I go through a lot of chewing gum with xylitol.

Xylitol is usually such a small amount that it doesn't have that effect although some people are more sensitive.

Or basically I’m hoping someone can tell me whether the paper is trustworthy or not so I can continue taking mints in peace.

It was also shown to enhance clotting at the levels detected in fasting plasma (in 10 people) which provides a potential mechanism to explain the effects observed in the larger group.

As for how legit it is... The number of people is significant. My only complaint is they didn't measure xylitol directly, rather they tested for polyol or something.

> Subsequent stable isotope dilution LC-MS/MS analyses (validation cohort) specific for xylitol (and not its structural isomers) confirmed its association with incident MACE

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/paws-xylitol-...

It's commonly known that chocolate and onions are bad for dogs but this stuff is on another league.

My daughter is allergic to peanuts. A few tablespoons could kill her. Would it be reasonable for us to expect that no peanut butter is made? No. We simply don't buy it.

All that is needed is the regulatory requirement to list it in the ingredients.

Of course sugar has its own issues as well.

These days I use very little additional sweetening in any of my food. It's hard to avoid though, it's added to a lot of foods (check ingredients) and even fruit such as apples and oranges has been bred to be sweeter than it naturally was 100 years ago.

Biggest difference-maker for most people is probably sweetened drinks. Avoid soft drinks (diet or regular), sweetened tea or coffee, sports drinks, and most packaged juices.

I assume you mean non-caloric sweeteners, since all sweeteners are chemicals including table sugar (sucrose).

While suspected, few have any proven negative impacts. AceK and aspartame are probably the most well studied and the evidence is equivocal. It's probably in the end net neutral.

Some even have benefits, including most sugar alcohols being good for oral health. Erythritol has antioxidant effects in animal models as well.

Xylitol may exist in nature and be produced by our bodies, but per this article foods with it added contain 1000x the amount we would ordinarily produce.

Perhaps a better rule of thumb would be "for a given chemical, keep your exposure/consumption within an order of magnitude of what would have been typical for a human pre-1850".

I suggest to you that is not reasonable.

"For a given chemical, avoid doses known to have a high probability of harm" is, I think, what you actually want. Then we can talk about known vs suspected and what qualifies as high probability -- impact on years of life expectancy is probably a good initial measure.

There is no Golden Age in the past. There may be a Golden Age in the future, but it's not at all certain.

From the standpoint of the diet that human evolution is adapted to, you have to look back to hunter/gatherer diets. Meat, fruits and vegetables, and frequent periods of near-starvation. I've sometimes wondered what a diet of one or two big meals of meat per week, with the occasional handful of nuts and berries on other days would be like.

Assuming your general health and all, if you were careful in your nutrient profile, there's no reason you couldn't try it for, say, a week and and see how you felt.

> "For a given chemical, avoid doses known to have a high probability of harm"

is exactly what I do not want. I don't want to assume everything is safe until it's shown otherwise, after I've eaten it for a decade.

I want to assume things are poison, unless they are shown to be safe. Things eaten in quantity in 1849 generally meet that criteria, minus a few things we now know to be more dangerous than thought back then.

When introducing some new compound meant to replace something in the diet like sugar, it seems much more reasonable to assume that its use may have side effects, until satisfactorily proven otherwise.

also:

> Xylitol is a sugar alcohol that is found in small amounts in fruit and vegetables, and the human body also produces it.

If it didn't occur in nature where evolution honed both its existence and human's tolerance to it, then don't consume/use it.

After so many years, I simply can't count how many times "science" has brought us some new food, ingredient, or chemical, which passed all security measures, only to find later it causes or contributes noticeably to some horrible outcome. And I'm perfectly fine not attributing malice. My experience tells me we're quite good at doing the wrong thing while thinking we're doing the right thing. Although, given the current economic climate, malice is probably just as valid.

https://foodinsight.org/what-is-xylitol/#:~:text=Xylitol%20i....

> Xylitol occurs naturally in small amounts in plums, strawberries, cauliflower, and pumpkin; humans and many other animals make trace amounts during metabolism of carbohydrates.

It reminded me a couple of days ago of that scene from the Princess Bride: https://x.com/jqgatsby/status/1798395071353717183?t=0CZzGU7_...

Page 347 in: http://www.chemistry-chemists.com/chemister/Pishevye/sweeten...

This ingredient occurs in nature frequently. Why shouldnt it be used?

Chemically, it makes sense, but I doubt my mouth loves being exposed to a salt bath either.

If not having an active infection, it needs to be done only at night before bed. It is not a big deal if you don't eat or drink anything after it. Do not swallow it while you rinse it. The moment you drink something after it, that's when it becomes horrible.

If having an infection, it is better to do it at least three times a day while you're waiting for professional treatment, e.g. antibiotics and/or a root canal.

Besides the ear, it can also cause a headache, plus sharp pain in the back of the head, so it's good that you are keeping it in control.

Xylitol! Who TF wants that up their nose?

YMMV.