Talk:Xanthan gum

Effective as a laxative, only 18 study participants

I move for the paragraph beginning "Xanthan gum is a "highly efficient laxative," according to a study that fed 15 g/day for 10 days to 18 normal volunteers. This is not a dosage that would be encountered in normal consumption of foodstuffs" be removed. 18 participants in a study is NOT considered a statistically significant sample size. Also in a science-based wiki article use of the slang, "foodstuffs," stands out as showing perhaps the person made up the study. My suspicions. Vid2vid (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Absolutely should be deleted, and so done. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Absolutely should not be deleted, and restored. ASAP. Thanks.

reasoning:

1. search for laxative on wikipedia (/wiki/Laxative)

2. read part about (/wiki/Laxative#Dietary_fiber)

3. read dietary fibers - in details - (/wiki/Dietary_fiber)

4. read "Insoluble fiber" part of (/wiki/Dietary_fiber)

5. wondrously consider it listed under "water-insoluble dietary fibers" as "Xanthan gum"

refrain from further butcherings... fly safe... --Aardn (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Why does your comment start, "Maybe Absolutely should not be deleted?" @Aardn: grammar much? Btw as of now Everybody, a Find on the word laxative thankfully yields zero results! From Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC).

There's a wide difference between uses of xanthan gum as an ingredient digested as a dietary fiber and it having laxative properties. Xanthan gum is mainly used in food manufacturing in small amounts (mg quantities) to improve viscosity of liquids or the texture of foods. There are no credible sources demonstrating its use in large amounts (gram quantities) as a marketed laxative. --Zefr (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for extensively looking into this @Aardn:, however, standing by @Zefr: the logical way to go is probably drastically shorten what I quoted to merely mention that the gum has laxative properties and quote either HealthLine (scroll down a 3rd of the way to "Other Health Benefits" "*Improved regularity," or the same NIH study it also quotes which is here. One major flaw in the NIH study: While it did have a 10-day lead in control period, for the mere 18 participants there was no (ZERO) control group receiving placebo. Dunderheads. Vid2vid (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those sources is adequate. We don't use Healthline as a medical content source, and the 1993 ref is primary research using an ultrahigh dose of xanthan gum, never duplicated in larger, high-quality human studies. For the encyclopedia, we need WP:MEDREV reviews, which have not been published. --Zefr (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"There's a wide difference between uses of xanthan gum as an ingredient digested as a dietary fiber and it having laxative properties."

...

"Xanthan gum is mainly used in food manufacturing in small amounts (mg quantities) to improve viscosity of liquids or the texture of foods. There are no credible sources demonstrating its use in large amounts (gram quantities) as a marketed laxative."

So if they don't market it as a laxative it's suddenly not a laxative?

Paraphrase from 'Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives

The xanthan gum also acted, as expected from a dose-ranging study, as a bulking agent in terms of its effects on faecal dry and wet weight and on transit time (Eastwood et al., 1986). [source] Eastwood et al., 1986: Eastwood, M.A., Brydon, W.G., & Anderson,D.M.W. (1986). The dietary effects of xanthan gum in man. Unpublished report submitted to WHO by Marinalg International.

Aardn (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Amounts used

"Larger amounts result in larger bubbles and denser foam." This seems to make no sense: it should take smaller bubbles to make denser foam. Mwanner | Talk 23:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I understood this to mean you can make larger bubbles (if your intent and procedure is to make bubbles) and you can make denser foam (if your intent and procedure is to make foam). Should it be "or" instead of "and"? Jojalozzo (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Language

the first paragraph under "Uses" is not clearly written and could confuse a reader. 71.114.78.134 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hazards

The hazards section of the chembox contains a hazard warning pictogram, signal word "warning" and Hazard Statements H315 and H310. These warnings are uncited and are not supported by cited information in the text of the article. What are they doing here? Plantsurfer 10:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Processing by mmicrobiome section excessive

This section is based on two studies and is way too large for the amount of reference coverage given. It also seems written in a manner to imply harm, particularly the final sentence, despite none actually being presented in the studies in question or otherwise. I think this section should be pared down significantly. Silverseren^C 17:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction in article: is it an emulsifier or not?

1. "It is an effective thickening agent, emulsifier, and stabilizer..." 2. "It helps to prevent oil separation by stabilizing the emulsion, although it is not an emulsifier." 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:ACF5:D8A9:3138:5FE7 (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)