Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:58:03.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of feeding frequency on the growth and composition of individual organs in the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

R. C. Pocknee  and
F. W. Heaton
R. C. Pocknee
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lancaster, Lancaster LA1 4YQ
F. W. Heaton
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lancaster, Lancaster LA1 4YQ
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The effect of consuming the same total amount of food in either one large meal or several small meals per d was studied using weanling male rats.

2. The increase in total body-weight was the same in both instances, but the weights of the liver, kidneys, femur, small intestine and stomach were greater, and those of the spleen and residual carcass were smaller, in meal-eating rats than in continuously fed control animals. These differences persisted into the adult state.

3. No differences in gross chemical composition were found between the corresponding organs of the two groups of rats, and the differences in weight appeared to be the result of changes in the general growth rate of individual organs.

4. The hypertrophy of the kidneys in meal-eaters was due to an increase in mean cell size, but the increased weight of the liver and reduced weight of the spleen appeared to be largely the result of changes in the number of cells present.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 97 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1976

References

Alfaro, B. & Heaton, F. W. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, C., Joseph, D., Bell, L. & Allweiss, M. D. (1965). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 131, 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enesco, M. & Leblond, C. P. (1962). J. Embryol. exp. Morph. 10, 530.Google Scholar
Fábry, P. (1967). In Handbook of Physiology. Section 6: Alimentary Canal, vol. 1, p. 31 [Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Fábry, P. (1969). Feeding Pattern and Nutritional Adaptations. London: Butterworth & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Fábry, P. & Kujalová, V. (1960). Acta anat. 43, 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, F. W. & Loveless, B. W. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 18A.Google Scholar
Hofert, J. F. & White, A. (1968). Endocrinology 82, 767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, R. W., Matthew, W. T. & Dubowik, D. A. (1970). Analyt. Biochem. 38, 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Magnen, J. (1967). In Handbook of Physiology. Section 6: Alimentary Canal, vol. 1, p. 11 [Code, C. F, editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Leveille, G. A. (1967). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 125, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leveille, G. A. (1972). J. Nutr. 102, 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leveille, G. A. & Hanson, R. W. (1966). J. Lipid Res. 7, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loveless, B. W., Williams, P. & Heaton, F. W. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. Y., Neagy, F. C., Hutchinson, W. C. & Davidson, J. N. (1953). Biochem. J. 53, 460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winick, M. & Noble, A. (1965). Devl Biol. 12, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar