Jump to content

Talk:Maltodextrin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 159.83.248.48 (talk) at 00:04, 15 February 2024 (→Food energy of digestion-resistant maltodextrin: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Calorific value?

Nowhere in this article or comments above do I see any mention of calorific value in foods. For all the scientific jargon, which a lay person would not understand, how about the value in calories or kilojoules? Ptilinopus (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maltodextrin has a food energy value of 4 calories per gram (or 16 kiloJoules per gram). Ref. Zefr (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: does maltodextrin ever contain or produce processed free glutamic acid? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resistant maltodextrin

What is resistant maltodextrin? 176.5.150.126 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a term which no longer appears in the article. ;-) 92.25.15.35 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is unfortunate. Some products labels mentioning "maltodextrin" actually contain digestion-resistant maltodextrin which has few calories. This is of great concern to diabetics. 2603:8001:1E45:C981:9062:86B3:CD69:25D6 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is reasonable, the subject is a mess. Maltodextrin is the title of two very different chemical families. One, described here, is calorie rich. The other is the primary ingredient of some "zero-calorie" sugar substitutes. A separate page about digestion-resistant maltodextrin seems the best solution.159.83.248.48 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt at an edit was reverted based on WP:MEDRS. The reference I cited is a review - a secondary source. The other complaint is that the material doesn't belong in the lede. I await a constructive suggestion. The fact that a "maltodextrin" is not necessarily a maltodextrin should be mentioned early on the page.2603:8001:1E45:C981:596D:B705:231D:9FF7 (talk) comment added 28 January 2024 (UTC)
There should be a separate discussion of resistant maltodextrin in the article. I added this paragraph to the lede, and will expand the discussion shortly. There are no WP:MEDRS-quality reviews on the subject, owing to the absence of rigorous clinical trials, but rather reviews only of preliminary research. Consequently, decisive evidence for benefits in managing metabolic disorders is not present in the literature. Zefr (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits meet my requirements. Thank you. 2603:8001:1E45:C981:B958:432F:A256:2C87 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate reference

A reference by Hofman is cited in two styles. 2603:8001:1E45:C981:B958:432F:A256:2C87 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Zefr (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revised version

This version of the article divides the two common forms of maltodextrin (digestible vs. non-digestible or resistant) for each of the categories. The format of presenting the two forms may be overly pedantic, and is open for discussion and revision.

There is a sizeable literature on maltodextrin, indicating more depth could be added, whereas the resistant maltodextrin literature is relatively much less with only a few reviews.

Requesting Smokefoot for a review of the chemistry content, with thanks. Zefr (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a lengthy set of observations and suggestions. I am happy with the organization, but urge clarity for those without a degree in chem for pragmatic health reasons.2603:8001:1E45:C981:DB3D:F93A:167B:AED0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of confusion: Maltodextrin is on Wikipedia's list of food additives as a carbohydrate sweetener. DRM is a bulking agent, not a sweetener. I believe it to be a digestion resistant carb. I recently purchased a "zero calorie" artificial sweetener, a mix of maltodextrin and stevia. I suspect that the maltodextrin is a DRM, but the evidence is inconsistent. WebMD describes Maltodextrin as both good and bad for digestive health (because it does not distinguish between DM & DRM). None of this belongs on the page, but it does justify clarity. :-)2603:8001:1E45:C981:DB3D:F93A:167B:AED0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to dig into this theme soon, focusing on locating reviews that might illuminate the two kinds of maltodextrin, if that is what is going on. Presently, I am occupied with other projects for a few days.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to start with the article by William Joseph Whelan who was a senior biochemist with dated expertise in maltodextrins. My summary: a "maltodextrin" may not be a maltodextrin. 2603:8001:1E45:C981:5CF6:415E:2083:B927 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.2603:8001:1E45:C981:5CF6:415E:2083:B927 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is encyclopedic to include a general opinion about confusion (a subjective term) as part of the lede, although it is true and potentially confusing for definitions to include different maltodextrins as "slowly digestible starch (SDS), rapidly digestible starch (RDS), or resistant starch (RS)", with five resistant starch designations. Zefr (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) Add new history section: Both forms of maltodextrin are manufactured. DM was developed in the mid 20th century. DRM was developed at the end of that century, so DRM has been termed a novel (new) chemical. Older documents always refer to DM when saying maltodextrin without adjectives. References: Buck, Whelan, BeMillar ("One Hundred Year..."), Bakerpedia.com/ingredients/maltodextrins.159.83.248.44 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 2603:8001:1E45:C981:394F:5260:246C:9326 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the digestion-resistant variant was discovered as a residue of chem lab digestion of the digestible product. The name was logical at the time, but is a major source of confusion with two different maltodextrins in food additives. 2603:8001:1E45:C981:5CF6:415E:2083:B927 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4) Add a legal or regulation section: Governments regulate food additives for reasons of public health. DM: Because DM is well defined chemically, the regulation of DM has had few complications. DRM: The regulation of DRMs has been complicated by the relatively weak definition of the product, the lack of standardization in manufacturing and by the evolving understanding of dietary fibers. As a consequence the FDA treats DRMs as a special case among dietary fibers. Existing statements regarding regulations can go here with their references.159.83.248.44 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6) Add to food uses of DRM: DRM has the characteristics necessary to a food additive. It is nontoxic, chemically stable and nonreactive with other food ingredients over the range of temperatures required for food preparation and storage. It is also relatively colorless, odorless and tasteless. It has little perceptible texture compared with other dietary fibers. (Reference? Li says some of this, but the information is distributed.) DRMs are used in beverages, dairy products and desserts. (Li.)159.83.248.44 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 2603:8001:1E45:C981:5CF6:415E:2083:B927 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7) Add to Health Research, DRM: Numerous studies have been conducted to demonstrate the safety and health benefits of individual DRMs. The studies have produced fairly consistent and encouraging results, but inconsistencies have been noted. In the view of Li it is now economically impractical to conduct rigorous repeatable scientific general DRM studies of medical quality. Manufacturing is not standardized and does not produce products of medical purity. (Li, page 10)159.83.248.44 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Two recent references. 2603:8001:1E45:C981:5CF6:415E:2083:B927 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8) Another reference of interest: Ohkuma,K., & Wakabayashi,S. (2008). Fibersol-2: A Soluable, Non-Digestible, Starch-Derived Dietary Fibre. I believe Fibersol-2 to be a DRM. The reference contains a diagram of the molecular structure.159.83.248.44 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numbering the above points to allow specific discussion for each topic, as needed. All have been revised in part in recent days. Remember to add 4 tildes at the end of a talk page comment to sign and date it, or use the reply function, which completes it automatically.
For 8), there are sources, including an EFSA review of a commercial resistant starch, but each discussion includes a trade name (e.g., Fibersol) which does not have a Wikipedia article and introduces potential competitive advertising, which we should avoid. Zefr (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are simply choosing between 2 evils. I cite a specific case (a brand). You cite an over-generality (resistant starches). Neither proves much about digestion-resistant maltodextrins in general.159.83.248.46 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind this 2014 EFSA review of Nutriose, but it adds little to the 2011 EFSA opinion already included and would not expand the article usefully.
Your proposed Ohkuma source on Fibersol-2 is from 2000.
This 2022 review discusses intake levels both for Nutriose and Fibersol-2 as commercial digestion-resistant maltodextrins, but there are evident side effect differences (e.g., flatulence) and variability for recommended intakes across commercial products. Tailoring this report for the general encyclopedia user would introduce comparisons among many ingredient products and give no significant advantages for the article. If you have a different review, please present it. Zefr (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another source of a structural diagram is: Arilla E, Igual M, Martínez-Monzó J, Codoñer-Franch P, García-Segovia P. Impact of Resistant Maltodextrin Addition on the Physico-Chemical Properties in Pasteurised Orange Juice. Foods. 2020; 9(12):1832. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods91218322603:8001:1E45:C981:B115:CE85:4B2D:4428 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IMG, we can only use diagrams or structure images that are not copyright-protected and are approved on Wikimedia Commons. I have looked - there is nothing useful there. Zefr (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding food usage (item 5), sources differ about baking. Resistant starches are bad, but resistant dextrins/maltodextrins make high quality bread. (Li) Conclusion?2603:8001:1E45:C981:8132:1085:F89C:EABA (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that reputable scientific journals that just mention food applications of a chemical family are not the best sources. I have read a bit about cooking with an artificial sweetener. The subject is complex because sugar has a variety of characteristics beyond sweetness. Adding maltodextrin as a bulking agent may have little effect. Subtracting sugar may have a big effect. My personal experience with a cookie recipe is that replacing sugar with an artificial sweetener whose first ingredient is maltodextrin greatly changed the texture. "Original research" for sure.  :-) So should we extend our references to cookbooks?2603:8001:1E45:C981:40F5:56E0:67:A598 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this and other threads, you are making good points of possible value to the article, but the supporting sources should be reputable reviews or government publications per WP:MEDSCI. WP:BOLD - you should go ahead with editing and a good source, which others can check and revise, if needed. The starch/fiber literature is not easy to "digest", but we should try to make it easy to understand for the general, non-science reader.
Unfortunately, there are only a few editors actively reviewing this article, leaving article construction to a select few at present. Do you feel that a request for review at WP:FOOD would be helpful? Zefr (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I wandered away from the definition section which needs work before smokefoot reviews. The page is of limited chemical interest, but of growing possible consequence.159.83.248.44 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)159.83.248.44 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at: https://www.splenda.com/faqs/why-are-the-ingredients-maltodextrin-and-or-dextrose-in-splenda-original-sucralose-packets-and-granulated-products/. Splenda is a well-known brand of artificial sweeteners which contain "maltodextrin" (without qualifiers). Which maltodextrin? Thus consumer confusion. See Splenda. 2603:8001:1E45:C981:40F5:56E0:67:A598 (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The chemical description applies only to digestible maltodextrin. I doubt that the digestion resistant version has a detailed chemical description. 159.83.248.47 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bojarczuk

Bojarczuk is overcited. The paper is about resistant starches generally. Digestion-resistant maltodextrins are mentioned as a resistant starch of type 5. The paper and its references say little specifically about type 5 starches or digestion-resistant maltodextrins. It is difficult to say which generalizations apply to our topic. We can assume that every characteristic of resistant starches applies to digestion-resistant maltodextrins, but the paper does not say that.

What Bojarczuk does say in defining RS5 is, "... forming a helical structure that is difficult to digest and intentional rearrangement of starch molecules – resistant maltodextrin". My interpretation of that statement is that RS5 includes 2 types of structures, NOT that resistant maltodextrin is helical.2603:8001:1E45:C981:B115:CE85:4B2D:4428 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birt has the same problem. There is little mention of maltodextrin.2603:8001:1E45:C981:5CC7:9E26:9ABD:5A15 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang

Another reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116729 (Zhang) which introduces the term branched maltodextrin. Smokefoot might be interested. I think that it deserves citation because it has an explanation of sorts for digestion resistance. "The rate of digestion has been shown to be a function of the maltodextrin structure." This page says little about the structure of digestion-resistant maltdextrins. At the moment I regard maltodextrins as a continuum. The distinction between types arises from an emphasis on the extremes.2603:8001:1E45:C981:B115:CE85:4B2D:4428 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another such reference: Lee BH, Yan L, Phillips RJ, Reuhs BL, Jones K, Rose DR, Nichols BL, Quezada-Calvillo R, Yoo SH, Hamaker BR. Enzyme-synthesized highly branched maltodextrins have slow glucose generation at the mucosal α-glucosidase level and are slowly digestible in vivo. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e59745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059745. Epub 2013 Apr 2. PMID: 23565164; PMCID: PMC3615069.2603:8001:1E45:C981:B115:CE85:4B2D:4428 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More FDA

A FDA publication, "Review of the Scientific Evidence on the Physiological Effects of Certain Non-Digestible Carbohydrates" said (page 49) "Common names used to identify resistant maltodextrin as an ingredient include soluble corn fiber, resistant dextrin, resistant wheat dextrin, soluble wheat fiber, and wheat dextrin." It also accepted the evidence that resistant maltodextrin was beneficial for calcium absorption or retention.2603:8001:1E45:C981:B115:CE85:4B2D:4428 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspartame

A specific application is Aspartame. "The stability of aspartame under heating can be improved to some extent by encasing it in fats or in maltodextrin." Which kind?2603:8001:1E45:C981:B115:CE85:4B2D:4428 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resistant starch defines RS5. The definition does not include maltodextrins as a possibility.2603:8001:1E45:C981:B115:CE85:4B2D:4428 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dextrin mentions maltodextrins as a type, but mentions only the characteristics of the digestible variant. That page doesn't mention "resistant". An FDA publication claims that resistant dextrin can mean resistant maltodextrin. Chen contrasts resistant dextrins and resistant maltodextrins. He also mentions pyrodextrins as part of manufacturing.2603:8001:1E45:C981:B115:CE85:4B2D:4428 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another recent reference places maltodextrins among dextrins rather than among starches:
Published online 2021 Oct 26. doi: 10.3390/nu13113808
PMCID: PMC8621223
PMID: 34836063
"Efficiency of Resistant Starch and Dextrins as Prebiotics: A Review of the Existing Evidence and Clinical Trials"
Simply defining digestion-resistant maltodextrins and listing alternative terms will be a chore.2603:8001:1E45:C981:B115:CE85:4B2D:4428 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another revised version

Recent edits should be scrubbed. The result reviewed in detail for duplication and the validity of references, etc with collected (and numbered) comments here. Edits can address the review. Then feet should be smoked. Maybe foodies can review. 159.83.248.44 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection the page needs the help of chemists and dietitians. Now is good.2603:8001:1E45:C981:590D:7082:BA98:6D5E (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done at Food and Drink yesterday. Will try other chemistry editors (Smokefoot, DMacks already contacted) and the Chemicals project discussion page. Psychologist Guy has an interest in this area, with thanks for a critical review. Zefr (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digestion

Digestible and digestion-resistant are design choices. Both result from chemical manufacturing that models the human digestive system. Digestible arrives at the stomach already treated with acids and enzymes that make absorption fast. Digestion-resistant results from further modeling the human digestive system. Digestion-resistant arrives at the stomach with the digestible components already chemically removed. DM and DRM are thus ideally disjoint sets of chemicals united by a shared history.

My interpretation of Buck on history: digestion-resistant maltodextrins were discovered as an impurity of maltodextrins.2603:8001:1E45:C981:79C:5AF4:558F:CD98 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplements

Reputable journals and medical advisors are weak on the differences between DM & DRM. Supplement sellers are much clearer. See PrimaForce and SelfDecode.2603:8001:1E45:C981:79C:5AF4:558F:CD98 (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maltodextrin in a battery?

See Sugar battery. 159.83.248.48 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)159.83.248.48 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Food energy of digestion-resistant maltodextrin

(Digestible) "Maltodextrins are digested into glucose units, contributing a food energy value of 4 calories per gram (or 16 kiloJoules per gram)." The DRM value is? Fiber has a cited range of 1.5-2, but I don't know how much of the energy reaches the body during/after fermentation. I suspect the subject is complex, depending on gut micro-organisms.159.83.248.48 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maltodextrin&oldid=1207495096"