Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:01:59.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of dietary fat on fat metabolism and body Fat deposition in meal-feeding and nibbling rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. D. Wood  and
J. T. Reid
J. D. Wood
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
J. T. Reid
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
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. An experiment was done with rats (body-weight 160 g) to study the effects on fat metabolism and body composition of low (10 g/kg)- or high (140 g/kg)-fat diets fed as one meal for one 4 h period/d (meal-feeders) or as six spaced meals/d (nibblers). The daily energy intake/unit metabolic body-weight (body-weight0.73) was the same for all four groups, and this level of intake was about 80% of that consumed by rats allowed unrestricted access to the low-fat diet. The experimental period was 76 d.

2. Rats given the high-fat diet deposited more body fat/d and, as a result, grew faster and were energetically more efficient than rats given the low-fat diet. The high-fat diet depressed de novo lipogenesis from glucose in epididymal and perirenal fat pads, whose fatty acid composition resembled that of the diet.

3. For both diets meal-feeders had greater stomach plus small intestine weights than nibblers and had higher plasma free fatty acid levels, when they were killed 15 h after their last meal.

4. Meal-feeders given the low-fat diet had the greatest rate of lipogenesis for fat pads.

5. Meal-feeders given the high-fat diet deposited less of the main dietary fatty acids in their fat pads.

6. There was no evidence that meal-feeders eating a high-fat diet adapt their metabolism so completely that they become more efficient utilizers than those nibbling this diet. Meal-feeders eating the low-fat diet became no fatter than nibblers of this diet, possibly because they were eating less than their daily ad lib. intake.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , July 1975 , pp. 15 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1955). Official Methods of Analysis, 8th ed.Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Cohn, C., Shrago, E. & Joseph, D. (1955). Am. J. Physiol. 180, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dole, V. P. & Meinertz, H. (1960). J. biol. Chem. 235, 2595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folch, J., Lees, M. & Sloane Stanley, G. H. (1957). J. biol. Chem. 226, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, D. W. (1967). Can. J. Physiol. Pharmac. 45, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollifield, G. & Parson, W. (1962). J. clin. Invest. 41, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, G. R., Hutchison, C. F. & Zanetti, M. E. (1966). Biochem. J. 99, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leveille, G. A. & Hanson, R. W. (1966). J. Lipid Res. 7, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hea, E. K. & Leveille, G. A. (1968). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 26, III.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Bensadoun, A., Bull, L. S., Burton, J. H., Gleeson, P. A., Han, I. K., Joo, Y. D., Johnson, D. E., McManus, W. R., Paladines, O. L., Stroud, J. W., Tyrrell, H. F., Van Niekerk, B. D. H. & Wellington, G. W. (1968). Body Composition in Animals and Man p. 19. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Schiemann, R. (1969). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 12, p. 31.Google Scholar
Tepperman, H. M. & Tepperman, J. (1964). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 23, 73.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. H. & Leveille, G. A. (1970). J. Nutr. 100, 1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. D. (1973). Anim. Prod. 17, 281.Google Scholar