4.7 Article

Gastrointestinal Symptoms and FODMAP Intake of Aged-Care Residents from Christchurch, New Zealand

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu9101083

Keywords

FODMAPs; gastrointestinal symptom; irritable bowel syndrome; older people

Funding

  1. Dietitians New Zealand Neige Todhunter Award for Postgraduate Study
  2. Canterbury Branch of The Royal Society of New Zealand Student Travel Awards
  3. University of Otago Postgraduate Publishing Bursary

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies on fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides as well as polyols (FODMAPs) intake in older adults are lacking. This study investigated the relationship between gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and FODMAPs in aged care residents. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Score questionnaire modified for patients with IBS (GSRS-IBS) was used to identify participants with IBS-like symptoms. Dietary intake was assessed for a subgroup of participants with highest total GSRS-IBS score (symptomatic cases) and age, sex, and level of care matched participants with low total GSRS-IBS score (asymptomatic controls). Seventy-four participants with a mean (SD) age of 86 (6.6) years completed the GSRS-IBS questionnaire and dietary data were collected using food diaries from a subsample of 27 symptomatic and 27 asymptomatic participants. The study found many older adults with functional gut symptoms. There were no differences between the groups for FODMAP intake and no significant relationship was found between FODMAP intake and total GSRS-IBS score. Lactose from milk and milk-based desserts was the biggest FODMAP contributor (16 g/day) and a significant relationship between total FODMAP intake and diarrhoea was found. A larger study sample in future studies is required to better capture symptomatic cases and manipulation of dietary FODMAPs may assist with the management of IBS in the elderly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available