What is Maltodextrin?

Maltodextrin is an…easily digested carbohydrate made from corn starch. The starch is cooked, and then acid and/or enzymes (a process similar to that used by the body to digest carbohydrates) are used to break the starch into smaller chains (3-20 chains in maltodextrin). These chains are composed of several dextrose molecules held together by very weak hydrogen bonds.

To clarify, carbohydrates are molecules of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen produced by plants through photosynthesis. The term saccharide is a synonym for carbohydrate; a monosaccharide (mono=1) is the fundamental unit of carbohydrates. Disaccharides (Di=2) are molecules containing 2 monosaccharide units. Di and monosaccharides are also known as sugars, simple sugars, or simple carbohydrates.

Next are oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides. Oligosaccharides are made of 3-9 monosaccharide links. Polysaccharides consist of 10 to thousands of monosaccharide links. A complex carbohydrate refers to many monosaccharide units linked together. In addition, you will often hear the terms “long”, and “short” carbohydrate chains. Short carbohydrate chains are those under 10 sugar molecules. And long chains are those over 10 sugar molecules. Which fits in conjunction with the above terms, Oligosaccharides and Polysaccharides.

Dextrose is labeled a simple carbohydrate and maltodextrin complex. And now this should make perfect sense. But don’t be fooled by the word, “complex.” The bonds that compose maltodextrin are very weak, and readily broken apart in your stomach; moreover, the chain is extremely minimal in composition. The weak bonds, and fragile composition of maltodextrin cause it to be digested a fraction slower than dextrose.

I didn’t miss the irony of his insistence that refined carbohydrates are bad, yet here he was patting himself on the back for helping to create orange juice with the fiber added back? The very definition of a highly refined food - process the oranges into juice and then try to add back something lost? Good grief - refined carbohydrate is bad, but his creation of refined, processed orange juice is good because Tropicana put back some fiber?

And what “fiber” pray-tell? MALTODEXTRIN

Tropicana Pure Premium® Orange Juice with Fiber
Ingredients:
100% pure pasteurized orange juice and Fibersol - 2™ fiber (maltodextrin).*

*Ingredient not found in regular orange juice.
———————-

http://www.tropicana.com/TRP_ProductInformation/Detail.cfm?ProductID=113

———————-

8-ounce serving = 29g carbohydrate, 3g fiber, 26g net

26g carbohydrate = 6.5 teaspoons of sugar

——————–

Dr. Ornish made a point to say they added the fiber to equal an orange - and that’s true, a 131g orange (average fruit) has 3.1g of fiber.

But it also has just 62 calories (compared to 120 for the OJ) and 15.4 total carbohydrate…subtract the fiber and it’s 12.3g of carbohydrate - 53% less sugar than the juice…..or the equivalent of 3 teaspoons of sugar.

Does he really believe that the OJ is comparable to an actual orange because they’ve adding in a corn-derivative maltodextrin?

Has he read none of the research about maltodextrin and its glycemic index? And here he’s saying GI and GL are important and touting liquid calories, almost all from sugars that are simple sugars, with the added benefit of maltodextrin which is high on the GI?

@@

I noticed that, and unfortunately I doubt he will provide an answer because, as he himself noted, he does have conflicts of interest - tropicana, et al - that would not be in his best interest to come out and truthfully say that if and when any whole grain is processed for consumption it’s better to take a pass and not eat even though it is allowed to be called a whole grain.

Just look at oatmeal as an example - there are instant, quick cook, regular, rolled, steel cut, etc. available for purchase…..Quacker is out there touting how its instant oatmeal is a whole grain food! It’s highly refined and processed, so much so, it’s worthless nutritionally. Yet it’s a “whole grain” and advertised and promoted as such, so how is a consumer to know they’re better off with the slower cooking oats that are just steel cut - they’re both “whole grains” right?

As for the change in the reduction of refined carbs as Ornish now seems to advocate (although he puts them in Group 3 when combined with adequate fiber–WHAT?!), it does seem he has placated to the pressure that these culprit carbohydrates are a problem and now sees the benefit of reducing this kind of carb intake. But I could not get him to understand that even some so-called “whole grain” carbs can be a problem for people who are especially sensitive to them. And it’s a whole lot more people than he wants to admit in a podcast interview.

This question, in the end, leaves it difficult for even the most adept statistician to point to what change(s) mattered most - was it the diet? was it the activity level? was it the supplements? was it the reduction of stress? was it the weight loss? was it the support throughout? was it stopping smoking and drinking? was it a combination of some/all of the changes?

What is also lost is that ANY change to the standard American diet that increases vegetables & fruit consumption and concurrently decreases refined carbohydrate is found to have a benefit - even when dietary fat is not reduced, even when dietary fat is reduced, even when dietary fat is not modified except for source but consumption (total) remains steady - which again, is yet another confounding variable - the removal of simple, refined carbohydrates does lead to findings showing benefit to those making such a change.

While Dr. Ornish believes he’s conducted well-controlled randomized studies, he’s conducted research with multiple variables, all being modified in subjects’ habits and lives, thus they’re not “well” controlled studies to investigate one variable being changed, but truly studies about all changing these things at once, which absolutely cannot be teased out statistically one from the next.

On the other hand, I read Taubes’s book twice, and while I find his viewpoint on refined carbs totally convincing, his viewpoint on saturated fats was not convincing at all. I’m grateful to him, as I stopped eating flour and sugar because of his book, and as a result my blood sugar has dropped a lot. But I sure didn’t feel convinced that eating a lot of saturated fat is good for me in the long haul.

I suspect Taubes is right toward the end of the book where he says there’s never been a good test of the low carb diets vs. the good carb-low fat diets (with both diets avoiding flour and sugar) as far as long-term effects on health.

The point that Taubes makes, which is most damning, is that despite Ornish’s claims, his much vaunted studies are not “controlled” in any meaningful sense. They change multiple aspectes of a person’s lifestyle - they increase exercise, reduce complex carbs, reduce calories, and reduce fat. Though such an intervention might be effective, Ornish can’t scientifically make any claims as to which components are most effective, if any. And *most* importantly, he has no basis to claim that this is the only effective approach, or that other approaches are invalid.

Ornish’s poorly controlled studies prove one thing - that if you make all the changes Ornish suggests, you are likely to see the results that he’s documented. And that’s it. And I’d love to see him nailed to the wall on this point.

I have no doubt about what you’re saying. Also I don’t really care for anything Dean Ornish has to say, especially after that “debate” with Gary Taubes 6 years ago. His low-fat mantra is annoying. However, I don’t believe there are any such thing as “bad fruits and vegetables”, just ones with more and less sugar. Probably people should consume a variety of them in moderate amounts. Heck, I like bananas, but haven’t had one in months, not because I watching the sugar, but just wasn’t in the mood for it. Definitely people should eat more broccoli, and green leafy vegetables. And lots of meat.

It’s possible to eat thousands of calories more than a BMR calculation would indicate, and not gain an ounce. That’s essentially because insulin provides the only mechanism through which fat can be stored in the fat cells. This is not just seen in low carb regimens, but also in diseases such as celiac and various metabolic disturbances.

It’s also possible to eat less than a BMR calculation would indicate and not release body fat, even, in extreme cases, to the point of starving to death. Obesity, especially starting in middle age, routinely accompanies poverty and malnourishment. (And by malnourishment, I mean not enough food, not an excess of McDonalds.) Even with hard manual labor. (The typical pattern, worldwide, is emaciation in childhood, obesity later on.)

Dr. Ornish’s ignorance or ignoring of these medical facts is appalling. So many people believe these myths, the last thing we need is famous medical doctors perpetuating them.

Once excellent source for examples and specifics is Good Calories, Bad Calories, or any of his lectures that can be seen online.

And back to the interview - as being one of the few that has never heard of Dr Ornish before, I noticed quite strongly a lot of his answers begin with “again”. As if everyone has read his book and he’s just regurgitating it for the ‘lazy’ people out there. Well, that was my interpretation.

On the other hand, it is great to know that I can enjoy these great podcasts, listen to them when I walk, and then when I feel like reading, go to only one of the best DARNED SITES on the planet. Jimmy, I’m buying your book today.

Thanks Vesna for that link, I’ll watch it asap.

By the way, Dr. Ornish mentioned “debating” (it was more like scolding) Gary Taubes on the Charlie Rose show.

That was about six years ago! Gary Taubes has done mountains of research and analysis since then. Yet, when Jimmy asked him about his familiarity with Taubes’s latest work, Dr. Ornish was like, sure, we talked about it years ago (before it existed). Taubes has progressed; Ornish is in the same place.

He dismisses all the work of Gary Taubes, a multiple-award-winning science journalist, by insinuating that he’s just some hack with an axe to grind. He dismisses Taubes’s point about exercise — which is simply that scientific studies have not so far shown that it’s a universal weight loss aid — not by citing any evidence to the contrary, but by calling his point (which he gets wrong, of course) “just silly.”

He spouts the inane calories-in-calories-out dogma, which science has never been able to demonstrate. He even says that macronutrient composition has nothing to do with whether someone gains or loses weight — it’s just total calories and whether they’re more or less than they’re supposedly burning. He says that if someone eats too many fat calories, it doesn’t matter if they’re eating no carbs, they’ll gain fat anyway. Not true, and endocrinologically impossible! It’s been demonstrated to be untrue, as with Jeff and his Metabolic Advantage Experiment over at magicbus.myfreeforum.org in December 2007. Jimmy wrote about this in December.

Anyway — I look forward to hearing the rest of the interview. Keep it up, Jimmy! Make him squirm!