Talk:Xylitol

message: In the summary at the top, there are the lines:
"Xylitol is roughly as sweet as sucrose (table sugar), with 33% fewer calories. Unlike other natural or synthetic sweeteners, xylitol is actively beneficial for dental health by reducing caries (cavities) to a third in regular use and helpful to remineralization.[4] Multiple studies utilizing electron microscopy have indicated that xylitol is effective in inducing remineralization of deeper layers of demineralized enamel.[5][6] Fair evidence was found that xylitol (as chewing gum, lozenges, nasal spray, etc.) reduced the incidence of acute middle ear infection in healthy children.[7]"
This reads like an advertisement to me. That being said, I wanted to find out whether other people thought so too before I go tagging everything willy-nilly.
The statements may be true, but they certainly don't belong in the summary header. They belong (if anywhere), under "Health Benefits" or some such category halfway down the page. The summary should probably be reserved for a handful of basic facts like the substance's chemical formula and classification, molecular weight, the fact that it is a sugar and an alcohol, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.32.225 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those sources are WP:MEDRS compliant.  There is a Cochrane Review that found very weak evidence in support of some of these claims. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25809586 67.180.194.23 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A lot of this entry cites primary resesarch and is therefore WP:OR. According to a strict reading of WP:MEDRS, we should delete everything that isn't sourced to a review article or is more than 10 years old. I personally don't mind a few references to rat studies etc., just to show people what the weak evidence is behind these claims, but not in the introduction, and it should be properly qualified. --Nbauman (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rat studies? Like the way the stevia extract rebaudioside-A was granted GRAS status on the basis of just one study that wasn't a true lifetime study nor involved BOTH mice and rats per correct procedure. The same stevia that government refused to grant GRAS status for decades, only to fast track it like crazy as soon as Coca-Cola decided to invest a lot into stevia plantations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.227.254 (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This page reads like an advertisement or promotion for Xylitol. Perhaps this is because various patents on synthesis of xylitol are still in effect?  I suppose Xylitol might be considered "natural" since it does occur in nature, but only in small amounts, not enough for commercial exploitation.  Also the citation of empirical evidence is weak, as observed by ther commentators.  Confusing complex sentence structure with multiple dependent clauses, regarding alleged benefits and reported negative side effects.  Lastly the links to substitute sweeteners entirely omits Stevia - a truly natural plant based sugar substitute.  The whole topic of sugar substitutes on Wikipedia seems to have been hijacked by commercial interests. This is a sad state of affairs given the current surge in type two diabetes and the need for reliable, accurate and scientific information. Not up to Wikipedia standards for scientific and unbiased discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woofyo (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevia articles are biased, too. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe to consume. Stevia is metabolized by the body into steviol, which is mutagenic. Stevia ingestion causes DNA to break apart. No thanks. The same meta-analysis that the article here was using to promote stevia, though, was deemed irrelevant by the protectors of stevia on this site when it was noted that two of the studies it examined found evidence of toxicity!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.227.254 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

text: How can it be an advertisement? Xylitol is the chemical name, not the trade name. If the good effects outweigh the bad effects on WP, then it is up to you to balance those out in the article. Assuming those bad effects exist of course. The effect on dogs isn't exactly promoting its use, is it? MartiniShaw (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science or Promotion? 

message: I am epileptic. My epilepsy is mild enough that I do not take a daily dose of medication. However, I am more sensitive than most people to things that lower the seizure threshold, like d-limonene in citrus peel, high-intensity sweeteners like aspartame, etc. Xylitol lowers my seizure threshold by quite a lot. I didn't see the link until I researched it after I had eaten about six teaspoons of it. I spent more than a week afterward combating "attacks" (small partial seizures that I can stop from becoming a grand mal with breathing techniques and focusing techniques). I also developed acid reflux, which I've now read is another thing xylitol can cause. I have mouth sores and a sore throat still from it. I bought hardwood "made in America" xylitol in the hopes I wouldn't have the side-effects I'd had from China-sourced xylitol in years past when I last tried it (mainly it would make me feel very hot but I also had acid reflux at the time I didn't connect to the xylitol). I wonder how much of the side-effect issue is related to aluminum and/or nickle contamination from the processing. Aluminum is a neurotoxin. 
:Anyone prone to acid reflux and epilepsy should avoid xylitol. It's too bad the articles about sweeteners on this site always are biased — clearly favorably toward marketing the products. This article makes no mention of the tumors related to xylitol consumption, metabolic acidosis, or the metal catalyst residue concern.
::Given that I have blood sugar that's too high I have been trying to replace sucrose for quite some time but nothing seems to work well. Maltitol gives me the famous maltitol headache. Erythritol gives me the typical symptom of itchy skin. Aspartame gives me headaches, even in very small amounts. Sucralose is one I don't trust because it kills beneficial bacteria in the colon and allows harmful ones related to insulin resistance and inflammation to thrive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.227.254 (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xylitol actually has significant concerns 

message: The section on diabetes says that xylitol has only negligible effects on blood sugar, but I am sure that I heard it said on the radio that it has no effects on blood sugar at all. I had better say that I am not a medical doctor nor a diabetologist, but if this is so, it could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Artificial sweeteners are either low or zero calorie because they are not metabolized as efficiently as glucose, and they usually do not directly raise blood sugar or trigger insulin release since they do not have the same structure as glucose.  However, insulin can be released in anticipation of sweet food, leading to lower blood sugar and hunger soon afterwards.  Also, the specialty you are thinking of is Endocrinology and/or diabetes medicine. Myoglobin (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Diabetes

message: See preceding comments
The following primary reference and some associated claims were removed.
the objective of this study"  
Multiple studies using electron microscopy have indicated that xylitol is effective in inducing remineralization of deeper layers of demineralized enamel.
Trying to get this article to be more readable, but other editors are welcome to intervene.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of Nov 20, 2017

message: There are so many claims for and against its use, including benefits and deleterious effects - I don't know what to believe.  I certainly DON'T believe the Mayo Clinic as a sole source.  The part about having no effect on blood sugar levels is a single source, yet written as a undisputed fact.  I need to know the truth for health reasons ...  and this appears to be a one-sided argument.  Since when did the Mayo Clinic become the "final authority" on this issue?  I am ignoring this article in its entirety and looking elsewhere for information.  Too much conflicting "data" here.  98.194.39.86 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Xylitol has not been thoroughly studied in clinical research, as reflected by this list of PubMed reviews which also reveal that the human research published to date has not been of high quality. The Mayo Clinic reference here is a good comparison of xylitol with other artificial sweeteners. There's no biochemical basis to think that xylitol should influence blood sugar levels much or at all. Its effects on blood glucose in lab animals have been studied, but these are preliminary studies not suitable for an encyclopedia, leading to more reliance on the Mayo Clinic review. PMID 400133 is one example from 1978 that xylitol has little effect on blood glucose in people with diabetes. --Zefr (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Can't Believe Much of Anything In This Article 

message: Current article says:
"Density 	1.52 g/cm3"
The following converter says that Xylitol density is 0.91 g/ml: https://www.traditionaloven.com/culinary-arts/sugars/birch-xylitol/convert-milliliter-ml-of-birch-xylitol-to-gram-g-of-birch-xylitol.html
and that is very close to what my kitchen scale tells me about the Xylitol that I bought on Amazon (0.93g/ml).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:E711:F73B:D0D4:C1A9:96F6:976B (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Density of Xylitol 

message: Currently the article states that the central carbon atom C3 has the R configuration, but how is that determined? To me it looks like an achiral carbon, R-C(OH)H-R. Enlighten me....
Simon de Danser (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: IUPAC Name / Stereochemistry

message: The phrase "Xylitol-5-phosphate competes with phosphofructokinase" sounds biochemically nonsensical, please check 2A01:CB04:670:E900:9C71:5BCF:45FE:59E4 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify and add a source to refute the statement. It came from this source, which stated in the abstract: a xylitol metabolite, or metabolites, compete with fructose-6-phosphate for the phosphofructokinase, since the glycolysis is inhibited at this step. This 1983 paper appears to be unavailable to the general public. Zefr (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Xylitol-5-phosphate competes with phosphofructokinase"