Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T09:04:59.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lactitol, a new hydrogenated lactose derivative: intestinal absorption and laxative threshold in normal human subjects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Dharmaraj H. Patil ,
George K. Grimble  and
David B. A. Silk
Dharmaraj H. Patil
Affiliation:
Department of Gastroenterology & Nutrition, Central Middlesex Hospital, Acton Lane, London NWlO 7NS
George K. Grimble
Affiliation:
Department of Gastroenterology & Nutrition, Central Middlesex Hospital, Acton Lane, London NWlO 7NS
David B. A. Silk
Affiliation:
Department of Gastroenterology & Nutrition, Central Middlesex Hospital, Acton Lane, London NWlO 7NS
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. In the first part of the study, the absorption of lactitol, a new disaccharide analogue of lactose, was studied using an in vivo jejunal perfusion technique in man. Intestinal uptake of lactitol from isotonic solutions containing 10, 30, 60, and 100 mmol lactitol/l was insignificant.

2. In the second part of the study the laxative threshold of lactitol was determined and compared with that of sorbitol in a double-blind, randomized, cross-over study on twenty-one normal subjects. Laxative threshold was considered to be either the maximum dose tolerated without unacceptable diarrhoea or gastrointestinal side effects, or when the maximum dose in the study was reached. Increasing amounts of lactitol, sorbitol or placebo were administered in two divided doses each day until subjects developed diarrhoea or severe gastrointestinal side effects. The laxative threshold of lactitol (74 (SE 5) g/d) was similar to that of sorbitol (71 (SE 5) g/d).

3. These findings indicate that lactitol is not absorbed by the human small intestine. Although diarrhoea or other gastrointestinal side effects occurred as the dose was increased, 40 g lactitol/d was well tolerated.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , March 1987 , pp. 195 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Cook, G. C. (1973). Clinical Science 44, 425–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, G. M. & Santiago, N. (1966). Gastroenterology 51, 489–498.Google Scholar
Holdsworth, C. D. & Dawson, A. M. (1964). Clinical Science 27, 371–379.Google Scholar
McMichael, H. B., Webb, J. & Dawson, A. M. (1967). Clinical Science 33, 135–145.Google Scholar
McNeil, N. I., Cummings, J. H. & James, W. P. T. (1978). Gut 19, 819–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patil, D. H., Westaby, D., Mahida, Y. R., Palmer, K. R., Rees, R., Clark, M. L. & Silk, D. B. A. (1985). Gut 26, A1125.Google Scholar
Rommel, K., Bernt, E., Schmitz, F. & Grimmel, K. (1968). Klinische Wochenschrift 46, 936–940.Google Scholar
Ruppin, H., Bar-Meir, S., Soergel, K. H., Wood, C. M. & Schmitt, M. G. (1980). Gastroenterology 78, 1500–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saijonmaa, T., Heikonen, M., Kreula, M. & Linko, P. (1978). Milchwisserschaft 33, 733–736.Google Scholar
Silk, D. B. A. & Dawson, A. M. (1979). In International Review of Physiology, vol. 111, Gastrointestinal Physiology, pp. 151–204 [Crane, R. K., editor]. Baltimore: University, Park Press.Google Scholar
Sladen, G. E. & Dawson, A. M. (1970). Gut 11, 947–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Valthuijsen, J. A. (1979). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 27, 680–686.Google Scholar
Wick, A. N., Alman, M. C. & Joseph, L. (1951). Journal of American Pharmacology 40, 542–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar