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 Young, E. A.
Right arrow Articles by Balderas, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Young, E. A.
Right arrow Articles by Balderas, V.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Young, E. A.
Right arrow Articles by Balderas, V.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 35, 715-726, Copyright © 1982 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc


ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Gastrointestinal response to oral versus gastric feeding of defined formula diets

EA Young, LA Cioletti, JB Traylor and V Balderas

The gastrointestinal response in rats nourished by continuous intragastric infusion of a variety of defined formula diets was compared with animals consuming the same diets orally. Two groups of rats were fed isocaloric amounts of DFD (73 kcal/day); group 1: sham- operated, orally-fed; group 2: operated, intragastrically-fed. Diets included; Vivonex (V), Flexical (F), Vital, Vivonex high nitrogen, and a control casein rat liquid formula diet (C). After 2 wk rats were killed and the liver, pancreas, and small bowel removed. The bowel was divided into eight equal segments. Mucosal weight, DNA, and protein concentration per cm segment were measured Pancreatic amylase activity (units/g), and liver weight and lipid content were measured. Weight gain was comparable in all oral-fed groups, but was decreased in all gastric-fed animals compared to the oral-fed group. Nitrogen retention was not influenced by route of feeding but was significantly lower for Vivonex and Flexical animals (p less than 0.01) in both oral-fed and gastric-fed groups. There was significant accumulation of lipid in the liver of both oral-fed and gastric-fed animals sustained on Vivonex and Vivonex high nitrogen (p less than 0.01). Most proximal intestinal segment weight and mucosal weight, protein and DNA were decreased compared to the control diet in both oral-fed and gastric-fed animals. These studies demonstrate that while the gastrointestinal response to isocaloric defined formula diets was significantly influenced by the specific diet, fewer responses were modified by feeding defined formula diets orally versus gastrically.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Nutr Clin PractHome page
G. P. Zaloga
Invited Review: Physiologic Effects of Peptide-Based Enteral Formulas
Nutr Clin Pract, December 1, 1990; 5(6): 231 - 237.
[PDF]


Home page
West J Nurs ResHome page
M. M. Heitkemper, J. C. Miller, and J. F. Shaver
The Effect of Restricted Liquid Feeding on Gastrointestinal and Adrenocortical Variables in Rats
West J Nurs Res, February 1, 1989; 11(1): 34 - 46.
[PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1982 by The American Society for Nutrition