Comparison of dye and pellet gastrointestinal transit time during controlled diets differing in protein and fiber levels
The purpose of this experiment was to compare repeated measurements of the gastrointestinal transit times of simultaneously ingested dye and radiopaque pellets. Pellet transit was calculated as the time required for 80% of the dose to be excreted and as mean transit time (MTT-S). Comparisons were made in seven healthy women during three controlled diet periods, two containing different levels of protein and the third added fiber (16 g refined cellulose). Each experimental period was about one month. Dietary protein level or phases of the menstrual cycle had no significant effect on gastrointestinal transit time. Cellulose consumption also did not significantly affect transit time, but it did reduce the variability between repeated 80% transit determinations in four subjects, between MTT-S in three subjects, and between dye in two subjects. The two different measures of pellet transit, 80% pellets and MTT-S, and the dye were significantly correlated, although the correlations were generally stronger during the cellulose diet period. These results suggest that the menstrual cycle, refined cellulose, and dietary protein level have limited effects on gastrointestinal transit time and that measurement of transit as passage of 80% pellets and MTT-S are comparable.
KeywordsPublic Health Cellulose Protein Level Repeated Measurement Menstrual Cycle
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Kotb AR, Luckey TD: Markers in nutrition. Nutr Abst Rev 42:28–60, 1972Google Scholar
- 6.Slavin J, Marlett JA: Individual variability of gastrointestinal transit time in human subjects on controlled, defined dietary intakes. Fed Proc 36:1119, 1977Google Scholar
- 7.Cummings JH: Diet and transit through the gut.In Dietary Fibre: Current Developments of Importance to Health. KW Heaton (ed). Westport, Connecticut, Technomic Publishing, 1979 pp 83–95Google Scholar
- 12.Rees WDW, Rhodes J: Altered bowel habit and menstruation. Lancet 2:475, 1976Google Scholar
- 14.Recommended Dietary Allowances, 8th ed. Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences Research Council, 1974Google Scholar
- 15.Watt BK, Merrill AL: Composition of Foods. Agricultural Handbook #8. US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, US Government Printing Office, 1963Google Scholar
- 16.Kimura KK: The Nutritional Significance of Dietary Fiber (FDA contract: 223-75-2090). Bethesda, Maryland, Life Sciences Research Office, FASEB, 1977, p 64Google Scholar
- 17.Goering HK, Van Soest PJ: Forage Fiber Analysis. Agriculture Handbook #379, Agriculture Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1970Google Scholar
- 18.Method for Insoluble Dietary Fiber 32-20.In Approved Methods of the AACC. St. Paul, Minnesota, American Association of Cereal Chemists, 1978Google Scholar
- 20.Snedecor GW, Cochran WG: Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press, 1967Google Scholar