Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-jcwnq Total loading time: 0.29 Render date: 2021-10-16T02:48:19.329Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Energy balance and energy values of α-amylase (EC 3. 2. 1. 1)-resistant maize and pea (Pisum sativum) starches in the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. Livesy
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Research, Norwich Laboratory, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UA
I. R. Davies
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Research, Norwich Laboratory, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UA
J. C. Brown
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Research, Norwich Laboratory, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UA
R. M. Faulks
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Research, Norwich Laboratory, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UA
S. Southon
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Research, Norwich Laboratory, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UA
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

Apparent and partial digestible energy values for α-amylase (EC 3. 2. 1. 1)-resistant, retrograde starches, isolated from cooked maize and pea starches (RMS and RPS respectively), were determined in male Wistar rats (about 180 g) during a 28–29 d balance period with ten animals per treatment. The starches were provided as supplements (100 g/kg diet) to a semi-synthetic basal diet (B), and their effects on the apparent digestibilities of nitrogen and fat, and on gains of live weight, fat and lean tissue were examined. Diet B alone was the control; sucrose (Su) and Solka-floc cellulose (SFC) were also examined for reference. Apparent digestibilities for Su, SFC, RMS and RPS were 1.0, 0.16, 0.98 and 0.89 respectively. Whereas the apparent digestibilities of gross energy, N and fat in the diet were unaffected by supplementation with Su, each was decreased by supplementation with SFC, RMS and RPS. Partial digestible energy values calculated from the intakes and faecal losses of energy in the basal and supplemented diets were 15, 12.4 and 0.8 kJ/g for RMS, RPS and SFC respectively. These values were smaller than corresponding apparent digestible energy values calculated from the apparent digestibility of the supplement and its gross energy value. Only the Su and starch supplements increased the intake of apparent digestible energy and the gain of live weight. Both starches and Su increased total energy (and fat) deposition to almost similar extents. It is concluded that the resistant starches contribute significant dietary energy, enhance growth and elevate fat deposition to extents almost similar to Su.

Type
Energy Metabolism
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1990

References

Berry, C. S. (1986). Resistant starch: formation and measurement of maize starch that survives exhaustive digestion with amylolytic enzymes during determination of dietary fibre. Journal of Cereal Science 4, 301314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorck, I., Nyman, M., Pedersen, B., Siljestrom, M., Asp, N. G. & Eggum, B. D. (1986). On the digestibility of starch in wheat bread-studies in vivo. Journal of Cereal Science 4, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkitt, D. P. & Trowell, A. C. (1975). Refined Carbohydrate Foods and Disease, Some Implications of Dietary Fibre. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cleave, T. C. (1974). The Saccharine Disease. Bristol: John Wright and Sons Ltd.Google ScholarPubMed
Collinson, R. (1968). Swelling and gelatinisation of starch. In Starch and its Derivatives, pp. 194201 [Radley, J. A., editor]. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Davies, I. R., Johnson, I. T. & Livesey, G. (1987). Food energy values of dietary fibre components and decreased deposition of body fat. International Journal of Obesity 11, Suppl. 1, 101105.Google ScholarPubMed
Englyst, H. N. & Cummings, J. H. (1985). Digestion of the polysaccharides of some cereal foods in the human small intestine. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 42, 778787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Englyst, H. N. & MacFarlane, G. T. (1986). Breakdown of resistant starch and readily digestible starch by human gut bacteria. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 37, 699706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englyst, H. N., Trowell, H., Southgate, D. A. T. & Cummings, J. H. (1987). Dietary fibre and resistant starch. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 46, 873876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Englyst, H. N., Wiggins, H. S. & Cummings, J. H. (1982). Determination of the non-starch polysaccharides in plant foods by gas-liquid chromatography of the constituent sugars as alditol acetates. Analyst 107, 307318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faulks, R. M., Southon, S. & Livesey, G. (1989). Utilization of α-amylase (EC 3. 2. 1. 1)-resistant maize and pea (Pisum sativum) starch in the rat. British Journal of Nutrition 61, 291300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (1987). Physiological Effects and Health consequences of Dietary Fiber [Pilch, S. M., editor]. Maryland, USA: Life Science Research Office.Google Scholar
Harley, L. J., Davies, I. R. & Livesey, G. (1989). Digestible energy value of gums in the rat — data on gum arabic. Food Additives and Contaminants 6, 1320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Health and Welfare Canada (1986). Report of the Expert Advisory Committee on Dietary Fibre. Canada: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Judd, P. A. (1982). The effects of high intakes of barley on gastro-intestinal function and apparent digestibilities of dry matter, nitrogen and fat in human volunteers. Journal of Plant Foods 4, 7988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsay, J. L., Behall, K. M. & Prather, E. S. (1978). Effect of fibre from fruit and vegetables on metabolic responses of human subjects. I. Bowel transit time, number of defactions, faecal weight, urinary excretion of energy and nitrogen and apparent digestibilities of energy, nitrogen and fat. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 31, 11491153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, M. (1975). The Fire of Life: An Introduction to Animal Energetics, pp. 259271. Huntington, New York: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Livesey, G. (1989 a). Complex carbohydrates and energy, In Nutrient Availability: Chemical and Biological Aspects, pp. 385387 [Fenwick, R., Johnson, I. T. and Southgate, D. A. T., editors]. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
Livesey, G. (1989 b). Procedures for calculating the digestible and metabolizable energy value of food components making a small contribution to dietary intake. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 48, 475481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livesey, G. (1990). Food energy values of unavailable carbohydrates and diets; an enquiry and analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51, 617637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livesey, G. & Davies, I. R. (1988). Caloric value of fibre and guar gum. In Low-calorie Products, pp. 223244 [Birch, G. and Lindley, M., editors]. London: Applied Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Mead, R. & Curnow, R. N. (1983). Statistical Methods in Agriculture and Experimental Biology. London and New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, A. L. & Watt, B. K. (1973). Energy values of foods: basis and derivation. Agriculture Handbook no. 74. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Miles, M. J., Morris, V. J. & Ring, S. G. (1985). The roles of amylose and amylo-pectin in the gelation and retrogradation of starch. Carbohydrate Research 135, 257–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyman, M., Asp, N. G., Cummings, J. & Wiggins, H. (1986). Fermentation of dietary fibre in the intestinal tract: comparison between man and rat. British Journal of Nutrition 55, 487496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, A. A. & Southgate, D. A. T. (1978). McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ring, S. G., Gee, J. M., Whittam, M., Orford, P. & Johnson, I. T. (1988). Resistant starch: its chemical form in food stuffs and effect on digestibility in vitro. Food Chemistry 28, 97109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, D. A. T. (1987). Minerals, trace elements and potential hazards. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 45, 12561266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Southgate, D. A. T. & Durnin, J. V. G. A. (1970). Calorie conversion factors: an experimental reassessment of the factors used in the calculation of the energy values of human diets. British Journal of Nutrition 24, 517535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J., Levitsky, D. A., Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., Kalkwarf, H. L. & Roe, D. A. (1987) Effect of psyllium gum and wheat bran on spontaneous energy intake. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 46, 812817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyatt, G. & Horn, N. (1988). Fermentation of resistant food starches by human and rat intestinal bacteria. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 44, 981988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
18
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Energy balance and energy values of α-amylase (EC 3. 2. 1. 1)-resistant maize and pea (Pisum sativum) starches in the rat
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Energy balance and energy values of α-amylase (EC 3. 2. 1. 1)-resistant maize and pea (Pisum sativum) starches in the rat
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Energy balance and energy values of α-amylase (EC 3. 2. 1. 1)-resistant maize and pea (Pisum sativum) starches in the rat
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *