4.6 Article

Rye bread enhances the production and plasma concentration of butyrate but not the plasma concentrations of glucose and insulin in pigs

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 135, 期 7, 页码 1696-1704

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jn/135.7.1696

关键词

carbohydrates; catheterized pigs; glucose; short-chain fatty acids; butyrate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present investigation was undertaken to study the gastrointestinal and physiologic properties of diets based on soft and crisp wheat and rye breads similar in dietary fiber (DF; 230-235 g/kg dry matter) but with different proportions of the main DF polymers: in wheat, cellulose, and in rye, arabinoxylans (AX). The 2 diets provided all macronutrients; consequently, they had lower fat and sugar contents and a higher DF content than human mixed diets. The nutritional properties were studied in experiments in which pigs with cannulated ilea and catheterized portal veins and mesenteric arteries served as models for humans. The characteristics studied were degradation of nutrients, flow at the ileum, fecal output, absorption of nutrients deriving from the assimilation of cereal carbohydrates, and the insulin response. Apparent viscosity at the terminal small intestine, the ileal flow of water, flow and digestibility of noncarbohydrate constituents, but not of carbohydrates at the terminal ileum or the plasma concentrations of glucose and insulin, were higher when pigs consumed the rye compared with the wheat diet. The 2 diets provided approximately equal amounts of carbohydrates available for fermentation in the large intestine but because AX from the rye diet was more degradable than cellulose from the wheat diet, the quantitative degradation in the large intestine was more than twice as high when pigs consumed the former compared with the latter diet. The consequences included moister feces and significantly enhanced gut production and plasma concentrations of butyrate when pigs consumed the rye diet compared with the wheat diet.

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

4.6
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