Talk:Inulin

Untitled
It's important that we expand this article to include nutrition. People are seeing inulin on the sides of packages more and more now, so it's important we address inulin's increasing role as food - a biochemistry article like this may be meaningful to me, but most people have no clue of even simple concepts like polysaccharides, nor does it seem particularly important for their day to day living. I have added to the top of the article a blurb on inulin, but it really should be simplified and a whole new "Inulin & Food" section with subsections addressing blood sugar response, fiber and probiotic benefits, etc. I'm not up to doing that tonight, but perhaps later. I have added a few external links if anybody else wants to get started. Blueandwhiteg3 05:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for correction
Inulin is a polysaccharide, Insulin is a protein, ie the first sentence is not quite true. But, because it contains fructose instead of glucose units, it IS used in diabetes-therapy.

(see german page for reference). I'm not a native english speaker, pls check my comment and transform it nto good encyclopedia style Thanks "thomasgl" (oops, forgot to log in...)

Not sure what the issue is here ? The only text referring to Insulin is more than half-way through when it says : Inulin is, however, not chemically related Insulin; the similarities in name do not relate to any similarity in form or function. Velela 19:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevance of the external link is. It appears to be an opinion led editorial piece. Apologies if that is appropriate in an external link; I'm new at this. Ornot demar (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Under "Uses" we read "This is particularly advantageous because..." It isn't clear who gets the advantage. The manufacturer? The rest of the sentence is a non-sequitir. It describes some features of inulin, but it isn't clear how the are advantageous.17:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.106.228 (talk)

Fiber Types
The article seems to suggest that only insoluble fiber (e.g., wheat bran) adds to stool bulk. I believe soluble fiber also adds to stool bulk. Anyone who has taken a lot of metamucil for several days in a row knows that. (As far as I know, metamucil contains mostly soluble fiber, along with some insoluble.)

On the other hand, as far as I know, digestive-resistant starch does not increase stool bulk, directly. Wheat dextrin is a well-known resistant starch, if I'm not mistaken. Brand name is "Benefiber." (Resistant starch might increase stool bulk indirectly by encouraging growth of intestinal flora in such large quantity that they form stool bulk. This is not clear to me, despite my efforts to google around and figure it out.)

What I would like to know, and what I think this article ought to address is whether inulin is more like a soluble fiber, more like a digestiive-resistant starch, or some of each. To what extent does it add to stool bulk?

Sorry not to find this out myself and edit the article. I'm not very experienced editing articles, and this is not exactly my area of expertise. So, I must ask others to do that.69.225.4.252 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To add to my previous remarks, it is my impression that the important differences between soluble and insoluble fiber are:

--Insoluble fiber speeds up intestinal transit time of food. I.e., the trip from mouth to toilet is faster. It also increases stool bulk. Faster transit time might be better because more cholesterol is moved from the small intestine to the toilet, thus lowering serum cholesterol.

--Soluble fiber absorbs bile acid from the small intestine and moves it through the colon and into the toilet. On the other hand. Insoluble fiber slows intestinal transit time of food. I have heard longer intestinal transit might cause some bile acids to be re-absorbed in the colon, but I'm not certain.

I think this article ought to address the question of whether inulin slows or speeds intestinal transit time and whether inulin absorbs bile acids, in a way that might lower serum cholesterol. I'd like to know myself. I think this is probably known, but the literature is complex and rather scattered.69.225.4.252 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Constanzo reference has the incorrect pages...it should be 256-260 NOT 156-160. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.122.204 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proprietary?
In what sense are yoghurt and milk "proprietary formulations"? I must be misunderstanding this sentence.

Pekinensis 17:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hope the rephrasing has fixed this.
 * Velela 19:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, now I understand. Thanks!

Pekinensis 19:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Inulin content of various foods
[merged data from several sources] FOOD                       g/100g

=
======================= Artichoke Hearts (leaves)  2-10 Asparagus Root             1-30 Banana                     0.3-0.7 Barley                     0.5-1.5 Burdock Root               3.5-4 Camas Bulb                 12-22 Chicory Root               15-20 Dandelion Leaves           12-15 Garlic                     9-16 Jerusalem Artichoke (tuber) 16-20 Leeks                      3-16 Murnong Root               8-13 Onion                      2-10 Rye                        0.5-1 Salsify Root               4-11 Wheat                      1-6 Yacon Root                 3-19

sources for above table: http://www.tpclabs.com/file.aspx?FileID=108 http://members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/inulin_prebiotic_probiotic.html

Inulin only feeds friendly bacteria?
Hyped up claims that Inulin only feeds beneficial flora are incorrect. Such claims are common in advertising material and of course on the Internet.

The following research from the Netherlands shows that Inulin (and also FOS) impaired resistance to infection by Salmonella and Enterobacteria. Also increased stool toxicity to gut wall was present (cytotoxicity of faecal water) making it all too clear that Inulin can in some scenarios worsen the health of the gut. See Figure 1, Figure 3 and Table 2 in the link below. Title: Dietary fructo-oligosaccharides and inulin decrease resistance of rats to salmonella: protective role of calcium Gut 2004;53:530-535 Nutrition and Health Program, Wageningen Centre for Food Sciences/NIZO Food Research, Ede, the Netherlands http://gut.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/53/4/530

The following research shows (in Table 1) that Inulin feeds the harmful flora E. Coli and Clostridium butyricum. see: http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/10/6150


 * It is almost certainly true that almost any food can produce adverse reactions in both humans and animals. It is probably also true that the best nutritional philosophy is a well balanced diet containing a range of fruits and vegtables with relatively low levels of animals fats and proteins. It is also worth noting that many bacterial species which receive a bad press are normal and expected members of the gut flora (e.g. Escherischia coli). Accepting all these caveats, there is a wealth of published evidence that indicates that a diet rich in fibre and natural oligosacharides does appear to promote healthier gut function and that prebiotic foods do tend to encourage a gut flora that is more adept at maintaing a helthy gut (and thus a more healthy organism) than other diets. The advertsing hype about "good" bacteria replacing "bad" bacteria doesn't appear to have any scientific basis except at the simplest level that encouraging a normal natural flora must in some way displace a less satisfactory flora. I can find no evidence that either prebiotics or probiotics have any capability in allowing non-pathogenic bacteria to surplant pathogenic bacteria. I would suggest that the body's normal defences would be responsible for any action like that. The conclusion wouldtherefore be that a diet rich in prebiotics is much more likely to be beneficial than harmful but some individuals may have adverse reactions to some specific prebiotics. There is much less clarity whether a similar conclusion could be reached with regard to proprietary probiotic formulations.  Velela 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fibersure advertisement?
I was reading this and I felt that this didn't meet typical standards:

"Inulin can be found in commerically available products such as Fibersure from the Makers of Metamucil. Fibersure is a fiber supplement powder that can be added to foods or beverages without changing the taste or texture. It performs well in cooking and baking applications and can be an easy way to add additional fiber to the diet through foods and drinks."

It would seem alright to mention that there are dietary supplements containing inulin commercially available such as Fibersure (link).. but beyond that in the "performs well in cooking and baking applications and can be an easy way to add additional fiber" it begins to lose focus on the article and redirect it at a given product (which would be okay on the product's own article if it has one) for which the author was obviously promoting.


 * I have editied the artice to remove the following language: "without changing the taste or texture. It performs well in cooking and baking applications and can be an easy way to add additional fiber to the diet through foods and drinks" as it seems to border on a promotional advertisement. --Burntnickel 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Allergic reactiion reference
I'd like to cite, under the "Health Risks" section, the abstract I found here, but I'm not entirely sure how. The site just mentions the abstract, and I haven't been able to find the article, or the abstract, anywhere else. Advice? --Popefelix 20:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Inulin and heat
Inulin breaks down with heat into fructose. Could anyone find some precise numbers on this? --72.208.96.44 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 12
The corresponding text on the page says that there is only one literary reference to allergic reactions "in the literature." First, what literature? From a company that sells it? In reference to any literature, this is incorrect and seriously outdated--the publication cited is from 2000.

The language of this section just seems like it's from a marketer: There is a single report of what is claimed to be an allergic reaction to inulin in the literature,[12] but dietary inulin has small amounts of bacteria and fungal spores and this case is most likely to represent a reaction to one of these contaminants:[citation needed] every day billions of people eat inulin-containing foods, e.g. onions, without any suggestion of allergy.

Seems to me the section should be updated and revised or removed.

Cculhane (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

sensus
I have reverted a unsourced sentence from the lead that reads: “The market of inulin is concentrated. Sensus operates worldwide for the sales and distribution of inulin.” If you have a neutral source that says this, then please cite to it. Bwrs (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Processed foods section
There is some "interesting" and uncited praising of insulin under the processed food headline, about its "unusually adaptable characteristics" and it being "particularly advantageous because inulin contains a quarter to a third of the food energy of sugar or other carbohydrates and a ninth to a sixth of the food energy of fat." What are these characteristics? And what is so great about having as much as 1/3 the calories as sugar but only 1/10 the sweetness (as the previous and cited sentence says)? The caloric value for insulin is mostly correct, but as it is uncited I have found a source at http://jn.nutrition.org/content/129/7/1436.full.pdf. Also, the sentence about the body not being able to digest polysaccharides is completely baloney -- starch is a polysaccharide! It is fructans, polysaccharides of mostly fructose rather than glucose that the body cannot digest. I am going to add the citation and make the text reflect that and change "polysaccharide" to "fructan." Acshikh (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Medical Uses Claim
Does anyone have a citation for the claim in the Medical Uses section that "Research on Crohn’s disease patients suggested daily intake of inulin significantly decreases disease activity and significantly increases the amount of IL-10-positive mucosal dendritic cells and Toll-like receptors 2 and 4 of these cells."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.161.44 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Chemical structure and properties
Despite some scientific background I understand virtually nothing in this section, esp. the 2nd paragraph. What is oligofructose, suddenly mentioned without definition, and why relevant? What does sugar mean when contrasted with sucrose (a type of sugar)? What is standard vs. high-performance inulin? Wiki ctlow (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Marcel Roberfroid Publications
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * search : Marcel-Roberfroid|Marcel-B-Roberfroid|Roberfroid-Marcel|Roberfroid-M|Roberfroid-M-B Louvain-University|University-of-Louvain|Université-Catholique-de-Louvain|Louvain-la-Neuve
 * Publication de recherche (Détail) de Roberfroid Marcel

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

inulin and soy
Layperson here. I read somewhere that the fiber in soy is inulin. If that's true, I'm curious why it isn't mentioned in the main inulin article. If it is true, it might have something to do with one or more of the positive the health characteristics of populations that have (or had) a high intake of soybean foods. DebbieC77 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Inulins are typically root components, and soybeans are above-ground legumes - I can find no evidence of soybeans as a natural source of inulins, and the soybean article does not discuss any presence of inulins. Inulin(s) is commonly used as an additive in food and beverage manufacturing, including soy beverages and foods, as a source of soluble dietary fiber and to improve texture/mouthfeel. Zefr (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Bad cite in lede?
[4] is given as support of the claim that use of inulin to measure kidney function is a "gold standard" approach (which is a term lifted directly from the source). However, the general thrust of that paper and its eventual conclusion are, in fact, that reassessment of such standards (and more directly relevant to the paper are indirect calculations of GFR, totally unrelated to the "gold standard" approach) are required. Thus the source does not really seem to support the claim viz. "gold standard" in lede and should be removed (removed along with the claim in question, I fail to see why this "gold standard" is so noteworthy as to appear in the lede). It is effectively an attack on the current state of GFR diagnostics as they stand... 2605:B100:1130:28C:ECF5:35F9:1DFB:31F5 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)