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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nyman, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Asp, N. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nyman, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Asp, N. G.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Nyman, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Asp, N. G.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 48, 274-278, Copyright © 1988 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Fermentation of oat fiber in the rat intestinal tract: a study of different cellular areas

MG Nyman and NG Asp
Department of Food Chemistry, Chemical Center, Lund, Sweden.

Intestinal fermentation of dietary fiber from oat husk, bran, and white flour and a commercial oat bran was investigated through balance experiments in rats. Both solubility and monomeric composition of the fiber differed widely. Fiber from husk was only 0.5% soluble and nearly completely resistant to fermentation whereas fiber from bran (38% soluble) and white flour (24% soluble) was more fermentable (62% and 55% of the intake, respectively). Fiber from commercial bran (37% soluble) was most extensively fermented; only 19% of the fiber could be detected in feces. The fecal dry weight with the husk in the diet was significantly (p less than 0.001) higher than that for the other preparations. Most of the fecal dry weight increment for husk (approximately 95%) could be accounted for as fiber whereas only 45-65% of the increment was undergraded fiber for the other preparations. An additional 20-30% could be explained by protein and approximately 15% by fat with these preparations.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by The American Society for Nutrition