Jump to content

Talk:Maltodextrin

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by 75.83.196.223 (talk) at 19:36, 28 February 2024 (→Critiques and revisions: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Calorific value?

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Digestion

[edit]

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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

[edit]

(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]

Yet another reference

[edit]

https://www.acs.org/molecule-of-the-week/archive/m/maltodextrin.html

It is not clear why a calorie-rich chemical is an additive in a sugar substitute unless...75.83.196.223 (talk) 75.83.196.223 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid example

[edit]

A low calorie granulated sugar substitute contains maltodextrin and sucralose as the only ingredients. Given the intense sweetness of sucralose it must be nearly pure maltodextrin. The nutrition label claims no calories and no dietary fiber. Digestible maltodextrin is dense in calories. Digestion-resistant maltodextrin is a dietary fiber. The maltodextrin ingredient is neither? 75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor warning label

[edit]

This page justifies a warning label addressed to future editors. The topic is important because maltodextrin is an increasingly common food additive. The topic is difficult because references are few. Maltodextrins are typically not discussed in chemical texts. Very few references acknowledge that "maltodextrin" refers to two different chemical families with different nutritional characteristics. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques and revisions

[edit]

Article sections: 0: Overall commentary and opinion; 1: Lede; 2: Definition; 3: History; 4: Manufacturing; 5: Food uses; 6: Health research; 7: Other uses

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]
I suggest that smokefoot consider FDA-2016-N-3389-0439_attachment_1. A lot of chem info there. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0: Overall commentary and opinion; 1: Lede; 2: Definition; 3: History; 4: Manufacturing; 5: Food uses; 6: Health research; 7: Other uses75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0: We probably should adopt consistent terminology for the page. Digestion-resistant, resistant and digestible are clear. What is the meaning of maltodextrin without modifiers?
The first line of Hofman says, "Digestible maltodextrins are low-sweet saccharide polymers consisting of D-glucose units linked primarily linearly with alpha-1,4 bonds, but can also have a branched structure through alpha-1,6 bonds." The branched structure conflicts with our PubChem (FDA) definition which does not include alpha-1,6 bonds.
Zhang's study is of maltodextrin structures that are neither digestible (by our definition) nor DRM. He studies highly branched, but not resistant molecular structures. It is basic chemical research. My claim that classic maltodextrins are adequately understood is an exaggeration - they may not even be adequately defined.75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: The Lede is not well-supported by citations. PubChem makes no distinction between types of maltodextrins, so it is awkward justify it as a source for either. I won't complain much about using it as a source for DM.
"...non-fermentable or fermentable dietary fiber, respectively." I doubt both sources. PubChem makes no distinction between types of maltodextrin. It may define the terms, but I do not see the definition. The FDA Q&A document doesn't use the terms.
"...worldwide for use in foods as a fiber additive." PubChem doesn't make the distinction, so it is unlikely to talk about the DRM industry.
(Observation: Finding a good reference for the lede is difficult.) 75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2: "...low viscosity and high water solubility." But Li notes that the solubility depends on the manufacturing method. "In contrast, RD prepared by the simultaneous debranching and crystallization method has low solubility and high crystallinity."
Li reports that DRM production results in a mixture of chemicals that requires purification. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3: Englyst may have participated in the history, but is an unlikely source for summarizing events of the decade given the publication date. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4: Three paragraphs describing the process probably should be merged by a chemist.
"As of 2022, method innovations,..." "Numerous industrial brands of digestion-resistant maltodextrin exist." Both claims are about the resistant starch industry in general (RS4 being mentioned) rather than the DRM industry in particular.
Bojarczuk says little about maltodextrin or RS5. Li mentions microwaves. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6: "Reviews have concluded that digestion-resistant maltodextrin is classified as a type 5 resistant starch (RS5)...". Authors are redefining RS5 without citing an authority. Earlier documents labeled DRM as RS3 and RS4. Is there a defining document? 75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0-1, 3: For an article with potentially confusing terms to the non-science user, we should strive to make this ultraclear, and use select general refs (although not essential) per WP:CITELEAD. The Introductions in Hofman, Bojarczuk and Birt cover history well.
4-5. Birt seems the best source for RS background, including its older citations from the 1990s-early 2000s.
Several good points. Please WP:FIXIT and edit. Zefr (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Birt says nothing about maltodextrin. His RSV definition does not include maltodextrin as a possibility. One of the two components of starch is resistant (particularly in the presence of fat?). Its chemical structure it linear - just like our digestible maltodextrin. The same structure is digestible or resistant depending on chain length. Long chains sometimes coil (helix) which affects resistance. A fix will not be easy. The definition of RS has changed and I don't know why. A RS is not required to be a starch. Mess. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bojarczuk includes DRM in the definition of RS5 and says a few words about it. Somehow the history of RS then becomes the history of DRM and the benefits of RS become the benefits of DRM. I am not buying. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hofman says almost nothing about DRM, focusing on DM. In summary the three good historical references contain little relevant history of DRM. There is information in Hofman to compose some history of DM based on publication dates. I will give it a look. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may never get a good lede reference. DM is defined chemically. DRM is defined nutritionally. Chem texts may never mention DRM as a result. Med studies are likely to focus on one or the other. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3: I addressed history - giving a little support to resistant starch - an idea that I resist. 159.83.248.40 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: I tried to include some market size information. A futures market site is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Such sites do know about DRM and about food starch sources, global distribution, leading companies... Maybe someone less naive about such sites could get reliable citations. 159.83.248.40 (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked several dozen sites reporting on market size, but they are all selling expensive research services, WP:PROMO, so are not independent WP:RS reviews. Neither Google Scholar nor PubMed offers an objective academic report. Zefr (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could cite our #1 reference -
"Aggregated Product Volume
2018: 48 lb
2017: 70,553 lb", but I don't trust those numbers. The same source lists a few other applications - but I don't much care. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6: The summary of the EFSA report is wrong. The report denied evidence of digestive health. 159.83.248.44 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also specifies that the evaluated ingredient was RS2, i.e., not the subject of this article, so needs to be changed. This 2014 EFSA followup review is about a commercial "resistant dextrin" having a cause-and-effect relationship on reducing post-meal glucose levels. As this is applicable to the DRM discussion, I am going to revise the EFSA sentence using the 2014 source.
Following your review, we can consider whether or not to keep this information. Zefr (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: non-fermentable: (Morowitz MJ, Di Caro V, Pang D, Cummings J, Firek B, Rogers MB, Ranganathan S, Clark RSB, Aneja RK. Dietary Supplementation With Nonfermentable Fiber Alters the Gut Microbiota and Confers Protection in Murine Models of Sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2017 May;45(5):e516-e523. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002291. PMID: 28252538; PMCID: PMC5392159.) thinks that wood fiber is non-fermentable. DM has no opportunity to ferment. 159.83.248.40 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: The lede has been greatly modified.75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4: The paragraphs have been merged. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0: I continue to question the importance of DRM as a RS. RS5 seems to be another name for misc. The logic that DRM is DS5 & therefore good is flawed. A penguin is a flightless bird. A flightless bird is a bird. Lots of experience showing chickens (birds) to be tasty does not show that penguins are tasty. The only real evidence of beneficial effects of DRM is research using DRM. Some of our citations are bulking agents. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Table 1 of Bojarczuk specifically mentions DRM as a Type 5 RS and the "occurrence" description fits. The Dec 2021 version of the FDA guideline mentions 'resistant maltodextrin/dextrin' as a dietary fiber. These are sourced in the article.
Do you feel the definition of RS 4 (Bojarczuk) warrants being included as DRM? Zefr (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0: "01 Apr 2019 --- Resistant Starch 4 (RS4) is the latest ingredient to be added to the list of approved fibers from The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the new Nutrition Facts labeling regulations, which are set to begin in January 2020." Too bad that DRM is not RS4. DRM has more FDA approval than RS5 does, so why quote RS5? 75.83.196.223 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2019 FDA statement does not mention DRM as Type 4 RS. Also not here. Zefr (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0: I find "maltodextrin" to be messy subject due to inconsistent terminology. Thus sensitized I confront "Resistant starch". Does it have a stable, well defined meaning? Maybe not. Some definitions require a RS to be a starch or the result of starch digestion. Others accept almost any chemical modification of a starch. Some definitions are defined by the status of the stuff leaving the upper digestive tract, others require fermentability. Then there are types. Resistant starch defines RS5 like a publication from 2013 (and says good things about RS1, RS2 & RS3). Bojarczuk adds DRM to the definition of RS5 (with citations for justification). Is there an official definition or is it simply author opinion?
Perhaps the RS definition needs to change, but RS and DRM are terms or products that have been around awhile. A paper reported on the dietary effects of DRM (under another name) more than 30 years ago: Satouchi, M., Wakabayashi, S., Ohkuma, K., Fujiwara, K., Matsuoka, A. (1993). Effects of indigestible dextrin on bowel movements. Japanese Journal of Nutrition 51, 31–37.
A book entitled "Resistant Starch" was published in 2013.(Shi, ISBN 978-0-8138-0951-9) Chapter 3 describes DRM as pyrodextrinized RS4 starches. Chapter 4 describes RS5, which does not include DRM. Chapter 5 indicates that a RS3 can be produced from a maltodextrin. It says that a molecule can be termed a RS OR a DRM based on molecular size. Chapter 15 does not recognize RS5 as a type. It says a DRM is of Type 2.
I would prefer that this page avoid the minefield. DM vs DRM is messy enough. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the RS5 designation say more or less than the FDA definition and regulations? The FDA synonyms for DRM include dextrins but say nothing about starches, resistant or otherwise. Also note that the FDA does not include "maltodextrin" without modifiers as a synonym for DRM. A manufacturer says otherwise. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS and dietary fibers seem to be competing concepts. The FDA may not care whether a chemical is derived from a starch. It should care about the medical consequences of ingestion. The RS designation may mean something, but that something may not be recognized by the FDA. The FDA decides DRM claims case-by-case rather than by category (in my opinion). That matches Li's caution more than Bojarczuk's generalizations. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0: DRMs are not "defined as nutritional food additives" by the FDA. Caution in wording is advised. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2: "The average molecular mass of the digestion-resistant maltodextrin molecule is 2,000 daltons." The whole paragraph refers to one product than than to all DRMs. Clarify. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5: A possibly better reference for glycemic index is //www.va.gov/WHOLEHEALTHLIBRARY/docs/Understanding-Sweeteners-508.pdf 75.83.196.223 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6: The FDA publications are not regulations. The FDA continues to treat DRMs cautiously - case by case. They are safe, but health claims need proof (right?). That stance is more conservative than this page. I recommend cautious wording here. I don't know what health claims can be made on labels of products containing DRMs. We don't mention improved mineral absorption or cancer cures/prevention... which is good. I think that the FDA controls claims regarding dietary fiber & that the fiber defines the benefits. (My synthesis and I don't own a stethoscope.) 75.83.196.223 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 Federal Register document states the key words "each of these isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates has a physiological effect that is beneficial to human health", which manufacturers meeting the content requirements could use on a package label. I feel the current wording in the article for the FDA guidance is adequate, as now 6 years have passed with no updates. Zefr (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0: My review is done. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2: Concerning this revert and removal of this ref, the context is about possible health effects, which by WP:MEDASSESS, require a review, clinical guideline or regulatory statement. The research about possible inflammatory effects of DM in the bowel remains preliminary. The leading edge for such determinations is a national regulatory authority like the FDA which monitors the state of science for food safety issues. There are no published concerns to date. Zefr (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maltodextrin&oldid=1210873597"