This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Young, E. A. Articles by Balderas, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Young, E. A. Articles by Balderas, V. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Hazardous Substances DB NITROGEN Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Gastrointestinal Response to Nutrient Variation of Defined Formula Diets

Division of Human Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

Louis A. Cioletti, M.S.

Division of Human Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

Jill B. Traylor, B.S.

Division of Human Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

Vidal Balderas, B.S.

Division of Human Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas

The gastrointestinal response to oral alimentation of low residue commercial defined formula diets or a rat liquid formula was studied. Male Sprague-Dawley rats (220-250 g) were fed isocaloric amounts (73 kcal/day) of Vivonex (V), Vivonex HN (VHN), Flexical (F), Vital (Vit), or a control Casein diet 116EC (C). Nitrogen (N) retention was calculated from N intake minus N excretion/day. After 2 weeks, rats were killed and the liver, pancreas, and small bowel removed and weighed. Pancreatic amylase activity (U g) and liver lipid were measured. The bowel was divided into eight equal segments, and mucosal weight, DNA, and protein concentration per centimeter were measured. Despite isocaloric feeding, body weight gain was lower in V and VHN groups, and higher in F and Vit groups compared to the C. Amylase specific activity was increased in V, VHN, and F groups, while the liver lipid was increased in the V and VHN groups when compared to C animals. The most proximal intestinal segment weight, mucosal weight, protein and DNA of V, VHN, and Vit groups were less than C animals, while distal segments were similar. F animals showed greater intestinal mass than C rats. These studies indicate statistically significant differences in gastrointestinal responses as a result of nutrient variation of defined formula diets.

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 5, No. 6, 478-484 (1981)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607181005006478


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. Nelson and R.I. Russell Influence of the Intake and Composition of Elemental Diets on Bile Acid Metabolism and Hepatic Lipids in the Rat JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, July 1, 1986; 10(4): 399 - 404. [Abstract] [PDF]

				O. Trocki, H. Mochizuki, L. Dominioni, and J. W. Alexander Intact Protein Versus Free Amino Acids in the Nutritional Support of Thermally Injured Animals JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, March 1, 1986; 10(2): 139 - 145. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. C. Heimburger and R. L. Weinsier Guidelines for Evaluating and Categorizing Enteral Feeding Formulas According to Therapeutic Equivalence JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, January 1, 1985; 9(1): 61 - 67. [Abstract] [PDF]