Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T17:47:31.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An examination of factors which may affect the water holding capacity of dietary fibre

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. A. Robertson  and
M. A. Eastwood
J. A. Robertson
Affiliation:
Wolfson gastrointestinal laboratories, Department of Medicine, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh EH4 2XU
M. A. Eastwood
Affiliation:
Wolfson gastrointestinal laboratories, Department of Medicine, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh EH4 2XU
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. Dietary fibre has a water holding capacity (WHC) and this is a function of the fibre source and method of measurement. Water can be associated with fibre either as trapped water or bound water. This makes it difficult to predict the ability of fibre to influence stool weight in humans.

2. Examination of various fibre concentrates for chemical composition, as neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF) and lignin; structure, by scanning electron microscopy; WHC, by centrifugation, suggests that WHC is more a function of fibre structure than chemical composition. Cereal fibre and vegetable fibre have a different chemical composition and are structurally very distinct. Structure is also dependent on the method of fibre preparation.

3. Measurement of WHC by centrifugation gives an estimate of the water which can be bound and also trapped by the fibre. The amount of trapped water will depend on the structure of the fibre whereas bound water will depend on the chemical composition.

Type
Papers of direct to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 83 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

Atkin, D. E., Amos, H. E., Barton, F. E. & Burdick, D. (1973). Agron, J. 65, 825.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. H., Branch, W., Jenkins, D. J. A., Southgate, D. A. T., Houston, H. & James, W. P. T. (1978). Lancet i, 5.Google Scholar
Eastwood, M. A. & Mitchell, W. D. (1976). In Fibre in Human Nutrition, p. 109 [Spiller, G. A. and Amen, R. J., editors]. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsay, J. L., Behall, K. M. & Prather, E. S. (1978). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 31, 1149.Google Scholar
McConnell, A. A., Eastwood, M. A. & Mitchell, W. D. (1974). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 25, 1457.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. D. & Eastwood, M. A. (1976). In Fibre in Human Nutrition, p. 185 [Spiller, G. A. & Amen, R. J., editors]. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. A., Eastwood, M. A. & Yeoman, M. M. (1980). J. Sci. Fd Agric. (In the Press).Google Scholar
Schaller, D. (1976). Paper presented at the 61st annual meeting of the America1 Association of Cereal Chemists, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
Southgate, D. A. T. (1976). In Marabou Symposium, Food and Fibre, Naringsfarskning, suppl. 14, p. 12.Google Scholar
Stephen, A. M. & Cummings, J. H. (1979). Gut, 20, 722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 46, 829.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Robertson, J. B. (1976). In Marabou Symposium, Food and Fibre, Naringsfarskning, suppl. 14, p. 12.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. W. (1967). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 50, 50.Google Scholar
Williams, R. D. & Olmstedt, W. H. (1936). J. Nutr. 11, 433.Google Scholar