4.1 Article

Plant residue and bacteria as bases for increased stool weight accompanying consumption of higher dietary fiber diets

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NUTRITION
Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 426-433

Publisher

AMER COLL NUTRITION
DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2000.10718942

Keywords

dietary fiber; microflora; fiber digestibility; stool composition

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA46339] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Stool diluting effects of relatively inert material, such as unfermentable dietary fiber, has been proposed as an effect of fiber beneficial to the colon. Stool dilution by increasing bacterial mass may be beneficial or deleterious, depending on bacterial metabolic products. The purpose of this study was to determine the basis for stool weight when two stepwise increases of fiber from all classes of fiber-containing foods were consumed. Methods: Stool from five men consuming three constant diets containing 15, 30 and 42 g/d of dietary fiber were fractionated into plant material and bacteria and analyzed for neutral and amino sugar content. Fecal nitrogen, fat and ash were measured. Results: Daily gravimetric yield and sugar content of the plant fraction from stool increased with each fiber addition. Compared to the low fiber diet, the medium fiber diet decreased the concentration of the bacterial mass in wet stool by 11% and the high fiber diet by an additional 32%. The high fiber diet decreased stool fat concentration; the medium and high fiber diets decreased stool nitrogen concentration to the same extent. Apparent digestibility of plant-derived neutral sugars decreased with each fiber addition. Conclusions: Inherently less fermentable plant material modulates the colon environment in three beneficial ways: it is a relatively unreactive diluent of lumenal contents; it adds mass to promote distal movement of waste; it does not promote a large bacterial mass.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available