:Talk:Maltodextrin

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)

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)

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)

: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)

::Partly done at Food and Drink yesterday. Will try other chemistry editors (Smokefoot, DMacks already contacted) and the Chemicals project discussion page. {{u|Psychologist Guy}} has an interest in this area, with thanks for a critical review. Zefr (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

::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)

: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)

::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)

::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)

:::: 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)

::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)

::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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

::::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)

::::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)

::::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)

::::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

:::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)

::::It also specifies that the evaluated ingredient was RS2, i.e., not the subject of this article, so needs to be changed. [https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3839 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)

::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)

::1: The lede has been greatly modified.75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

::4: The paragraphs have been merged. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

::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)

:::[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756464622001645 Table 1 of Bojarczuk] specifically mentions DRM as a Type 5 RS and the "occurrence" description fits. [https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/questions-and-answers-dietary-fiber#synthetic_fibers 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)

::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)

:::[https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-grants-citizen-petition-cross-linked-phosphorylated-rs4-dietary-fiber The 2019 FDA statement] does not mention DRM as Type 4 RS. [https://www.nutritioninsight.com/news/resistant-starch-4-greenlighted-as-us-fda-expands-dietary-fiber-classification.html Also not here.] Zefr (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

::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)

:::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)

:::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)

::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)

::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)

::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)

: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)

::[https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/15/2018-12867/the-declaration-of-certain-isolated-or-synthetic-non-digestible-carbohydrates-as-dietary-fiber-on 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)

:0: My review is done. 75.83.196.223 (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

2: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maltodextrin&diff=prev&oldid=1210054603 Concerning this revert] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maltodextrin&diff=next&oldid=1210054603 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)

The article talks about a chemical family with a precise structural formula shown in the upper right box. If it's two families, find the structural formula for the other family and create a second article. Typically wikipedia doesn't merge articles based on identical names, but keeps them separate and uses a disambiguation page to direct the reader. That some elements of this family are digestible and some aren't is not nearly enough to consider them two chemical families. If one is branched and the other is not, even that may not be sufficient to define a new family (e.g. branched amino acids are a still amino acids). I am not a chemist, but the structural formula shown looks linear to me. I understand people are concerned about the different nutritional properties and how to best communicate those, but one can't invent a chemical family out of that concern. A1957 (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:In the carbohydrate and ingredient literature, and in public media, there is confusion in use of the terms - the motivation for discussing both compounds in one article. See the extensive seeking and discussion for clarity above.

:Could you browse the main refs 8-11 differentiating the two, and propose what to do with this article? Thanks. Zefr (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)