• Welcome to Crohn's Forum, a support group for people with all forms of IBD. While this community is not a substitute for doctor's advice and we cannot treat or diagnose, we find being able to communicate with others who have IBD is invaluable as we navigate our struggles and celebrate our successes. We invite you to join us.

Latest Dietary Guidelines for IBD

I can't say I agree with these guidelines. One shouldn't suggest increasing the intake of fructose and lactose when fructose and lactose (and FODMAP in general) intolerance and malabsorption is a well documented feature of crohn's disease.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why they use the word 'Maltodextran' instead of maltodextrin either. It is very peculiar, I have never seen it spelled like that. If it's an alternate spelling, it's one I have never seen.

They should also specify what they mean when they say maltodextrin, maltodextrins vary greatly in DE index, there is not one type of maltodextrin.

Regardless. All EN use maltodextrin (glucose syrup) as a base, to suggest crohn's disease patients should not be exposed to maltodextrin implies that crohn's disease patients should stop using EN. Something I disagree with.

Again, I disagree strongly with these suggestions, they go against the data we have on FODMAP intolerance and they go against the clinical benefts EN have shown in crohn's disease patients, which is wholly based on maltodextrin.
 
Last edited:
Also disagree with the suggestions that crohn's disease patients should consume gluten products.

It will expose people to baker's yeast. ASCA tests are used to diagnose crohn's. When a test looking for Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies is a diagnostic test for crohn's disease, and when one sees those markers completely disappear in coeliac disease when people are put on gluten-free diets, one should not suggest people with crohn's disease consume gluten products.
 
Kiny, please communicate your findings to the MDs that created this from UCSF. I’m sure if the evidence was strong enough your ideas would have been included.
 
A discussion about maltodextrin is only possible if one agree that maltodextrins used as bulking agents are very different from maltodextrins used in EN. The duration of the hydrolysis determines the DE index of a maltodextrin.

The study fails to make any such distinctions. They confusticate maltodextrin as a bulking agent and splenda which is used as a sweetener, with the type of maltodextrin used in EN, a type of maltodextrin which is no longer a starch but a glucose and carries the name glucose syrup.

They admit in the study that their argument to avoid maltodextrin is counterintuitive because they later point out the benefits of using EN for crohn's disease patients.
 
Kiny, did you really read the study?

Here is a quote from pg 15:
"It is notable that maltodextrin is found in many nutritional supplements, including some
used for exclusive enteral nutrition which has been demonstrated to be an effective
therapy. Thus, while there is theoretical and animal model data to support avoidance of
maltodextrin among patients consuming a whole food diet, these data or
recommendations should not dissuade the use of exclusive enteral nutrition in
appropriate situations."
 
You edited your post. ok.
Like I suggested before, you should contact the MDs that put this study together to make your objections known to the medical community.
 
Once they stop contradicting themselves, take diet serious, including differentiating between maltodextrins with vastly different dextrose equivalents, I will contact them. Otherwise it's a waste of time for me and patients.
 
But it's a waste of time to post it here with such a small audience. If you really wanted to help the world's IBD sufferers you should be a researcher and contribute scientific knowledge. Do you have a PhD in a relevant field? I doubt that the evidence is really there though, as persuasive as you make it seem. They have access to everything you do too, yet it wasn't included for some reason.
 
Top