Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:51:15.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differing effects of pectin, cellulose and lignin on stool pH, transit time and weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Lybus Hillman ,
Sue Peters ,
Anne Fisher  and
E. W. Pomare
Lybus Hillman
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Wellington Clinical School, University of Otago, New Zealand
Sue Peters
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Wellington Clinical School, University of Otago, New Zealand
Anne Fisher
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Wellington Clinical School, University of Otago, New Zealand
E. W. Pomare
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Wellington Clinical School, University of Otago, New Zealand
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. Randomized cross-over studies were undertaken to determine the effects of daily dietary supplements of pectin (12 g/d), cellulose (15 g/d) and lignin (12 g/d) on stool characteristics of healthy volunteers.

2. Detailed dietary records were kept throughout the study. Stool collections over 48 h were used to determine mean stool pH and weight. The single stool transit time was measured using radio-opaque markers.

3. Pectin did not significantly alter the mean stool pH, transit time or 24 h wet weight.

4. Cellulose lowered the mean stool pH from 6·38 to 6·12, decreased mean stool transit time by 27% and increased mean wet stool weight by 57%.

5. Lignin lowered the mean pH from 6·34 to 6·25, decreased the stool transit time by 20% and increased stool weight by 27% but these changes were not statisticallysignificant.

6. These findings have shown that individual fibre components have different colonic metabolic effects and support the view that associations between dietary fibre intakes anddiseases such as colorectal cancer should be evaluated with regard to the type of fibrecomponents consumed.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 189 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

REFERENCES

Bauer, H. G., Asp, N. G., Dahlqvist, A., Fredlund, P. E., Nyman, M. & Oste, R. (1981). Cancer Research 41, 2518–2523.Google Scholar
Bingham, S. & Cummings, J. H. (1980). In Medical Aspects of Dietary Fiber, pp. 261–284 [Spiller, G. A. and Kay, R. M., editors]. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, S., Williams, D. R. R., Cole, T. J. & James, W. P. T. (1979). British Journal of Cancer 40, 456–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkitt, D. P., Walker, A. R. P. & Painter, N. S. (1972). Lancet ii, 1408–1411.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. H. (1981). Gut 22, 763–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, J. H., Southgate, D. A. T. & Branch, W. J. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, J. H. & Wiggins, H. S. (1976). Gut 17, 219–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durrington, P. N., Manning, A. P., Poolton, C. H. & Hartog, M. (1976). Lancet ii, 394–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwood, M. A., Kirkpatrick, J. R., Mitchell, W. D., Bone, A. & Hamil, T. (1973). British Medical Journal 4, 392–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. H., Spiller, G. A. & Kim, Y. S. (1980). Cancer Research 40, 2661–2665.Google Scholar
Holloway, W. D., Tasman-Jones, C. & Lee, S. P. (1978). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 31, 927–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, W. D., Tasman-Jones, C. & Maher, K. (1977). New Zealand Medical Journal 85, 420–423.Google Scholar
International Agency for Research on Cancer, Intestinal Microbiology Group (1977). Lancet ii, 207–211.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D. J. A., Wolever, T. M. S., Leeds, A. R., Gassull, M. A., Haisman, P., Dilawari, J., Goff, D. V., Metz, G. L. & Alberti, K. G. M. M. (1978). British Medical Journal 1, 1392–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsay, J. L., Goering, H. K., Behall, K. M. & Prather, E. S. (1981). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34, 1849–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miettinen, T. A. & Tarpila, S. (1977). Clinica Chimica Acta 79, 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, A. A. & Southgate, D. A. T. (1978). McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 4th ed. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Rotstein, O. D., Kay, R. M., Wayman, M. & Strasberg, S. M. (1980). Gastroenterology 79, 1247 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Slavin, J. L. & Marlett, J. A. (1980). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 33, 1932–1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, D. A. T. (1978) American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Supplement 31, 107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiller, G., Chernoff, M. C., Hill, R. A., Gates, J. E., Nassar, J. J. & Shipley, E. A. (1980). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 33, 754–759.Google Scholar
Spiller, G. A. & Freeman, H. J. (1981). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34, 1145–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, A. M. & Cummings, J. H. (1980). Nature 284, 283–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, A. M. & Cummings, J. H. (1981). Gastroenterology 80, 1294 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Thornton, J. R. (1981). Lancet i, 1081–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A. R. P., Walker, R. F. & Segal, I. (1979). South African Medical Journal 55, 495–498.Google Scholar