Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:29:33.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some effects of dietary dextrose, fructose, liquid glucose and sucrose in the adult male rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. J. L. Allen  and
J. S. Leahy
R. J. L. Allen
Affiliation:
Beecham Food and Drink Division, Brentford, Middlesex
J. S. Leahy
Affiliation:
Huntingdon Research Centre, Huntingdon
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. For 26 weeks, adult male rats were fed on diets containing about 80 % of carbohydrate, given as dextrose, fructose, liquid glucose, or sucrose; their performance was compared with that of rats receiving a standard laboratory cubed diet (41 B) containing 60 % of carbohydrate, mainly as starch. 2. More of diet 41 B was eaten than of any of the diets containing sugars, but only with dextrose was the mean body-weight gain significantly lower than with diet 41 B. 3. No significant differences in body length or girth were produced by the different diets. 4. Compared with those of rats given diet 41B, plasma cholesterol levels were significantly in- creased by fructose and sucrose and to a lesser extent by dextrose, but not by liquid glucose. 5. Compared with those given diet 41 B, the rats given fructose had heavier hearts, kidneys and livers, those given sucrose had heavier hearts and livers, and those given dextrose had heavier hearts. Those given fructose had the heaviest kidneys and livers, and heavier hearts than those given liquid glucose. The organ weights of those given liquid glucose and those given diet 41 B were not significantly different. 6. Compared with the values on diet 41B, carcass and liver fat were both significantly increased by sucrose and fructose but not by dex- trose or liquid glucose. With fructose, liver fat was almost double that with dextrose or liquid glucose. 7. Dry-matter contents of whole carcass and liver followed substantially the same pattern as did the fat contents. 8. Liver protein content was significantly lower on the 80 % carbohydrate diets. The reductions were greatest with fructose and sucrose.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 1966 , pp. 339 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1966

References

REFERENCES

Bachmann, G., Haldi, J., Wynn, W. & Ensor, C. (1938). J. Nutr. 16, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, C. H., Hartroft, W. S., Lucas, C. C. & Ridout, J. H. (1949). Br. med. J. ii, 1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Pharmaceutical Codex (1963). London: The Pharmaceutical Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, H. M. & Parkes, A. S. (1949). J. Hyg., Camb., 47, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, H. M. & Parkes, A. S. (1956). J. Anim. Techns Ass. 7, 54.Google Scholar
Carroll, C. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, V.-O. (1962). J. Nutr. 78, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. M., Bavly, S. & Poznanski, R. (1961). Lancet, ii, 1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. M. & Teitelbaum, A. (1964). Am. J. Physiol. 206, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corson, G. E. (1957). Critical Data Tables. New York: Corn Industries Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Dodds, C., Miller, A. L. & Rose, C. F. M. (1960). Lancet, ii, 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Biometrics, 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyder, S. (1935). J. Nutr. 9, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. B. & Parsons, D. S. (1949). J. Physiol. 110, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, S. M., Calbert, C. E., Savage, E. E. & Deuel, H. J. Jr. (1950). J. Nutr. 41, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, A. E. & Katayama, M. C. (1953). J. Nutr. 49, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heard, C. R. C. (1964). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 23, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, H. L. (1916). Am. J. Physiol. 41, 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leahy, J. S., Noel, P. R. B., Street, A. E. & Worden, A. N. (1961). Lancet, ii, 1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, I. (1962 a). Lancet, i, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, I. (1962 b). J. Physiol. 162, 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, I. (1963). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 12, 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, I. (1964). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 23, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, I. (1965). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 16, 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, I. & Braithwaite, D. M. (1964). Clin. Sci. 27, 23.Google Scholar
Marshall, M. W. & Womack, M. (1954). J. Nutr. 52, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., Hamilton, T. S. & Beadles, J. R. (1937). J. Nutr. 14, 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monson, W. J., Dietrich, L. S. & Elvehjem, C. A. (1950). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 75, 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1929). International Critical Tables. Vol. 5. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Sackett, G. E. (1925). J. biol. Chem. 64, 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, R. P., Yoshida, M. & Harper, A. E. (1963). J. Nutr. 80, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winitz, M., Graff, J. & Seedman, D. A. (1964). Archs Biochem. Biophys. 108, 576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar