Palatinose as carb source - some compelling research


#1

I’ve just ordered some Palatinose (isomaltulose) to experiment with in my DIY soylent mix. So far, I’m 10 days in to my non-Palatinose recipe and it’s all going extremely well! I was apprehensive about putting so much maltodextrin in my drink, and putting mostly oats in didn’t work out too well for me at all, plus there’s all the concerns about phytic acid, etc. So I saw some people had in passing mentioned the next-gen carb Palatinose, but I hadn’t found much discussion about it on here. I did some research of my own. For the uninitiated, here are the claimed benefits of it from one supplier:

“Palatinose™ is the only low glycemic carbohydrate providing longer lasting energy in the form of glucose. It doesn’t create blood glucose level spikes (low glycemic index), it is twice as sweet as sugar, but causes no tooth decay, it is heat stable so can be used in baking and cooking.”

However, futhermore in my investigation, I found that a few people were concerned about the fact that it’s broken down in part into fructose (concerns about raised blood triglycerides). However, I dug deeper and found some very compelling studies that I’d like to share with everyone, particularly those who are curious about this like me :smile:

They seem very intriguing, particularly the following quotes:

Thus, collectively, our data suggest that palatinose use does not induce insulin resistance and may be a useful addition to carbohydrate meals to lower their GI.

And:

Our findings suggested that Inslow, which contains palatinose, was an effective functional food for the prevention and treatment of obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome because it can maintain the glucose and lipid homeostasis by regulating the expression of the hepatic PPAR-α and adipose PPAR-γ genes.

I have a science background but I’m still a bit of an amateur when it comes to all of this. Does anyone else have any thoughts? I could easily be missing something out, because this seems way too good to be true (if you ignore the price)


#2

could you find some more info in this? i have tried to find, but it’s hard from a man coming from scandinavia finding a lot of info in this.


#3

Here’s a very informative yet simple brochure on the stuff, but it’s worth taking with a pinch of salt because it’s from a company who are promoting it :wink: Apparently, the Japanese have been using it since 1985!

http://www.beneo-palatinit.com/en/Food_Ingredients/Isomaltulose/What_is_Isomaltulose/Palatinose-Brochure_EN_1.pdf


#4

it would be interesting to find out if there is any danger to the fructose. then you could base your carb sources on Maltodextrin for the beginning boost, oats for some nutrition, fiber and bulk and palatines as the main energy source


#5

Palatinose is another name for Isomaltulose, which may help your research. As far as I can tell, it all seems extremely positive. The concerns I heard about Fructose seem to relate to the fact that it may raise blood triglyceride levels - but all the data I can find about the actual effects of palatinose seem to suggest the opposite!

You read my mind exactly though, @Myarter, a mix of Maltodextrin, Palatinose and Oats was exactly what I had in mind! Here’s my working recipe, but I’ll be tweaking it a lot as time goes on, particularly the carb ratios.


#6

Her is my current recipe
My newest recopy under construction is this

and the price is in $

But where have you found the nutritional value for the oats? i have only found the basic information on there site an i suspect it’s not the total nutritional value.

Could you do test for me? mix 25g protein powder, 75g oats and 34g maltodextrin.
test to change your oats from MyProtein to blended rolled oats from the local store.
can you say how the taste is? i have only used home made oat powder and have no local axes to oat powder at the moment.

could you comment on the taste and texture?

do you think there is a limit on how much palatines there should be in the recipe?


#7

When Fructose enters the body, all of it reaches the liver where 30% of it gets turned into fat. Harmful chemicals are generated in the process. These chemicals can cause Gout and Hypertension, increase blood-pressure and suppress the signal to the brain that you should stop eating. (This part is hugely simplified. In the talk this is a long drawn-out discussion about the biochemistry of metabolizing Fructose)
Fructose metabolized in much the same way as alcohol, only it doesn’t affect the brain directly. The hunger response isnt a big deal, but the chronically toxic byproducts of fructose metabolism are.

There are scenarios in which fructose is a positive - for elite athletes. For the rest of us, there’s nothing good that comes out of fructose metabolism.


#8

thanks for this link. very informative. there are too things i got out of this.

  1. i am going to reduce even more the amount of sugar i have added to my DIY mix which is purely for taste, and although it’s in the form of brown sugar, which i am assuming is more or less sucrose (not fructose), is not entirely helpful.
  2. Soylent corp’s biggest adversaries are going to be “Big Food”, and “Big Pharma”, both of which have huge lobbing and propaganda machines. the reason I say “big pharma” is, i suspect that many of the deliberate corporate decisions that have been made over the years by the food industry have not been without certain inducements from the medical/pharmaceutical industry that makes billions from ailments that would not be so prevalent were it not for the sheer amount of sick people who are sick due to eating poisoned food. eg big pharma influences government to influence big food, knowing there will be a payday down the track.

#9

pure sucrose is a molecule composed of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule. In the body, it breaks down into glucose and fructose, which are then metabolized ‘normally’. You will get less fructose by consuming less sucrose, but you will always consume fructose when you consume sucrose. So, if you’re trying to eliminate fructose from your diet, then you must eliminate sucrose.


#10

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/6/677.abstract

http://www.fructose.org/Review-Finds-that-Fructose-Does-Not-Lead-to-Adverse-Metabolic-Effects.html

The study, published in Advances in Nutrition, examined the research on health and sugars that contain fructose. The researcher found that while some weaker designed studies may have found a link between the two, strongly designed (randomized-controlled trials) did not.

I don’t claim to be an expert, but the evidence overall regarding the actual effects seems somewhat unclear, yet this review seems reasonably positive and was published in 2014.

Working from the findings of the review, it seems that some studies have shown that consumption of pure fructose as ~25% of calorific intake can cause some adverse effects. But by my calculations, fructose would be ~6% of the calories consumed in my soylent recipe in the form of palatinose, which is also 50% glucose. Furthermore, the paper that I linked to in my original post found that a Palatinose-based drink was proven to have a positive effect on lipid metabolism and blood sugar levels when compared to one that was based upon a control formula containing dextrin (with some sucrose).

This all seems quite positive, and the findings from the fructose review indicate that it is overall calorific profile rather than sugar type that is responsible for the negative metabolic effects. By all means, sugar is something to be taken in serious moderation, but if my OP is anything to go by, it looks rather promising!

Quote from paper #2: “We … found less abdominal fat accumulation and reduced hepatic triacylglycerol content in the [Palatinose] group”

Really hope this doesn’t spark a war! The concerns should certainly not be taken lightly, but the evidence seems interesting.


#11

I had already been thinking of reducing the sucrose of my mix, but hadn’t looked into what would be an acceptable daily intake. The video, thanks @jrowe47, was a good watch that finally got me motivated to look into the sucrose being used in some recipes, including my own (1). I had started with Hacker School (2), but have since modified it significantly and also use less sugar than the original as well.

I enjoyed the video, Dr. Lustig kept it interesting, but ultimately I found it to be alarmist. Though the SIF was the kick I needed to look into this further. He makes a valid point that high doses of fructose can be toxic, which is true of just about anything, but he neglects to say what would constitute a high dose.

The acceptable limit of fructose varies between studies, from 25g/day (3) up to >100g/day (4). I personally am comfortable falling somewhere in the middle, about 40-50g, which is well below the average consumption of over 80g/day (5). My personal recipe currently has 32.5g/day.

Keep in mind that sucrose is half glucose and half fructose, so that would put the acceptable amount of sucrose at double the daily amount of fructose. Based on this, even the original HS recipe falls into the acceptable range.

Finally, I found this blog (6) which directly addresses the above video. The article is a good read, as well as the abundant discussion that it sparks. Dr. Lustig even stopped by to join the discussion.

  1. http://diy.soylent.me/recipes/kennufs-hybrid-v12

  2. http://www.cookingfor20.com/2013/06/18/hacker-school-soylent-recipe/

  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18996851/

  4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18996880/

  5. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/08/30/how-much-sugar-are-americans-eating-infographic/

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/


#12

Please keep us posted on how this is working for you. Where are you getting your supply?

The only source I found with a quick search was on Amazon, with shipping it is $27.44/1000g.


#13

Wonderful links, @kennufs, thank you for sharing your findings! Very helpful and interesting reading. I think this is enough for me to conclude that it’s safe to proceed. My recipe is currently at 35g/day of fructose, well within what are considered the safe limits, so I’m no longer concerned about proceeding. Depending on how it works out for me, I may even up the amount of palatinose. I’m not sure if I’ll be getting rid of Maltodextrin from my recipe completely, but I’d definitely feel more comfortable taking it down. Depending on hunger and energy levels, I’ll adapt my macros accordingly. I keep a blog with my recipe so if you’re interested in my findings, drop by and have a look (i’m updating 1-2 times a week).

I love your recipe by the way! I’m considering adapting my recipe to match yours in some ways, my working recipe is complete but a little cumbersome, I love the simplicity and goodness of yours.

Unfortunately, regarding the Palatinose supplier (due to arrive tomorrow), I’m in the UK and I understand it’s easier to get ahold of over here than America. I use MyProtein which sells it for £25 (~$41) for 5000g.


#14

These are indeed useful. They provide a threshold for safe intake of fructose - Dr Lustig doesn’t acknowledge our bodies resilience in accepting nutrition - the liver does its job, and that incurs a certain amount of stress. I don’t believe the ideal condition for the liver is to have no stress at all, but hormesis at some level is desirable - just like working your muscles is better than not using them at all, to an extent. So fructose, while chronically toxic, should have a threshold at which it may have a positive effect, or at least no negative impacts, on your overall health.


#15

http://chriskresser.com/ask-chris-is-fructose-really-that-bad

Here an other view on fructose.


#16

Good read, thanks for sharing. One more reason for me not to be concerned over the sugar in my mix.


#17

(Ignore the image above - they deliberately reversed the before and after pictures to make a point)

Video Link - Otherwise this annoyingly auto-plays!

This is an extremely relevant story for the Soylent community, I think! It ties in nicely with the fructose discussion regarding “bad food” and quantity.

This man set his students a mission to give him a diet plan based only on McDonald’s food products. The only stipulations were that the calories and macros had to be within a certain limit (sound familiar?) and that it couldn’t just be salads, etc that he ate - it had to include things like burgers. Sure, he got more exercise too, but either way, by the end of the 90 days he lost 37lbs and his cholesterol lowered dramatically. Contrast to “Super Size Me” where the stipulations were to overeat if given the choice, and to not exercise.

By all means, I’m not saying we should choose unhealthy foods over healthy ones. But the point is, nutritional advice is so often distorted by scare stories that it overlooks the point - what does the evidence say for normal limits, and how does the change compare to what the person was eating previously? It’s not always possible, desirable or financially viable for everyone to immediately switch from junkfood to a perfect vegan/paleo/whatever diet. I’m a student, and diy soylent is not only cheaper than the junk I was eating before, but it’s working great for me right now. Promote progress, not perfection! :slight_smile:


#18

Then there’s this: http://for1yearofmylife.com

This lady lived on only Starbucks products for a full year. Talk about sugar intake, wowza.

The gist of it is; She had a good year; She lost a little weight; She spent over $7,000 for the year… and some of you silly peeps think Soylent is expensive at $3,315/year, although my soylent is only about half that… :wink:


#19

Palatinose Commercial Folder


#20

I wonder if I am the only one here old enough to remember when trans-fats were introduced into the food supply to replace those dangerous saturated fats. It was the healthy alternative. Now, it’s as if we were eating coal dust in our potato chips.

I’m not a food scientist, I don’t even play one on TV. I’ve just grown cynically skeptical over the years about food and health “science” when we know very little about our own bodies, and continually churn out studies which are not infrequently contradicted by subsequent research, so all the public policy and public perception and food habits are supposed to change - again. Moderation in consumption seems the key.

Some of the food preoccupation is just trend driven. For example, lots of people have put themselves on these gluten free diets, and many of them have no documentable sensitivity to gluten other than what would be explained by placebo. In fact, a shockingly large portion of them don’t even know what gluten is, but figure it must be bad 'cause so much food is labeled “gluten free” and some of their friends are gluten free. You probably know folks like this.

How bad could fructose really be - are we supposed to stop eating apples, pears, grapes, etc?
I sure hope not.

For my family, I like the idea of Soylent as a simple and complete emergency food supply. And I can certainly see the value for those with better things to do with scarce time and/or money than fix food and clean up after. However, a lot of motivations aside from those seem a bit obsessive and not particularly healthy.