AJCN Cancer Health Disparities Conference
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Payne, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Herd, L. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Payne, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Herd, L. D.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Payne, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Herd, L. D.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 34, 2711-2715, Copyright © 1981 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc


ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Effectiveness of milk products in dietary management of lactose malabsorption

DL Payne, JD Welsh, CV Manion, A Tsegaye and LD Herd

Eleven lactose malabsorbers were studied to compare the effectiveness of commercially available products recommended for dietary treatment of lactose malabsorption. One product, a commercial lactase preparation, is added to milk for lactose hydrolysis before consumption. The other is a commercial milk product containing lactose-hydrolyzing, nonpathogenic bacteria, Lactobacillus acidophilus. Both of these products are presently recommended for management of lactose malabsorption, although such recommendations have not been validated by controlled studies. Lactose malabsorption was determined by breath H2 analyses after subjects drank four different test doses on 4 different days. The first test dose was 480 ml of low fat milk; the second was 480 ml of milk treated with a commercial lactase preparation; the third was 480 ml of a commercial L. acidophilus-containing milk; and the fourth was 480 ml of the L. acidophilus-containing milk after 1 wk of gastrointestinal exposure to this commercial bacteria-containing milk. The mean breath H2 response to the lactase-treated milk was significantly lower (p less than 0.001) than the mean response to regular milk. However, the mean breath H2 response to either of the test doses of the L. acidophilus-containing milk were not significantly different than responses to regular milk. It is concluded that the lactase-treated milk reduces breath H2 responses and symptomatic discomfort from malabsorption while the L. acidophilus-containing milk does not.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Nutr.Home page
M. E. Sanders
Considerations for Use of Probiotic Bacteria to Modulate Human Health
J. Nutr., February 1, 2000; 130(2): 384 - 384.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Food Science and Technology InternationalHome page
E. Renner
Dietary approaches to alleviation of lactose maldigestion / Efectos de la dieta sobre la digestion de la lactosa
Food Science and Technology International, January 1, 1997; 3(2): 71 - 79.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Food Science and Technology InternationalHome page
G.A. Somkutl and V.H. Holsinger
Microbial technologies in the production of low-lactose dairy foods / Tecnologias microbiologicas para la elaboracion de productos lacteos con bajo contenido en lactosa
Food Science and Technology International, January 1, 1997; 3(3): 163 - 169.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1981 by The American Society for Nutrition