|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|Threads older than 6 years may be archived by.|
Is it a natural product?
The article was not clear to me on the subject.
The article states that xylitol is naturally occurring. However, in the _production_ section, we have _Xylitol is produced by hydrogenation of xylose, which converts the sugar (an aldehyde) into a primary alcohol_.
- As far as I understand, you are correct that it is naturally occurring but can also be produced by synthesizing. This, I believe, is fairly common, as you can get synthesized forms of many other naturally occurring compounds.
As for it is a "natural product", I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Is there a chemical difference between naturally occurring xyletol and synthesized xyletol? Well, no, because if it were different chemically, it would no longer be xyletol, but something else. Is there a difference between what trace impurities are mixed in with the purified xyletol? Probably. Is this difference significant? I don't know. What precisely do you mean by "natural product"? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The difference is significant to some people. Some people believe that synthesized vitamin C is not as good as extracts from fruit. But anyway, I feel answered. BTW is it xylitol or xyletol? my spell checker doesn't know either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
discussion of harmful doses
The article cites very low doses as being harmful in dogs (<1g/kg) yet cites daily doses as high as 430g as causing no ill effects in humans (about 6g/kg for an average adult). I suspect someone got a decimal place in the wrong spot (rather than dogs being somehow much more susceptible).
- Reply: The difference between the canine and human species effects the way that either metabolize any substance. Dogs should not be given chocolate or onions also. We people are not so affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
List of products with Xylitol (partial)
The following is a list of products that contain xylitol: Sourced from http://www.merrickvet.com/70723/6303.html
- Orbit gum, Trident gum, Stride gum, Ice Breakers gum, Altoids, Biotene Mouthwash, Breath Rx, TheraBreath toothpaste & mouthwash, Tom's of Maine products, Mint Asure, FreshBreath capsules, Smint "xylicare" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
"Unlike other natural or synthetic sweeteners, xylitol is actively beneficial for dental health by reducing caries to a third in regular use and helpful to remineralization" - This statement goes much further than what sources actually say. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Why hasn't this been addressed? 13 August 2015
So, why hasn't it replaced sugar?
I'll presume all the stated benefits are true, but if it was the whole story, then the world would have abandoned sugar long ago. I'm guess there's information missing.
- Per gram, is it much more expensive than sugar? (but, with all its benefits, the cost difference would have be huge to explain the lack of Xylitol-based sweets and confectionery)
- Does it not taste as nice?
- Does it give people wind? (The article mentions diarrhoea, but there must be intermediary effects between having diarrhoea and having no side effects)
- Can it not be used in baking or other types of cooking? (this wouldn't explain why it isn't used in non-cooked or low-heat products)
Really, with so many benefits, and with the increase in research on the harms of sugar and obesity, I'm guess all four of those things are true, but even those four together isn't enough to explain why Xylitol isn't much, much, much more present.
xylitol is being used by many in the alternative health field as a bacterial "bio-film buster".
I think there is a serious need to introduce pictures of the furanose and pyranose forms of Xylitol and other carbohydrates on wikipedia. The current chemical structure is the open chain form which is not the major form and misinforms readers or non-experts on the subject.
A good example would be the page on glucose with a good discussion on the different anomers as well as concomitant pictures. Does anyone have any advice for me before I go ahead and make changes?
Are you talking about the 1,4-anhydro-D-xylitol form?
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. Multiple studies utilizing electron microscopy have indicated that xylitol is effective in inducing remineralization of deeper layers of demineralized enamel. Fair evidence was found that xylitol (as chewing gum, lozenges, nasal spray, etc.) reduced the incidence of acute middle ear infection in healthy children."
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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)