Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:19:44.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and the development of dietary obesity in adulthood of rats which have been undernourished during development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. N. Stephens
D. N. Stephens
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, The Department of Child Health, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The effect of feeding a highly-palatable and varied diet on growth and body composition was assessed in male rats, some of which had undergone a period of undernutrition early in their development.

2. Undernutrition during gestation had no effects on weight, length or fat content of offspring in adulthood. Rats underfed during the first 3 weeks of postnatal life were shorter, lighter and more lean as adults than controls which had been well nourished through life.

3. Feeding the palatable diet from weaning led to increases in length and fat-free mass, and to comparable extents of obesity in all groups, irrespective of whether they had suffered either period of undernutrition. Access to palatable food for 30 d in adulthood also led to obesity, but to increases in length and fat-free mass in only the groups undernourished during suckling.

4. Withdrawal of the palatable diet led to some initial weight loss in all groups, irrespective of whether they had been undernourished during development; and 100 d following the replacement of the palatable with stock diet, there were no longer differences in weight between groups which had received palatable food, and those given stock diet throughout.

5. Nevertheless, those rats which had been undernourished during the suckling period and subsequently fed on the palatable diet still showed increased length and fat-free mass relative to their controls fed on the stock diet throughout.

6. All groups which had received the palatable diet, whether from weaning or as adults, and irrespective of early nutrition, were significantly less fat 100 d after its withdrawal than were those rats fed on the stock diet throughout life.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , November 1980 , pp. 215 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

REFERENCES

Adlard, B. P. F., Dobbing, J. & Smart, J. L. (1973). Biol. Neonate 23, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R. H., Kwong, E., Morrissey, L., Vilhjalmsdottir, L. & Levitsky, D. A. (1973). J. Nutr. 103, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardis, L. L. (1966). Experientia 22, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1968). In Early Experience and Behavior. [Newton, G. and Levine, S., editors]. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.Google Scholar
Cheng, M., Rozin, P. & Teitelbaum, P. (1971). J. comp. Physiol Psychol. 76, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, B. F. & Lee, C. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, B. F. & Stephan, J. K. (1971). Nutr. Rep. int. 4, 245.Google Scholar
Crnic, L. S. (1979). Physiol. Behav. 22, 1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbing, J. (1980). In Infant and Child Feeding. [Thomson, A. M., Bond, J., Filer, L., Leveille, G. A. and Weil, W., editors]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dobbing, J. & Sands, J. (1971). Biol. Neonate 19, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, P. C. R. & Tanner, J. M. (1970). J. Anat. 106, 349.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. C. (1957). J. Endocr. 16, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, G. C. (1969). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 157, 1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundy, L. A. & Porter, G. (1969). J. Inst. Anim. Techn. 20, 78.Google Scholar
Pace, N. & Rathbun, E. N. (1945). J. biol. Chem. 158, 685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peckham, S. C., Entenman, C. & Carroll, H. W. (1962). J. Nutr. 77, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitts, G. C. & Bull, L. S. (1977). Am. J. Physiol. 232, R34.Google Scholar
Rolls, B. J. & Rowe, E. A. (1979). Physiol. Behav. 23, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolls, B. J., Rowe, E. A. & Turner, R. C. (1980). J. Physiol., Lond. 298, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, N. J. & Stock, M. J. (1978). J. Physiol., Lond. 276, 60P.Google Scholar
Rothwell, N. J. & Stock, M. J. (1979 a). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, N. J. & Stock, M. J. (1979 b). Nature, New Biol. 281, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, N. J. & Stock, M. J. (1980). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 39, 45A.Google Scholar
Sands, J., Dobbing, J. & Gratrix, C. (1979). Lancet ii, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schemmel, R., Mickelson, O. & Tolgay, Z. (1969). Am. J. Physiol. 216, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sclafani, A. & Gorman, A. N. (1977). Physiol. Behav. 18, 1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sclafani, A. & Springer, D. (1976). Physiol. Behav. 17, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. L., Adlard, B. P. F. & Dobbing, J. (1974). Biol. Neonate 25, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. L., Dobbing, J., Adlard, B. P. F., Lynch, A. & Sands, J. (1973). J. Nutr. 103, 1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, D. N. (1980). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 39, 39A.Google Scholar
UMRCC (1978). Manchester: SPSS—version 6 on the 7600 at UMRCC p. 145. University of Manchester Regional Computer Centre.Google Scholar
Whatson, T. S. & Smart, J. L. (1978). Physiol. Behav. 20, 749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1960). Proc. Roy. Soc. B19, 188.Google Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1963). Proc. Roy. Soc. B158, 329.Google Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1975). Pediat. Res. 9, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. P. G., Tanner, J. M. & Hughes, P. C. R. (1974). Pediat. Res. 8, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar