Talk:Xylitol

NPOV

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)

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)

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

Science or Promotion?

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)

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)

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)

Diabetes

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)

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)

Sales literature in the first paragraph?

"Multiple studies utilizing electron microscopy have indicated that xylitol is effective in inducing remineralization of deeper layers of demineralized enamel.[5] Fair evidence was found that xylitol (as chewing gum, lozenges, nasal spray, etc.) reduced the incidence of acute middle ear infection in healthy children.[6]"

This does not belong in the first paragraph, and possibly doesn't belong in the article at all, unless there is a section at the end that weighs conflicting research and documents who paid for it. It has nothing to do with what xylitol is, where it came from, how it is derived, or any other information that would be considered part of "what is xylitol"? It belongs in a xylitol industry advertising pamphlet.

Seems like perhaps the industry is playing too large a role in this article. It makes it hard to take it seriously.

Edits of Nov 20, 2017

See preceding comments The following primary reference and some associated claims were removed.

the objective of this study"Steinberg, L. M.; Odusola, F.; Mandel, I. D. (1992). "Remineralizing potential, antiplaque and antigingivitis effects of xylitol and sorbitol sweetened chewing gum". Clinical Preventive Dentistry. 14 (5): 31–34. PMID 1291185.

Multiple studies using electron microscopy have indicated that xylitol is effective in inducing remineralization of deeper layers of demineralized enamel.Miake, Y. "Remineralization effects of xylitol on demineralized enamel". Journal of Electron Microscopy (Tokyo). 52: 471–476. doi:10.1093/jmicro/52.5.471. PMID 14700079. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)

Trying to get this article to be more readable, but other editors are welcome to intervene.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I Can't Believe Much of Anything In This Article

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)

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)

Veterinary studies

Recently Zefr removed a sentence on veterinary studies, citing WP:RSMED, and WP:PRIMARY. While this is WP:ANIMAL, I hope the Monica Reinagel reference(who coincidentally has her own article on wikipedia) the Reinagel reference I just added, which is a well written secondary source. That makes clear this isn't medical advice, should now permit inclusion.

If anyone is still concerned that this is medical advice, or could be interpreted as such, then please feel free to give it a re-write. Boundarylayer (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

All the sources, including Reinagel, are not high-quality reviews per WP:MEDRS. The content is fringe information, WP:UNDUE, based on primary, mostly outdated lab research (WP:MEDDATE). There is no evidence from systematic reviews or meta-analysis of veterinary clinical studies; see WP:MEDASSESS. Please don't edit war over something so peripheral to principal content. --Zefr (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not a war? Where did you get that idea from? This is a disagreement over content with one editor updating material and the other entrenching over policy that does not apply here and then claiming wars afoot.

As I really think you have an unorthodox impression of what this article is Zefr. It is not an article on osteoporosis but an article on the uses of a sugar. Now as it is undeniable that the sugar has been used in multiple veterinary studies, including as recently as 2012 in this avenue but also in Rabbits with chronic osteomyelitis (|here) WP:MEDDATE really doesn't apply. Neither does WP:MEDASSESS as we're not giving medical advice because once again. This is an article on a sugar. Nothing more. Reinagel's reference also makes crystal clear, that the results of the studies only applies to our 4-legged mammalian relatives and not to even try dosing yourself. Yet you continue to attempt to suggest that we need to apply the utmost stringent filters of WP:MEDRS? ...Why exactly, can you explain? Moreover as the material, which any google search will turn up upon searching for "xylitol bone mineralization" has a collective 100+ scientific citations, the only thing that is therefore "fringe information" is your presentation of WP:MEDRS, as applying here. This is an article on a sugar and what is has been used for. Nothing else.

Similarly have a look at Aspirin#Veterinary_medicine which has a reference from 1991 which I'm sure you can apply your stringent WP:MEDDATE filter to, or indeed have a look at Sodium bicarbonate#Veterinary uses. There are many others.

Lastly, I'm going to update the article again. (as this isn't a war) With another secondary source that should put this "war" to bed.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

They're not "vet" studies, but are lab studies on rats, all referring to old literature. No value to this fringe topic. Please get consensus here on the Talk page, WP:CON, before trying to add anything further on this topic. --Zefr (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears now that you have particular antipathy to Drugs.com, is that correct? Which likewise summarizes these very studies. Drugs.com is a well defined secondary source. Do you wish to contact them to argue your WP:POV that this "has no value"? Despite recently adding the most recent WP:MEDRS, you have once again blanked the section in its entirety and have now erroneously cited WP:PRIMARY in your edit summary as your rationale. However that isn't applicable to secondary sources. So why do you think "primary" applies exactly? Or is what we are actually seeing, that this really not about the sources but again comes directly back to your own strongly held WP:POV, that this has "no value"?

Unless you can cite some reason for blanking, then WP:NOCON seems to apply, before your controversial removals and proposal to expunge all mention to the information began. In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Reinagel is a non-expert opinion piece on a blog site, WP:NOTBLOG. The Drugs.com article reviews rat studies which are WP:PRIMARY. A review of rat studies is not compliant with WP:MEDRS to imply any effect on osteoporosis. Per WP:BRD, I am removing this section again, and ask you to find medical editors who will support you. Visit WT:MED for a forum. --Zefr (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, we'll go to WT:MED. However I'm pretty sure they're going to say, Drugs.com is a reliable secondary source. You should respect reliable sources per WP:MEDREV, are you not aware of that? Moreover, they'll say this is not the article on animal osteoporosis, so it doesn't require the level of scientific rigor that would understandably be deemed necessary on that article. Instead this is an encyclopedic article on a relatively obscure sugar, what it has been used for and where areas of study have gone. So I hope you can understand that it is an entirely misplaced apprehension to suggest A review...is not compliant with WP:MEDRS to imply any effect on osteoporosis. When again, this is not the article on animal osteoporosis? so how is your concern applicable? This isn't the article on osteoporosis? It is WP:MEDANIMAL and it is further made absolutely clear that it is not to be tried by humans, with the Monica Reinagel citation, which is not a blog, spelling out why, in graphic detail.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

AOM reviews and ongoing study by the Canadian Institute of Health Research

Having searched for reviews on the veterinary effect above. As apparently even drugs.com reporting on lab studies, isn't a secondary-source enough? While searching around for the mega-doseage veterinary/osteoporosis effect, to be reviewed by others, I serrendipitously stumbled across both the AOM review that, as Zefr you may have noticed, I just added to the article and similarly found this ongoing trial.

Results for kids age two to four. Are expected this time next year. With a daily dose around eight grams. As described here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6078241/

So looks like we'll have more AOM medical reviews to add by then. See you then. Boundarylayer (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ping @user:Zefr. The 2019 review is complete and worth adding to the article on both the mechanism of slowing osteoporosis and reducing the rate of ear aches. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6723878/

Boundarylayer (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Boundarylayer -- PMID 30082349 is a protocol publication for a study that isn't even done yet. I don't see the encyclopedic value of using such a source; see WP:MEDREV which explains high-quality review and source quality for writing encyclopedic medical content. PMID 31390800 is from the journal, Nutrients - an MDPI journal on WP:CITEWATCH. It is unreliable as a journal with weak editorial practices and enforces an article's authors to pay for publication, i.e., it is considered predatory and unusable on WP. --Zefr (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The study PMID 30082349 will be complete Dec 31 2021 Zefr. The specific journal containing the 2019 literature review, Nutrients (journal) under the parent MDPI is listed as "hit and miss" on CITEWATCH, sometimes the papers are good and sometimes not. However the particular PMID 31390800 review paper certainly is high quality. I'll see if this 2019 review paper got published by anyone else. Though as a meta-review and the fact that it does not make any claims it therefore is of value to the encyclopedia, summarizing what is well known and areas that further study is needed.

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Density of Xylitol

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)

IUPAC Name / Stereochemistry

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)

PS. On PubChem there are names like (2R,3r,4S)-pentane-1,2,3,4,5-pentol with the R/S designation in lower case. Is this helpful?

"Xylitol-5-phosphate competes with phosphofructokinase"

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)

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)

Solubility in water of 100g/L seems too low

Other sources give 200 g/100 ml (25 °C) Stevemiller (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)