Guest guest Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 Mark, >Xylitol's claim of 'natural' seems to come from the fact that it is >found naturally occurring in fruits, berries etc. yet the crystalline >xylitol that is used is still a highly refined, chemically processed >product. > >It seems that, unless diabetic, that moderation with a minimally >processed natural sweetener would make more health sense than a >reduced caloric highly processed one. > >Am I missing something? > It is not a recommended sweetener. You may want to read this information for a complete understanding of the various sweeteners: http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/sugarfree_blues.html http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/9/killer_sugar_suicide%20_with_a_spoon_sugar_dan\ gers.htm And do search http://onibasu.com/ - especially this list and WAPFchapterleaders for xylitol And now for my commentary. I feel many people need to reset their taste buds for a lower sweetness in general. I get this inkling that many folks get the idea that the natural sweeteners - since they are natural - are somehow health-promoting and okay to consume at whim. Not so. Often they displace nutrients and should be used sparingly as a treat for many or in more moderate amounts for others. Fruit is a good choice for a sweet. You know it is natural - as it was made to be consumed. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 Thank you, that confirms my suspicions. I did find the following which finally confirmed the chemical processing involved in extracting Xylitol, from http://xylitol.org/ " Various forest and agricultural materials rich in hemicellulose have been used as a raw material in xylitol manufacturing. Hemicellulose is chemically a xylan, a long polysaccharide molecule consisting of D-xylose units. Xylans (which in turn are examples of so-called pentosans) are typically present in certain hardwoods (such as birch and beech), rice, oat, wheat and cotton seed hulls, various nut shells, straw, corn cobs and stalks, sugar cane bagasse, etc. According to this terminology, pentosans are polysaccharides consisting of five-carbon pentose sugars, such as D-xylose. (Glucans consist of six-carbon D-glucose units, and represent spesific hexosans, important in the growth of dental plaque.) In the manufacturing process of xylitol (2), the xylan molecules are first hydrolyzed into D-xylose. The latter is chemically reduced to xylitol which can be separated by large-scale column chromatography. Xylitol is finally crystallized. The entire process is complicated and demands great engineering skills and experience. The amounts of xylitol present freely in plants are too low for industrial exploitation. Xylitol can, of course, be synthesized by means of organic chemical procedures, but the usage of D-xylose as a starting material is currently more feasible. Xylitol can also be made by means of bacterial fermentations which utilize D-xylose, D-glucose, or other suitable raw materials as substrates. These processes have not been economically feasible. " On 12/31/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote: > Mark, > > It is not a recommended sweetener. You may want to read this > information for a complete understanding of the various sweeteners: > > http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/sugarfree_blues.html > > http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/9/killer_sugar_suicide%20_with_a_spoon_sugar_dan\ gers.htm > > And do search http://onibasu.com/ - especially this list and > WAPFchapterleaders for xylitol > > And now for my commentary. I feel many people need to reset their taste > buds for a lower sweetness in general. I get this inkling that many > folks get the idea that the natural sweeteners - since they are natural > - are somehow health-promoting and okay to consume at whim. Not so. > Often they displace nutrients and should be used sparingly as a treat > for many or in more moderate amounts for others. Fruit is a good choice > for a sweet. You know it is natural - as it was made to be consumed. > > > > Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Mark- >Xylitol's claim of 'natural' seems to come from the fact that it is >found naturally occurring in fruits, berries etc. yet the crystalline >xylitol that is used is still a highly refined, chemically processed >product. > >It seems that, unless diabetic, that moderation with a minimally >processed natural sweetener would make more health sense than a >reduced caloric highly processed one. I doubt " minimally processed " makes much difference with sweeteners, except possibly with honey -- and even there I'm not convinced -- when part of an otherwise varied and complete diet. So, digestive issues aside, I'd guess xylitol would be an improvement over rapadura for most people. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Deanna- >It is not a recommended sweetener. You may want to read this >information for a complete understanding of the various sweeteners: > >http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/sugarfree_blues.html > >http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/9/killer_sugar_suicide%20_with_a_spoon_sugar_da\ ngers.htm The irony is that Mercola is now using it in his products. >And now for my commentary. I feel many people need to reset their taste >buds for a lower sweetness in general. I get this inkling that many >folks get the idea that the natural sweeteners - since they are natural >- are somehow health-promoting and okay to consume at whim. Not so. >Often they displace nutrients and should be used sparingly as a treat >for many or in more moderate amounts for others. I agree, at least relative to the SAD, which is absurdly sweet. And " natural sweeteners " have just about all the drawbacks of their " unnatural " refined cousins. Molasses and rapadura are practically the same as white sugar, nutritionally speaking. But I don't subscribe to the " natural = good; unnatural/refined = bad " mantra which seems to dominate some WAPF-type thinking. Hell, CLO is the ultimate refined food product, and butter isn't far behind, and yet both are widely respected in these circles. And I have little objection to saccharin, for example, despite its artificiality. >Fruit is a good choice >for a sweet. You know it is natural - as it was made to be consumed. Not so good, really. Fruits have been grossly altered from their natural forms to contain vast boatloads of sugar, and fructose in particular is not a good sugar to consume for a whole raft of reasons. Some fruits are certainly more equal than others, though, such as berries. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Mark- >I was with you until you considered butter refined!? Maybe we are just >quibbling about definitions here and for precision we need better >terms for describing these processes. Of course butter is refined! Its origin is milk. So first you let the milk sit awhile, then you skim off the cream, and then you run it through machinery to break down the fat globule structure and remove most of the remaining water and concentrate the fat into a solid block! If that's not " refined " I don't know what is! > " processed " could cover a wide variety of processing some very simple >and retaining healthful benefits to destructive and health >threatening. > >Certainly mechanical extraction is used for a variety of products >including rapadura sugar, and I would argue butter would fall under >this category. > >Heat processing would sometimes be good, other times be bad. Where it >destroys enzymes and breaks-down proteins, bad such as pasteurizing >milk. However there is also good heat processing, maple syrup for >example. I think all of these -- refining, processing, heating, cooking, you name it -- are sometimes good, sometimes bad. It's a mistake to insist on a manichaean classification. >Chemical extraction and synthesis is probably what concerns me the >most, corn syrup, xylitol, artificial sweeteners, white cane sugar, >etc. Why not evaluate the product on its own merits rather than by some sort of rule of thumb based on its production processes? And while rapadura is assuredly an improvement over white cane sugar, I seriously doubt that proper animal experimentation would demonstrate that it makes that big of a difference. Sugar is sugar. To get back to xylitol, it's bad because it's metabolically available and because it causes digestive problems. Digestive problems aside it's probably an improvement on white sugar, but that's not saying all that much, and like I said, it causes digestive problems. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.