From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is it a natural product?[edit]

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_.

So is it naturally occurring, but actually produced by synthesizing? And if so, is it a "natural product"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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 (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's 'xylitol'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrdh (talkcontribs) 21:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

discussion of harmful doses[edit]

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 (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

List of products with Xylitol (partial)[edit]

The following is a list of products that contain xylitol: Sourced from

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 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced claim[edit]

"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. (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been addressed? 13 August 2015

So, why hasn't it replaced sugar?[edit]

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.

Can anyone help make this article make sense? Gronky (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

At least for me, when I eat a lot of sugar I get a good feeling right afterwards, but I don't get that feeling from xylitol. -- (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Bio-film buster"[edit]

xylitol is being used by many in the alternative health field as a bacterial "bio-film buster". (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a reference for that? Bwtranch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sugar Conformation[edit]

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?

Yogiholt (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about the 1,4-anhydro-D-xylitol form?

isotope32 (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


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 (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. (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)
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 (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it Safe For People With Sorbitol Intolerances?[edit]

I can't find any paywall-free articles on Pubmed, and can't use Google Scholar due to bugs. (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Science or Promotion?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xylitol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Xylitol actually has significant concerns[edit]

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 (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)