4.4 Article

Lupin kernel fibre foods improve bowel function and beneficially modify some putative faecal risk factors for colon cancer in men

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 95, 期 2, 页码 372-378

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1079/BJN20051648

关键词

lupin; dietary fibre; legume; bowel function; faeces; SCFA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Consumption of some dietary fibres may benefit bowel health; however, the effect of Australian sweet lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) kernel fibre (LKFibre) is unknown. The present study examined the effect of a high-fibre diet containing LKFibre on bowel function and faecal putative risk factors for colon cancer compared to a control diet without LKFibre. Thirty-eight free-living, healthy men consumed an LKFibre and a control diet for 1 month each in a single-blind, randomized, crossover study. Depending on subject energy intake, the LKFibre diet was designed to provide 17-30 g/d fibre (in experimental foods) above that of the control diet. Bowel function self-perception, frequency of defecation, transit time, faecal output, pH and moisture, faecal levels of SCFA and ammonia, and faecal bacterial beta-glucuronidase activity were assessed. In comparison to the control diet, the LKFibre diet increased frequency of defecation by 0 center dot 13 events/d (P=0 center dot 047), increased faecal output by 21 % (P=0 center dot 020) and increased faecal moisture content by 1 center dot 6 % units (P=0 center dot 027), whilst decreasing transit time by 17 % (P=0 center dot 012) and decreasing faecal pH by 0 center dot 26 units (P < 0 center dot 001). Faecal butyrate concentration was increased by 16 % (P=0 center dot 006), butyrate output was increased by 40 % (P=0 center dot 002) and beta-glucuronidase activity was lowered by 1 center dot 4 mu mol/h per g wet faeces compared to the control diet (P < 0 center dot 001). Addition of LKFibre to the diet incorporated into food products improved some markers of healthy bowel function and colon cancer risk in men.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据