Keywords
carboidratos indigestíveis
fibra dietética
função intestinal
produção de fezes
excreção de nitrogênio
How to Cite
Abstract
O amido resistente (AR) vem sendo intensamente pesquisado nos últimos anos em função de seus efeitos benéficos, como redução da energia da dieta, aumento da produção de fezes e desenvolvimento de microrganismos benéficos no trato intestinal, entre outros. O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar a influência do AR da dieta sobre alguns parâmetros de resposta biológica. Foram utilizados ratos machos Wistar (97,1±5,3g) alimentados com rações experimentais suplementadas com 0, 3, 9 e 18% de AR. Os animais foram submetidos a um período de adaptação de 5 dias e, durante o período experimental (15 dias), foram obtidos dados e amostras para a determinação do consumo, ganho de peso, digestibilidade aparente da matéria seca e do amido, produção de fezes úmidas e secas, umidade, pH e nitrogênio nas fezes. A adição de AR às rações não influenciou o consumo, mas diminuiu significativamente o peso dos animais. A produção de fezes úmidas e secas foi significativamente maior em níveis de 9 e 18% de AR. O consumo de AR também aumentou significativamente o teor de umidade e de nitrogênio nas fezes, bem como diminuiu o pH fecal. Os efeitos observados neste trabalho podem ser essencialmente atribuídos à menor digestibilidade aparente do amido e a sua fermentação pela microflora intestinal, o que demonstra seu efeito benéfico no auxílio à manutenção da saúde.References
1. Yue P, Waring S. Resistant starch in food applications. Cereal FoodWorld 1998; 43:690-5.
2. Faisant N, Champ M, Colonna P, Buléon A. Structural discrepancies inresistant starch obtained in vivo in humans and in vitro. Carbohyd Polym 1993; 21:205-9.
3. Morand C, Rémésy C, Levrat MA, Demigné C. Replacement of digestible wheat starch by resistant cornstarch alters splanchnic metabolism in rats. J Nutr 1992; 122:345-54.
4. Kabir M, Rizkalla SW, Champ M, Luo J, Boillot J, Bruzzo F et al. Dietary amylose-amylopectin starch content affects glucose and lipidmetabolism in adipocytes of normal and diabetic rats. J Nutr 1998;128:35-43.
5. De Deckere EAM, Kloots WJ, Van Amelsvoort JMM. Both raw andretrograded starch decrease serum triacylglycerol concentration andfat accretion in the rat. Br J Nutr 1995; 73:287-98.
6. Jenkins DJA, Wolever TM, Jenkins AL. Starchy foods and glycemi cindex. Diabetes Care 1988; 11:149-59.
7. Haralampu SG. Resistant starch – a review of the physical propertie sand biological impact of RS3. Carbohyd Polym 2000; 41:285-92.
8. Ahmed R, Segal I, Hassan H. Fermentation of dietary starch in humans. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95:1017-20.
9. Bianchini F, Caderni G, Magno C. Testolin G, Dolara P. Profile ofshort-chain fatty acids and rectal proliferation in rats fed sucrose orcornstarch diets. J Nutr 1992; 122:254-61.
10. ‘Tharanathan RN. Food-derived carbohydrates – Structural complexity and functional diversity. Crit Rev Biotechnol 2002; 22:65-84.
11. Reeves PG, Nielsen FH, Fahey Jr GC. AIN-93 purified diets forlaboratory rodents: final report of the American Institute of Nutritionad hoc writing committee on the reformulation of the AIN-76A rodentdiet. J Nutr 1993; 23:1939-51.
12. AOAC – Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methodsof Analysis of the AOAC International. 16th ed., supplement 1998.Washington: AOAC, 1995.
13. Walter, M. Amido resistente: metodologias de quantificação e resposta biológica em ratos [Dissertação de mestrado]. Santa Maria, Rio Grandedo Sul: Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, 2005, 96 pp.
14. Brunsgaard G, Bach Knudsen KE, Eggum BO. The influence of the periodof adaptation on the digestibility of diets containing different types ofindigestible polysaccharides in rats. Br J Nutr 1995; 74:833-848.
15. NRC - National Research Council. Nutrient Requirement of LaboratoryAnimals – Nutrient Requirement of Domestic Animals.Washington:National Academy Press; 1995.
16. Schulz AGM, Van Amelsvoort JMM, Beynen AC. Dietary nativeresistant starch but not retrograded resistant starch raises magnesiumand calcium absorption in rats. J Nutr 1993; 123:1724-31.
17. Younes H, Demigné C, Behr S, Rémésy C. Resistant starch exerts alowering effect on plasma urea by enhancing urea N transfer into the large intestine. Nutr Res 1995; 15:1199-210.
18. Jenkins DJA, Vuksan V, Kendall CWC, Würsch P, Jeffcoat R, WaringS et al. Physiological effects of resistant starches on fecal bulk, shortchain fatty acids, blood lipids and glycemic index. J Am Coll Nutr1998; 17:609-16.
19. Gee JM, Faulks RM, Johnson IT. Physiological effects of retrograded,a-amylase-resistant cornstarch in rats. J Nutr 1991; 121:44-9.
20. De Deckere EAM, Kloots WJ, Van Amelsvoort JMM. Resistant starch decreases serum total cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrationsin rats. J Nutr 1993; 123:2142-51.
21. Andrieux C, Sacquet E. Effects of amylomaize starch on mineral metabolism in the adult rat: role of the microflora. J Nutr 1986;116:991-8.
22. De Schrijver R, Vanhoof K, Vande Ginste J. Nutrient utilization in ratsand pigs fed enzyme resistant starch. Nutr Res 1999; 19:1349-61.
23. Faulks RM, Southon S, Livesey G. Utilization of a-amylase (EC 3.2.1.1)resistant maize and pea (Pisum sativum) starch in the rat. Br J Nutr1989; 61:291-300.
24. Verbeek MJF, De Deckere EAM, Tijburg LBM, Van Amelsvoort JMM, Beynen AC. Influence of dietary retrograded starch on the metabolismof neutral steroids and bile acids in rats. Br J Nutr 1995; 74:807-20.
25. Phillips J, Muir JG, Birkett A, Lu ZX, Jones GP, O’Dea K et al. Effectof resistant starch on fecal bulk and fermentation-dependent eventsin humans. Am J Clin Nutr 1995; 62:121-30.
26. Shetty PS, Kurpad AV. Increasing starch intake in the human diet increases fecal bullking. Am J Clin Nutr 1986; 43:210-2.
27. Scheppach W, Fabian C, Ahrens F, Spengler M, Kasper H. Effect ofstarch malabsorption on colonic function and metabolism in humans. Gastroenterology 1988; 95:1549-55.
28. Eastwood MA. The physiological effect of dietary fiber: an update. Annu Rev Nutr 1992; 12:19-35.
29. Wenk C. The role of dietary fibre in the digestive physiology of thepig. Anim Feed Sci Tech 2001; 90:21-33.
30. Stephen AM, Cummings JH. Water-holding by dietary fibre in vitroand its relationship to faecal output in man. Gut 1979; 20:722-9.
31. Jeraci JL, Horvath PS. In vitro fermentation of dietary fiber by humanfecal organisms. Anim Feed Sci Tech 1989; 23:121-40.
32. Hillman L, Peters S, Fischer A, Pomare EW. Differing effects ofpectin, cellulose and lignin on stool pH, transit time and weight. Br JNutr 1983; 50:189-95.
33. Eggum BO, Beames RM, Wolstrup J, Bach Knudsen KE. The effect of protein quality and fibre level in the diet and microbial activity in the digestive tract on protein utilization and energy digestibility in rats.Br J Nutr 1984; 51:305-14.
34. Demigné C, Rémésy C, Rayssiguier Y. Effect of fermentable carbohydrates in volatile fatty acids, ammonia and mineral absorptionin the rat caecum. Reprod Nutr Dev 1980; 20:1351-59.
35. Demigné C, Rémésy C. Influence of unrefined potato starch on cecal fermentations and volatile fatty acid absorption in rats. J Nutr 1982;112: 2227-34.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2005 Instituto Adolfo Lutz Journal