Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T12:46:22.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental model for in vivo determination of dietary fibre and its effect on the absorption of nutrients in the small intestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Ann-Sofie Sandberg ,
H. Andersson ,
B. Hallgren ,
Kristina Hasselblad ,
B. Isaksson  and
L. Hultbn
Ann-Sofie Sandberg
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Nutrition
H. Andersson
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Nutrition
B. Hallgren
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Nutrition
Kristina Hasselblad
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Nutrition
B. Isaksson
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Nutrition
L. Hultbn
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery 11, Sahlgren's Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
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. An experimental model for the determination of dietary fibre according to the definition of Trowell et al. (1976) is described. Food was subjected to in vivo digestion in ileostomy patients, and the ileostomy contents were collected quantitatively, the polysaccharide components of which were analysed by gas–liquid chromatography and the Klason lignin by gravimetric determination. The model was used for the determination of dietary fibre in AACC (American Association of Cereal Chemists), wheat bran and for studies on the extent of hydrolysis of wheat-bran fibre in the stomach and small intestine. The effect of wheat bran on ileostomy losses of nitrogen, starch and electrolytes was also investigated.

2. Nine patients with established ileostomies were studied during two periods while on a constant low-fibre diet. In the second period 16 g AACC wheat bran/d was added to the diet. The ileostomy contents and duplicate portions of the diet were subjected to determinations of wet weight, dry weight, water content, fibre components, starch, N, sodium and potassium.

3. The wet weight of ileostomy contents increased by 94 g/24 h and dry weight by 10 g/24 h after consumption of bran. The dietary fibre of AACC bran, determined as the increase in polysaccharides and lignin of ileostomy contents after consumption of bran, was 280 g/kg fresh weight (310 g/kg dry matter). Direct analysis of polysaccharides and lignin in bran gave a value of 306 g/kg fresh weight. Of the added bran hemicellulose and cellulose 80–100% and 75–100% respectively were recovered in ileostomy contents. There was no significant difference between the two periods in amount of N, starch and K found in the ileostomy contents. The Na excretion increased during the ‘bran’ period and correlated well with the wet weight of ileostomy contents.

4. In conclusion, it seems probable that determination of dietary fibre by in vivo digestion in ileostomy patients comes very close to the theoretical definition of dietary fibre, as the influence of bacteria in the ileum seems small. Bacterial growth should be avoided by using a technique involving the change of ileostomy bags every 2 h and immediate deep-freezing of the ileostomy contents. True dietary fibre can be determined by direct analysis of polysaccharides and lignin in the food, at least in bran. Very little digestion of hemicellulose and cellulose from bran occurs in the stomach and small bowel. The 10–20% loss in some patients may be due to digestion by the gastric juice or to bacterial fermentation in the ileum, or both. The extra amount of faecal N after consumption of bran, reported by others, is probably produced in the large bowel.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , March 1981 , pp. 283 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, H., Bosaeus, I., Falkheden, T. & Melkersson, M. (1979). Scund. J. Gastroent. 14, 821.Google Scholar
Bethge, P. O., Rådeström, R., Theander, O. (1971). Svenska Träforskningsinstitutets Meddelande 63B.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. H. (1978). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 31, Suppl821.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. H., Hill, M. J., Jenkins, D. J. A., Pearson, J. R. & Wiggins, H. S. (1976). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 29, 1468.Google Scholar
Eastwood, M. A., Kirkpatrick, J. R., Mitchell, W. E., Bone, A. & Hamilton, T. (1973). Br. med. J. iv, 392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwood, M. A., Smith, A. N., Brydon, W. G. & Pritchard, J. (1978). Gul 19, 1144.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. M., Smith, A. N., Mitchell, W. D., Anderson, A. J. B. & Eastwood, M. (1974). Lancet i, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1970). Amino-acid content of foods and biological data on proteins, 2nd ed. p. 42.Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Gordon, A. J. (1978). Topics in Dietary Fibre Research, 1st ed., p. 82. Spiller, G. A.New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. F., Pomare, E. W. & Heaton, K. W. (1973). Lancet i, 1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hil, G. L. (1976). Ileostomy: Surgery, Physiology and Management, 1st ed., p. 65. New York and London: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
Holloway, W. D., Tasman-Jones, C. & Lee, S. P. (1978). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 31, 927.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D. J. A., Hill, M. J. & Cummings, J. H. (1975). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 28, 1409.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K., Salomonsson, A. C., Theander, O. & Åman, P. (1979). Potato Res. 22, 345.Google Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Glaser, E. M. (1948). Br. J. Nutr. 2, 221.Google Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Walsham, C. M. (1948). Br. J. Nutr. 2, 26.Google Scholar
Marten, J. F. & Catanzaro, G. (1966). Analyst, Lond. 91, 42.Google Scholar
Moms, E. J. & Bacon, J. S. D. (1977). J. agric. Sci., Comb. 88, 327.Google Scholar
Payler, D. K., Pomare, E. W., Heaton, K. W. & Harvey, R. F. (1975). Gut 16, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, S. F. & Giller, J. (1973). J. Lab. clin. Med. 81, 733.Google Scholar
Rheinhold, J. G., Faradji, B., Abadi, P. & Ismail-Beigi, F. (1976). J. Nutr. 106, 493.Google Scholar
Rheinhold, J. G., Nasr, K., Lahimgarzadeh, A. & Hedayati, H. (1973). Lancet i, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkanen, K. V. &Ludwig, C. H. (1971). Lignins-Occurance, Formation, Structure and Reactions, p. 7. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Sawardeker, J. S., Sloneker, J. H. & Jeans, A. (1965). Analyt. Chem. 37, 1602.Google Scholar
Southgate, D. A. T. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 131.Google Scholar
Southgate, D. A. T., Branch, W. J., Hill, M. J., Drasar, B. S., Watters, R. L., Davies, P. S. & Baird, I. M. (1976). Metabolism. 25, 1129.Google Scholar
The Swedish National Food Administration (1978). Food Composition Tables. Stockholm: LiberTryck.Google Scholar
Trowell, H., Southgate, D. A. T., Wolever, T. M. S., Leeds, A. R., Gasull, M. A. &Jenkins, D. A. (1976). Lancet i, 967.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 46, 829.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & McQueen, R. W. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 123.Google Scholar
Walker, A. R. P. (1975). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 28, 1161.Google Scholar