Yes you have mentioned it elsewhere but not everyone will read back through every thread you’ve ever posted on. If that was your reasoning to support the “fatal” claim then it would make sense to mention it in this thread, especially when asked specifically why you agree with the screen shot - strong statement that no one can really find support for outside of allergies and that would apply equally to any other carb which potentially can raise bgl high enough for dka in type 1 without insulin.
Regardless of what the GI is, what’s relevant to us is how it affects our blood glucose and our need for insulin (end- or ex-ogenous). A higher GI claims to raise blood glucose more. For me personally maltodextrin does indeed do so but I’ve avoided it for years now. However there’s no way it raises me into the sort of numbers usually associated with DKA (not withstanding that’s a lower risk for me as a type 2 with plenty of my own insulin circulating even if it did). I’m not a great fan of GI anyway as so called lower GI foods can still cause me significant rises. Have you seen Dr Unwins infographics and explanations of Glycemic LOAD.
https://phcuk.org/sugar/ which certainly match my responses far more accurately and many others report the same. As I’ve said many times including in this thread I think this particular product is one of the most misleading out there as so many believe swapping sugar for sweetener (containing this) will avoid bgl rises equating zero calorie with zero glycemic response.
I’ll confess I’m a bit confused about what maltodextrin has done to your levels though. You say both it raised bgl when you were using it inadvertently and that bgl rose again after you reduced the amount of supplements containing it. By what sort of amounts are we talking in. Mmol and fingerpricks or hba1c ? If it were that product causing unwanted raises why didn’t reducing it have a corresponding reduction?