Welcome to Straight Talk on Health. I’m your host Dr. Chet Zelasko. Straight Talk on Health is a joint production with WGVU in Grand Rapids MI. I examine the practical application of health information. Nutrition. Exercise. Diet. Supplementation. I look at the science behind them, and let you know whether it’s something to consider or not. You can check out other things that I do on my website Drchet.com and sign up for my free emails.
There’s seems to be a lot of attention on maltodextrin in the health chatter. Health chatter? What gurus and pseudo-experts are talking about. Just like with the recent track on seed oils, all of a sudden, maltodextrin is the next worst thing. In my experience, nothing is all good or all bad. It was chemist Paracelsus that provided us with the basic tenet of toxins: “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.” Let’s take a look at maltodextrin and decide what’s real and what’s imagined.
Let’s start with the logical question: exactly what is maltodextrin? Turns out that there are two forms of maltodextrin. One is known as maltodextrin (M) and the other is called resistant maltodextrin (RM). It threw me off on my initial research because one study talked about using maltodextrin to reduce blood sugar while another talked about maltodextrin increasing blood sugar. What’s the difference?
Resistant maltodextrin is the indigestible component of starch hydro-ly-sates. Okay, and then what? Using heat and enzymes, they are turned into indigestible dextrins that are also called resistant maltodextrins or digestion-resistant maltodextrin. Resistant to what? Digestive enzymes. RM is a fermentable dietary fiber currently being researched for its potential to lower the risk of hypoglycemia, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, a term that encompasses factors for hypertension, CVD, and T2D. When added to foods, they are a substitute for fats. While they are used in many types of processed food to enhance palatability and texture, they can potentially be classified as functional fibers when enough data on physiological benefits in humans are established.
The other maltodextrin is also used in many foods for some of the same reasons. The difference is that they are quickly broken down into simple sugar molecules specifically glucose. That’s why the alarm bells are being rung by experts who say to be careful of maltodextrin.
Based on reading the science in relation to what the gurus are saying, I think they are using the two forms interchangeably. It’s just my opinion but I don’t think they know there is a difference between the two. One IS sugar molecules like glucose in a long string while the other is a resistant starch that feeds probiotics like other forms of resistant starch.
Let’s go back to how each of these forms of maltodextrin are made. One way is in our gut. Yes, that’s correct. They are produced when we eat starchy foods. That’s why eating potatoes by the pound and pasta by the bowlful can raise blood sugar: they don’t stay starches very long. But that’s minor.
M and RM are produced from starches such as corn, wheat, and potatoes but can be made from almost any starch. The initial process is similar for both, using enzymes, acids, and microbes. In that there are so many ways of producing each, the only major difference seems to be heat. The result from one process is M which can be broken down quickly in the body and RM which is resistant to digestion and thus doesn’t count against calories from carbs. However, they do act as prebiotics for probiotics so that’s a plus.
I think there are two issues that are behind the concern about maltodextrin. The first is that M increases the Glycemic Index. The GI of maltodextrins is higher even than that of glucose coming in at 110. The RM comes in at a paltry 5 which means it won’t impact blood sugar at all. However, when it comes M, the GI is not the most important number; that would be the Glycemic Load (GL). The GL takes into consideration the entire meal as protein and fat as well as fiber can impact the way simple carbohydrates are absorbed. Still, in that many uses for M is in drinks, that may not be relevant.
The second issue may be the source of the M. The starches to make M generally come from potatoes, wheat, corn, rice, and cassava. That presents issues for people who are allergic to wheat and corn. The primary source for M in the US is corn while wheat is the primary source in Europe. Obviously, wheat is a problem for those who are allergic to wheat. Corn presents a different challenge for many people and that’s because almost all corn grown in the US is GMO or more typically now called bioengineered.
The issue with GMO or bioengineered foods is that the DNA of the plant is modified to make it resistant to some types of weed killers such as glyphosate. What I find interesting is that to date, no one has objected to the modification that increases resistance to insects that can decimate crops or that increase the beta carotene levels of rice. The same techniques are used to modify the DNA of the plant. It’s just faster than normal plant husbandry that has been used for centuries. On top of that, because of the normal digestive process, there is no evidence that GMO foods are hazardous to our health—at least so far. Still, I do think we would all like it better if we stopped messing around with DNA.
Is M safe to use in our food supply. Yes. Is RM also safe, and maybe even beneficial in our foods? Yes. But it all comes down to this: how much are you going to consume? If it is used as a stabilizer in complementary foods, it’s most likely RS and wouldn’t impact blood sugar in a negative way. But if it is M and you consume too much of it, it is going to potentially have a negative impact on a person’s health. As I said in the beginning, everything has the potential to be a toxin. The dose makes the difference. That leads to another saying that offers some sage advice: everything in moderation including moderation. And that’s the story of all forms of maltodextrin.
I have little time left over so I'd like to talk about food choices. I think one of the challenges that we all face is that the ultra-processed foods are designed to tempt our taste buds. But is the solution the absolute avoidance of every ultra processed food? You may be able to satisfy specific types of taste and sensations by changing the form of food. Let's take a look at potatoes. A potato is a healthy food as it is a good source with some phytonutrients and a little bit of protein if you eat them baked. They come in at roughly 25 calories per oz. That means if you had a half pound baked potato, that would only be 200 calories.
But that may not satisfy the salt or the crunchiness that you desire. What do you do? Well, if you cut that potato up and make French fries, you're roughly going to raise it to 100 calories per ounce and all of it from fat. However if you take that potato and cut it into slices and make potato chips? You come in at 140 calories per oz. But what if you like everything to look the same and go for potato crisps like Pringles. What you get with a regular potato chips is potatoes cooked in oil and salt. The crisps have 10 ingredients that are mashed together and extruded to make the crisps consistent. What is the point? There are degrees of eating healthy and yet satisfying your taste buds. Choose the best form for you and limit the amount, just like you should with maltodextrin. BTW, M is one of the ingredients in the crisps.
That’s it for this episode. Until next time, this is Dr. Chet Zelasko saying health is a choice. Choose wisely today and every day.
—-
Reference: National Institutes of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
