Talk:Xylitol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chemistry Portal

Xylitol is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the wikiproject's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · watch · refresh)

Section 4.4 on Ear and upper respiratory infections appears to be or include a viral marketing campaign by XClear, a xylitol based product for treating these types of infections. A quick google search reveals that someone has been posting the same information on several different internet sites, and at least one of the sources links back to a seller of the same type of product. The Best Treatments citation cannot be verified by me as I am in the US, and it can't be accessed with out a subscription.

I'm not sure how to flag this section as a new user. --User:Kimmy_on_LJ 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carefree Koolerz

I bought two packs of Carefree Koolerz after reading the part of this article that says that it's sweetened exclusively by Xylitol, but then later I read the packaging and while Xylitol is listed as the main ingredient, there are artificial sweeteners like aspartame listed as sweeteners too. I through out my two packs immediately afterwards (I think one of them was stale anyways, and the flavor didn't last very long). So I have yet to find a sugarfree gum in the U.S. that doesn't use aspartame or any other artificial sweetener. Orbit Complete seems to be a U.K. brand? It'd be nice if that was mentioned in the article too.

Quite silly of you since there are no proof that aspartam is dangerous in moderate doses. 130.243.153.103 16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food energy %age

I just thought I would point out that in the first paragraph it says "40% less food energy" but in the fourth paragraph it says 50% less. (I have no idea which is correct however). - CharlesC 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Moved from article, translation pending:

Xylitol er et sødemiddel smagende hvidt næsten lugtfrit krystallinskpulver, bruges som erstatning for sukker.

Let opløseligt i vand, meget tungt opløseligt i ethanol.

Chemical name	D-xylitol
Einecs-number	201-788-0
E-number	E 967
Kemisk formel	C₅H₁₂O₅
Relative molecule mass	152,15
Smeltepunktsinterval	92-96 ºC

Kosebamse 11:58 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I know a little Norwegian/Danish based on my studies in Swedish and so I can provide a translation.

Xylitol is a sweetener-tasting, white, almost odourless crystal powder, used as a substitue for sugar.

Easily soluble in water, very difficultly soluble in ethanol.

Chemical name: D-xylitol

Einecs-number: 201-788-0

E-number: E 967

Chemical formula: C₅H₁₂O₅

Relative molecular mass: 152.15

Melting point interval: 92-96 ºC

11:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Xylitol Information

Hello, I am a student in the United States and I am doing a science fair project on the affects of xylitol on streptococcus mutans. I am having some trouble finding general backround information and also I am having trouble finding people that I can talk to about this and researchers that already understand what is going on. please contact me at JMDswimgirl@hotmail.com if you can help. Your time is greatly appreciated! I am also having trouble finding sites in English... please send me suggestions. Thank you

Jackie

[edit] Not an Artificial Sweetner

Since xylitol is found in very many natural foods, it is technically not an "artificial" sweetener. It is often correctly called an "alternative sweetener" however. I will make this change, so post any good objections here. Carltonh 23:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] US use

If this Xylitol is so great, why isn't it more popular in the US?

Because it's expensive. However, they're looking at producing it cheaply from corn cobs, so I hear. (Daily Mail) And it is now on sale in powder form, so who knows.

This is a lovely little article; I love the way the links are done at the bottom. My only point of contention is "However, this same effect also interferes with the yeast micro-organism and others, so xylitol is inappropriate in making bread, for instance." Sugar added to bread? Is this an American thing, or have I missed something? 57.66.51.165 11:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---> It's true that American bread is more sweet in taste than say bread from the UK. However, trace amounts of natural sugar will undoubtably be present in all bread. My understanding is that bread in America and other European countries like France like their bread sweet, while not nessecarily having more natural sugar than bread from else where.

Most bread has sugar added as food for the yeast (the yeast respires using the sugar, to produce the carbon dioxide gas that makes the bread rise)

Sugar is also added to rising pastries, it doesn't have to mean table bread.24.165.210.213 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a point of trivia: Orbit chewing gum uses xylitol as well as sorbitol. When it was first sold in the U.S. (briefly in the 1970s, I remember buying some) I recall it was sweetened almost exclusively with xylitol. =Axlq 01:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Link to Justify Research Claim

This sentence doesn't have any reference in the article: 'Recent research confirms a plaque-reducing effect and suggests that the compound, having some chemical properties similar to sucrose, attracts and then "starves" harmful micro-organisms, allowing the mouth to remineralize damaged teeth with less interruption.'

Maybe it was written upon the assumption that Xylitol being implemented in chewing gum with the onus that it makes teeth healthier was the reason. If someone uses it as a promotional tool, surely it must have been proven. No?

The reference is now included.

[edit] Opening paragraph

The second sentence is a bit unclear. What is the most popular source? Corn? China?

I agree - It's VERY unclear 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it for now and tidied the sentence up a bit. Hopefully whoever added it can add another sentence to the paragraph explaining which is the preferred source. Here is what I removed "and is the most popular source due to its potential renewability, unlike birch trees." Dickgomer 18:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xylitol metabolism

What is xylitol's exact metabolism in the body? I read somewehere that one of its metabolites is l-glutathione which is apparently the second most potent anti-oxidant produced by the body, also what is the amount produced per xylitol? Maybe someone that is familiar with xylitols metabolsm can add this. --Alma-Tadema 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sugar alcohol? does that imply it acts similar to ethanol? or breaks down into alcohols? or just that it IS an alcohol? I too would like to know the metabolism? --x1987x^(talk) 12:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You could try reading the article Sugar alcohol... —Keenan Pepper 03:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xylitol cost

Here in South Africa I saw xylitol 500 grams (just over an pound) for about R80 ($12). This is the first time I saw it sold as pure powder, usually you have to buy gums or mints like Smint or Dirol to get xylitol or some health speciality stores(much more expensive). This was in a big pharmacy chain marketed as a slimming sugar subsitute. --Alma-Tadema 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endothermic solution

Xylitol absorbs energy when dissolving, causing a cool taste in the mouth, sorbitol or mannitol also has the same effect. --Alma-Tadema 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candida Impact

Being recently diagnosed as having an intollerance to yeast I am now on a yeast and sugar free diet (as sugar does indeed 'feed' the yeast or unfriendly bacteria in the gut), which is a challenge in this day of processed and plastic food. I am interested on xylitol's impact on yeast and could a person who must avoid yeast and sugar and their derivatives use xylitol without impact and even actually benefit from using xylitol in moderation? 84.66.1.160 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere on the web that xylitol was good for people with a yeast overgrowth candidiasis. The reasoning was that the yeast thinks it's sugar and gobbles it up, and then dies because it can't digest it. I wasn't sure how reliable that information was, so I checked with two respected nutritionists. Patrick Holford agrees that xylitol is same for people on an anti-candida diet (which is not necessarily what you're on) as the yeast cannot mebabolize it. Note, for example, that many xylitol containers will say on that it's not suitable for bread making, as it doesn't feed yeast. (Sometimes, if you want to make bread and haven't got time to let it rise slowly, you can use a little sugar, to help the yeast to work quickly.) However, Erica White, while not denying that xylitol is safe, still does not allow her clients to use it while on an anti-candida diet. He reason is that while it may not feed the yeast inside you, it helps to keep the sweet tooth alive, and it's absolutely essential for the sweet tooth to die if a person is to be able to stay on the anti-candida diet for over a year (which is necessary for most candidiasis sufferers, in her view). Hope that helps. AnnH ♫ 14:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Erica White on this one. I am a nutrition hobbyist lets say, in that I don't have any degrees in nutrition, but spend several hours per day researching nutrition. Erica is simply ensuring she will have a job, by making people think that thier diet controls them, not that they control thier diet. While it is true that you can condition yourself to not enjoy sweets, why would you when there is a sweetener like Xylitol that is beneficial to the human body? This line of reasoning is like saying I should avoid and ween myself off fish because some fish contain high amounts of mercury. In my experience it is best to slowly introduce xylitol into your system if you are planning on using it as a true sugar replacement. Start with the mints and gums, then move on to adding it to your coffe or tea, afer a few weeks of this, you shouldn't experience any of the laxative effects. Hopefully this takes off in the states, allthough it will likley put big sugar and many dentists out of business, oh well, they will have to adapt I guess. MattB

[edit] 40% or 50% less energy?

The introduction claims 40% less food energy while the article itself claims 50%. For reference, the german article claims 50% as well, dunno about other languages. RichiH 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canine Health Effects

The recent news about canine health effects from eating Xylitol brought me to this page. Reuters

I noticed that Intelligentguest had deleted the line "Even the small amount of xylitol found in two or three pieces of Trident gum has been fatal for dogs in many cases." and claimed that it was "completely absurd and falsely credited claim that a couple of pieces of trident gum has killed many dogs!"

According to the news reports, "A 22-pound (10-kg) dog who consumes one gram (0.03 ounces) of Xylitol should be treated." Trident's nutrition information is that each stick of trident contains 1g of Xylitol.

I think that this needs to get back in the article to let pet owners know that if their dog gets into Trident, they should get the pet to a Vet. I've never edited a Wiki article and don't have time to go and figure out all of the rules to add this information. Could someone help?

Thanks!

BigrTex 14:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Until there's a verifiable source saying that a 2- or 3-stick dosage of trident is fatal to dogs, the statement should remain deleted. Without a citation it's nothing more than a violation of WP:OR. And policy violations should be deleted instantly.

Think about it. A dog who tries to eat gum will have more to worry about than xylitol. Any gum is harmful to dogs. Also, dogs won't chew it like humans to extract the flavor; a dog will simply swallow it — which means the xylitol would be bound up inside the gum and not much would get into the dog. =Axlq 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clear. I don't think the original statement should be reinstated.

There are both long-term and short-term effects in dogs. The Wikipedia article only discusses the short-term effects. The long-term effects are now being announced. I do think that there needs to be mention of the long-term effects, and a balanced mention of dosage. I am less confident than before that I could do this in an acceptable way. BigrTex 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point now. Don't worry about your confidence; if you're uncomfortable editing the article directly, simply propose some text right here on this talk page. People will suggest improvements and eventually we'll have something suitable for the article. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. =Axlq 01:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to edit this section to make it a bit more scientific / factual. The articles referenced discuss that the coagulopathy in these cases is likely secondary to liver failure, so I have removed the statement on coagulopathy in this entry. Without clarification such as is provided in the journal, it is out of context and potentially misleading.

I have also made reference to the dose-dependance in regards to xylitol toxicity in dogs. Xylitol seems to be safe at low doses, hence it is misleading to mention potential disesae and death in dogs without discussing the dose. I agree that it is important to alert people to the potential dangers of xylitol in very high amounts such as in some chewing gums and artificially sweetened products. However, this needs to be kept in context. I hope my clarifications make this more clear. MKDVM2000 03:30:44 , 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IUPAC name

I'm not sure where does this "systematic name" (2,3,4,5)tetrahydroxy-pentanol comes from, but the IUPAC name of xylitol should be "pentane-1,2,3,4,5-pentaol". --Der yck C. 07:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal health concerns

We don't seem to be able to agree on if Xylitol is safe or dangerous for animals (other than dogs), so I'm just taking that paragraph out. Once someone comes up with a reference, they can add the correct version back. What I've just removed reads:

It is also safe in mice, rats, horses and rhesus monkeys. It is believed to also be dangerous for cows, goats, rabbits and baboons. The safety in cats and ferrets is unknown. ^{[citation needed]}

Where the "dangerous" in the second sentence is often replaced by "safe". Come up with a reliable source before you put this back in.

I also modified the paragraph after that to remove the word "however", since it doesn't make sense without the paragraph I removed. -- BillWeiss | Talk 15:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph was part of a larger edit by User:AlexanderColeDVM on 5-Jan-7. AlexanderColeDVM added two <ref>s in the edit and kept one, but the one that I can access does not include the specified information. I have asked AlexanderColeDVM to specify which of the references supports the above statement so that it can be readded to the article. I think that the two IPs that changed the text were vandals, but until we have a reference I can't support that belief. ~ Bigr Tex 16:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it's really confusing when various vandals vandalize each other's "products". --Der yck C. 14:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrigley's Gum COI concerns

Ellielancaster appears to be editing solely to promote Wrigley's on Wikipedia. I have reverted her change to the article which removed a reference to a rival gum and replaced with a reference to Wrigley's. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad reference URL for ASIC xylitol t-shirts

Link actually leads to an article "Danisco supports sclerosis patients in Lithuania" Please fix if you know proper article Fry-kun 18:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Save the Children!

I attempted to verify the following statement from the article, but could find no evidence to support its veracity either on the FDA website or elsewhere.

As a food product it is not subject to drug regulations but xylitol based products have been certified by the American Food and Drug Administration as a suitable remedy for infantile dental caries.

Since the statement appears to be unverifiable, and is quite possibly factually incorrect, I deleted it and replaced it with the weaker, but verifiable, statement:

Xylitol based products are allowed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to make the medical claim that they do not promote dental caries.

If anyone can verify the original statement, please do so, then replace it (with a citation hopefully). -- PHaze 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think its true that Xylitol is used in almost all gum in Europe. I cannot find any gum that uses anything but that poison aspertame. Unless those gums have xylitol as well as aspertame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.12.194 (talk • contribs)

all gum i buy are all Xylitol, non contain aspertame i haven't ever seen gum without Xylitol. Markthemac 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well "almost" is marginal. Just leave it like this if you cannot come up with a better version. --Der yck C. 09:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do so many people think that aspartam is dangerous? The only studies I've seen concluded that it could be dangerous IF you ate the sweetning equivalent of sevral kilos of sugar per day. And who does that? Now if you have problem to brake down phenylalanine i can understand but otherwise.... 130.243.153.103 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xylitol is a miracle, don't be afraid

I uses pure Xylitol since 5 years in my dental practice, the year before I tried it by my own . The results : 1. no longer dental caries at all 2. no longer inflammations of the gums 3. great help to people with nearly no saliva , f.i.after radiation 4. replaces the toothbrush over long periods ,works great when you are travelling, working,in hospital, pilot or trucker

What did I do ? Take 3-5 gramms Xylitol ( 1/2 teespoon )into your mouth, let it solve in the saliva, wait 3 minutes, don't spit or swallow before. After 3 minutes or later ,maybe after 10 minutes if you like ,you can spit or swallow. If you take in addition your toothbrush without toothpaste ,your teeth will be clean as never before. Try it, it is no poison ,your own body is producing it . If you like ,let us discuss here. There is much more to say. Xylitol is a great thing to avoid dental karies in the third world ,it is proved by many studies and after my experience is the pure substance much more effective than chewing gums or drops with only 30% or so. You don't need any artificial sweetner, no, the pure xylitol is the king ! Ksylitoli 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 130.243.153.103 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zero net effective carbohydrates??

This article claims "Xylitol also contains zero net effective carbohydrates"

How can a digestible carbohydrate have 'zero net effective carbohydrates'? What definition of 'zero net effective carbohydrates' is this going by? --Karuna8 20:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged that statement with citation needed. "Net effective carbohydrates" is synonymous with "effective carbohydrate count" (ECC), an industry term used to indicate that, while a product may contain ingredients that are chemically carbohydrates, the body doesn't utilize them. See this definition for example. Many sugar alcohols (including xylitol) have this property.

The "net effective carbs" designation was an industry response to FDA labelling regulations requiring the content of all carbohydrates quantified, regardless of whether the body responds to them as carbohydrates. (An extreme example would be cellulose, which the body doesn't metabolize at all, yet is required to be listed as a carbohydrate). =Axlq 20:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But apparently the body does utilize xylitol- the previous sentence says it has 60% the calories of sucrose, so shouldn't 10 grams of xylitol have 6 grams of 'net carbs'? --Karuna8 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Product Placement

This article mentions many products by name. It reads like an advertisement in several places. Is this type of information really necessary or appropriate in an encyclopedia article? Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline applicable to this practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHaze (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Staph Infections and Xylitol

Does anyone have any information regarding Xylitol preventing Staph?

Here is an article I found, but I wonder if it is truly effective... http://www.healthboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=260553&highlight=keflex

68.202.25.190 15:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISOMERS

Does Xylitol have any stereo-isomers ? If so, then how many please.--83.105.33.91 15:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Xylitol

Xylitol is the sugar alcohol of Xylose. XYLOSE IS "WOOD SUGAR". Thus the article on "Xylitol" is wrong, beginning:

Xylitol, also called wood sugar or birch sugar, is a five-carbon sugar alcohol that is used as a sugar substitute.

This causes confusion when someone cross-references "wood sugar", especially when toxic effects of xylitol are under consideration.

Thus I would recommend this article be changed to read:

Xylitol is the five-carbon sugar alcohol of xylose (Xylose is also called "wood sugar" or "birch sugar"), that is used as a sugar substitute.

Then a hyperlink to the "xylose" article will begin to clear things up.Woodwardgj 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)