, inciting not insightful and frankly it stinks to high hell of Big Pharma vomit. People are waking up every minute to the lies they have been told and you need to stop killing people with the lies. Figures the last line says it all. Don’t use a ton of it. Well isn’t that true of everything. I hope who ever paid this eats the best that fbe food industry gives our children in school lunches God bless!

  7. My Mother has been recently diagnosed with Vascular Demetia and after her MRI it show a lot of white matter in the brain. She has drank Diet Coke for years and used artificial sweetener for decades. Could this possibly be the reason why?

    1. I notice Stevia has erythritol but Sweet n Low does not. It has saccharin. Is it safer to use? I prefer Sweet n Lowe’s taste.

  8. I agree with the first reply. Do better. More specific data. Education teaches, informs. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. Good educators present all sides of an issue.

  9. To publish an article using words like “may”, “ might”, and “more research is needed” is irresponsible and fear mongering, especially when the “previous research” was skewed because it did not take into account the results if the erythritol was mixed with other non-sugar sweeteners, nor did it specify, as neither did this article, an amount of intake… saying “the amount of sweetener in one beverage serving” doesn’t address this… nutrition labels show amounts of erythritol, why doesn’t this research information?
    Please, do better…

    1. Great comment Meyou Tou. Agree totally. There are way too many articles like this that say ‘may’ might’ etc. just so they can publish something an avoid any responsibility.

      1. It’s not so much us “avoiding responsibility” as it is us reporting potential outcomes. For a lot of the research dealing with potential treatments for disorders is often not yet in human trials. While the treatments might work in say mice, we would need a lot of human testing and data before any firm conclusions could be drawn. Also, research and findings have the potential to develop into other avenues of study. “May”, “might”, “could” are the correct terms as we’re dealing with ever evolving research. To use absolutes like “can” or “will” is dangerous and dishonest in those circumstances.

        1. Maybe they need more research for knowing more details, but there’s a simple way to know those sweeteners are harmful for brain cells: headaches. Every time you eat sweeteners with high concentration of erithitrol you have a headache which means your brain cells are dying. Nowadays sugar is mixed with erithitrol. How much time do they need to realize that that substance is poisonous?

      2. It’s important in science to only interpret entire facts and not to state implications as fact. It would be irresponsible to infer a blanket statement if more research is needed to confirm that it is what it looks like. Creating narratives based on limited information is propaganda…

    2. Disagree. I’d rather know what the preliminary results of a study are AND its possible implications so I can decide for myself how much risk I’m comfortable with, before waiting until they’re 100% sure years down the road.

      I don’t want to hear about a health risk for the first time only after 10 years and tons of evidence, when there were early studies no one published I could have used to look up more for myself.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *