4.6 Article

Dietary fibers affect viscosity of solutions and simulated human gastric and small intestinal digesta

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 136, Issue 4, Pages 913-919

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jn/136.4.913

Keywords

viscosity; dietary fiber; gastric; small intestine; digesta

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two experiments were conducted to determine the viscosities of both soluble and insoluble dietary fibers. In Expt. 1, corn bran, defatted rice bran, guar gum, gum xanthan, oat bran, psyllium, soy hulls, stabilized rice bran, wheat bran, wood cellulose, and 2 methylcellulose controls (Ticacel 42 (R), Ticacel 43 (R)) were hydrated in water overnight at 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2% concentrations. In Expt. 2, guar gum, oat bran, psyllium, rice bran, wheat bran, and wood cellulose were subjected to a 2-stage in vitro gastric and small intestinal digestion simulation model. Viscosity was measured every 2 and 3 h during gastric and small intestinal simulation, respectively. Viscosities in both experiments were measured at multiple shear rates. Viscosities of all fiber solutions were concentration- and shear rate-dependent. Rice brans, soy hulls, and wood cellulose had the lowest viscosities, whereas guar gum, psyllium, and xanthan gum had the highest viscosities, regardless of concentration. During gastric simulation, viscosity was higher (P < 0.05) at 4 h than at 0 h for guar gum, psyllium, rice bran, and wheat bran. During small intestinal simulation, viscosities were higher (P < 0.05) between 3 and 9 h compared with 18 h for guar gum, oat bran, and rice bran. Guar gum, psyllium, and oat bran exhibited viscous characteristics throughout small intestinal simulation, indicating potential for these fibers to elicit blood glucose and lipid attenuation. Wheat and rice brans and wood cellulose did not exhibit viscous characteristics throughout small intestinal digestion; thus, they may be beneficial for laxation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available