Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:48:35.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative digestibility of wholemeal and white breads and the effect of the degree of fineness of grinding on the former

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

T. F. Macrae ,
J. C. D. Hutchinson ,
J. O. Irwin ,
J. S. D. Bacon  and
E. I. McDougall
T. F. Macrae
Affiliation:
From the Dept. of Nutrition, Lister Institute, Roebuck House, Cambridge, and the School of Agriculture and Institute of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge
J. C. D. Hutchinson
Affiliation:
From the Dept. of Nutrition, Lister Institute, Roebuck House, Cambridge, and the School of Agriculture and Institute of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge
J. O. Irwin
Affiliation:
From the Dept. of Nutrition, Lister Institute, Roebuck House, Cambridge, and the School of Agriculture and Institute of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge
J. S. D. Bacon
Affiliation:
From the Dept. of Nutrition, Lister Institute, Roebuck House, Cambridge, and the School of Agriculture and Institute of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge
E. I. McDougall
Affiliation:
From the Dept. of Nutrition, Lister Institute, Roebuck House, Cambridge, and the School of Agriculture and Institute of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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. Loaves were baked from three types of wheaten flour made from the same grist; a straight run white flour of 73% extraction, a finely ground wholemeal (100% extraction) and a medium ground wholemeal (100% extraction). Bread from each was consumed by six persons for periods of 11–12 days. The daily consumption was 530–630 g. dry weight of bread and, in addition, 37 g. margarine, 284 c.c. milk, 72 g. marmalade jelly and 284 c.c. of mild ale.

2. The total energy, nitrogen and fibre of the food consumed and of the faeces excreted over a period of 7 days were determined. Assuming that the foods other than bread were wholly digestible, the average percentage absorption of energy, nitrogen and fibre from the white bread was 96·1, 91·1, and 65·8 respectively; from the fine wholemeal bread it was 86·9, 85·3 and 14 respectively and from the coarser ground wholemeal 87·1, 85·7 and 9·7 respectively.

3. The nitrogen intake per 100 g. of the wholemeal bread eaten, was 2·91; of the white bread 2·70 g. This advantage was, however, neutralized by the greater amount of nitrogen lost in the faeces when wholemeal was taken, so that the average net gain of nitrogen to the body was 2·46 and 2·49 respectively per 100 g. dry weight of bread consumed.

4. The loss of 9% more of the energy of the bread in the faeces from wholemeal than from white bread is largely accounted for by the undigested cell envelopes and woody fibre in the bran. The greater utilization of the fibre of the white bread is in accordance with the observations of Rubner who showed that the cell membranes of the endosperm were of different composition from those of the bran cells and were more readily attacked by bacteria in the gut.

5. The range of individual variations in the utilization of the energy of the breads were: for white bread 95·4–96·8% and for wholemeal 85·4–88·7%. In the utilization of nitrogen these were: for white bread 88·2–94·1%, and for wholemeal 78·5–89·6%. The same subjects showed the better utilization of both energy and nitrogen.

6. The fineness of grinding of the wholemeal within the range used made no significant difference to the utilization of either energy or nitrogen.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , July 1942 , pp. 423 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1942

References

REFERENCES

Atwater, W. O., (1895). Bull. U.S. Off. Exp. Sta. no. 21.Google Scholar
Chick, H., (1942). Lancet, 242, 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copping, A. M., & Roscoe, M. H., (1937). Biochem. J. 31, 1879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, J. C., (1935). Poultr. Sci. 14, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, N., (1931). Tierenährung, 3, 243.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, J. C. D., & Morris, S., (1936). Biochem. J. 30, 1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. J., & Robison, R., (1922). Biochem. J. 16, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslieff, I. J., & Denissoff, I. P., (1936). Tierenährung, 6, 613.Google Scholar
McCance, R. A., & Widdowson, E. W., (1940). Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Counc., Lond., no. 235.Google Scholar
Mendel, L. B., & Fine, M. S., (1912). J. Biol. Chem. 11, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, 4th ed. (1935).Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., (1924). J. Biol. Chem. 58, 873.Google Scholar
Newman, L. F., Robinson, G. W., Halnan, E. T., & Neville, H. A. D., (1912). J. Hyg., Camb., 12, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. B., & Mendel, L. B., (1919). J. Biol. Chem. 37, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal Society (1918). Report by the Food (War) Committee ofthe Royal Society on the Digestibility of Breads.Google Scholar
Rubner, M., (1883). Z. Biol. 19, 45.Google Scholar
Rubner, M., (1916). Arch. Anat. Physiol., Lpz., Jg. 1916, 61.Google Scholar
Snyder, H., (1901). Bull. U.S. Off. Exp. Sta. no. 101.Google Scholar
Snyder, H., (1905). Bull. U.S. Off. Exp. Sta. no. 156.Google Scholar
Woods, C. D., & Merill, L. H., (1900). Bull. U.S. Off. Exp. Sta. no. 85.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E., Evans, R. E., & Menzies Kitchin, A. W., (1932). J. Agric. Sci. 22, 657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar